BCC Minutes 03/22/2011 R MINUTES
BCC
Regular
Meeting
March 22 , 2011
March 22, 2011
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida
March 22, 2011
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 8:30 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
Tom Henning
Georgia Hiller
ALSO PRESENT:
Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Leo E. Ochs, Jr., County Manager
Crystal Kinzel, Director of Clerks Finance & Accounting
Ian Mitchell, Executive Manager to the BCC
Michael Sheffield, Business 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
March 22, 2011
NOTE TIME CHANGE - 8:30 AM
Fred W. Coyle - BCC Chairman; Commissioner, District 4
Jim Coletta - BCC Vice-Chairman; Commissioner, District 5; CRAB Chairman
Donna Fiala - BCC Commissioner, District I; CRAB Vice-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
Page 1
March 22, 2011
BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS."
PUBLIC PETITIONS ARE LIMITED TO THE PRESENTER, WITH A
MAXIMUM TIME OF TEN MINUTES.
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 I, 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 Tom Stamatinos - Naples Alliance Church
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of to day's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for consent and
summary agenda.)
B. February 22, 2011 - BCC/Regular Meeting
Page 2
March 22, 2011
C. March 3,2011 - BCC/EMS Blue Ribbon Committee Workshop
3. SERVICE AWARDS
4. PROCLAMATIONS
5. PRESENTATIONS
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public petition request from Rocco A. Migliazzo requesting a return ofthe
original zoning and agriculture value for his property located at 1815 Dove
Tree Street.
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 om unless otherwise noted.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item to be heard at 10:00 a.m. Recommendation to approve the 2010
Cycle of Growth Management Plan Amendments, including one 2008 Cycle
Petition, for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs
(DCA) for review and objections, recommendations and comments (ORC)
response. (Transmittal Hearing)
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Request for reconsideration of Item #lOD from the March 8, 2011 BCC
meeting regarding RFP #10-S4S0-Asphalt Roadway, Concrete, Curb,
Sidewalk and Driveway Installations. (Commissioner Henning)
B. This item to be heard at 11 :00 a.m. Board consideration of a change to the
Tourist Development Council Ordinance that will allow for the Council to
direct Tourist Development staff, Coastal Zone Management staff and
County Museums staff independent of the County Manager with regard to
matters within the Tourist Development Council's purview. (Commissioner
Page 3
March 22, 2011
Hiller)
C. This item to be heard at 11:30 a.m. Discussion to update the Board of
County Commissioners on the status of the complaint filed by Collier
County Government against the Paramedic Training School with a motion to
close the County's investigation of this matter. (Commissioner Hiller)
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. This item to be heard at 9:00 a.m. Report to the Board of County
Commissioners pursuant to the reconsideration of the award of Contract
#10-5541 to Paradise Advertising and Marketing, Inc., for Tourism
Marketing Services. This item is a companion to Item #IOB. (Jack Wert,
Tourism Director)
B. This item continued from the February 8, 2011 and the February 22,
2011 BCC Meeting. Recommendation to approve the award ofRFP #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. This
item is a companion to Item # lOA and will be heard immediately following
Item #10A. (Jack Wert, Tourism Director)
C. Recommendation to approve the purchase of property insurance effective
April 1, 2011 in the amount of $3, I 05,825, a reduction of $313, 123, and
authorize the County Manager or designee to execute any applications or
other documents necessary to bind coverage and services. (Jeff Walker,
Risk Management Director)
D. Recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the condemnation of
those perpetual and temporary easement interests necessary for the
construction of stormwater improvements for the Outfall 3 and 4 segments
of the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project. (Project No. 51101)
Estimated fiscal impact: $1,556,500. (Norman Feder, Growth Management
Administrator)
E. Recommendation to adopt a resolution seeking authority to acquire by gift or
purchase those perpetual and temporary easement interests necessary for the
Page 4
March 22, 2011
construction of storm water improvements for the US-41 Ditch segment of
the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project. (Project No. 5110 I)
Estimated fiscal impact: $1,927,569. (Norman Feder, Growth Management
Administrator)
11. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
12. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
13. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
A. AIRPORT
1) Recommendation to approve a Second Amendment to License
Agreement between the Collier County Airport Authority and
Immokalee Regional Raceway.
2) Recommendation to approve a Long-Term Ground Lease and Sub-
Lease Agreement between the Collier County Airport Authority and
Turbo Services Inc., to permit use of property at the Immokalee
Regional Airport as ajet engine testing facility.
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.
A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
I) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Majorca at Fiddler's Creek
Page 5
March 22, 2011
with the roadway and drainage improvements being privately
maintained and authorizing the release of the maintenance security.
2) Recommendation to approve the Release and Satisfaction of Lien in
the Code Enforcement Action entitled Board of County
Commissioners vs. MFC Investments (formerly Angel and Lissette
Riquelme), Code Enforcement Board Case No. 2006110568 (a.k.a.
2007-34), relating to property located at 2095 47th Avenue NE,
Collier County, Florida.
3) Recommendation to approve the Release of Liens and Satisfaction of
four Liens and one Order in the Code Enforcement Actions entitled
Board of County Commissioners vs. Marion Smith and James A.
Seals, relating to property located at 5408 Carlton Street, Collier
County, Florida.
4) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to endorse
staff recommendation to the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection to amend the Naples Drainage Basin Boundary.
5) Recommendation to approve a PUD amendment zoning fee reduction
request for the Sabal Bay PUD petition and direct the County
Manager or his designee to apply this fee reduction policy consistently
with other similar applications.
6) This item reQuires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are reQuired to be sworn in. This is a recommendation
to approve for recording the final plat of Quarry Phase 3A, approval
of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and
approval of the amount of the performance security.
7) This item reQuires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. This is a recommendation
to approve for recording the final plat of Verona walk Phase 4D,
approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance
Page 6
March 22, 2011
Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security.
8) Recommendation to accept the second annual report on the" Impact
Fee Program for Existing Commercial Redevelopment" and approve a
resolution extending the program for one year, to sunset March 24,
2012, unless otherwise extended.
9) Recommendation to approve the request by the Economic
Development Council of Collier County to allow Turbo Services, Inc.
to participate in the Fast Track Regulatory Process Program for the
proposed construction of a test facility at the Immokalee Regional
Airport.
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommend the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency
review and approve the Bayshore Gateway Triangle and Immokalee
CRA's 2010 Annual Reports, forward the reports to the Board of
County Commissioners and Clerk of Courts and publish public notice
of the filing.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION
I) Recommendation to approve a Right-of-Way Consent Agreement and
Memorandum of Right-of-Way Consent Agreement with Florida
Power & Light Co. consenting to a Utility Easement and for access
on, over and across a portion of property adjacent to the Roost Road
Right-of- Way.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve and execute documents necessary for the
conveyance of easements for electric, telephone, cable and related
services located at MarGood Harbor Park, 321 Pear Tree A venue,
Goodland, Florida, at a cost not to exceed $85.
Page 7
March 22, 2011
2) Recommendation to reject responses to Bid No. I 1-5613 Immokalee
South Park" New Community Center" Project.
3) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign
Agreements with the David Lawrence Center, National Alliance on
Mental Illness of Collier County, Inc., and the Collier County
Sheriffs Office to operate the Criminal Justice, Mental Health and
Substance Abuse Reinvestment Grant and associated budget
amendments. Funding has been provided through Memorandum of
Understanding #LHZ2S from the Florida Department of Children and
Families.
4) Recommendation to approve grant related expenditures in excess of
$50,000 for real property acquired under the Neighborhood
Stabilization Program to fund rehabilitation activities. Funding will
ensure compliance with Collier County building code regulations and
further the goals and objectives of the Housing Element of the Growth
Management Plan. (estimated fiscal impact: $53,548.26)
5) Recommendation to approve grant related expenditures in excess of
$50,000 for three (3) properties acquired under the Neighborhood
Stabilization Program to fund rehabilitation activities. Funding will
ensure compliance with Collier County building code regulations and
further the goals and objectives of the Housing Element of the Growth
Management Plan. (estimated fiscal impact: $172,500)
6) Recommendation to approve the submittal of a Florida Boating
Improvement Program Grant Application in the amount of$28S,000
to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and to
authorize the Board Chair to execute a resolution providing for same.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION
I) Recommendation to approve two First Amendments to License
Agreements with American Tower Asset Sub, LLC, increasing the
combined monthly fee for each site by $50 to compensate for the
County's use of the Licensor/Owner's existing electrical service.
Page 8
March 22, 2011
2) Recommendation to acknowledge and approve the transfer of
ownership from Choice Environmental Services, Inc. to Swisher
Hygiene, Inc. d/b/a Choice Environmental Services, Inc. as it relates
to Contract #09-53 I 9 for solid waste, recyclable materials, and yard
trash collection services.
3) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for an amount not to
exceed $25,000 between the GAC Land Trust and the Big Corkscrew
Island Fire Control and Rescue District (District) for the purchase of
equipment to be used by the District.
F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS
1) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
to the Fiscal Year 2010-11 Adopted Budget.
2) Recommendation to approve a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity for NCH Healthcare System for ambulance service and
approve a Budget Amendment recognizing and appropriating the $250
annual renewal fee.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Henning requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the Marine Corps League of Naples, "Honor the Free Press
Day" event on March 16,2011 at the Hilton Hotel in Naples, FL. $30
to be paid from Commissioner Henning's travel budget.
2) Commissioner Hiller requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the Semper Fidelis Annual Honor the Free Press day lunch
on March 16,2011 at the Naples Hilton in Naples, FL. $25 to be paid
from Commissioner Hiller's travel budget.
Page 9
March 22, 2011
3) Commissioner Hiller requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the Ave Maria Founders Day Dinner on March 15,2011 at
the Naples Hilton in Naples, FL. $25 to be paid from Commissioner
Hiller's travel budget.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
I) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
I) Recommend approval of the use of Confiscated Trust Funds to Florida
Sheriff's Youth Ranches, Inc., and budget amendment for $1,000 to
prevent delinquency and develop strong, lawful, resilient and
productive citizens.
2) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
February 19, 20 II through February 25, 201 I and for submission into
the official records of the Board.
3) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
February 26,201 I through March 4,2011 and for submission into the
official records of the Board.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
I) Recommendation to approve a settlement agreement prior to litigation
with the Railhead Industrial Park Owners Association, Inc., for the
sum of $33,705.50 to be paid to the County and authorize the
Chairman to execute the Settlement Agreement.
2) Recommendation to approve settlement prior to trial in the lawsuit
entitled Board of County Commissioners v. Laboratory Corporation
of America, filed in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier
County, Florida, for the sum of$3,S60.93 and authorize the Chaim1an
to execute the Settlement Agreement and/or Release.
Page 10
March 22, 2011
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
settlement of the lawsuit filed by Collier County and against
JUSTINA T. MENACHIO and RANISHA L. KNOWLES, in the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida (Case
No. 11-00228-SC), in the amount of $2,935.30 for total damages, plus
$390.00 in costs of litigation and authorize the Chaim1an to execute
the Release.
4) Recommendation to Authorize the Making of an Offer of Judgment to
Respondent, Colombo Enterprises of Naples, Inc., for Parcels 131 A,
131 Band 133 in the Amount of$378,000.00 in the Lawsuits Styled
Collier County v. First National Bank of Naples, et aI., Case No. 04-
3S87-CA, and Collier County v. Stonebridge Country Club
Community Association, Inc., et aI., Case No. 04-3S88-CA, which
have been consolidated into one lawsuit, in the lmmokalee Road
Project #66042 (Fiscal Impact: $199,800 if offer is accepted).
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: I) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROV AL 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. SV-2006-AR-9400: relating to an after-the-fact Sign Variance for the
Swamp Buggy Races/Florida Sports Park. The Sign Variance requested is
to allow an existing non-conforming, off-premises directional sign to remain
at its existing location until the Rattlesnake-Hammock/Collier Boulevard
bridge is expanded or an adjacent property owner allows the sign to be
moved onto their property. The subject property is located at the southeast
comer of Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake-Hammock Road on property
Page 11
March 22, 2011
hereinafter described in Collier County, Florida.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252-8383.
Page 12
March 22, 2011
March 22, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and Gentlemen, Board of County
Commission meeting is now in session. Will you please stand while
Pastor Tom Stamatinos from Naples Alliance Church provides the
Invocation.
Item #IA
INVOCATION & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - PASTOR TOM
STAMATINOS, NAPLES ALLIANCE CHURCH
PASTOR STAMATINOS: Dear Father, we just thank you this
morning that we can begin this meeting by acknowledging you as our
Creator and as our God. And I ask that you would give the
commission and those that are involved in the process of legislating
and overseeing the affairs of this county, that they would do so justly
and fairly and with equity.
And we thank you, Father, that you have made it possible for us
to know who you are by revealing yourself to us through your Word
and through your Son and through the Creation.
And so we pray that you would give each one that desire to seek
you and to find you when they do so with all of their hearts. So I ask
this in your Son's name, amen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Please join us for the pledge of
allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
County Manager, you have changes to the agenda?
Item #2A
TODA Y'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA AS
AMENDED - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED W/CHANGES
Page 2
March 22, 2011
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Good morning, Commissioners.
Sir, your agenda changes for Board of County Commissioners
meeting of March 22nd, 2011.
First change is item 16.A.8, staff requesting the following should
be added to the Executive Summary under the recommendation
portion of the summary. It reads: Additionally, direct the County
Manager or his designee to provide the required annual report prior to
the scheduled sunset so that the Board of County Commissioners may
consider further extending the program.
Again, that's a clarification made at staffs request.
Next change is to continue item 16.D.3 to the April 12th, 2011
BCC Meeting. It's a Grant Approval Agreement, tri-party. And that
continuation is made at the staffs request.
And we have an agenda note on item 16.F.2, that that item does
require ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members. And
should a hearing be held on the item, all participants would be
required to be sworn in.
And you have as a reminder four time certain items this morning,
Commissioners. Item 10.A will be heard at 9:00 a.m., immediately
followed by 10.8. Item 8.A is scheduled to be heard at 10:00 a.m,
item 9.B to be heard at 11 :00 a.m., and item 9.C to be heard at 11 :30
a.m.
And those are the changes that I have, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: No changes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, then we'll start with the
commissioners. Commissioner Hiller today.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No changes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And any ex parte for the summary
agenda?
Page 3
March 22, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, meetings and calls.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: For which item?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: 16.F.2. That's the one he asked
about.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. First of all, I'll give my ex
parte first. I have no ex parte on the consent -- oh, I'm sorry, except
for 16.F.2. I've had meetings -- two meetings.
But on the summary agenda on 17.A, I've also had meetings with
-- that was the Swamp Buggy races. And that was with Randy Johns.
And various e-mails and pictures.
Now, on Item 9.A, Commissioner Henning's, before we put this
into the agenda, Commissioner Henning, could you tell me what that's
about? I read through your stuff and looked through most of that
paperwork, but it never said what you -- what this was about.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, according to the Board's
Ordinance, rules and regulations for reconsideration, there shall be no
discussion on the item of reconsideration. So we vote on it prior to
having discussion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see. How would we know whether
to reconsider if we don't know what we're talking about?
I don't know, maybe I'm wrong about that, County Attorney.
Could you please help me?
MR. KLATZKOW: Typically a reason's given why
reconsideration is requested. But we try to have as little conversation
as possible about it, because it will be coming back.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see. So we don't really know what
we're doing here.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, no. Typically there's a reason given.
Sometimes it could be there's more facts came to my attention
between, you know, then and now or, you know, I've learned
Page 4
March 22, 2011
something different or whatever. Usually there's a reason given for it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, right, right. And it wasn't
clear --
MR. KLATZKOW: But we don't get into the issue in depth.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you want the reason now
or you want to wait till we discuss the item on the agenda?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Why don't you give me the reason
now, because then we'll want to keep it on there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: According to the Florida
Statutes, County Administration Powers and Duties -- actually I got --
I'm sorry, I got -- this is on another item, too. But it states that the
County Manager or administrator is allowed to negotiate contracts
prior to the Board's approval.
There's too much ambiguity in the RFP, as stated on the record,
by the Purchasing Director. And it is delegating our authority to the
county staff, which is against the constitution.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I just really needed to know
what it was about, because it was talking about a book -- book rights
in another county, and I really wasn't clear. So thank you very much.
I have nothing more to declare on the consent or the summary
agenda. No additions or corrections.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, Commissioner
Fiala.
I have no other changes to the agenda, nor do I have any ex parte
disclosure concerning anything on the consent agenda or the summary
agenda.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir. Good morning.
I'd like to start off with the -- my ex parte. The only thing I have
is for F.2, 16.F.2. I had meetings with Dr. Wise and Burt Saunders
regarding the issue of their transportation.
The other thing I'd like to ask is just a clarification.
Page 5
March 22, 2011
Commissioner Hiller, Item 9.C, the one there having to do with
the paramedic training school?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In could, you weren't part of
the commission at that time, but what we directed staff to do was to, in
the good -- in the interest of full disclosure, was to turn it over to the
state, and whatever the state decided was it. I'm not too sure what
we're looking for, but I think asking the Commission for an apology is
totally inappropriate.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's not a true statement.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That is not a correct statement, Mr.
Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The item's on the agenda, but I
just -- our time is very valuable and the public needs to be -- time has
to be spent in a very --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the public's right to know is
paramount.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, that's all I have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We will get to the truth.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know. It's--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We will get to it.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I had a meeting with Burt
Saunders on 16.F.2.
I also would like to move off the consent agenda 16.D.5 to the
regular agenda.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Which item?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 16.D.5.
MR.OCHS: That will become 10.F on your agendas.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
Then I will entertain a motion to approve today's regular consent
and summary agenda as amended.
Page 6
March 22, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Henning.
Second by?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: By Commissioner Hiller.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The consent and summary and regular
agenda is approved unanimously.
Page 7
Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
March 22, 2011
Item 16A8: The following shon1d be added to the Execntive Snmmary nnder the
Recommendation portion: Additionally, direct the County Manager or his designee to provide the
required annual report prior to the scheduled sunset so that the Board of County Commissioners may
consider further extending the Program. (Staff's reqnest)
Continue Item 16D3 to the ADril12. 2011 BCC Meetiu!!: Recommeudatiou to approve aud
authorize the Chairman to sign Agreements with the David Lawrence Ceuter, National Alliance on
Meutalllluess of Collier County, Inc., and the Collier County Sherifrs Office to operate the
Criminal Justice, Mental Health and Substance Abuse Reinvestment Grant and associated budget
amendments. Funding has been provided through Memorandum of Understanding #LHZ25 from
the Florida Department of Children and Families. (Staff's request)
Note:
Item 16F2: Requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a
hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. (Stafrs request)
Time Certain Items:
Item lOA to be heard at 9:00 a.m.; followed by Item lOB
Item 8A to be heard at 10:00 a.m.
Item 9B to be heard at 11:00 a.m.
Item 9C to be heard at 11 :30 a.m.
3/2212011 8:14 AM
March 22, 2011
Item #2B
MINUTES FROM THE FEBRUARY 22, 2011 BCC/REGULAR
MEETING - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: With respect to the February 22nd, 2011
BCC regular meeting minutes, is there a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve 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.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Those minutes are approved.
Item #2C
MINUTES FROM THE MARCH 3, 2011 - BCC/EMS BLUE
RIBBON COMMITTEE WORKSHOP - APPROVED AS
PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The March 3rd, 2011 BCC EMS Blue
Ribbon Committee Workshop Meeting. Motion to approve.
Page 8
March 22, 2011
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, motion to approve by
Commissioner Coyle, seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion carries unanimously.
Now, before we get into the rest of the agenda, I would like to
announce that there are a number of commissioners who will be
leaving early today, and they are going to Tallahassee to meet with
legislators in Tallahassee concerning the upcoming or currently in
session legislature. So we will try our best to get all of our important
business conducted as quickly as possible so those commissioners can
leave on schedule.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir. I also too would like to
clarify, if I have permission of this Commission, to continue the
meeting by phone on my way to Tallahassee so that I can still be part
of the meeting and we can move forward on everybody's business.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller's light is on. Is that
for something earlier or later?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It actually related to something
earlier, and I can bring it up under the appropriate agenda item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, why don't we do that then.
Page 9
March 22, 2011
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And along with that, the
Tallahassee trip is something I'm -- you -- my wonderful board has put
me on the executive board to the Florida Association of Counties, and
that's what this is, is Florida Association of Counties Legislative Days
in Tallahassee, and we're going up there to represent our county. I just
wanted to mention that so in case anybody was wondering what we're
doing.
And by the way, just a little note that, you know, the director of
Florida Association of Counties, Chris Holly, he's a wonderful,
wonderful man and used to work down here in Collier County, and he
was the director of Parks and Recreation for the City of Naples for
quite some time. Marvelous guy. And he's right now struggling with
cancer. And he's at the Moffitt Center. And I just hope that if you
ever think of it, if you would please say a prayer for him. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Commissioner Fiala.
Okay --
MR. KLATZKOW: Mr. Chairman? Getting back to what
Commissioner Coletta said, you would need a motion to be able to
continue the meeting by telephone.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, why don't we deal with that when
we get there, okay? I f we're finished with the stuff, we don't need to
bother with that. Let's try to get stuff finished, okay?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good. That's good.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Now, that brings us to--
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION FROM ROCCO A. MIGLIAZZO
REQUESTING A RETURN OF THE ORIGINAL ZONING AND
AGRICULTURE VALUE FOR HIS PROPERTY LOCATED AT
1815 DOVE TREE STREET - DISCUSSED
Page 10
March 22, 2011
MR. OCHS: 6.A, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 6.A.
MR.OCHS: It's your public petitions. We have one this
morning. It's a public petition request from Rocco A. Migliazzo
requesting a return of the original zoning and agricultural value for his
property located at 1815 Dove Tree Street.
Sir, please come forward.
MR. MIGLIAZZO: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is Rocco Migliazzo, and I go by Tony.
Just I need some clarification. I've had a piece of property that,
believe it or not, I'm the only guy that actually dug an aquaculture not
for the fill industry part of it.
Just some rough numbers. To excavate the lake on the proposed
piece of property, we spent in excess of a quarter of a million dollars
just in diesel fuel alone on the excavation part of it.
This has been funded totally out of my pocket as an aquaculture
facility that people can come, they can pay and they can fish.
The reason why I'm here is that when we started the excavation
in January of2010, the tax office did not know what to do with me as
far as I was zoned agricultural, they came down, they did their
assessment ofthe property, it was under construction, so they took me
from agricultural zoning and turned around and put me into mining,
which I've never been a mine, I never wanted to be a mine, it was
never my intentions to open up a mine. All the material except for
5,000 yards is still on-site, it's been placed, as my permit allowed me
to do.
What that did is when I went from agricultural zoning to mining,
it put my property value up as opposed to my adjacent neighbors are
zoned, the same parcel, 20 acres is assessed at 60,000 right now. I'm
currently assessed at $276,000 and paying taxes on $276,000.
I'm requesting to go back to agriculture. I'm a certified
Page 11
March 22, 2011
aquaculture. I have my certificates. I have my inspections by the
county. I'm done with the facility.
Right now because I've been taken out of agricultural zoning,
everything is at a stop. I can't submit for permits under my ago use for
my building, which has been engineered. We're ready to go. Both
barrels have been loaded on this project since it came into conception
in 2009, and I've done everything the way I'm supposed to do it
according to my paperwork.
The confusion came in the tax department. They had -- nobody's
finished one of these, nobody's done what they were supposed to do
except for myself. I'm done and I'm ready to go, but my hands are still
tied because under 2010 I'm currently a mining operation. And I
never was, never wanted to be.
So my request is that I get put back exactly where I was at when I
started the project, a bona fide agriculture and aquaculture facility
that's certified by the state and done. In a timely manner, might I add
you, six months to dig an entire excavation and place everything. It
took quite a task to get this done and up to where it's ready to run.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think Commissioner Coletta was
ahead of me.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, you go ahead,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Of course this falls under the
preview (sic) of the Property Appraiser, but I'm glad you're here
today, because I wanted you to get the word out. You are different
than what we've seen in the past, where people have used the ruse of a
fishpond to be able to excavate and to put a mine in place and be able
to reap great profits from their land.
In your case, and I've seen the finished photos, it's an absolutely
beautiful facility that's going to be a tremendous amenity for the
Page 12
March 22,2011
people of Collier County to enjoy.
What I would suggest, and I'm going to ask the County Attorney
if this would be inappropriate, is that we direct the Chair to write a
letter to the Property Appraiser and ask him to give due consideration
to this gentleman due to the fact that unusual circumstances seem to
prevail.
Would that be appropriate?
MR. KLA TZKOW: It would not be inappropriate, but--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I'd like to be able to--
MR. KLATZKOW: It is within the Property Assessor's sole
purview whether he wants to give any deference to anything we say.
It's his prerogative.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And he mayor may not. But I
think at least it will shine a little bit of light on this so that it might be
able to move forward and Tony here can get due consideration.
So that would be what I would propose, is that we direct a letter
from the Chair. Not saying that we endorse what you're saying, but
we would like have him give due consideration to consideration of
turning you back into agriculture.
MR. MIGLIAZZO: Right. Yeah, I have a letter from the state
they -- I have to -- I'm under strict inspections twice a year, that if I'm
not doing what the state told me -- what I've told the state that I'm
doing, they pull it from me, they pull the license and everything --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I've seen the letter and it's dated
MR. MIGLIAZZO: -- you just don't get--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- you have to get it renewed
every so many years or so.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. Tony, I understand your
predicament, and in fact I'm very concerned about what I'm hearing on
multiple levels. And the reason I say on multiple levels is because
Page 13
March 22, 2011
certain things have happened in Collier County which, you know,
being new to the board I'm learning about and I'm concerned about.
And one of the concerns I have is this issue of agricultural zoning and
agricultural uses.
And there is a statute in the State of Florida that says that if a
property owner voluntarily requests that the zoning of their property
be changed from agricultural to a different zoning category, then their
right to claim an ago exemption, which is essentially, you know, what
you're talking about, and the ago valuation is no longer applicable to
their property.
Now, that is not what happened in your case. You did not request
that kind of change; is that correct?
MR. MIGLIAZZO: That's correct. I was zoned ago under my tax
break that you get under the agricultural zoning. And due to the fact
that the Property Appraiser's Office, once again, did not know how to
handle this, because no one's done one and no one's finished one.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. That was my understanding
from your presentation.
And taking that one step further, what we have done through
various zoning actions, we have permitted uses actually under
residential and commercial classifications as agriculture, where
individuals who actually have commercially zoned land are getting ago
exemptions because somehow through our resolutions we have
permitted ago uses in commercially zoned or residentially zoned
property, which doesn't seem fair in light of your situation.
It's obviously a major problem if we're allowing those guys to do
it with a commercial or a residential zoning and you in fact are losing
your ago exemption because of a mischaracterization of the nature of
work that you're doing on your property.
And so I think we do need to look at our zoning and permitted
uses within zoning classifications to consider situations like yours.
And also looking at, you know, the other type of classifications where
Page 14
March 22, 2011
ago is permitted under commercial and residential.
So I have very serious concerns about the issue you raise. I think
it goes beyond the issue of you qualitying for the ago exemption and
being wrongfully denied that right, and your property being
improperly valued as a mining operation rather than as a commercial
operation, when very clearly you are an ago zoned piece of property
and very clearly according to the state you're engaging in agricultural
activity and have done so continuously since you've owned and
operated that property.
Did you go before the Value Adjustment Board?
MR. MIGLIAZZO: Yes, I did. And the lady that came over
from Fort Lauderdale openly admitted that in my Value Adjustment
Board Meeting she has -- it was not her forte as far as agriculture or
aquaculture, she was strictly there to do a value adjustment.
And at that point in the meeting I says, well, if you don't know
anything about agriculture or aquaculture, I feel as though I should
have had an attorney representing me at this point because I'm literally
just getting shuffled off to the side. And that's what's happened.
So I've taken my time to --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So the Value Adjustment Board
denied you, admitting that they didn't have knowledge?
MR. MIGLIAZZO: And here's their statement. I was denied as
an aquaculture facility, quoted by Webster's dictionary, because I am
not mass-producing fish for human consumption.
And I tried to explain to them, I don't want to put up a big freezer
facility, a massive farming operation out there, this is a small, low key
business that will substain (sic) itself.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it's a small farming operation.
MR. MIGLIAZZO: Yes, it is. And I am feeding fish, catfish. I
steadily go out there every day and feed them, they're growing, you
know. The lake has been stocked. I'm up and running except for a
building.
Page 15
March 22, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Understood.
I am very concerned about this. The fact that the Value
Adjustment Board, it would appear, wrongly denied you, is something
-- normally that the next step would be circuit court. And that's a--
MR. MIGLIAZZO: That's why I'm here today, to stop that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't know, let me -- Mr.
Klatzkow, what ability do we have to -- can the Value Adjustment
Board be asked to reconsider, or does it have to go to circuit court?
Do we as the Board of County Commissioners have any ability to
suggest that this be remanded back to the Value Adjustment Board for
reconsideration in light of what is stated here today and the way the
Value Adjustment Board made their determination?
Who appoints the Value Adjustment Board?
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm not sure which question to answer first.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Your pick.
MR. KLA TZKOW: To start with, this is an issue within the
purview of the Collier County Property Assessor. Exemptions are
created by state statute. The state statute gives the Property Assessor
the ability to give the exemption or not give the exemption. Ifhis
decision is challenged, it goes to the Value Adjustment Board.
We're involved in appointing members of the Value Adjustment
Board, as is the School Board, all right? They are independent of the
Board of County Commissioners.
The Value Adjustment Board will hear the, in essence appeal,
will make a decision. If the taxpayer disagrees with the Value
Adjustment Board, the statutory remedy is circuit court.
This board has nothing to do with this process. This is not a
zoning issue, this is a tax issue.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, it's a use issue.
MR. KLATZKOW: This is not the Board's purview, okay, it is
the Property Assessor's purview.
Now, if you want to write a letter to the Property Assessor saying
Page 16
March 22, 2011
that you're concerned about this, that's fine, he can take the letter and
do what he pleases with it. But at this point in time we have no
jurisdiction over this matter.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If our zoning ordinance for this
particular category permits this type of use, isn't that binding on the
Property Appraiser, or is that is not determinative?
Does he make a determination independent of permitted uses
within zoning categories?
MR. KLA TZKOW: He's predominantly looking at use. He
predominantly looks at use. So then when you have a property that
may be zoned commercial that's used for ag., he will be giving it the
ago exemption. It's a use issue with him from a statutory standpoint.
This is not a zoning issue.
MR. MIGLIAZZO: He's correct on that, it's a use issue.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But that's not what the statute says
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Excuse me, let's -- we have a
determination by the County Attorney this is not our purview. It has
nothing to do with the Board of County Commissioners. We will try
to help you, okay.
MR. MIGLIAZZO: I'm doing what I've been instructed to by the
Property Appraiser's, to come here today, that it goes across
commissioner -- the Value Adjustment board?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, it does not.
Now, here -- now, the fact of the matter is that you have already
received your ago zoning for the year 2011.
MR. MIGLIAZZO: Yes, but it's chopped up and it's incorrect for
2011.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that was done by the Property
Appraiser's Office, if I remember correctly, okay?
Now, so the thing -- your primary problem is with the current
year taxes, not with the future. You've already solved it for the future.
Page 17
March 22, 2011
MR. MIGLIAZZO: No, it's incorrect for 2011, because they're
penalizing me for the stockpile of material that is going to go into
parking lot areas, septic, sand, and all that. They're taking the ago
exception away on the piles, Commissioner, that's why I'm here to
clarity this. I've painstakingly gone through with the state, got all my
ducks in a row and are ready to stop the confusion down at the
Property Appraiser's Office at no expense to the taxpayers.
If something doesn't get rectified, then I move forward.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There is -- we have no control over the
Property Appraiser, okay? We cannot direct the Property Appraiser to
do one thing or the other. We can write a letter asking that he review
your case. But ifhe has reason for taking portions of your land, like
the piles of fill or piles of material, then he must have a reason for
doing that.
We have no expertise in property appraisals here. We don't do
that.
MR. MIGLIAZZO: I understand that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But Commissioner Coletta's
recommendation that we send a letter to the Property Appraiser is
certainly appropriate, and I would be happy to sign such a letter.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Me too.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But we cannot direct that this be solved
for you. We just don't have that authority.
MR. MIGLIAZZO: I must be misunderstanding what I was told
to do by the Property Appraiser's. I guess that there's three
commissioners that are on the Value Adjustment Board, and you guys
have the opportunity to -- once the petition's been done, it comes
across your desk again?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, no, no, that's not the way it works.
The fact that three commissioners sit on this board and they also sit on
the Value Adjustment Board does not mean that the Board of County
Commissioners has anything to do with that. They put on a different
Page 18
March 22, 2011
hat when they serve as Value Adjustment Board. And they're not just
the three commissioners, there are other people sitting on that board.
So your appeal has to be made to the body that is charged with
making the decision. Weare not charged with making that decision.
We happen to appoint some members to that board, not the whole
board.
So you have to appeal to that board. You apparently did so. You
lost your appeal, perhaps for unfair reasons.
We can't take action to overrule what the board -- the
equalization board did. So our only recourse is to write a letter on
your behalf to the Property Appraiser, asking that they take a look at
it.
MR. MIGLIAZZO: Okay. I appreciate that. Like I say, it's kind
of been explained to me in a different route that that -- that's, honestly,
that's why I'm here today, because I was instructed to come here to
present myself and that this was -- I guess you guys have to vote on
this in a week, on my appeal, the Value Adjustment Board does.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, we do not vote on it. This Board
does not vote on that.
MR. MIGLIAZZO: Okay. ClarifY it for me, please, then. The
fact that the three commissioners that are on the Value Board that
when this petition comes back around, they say that you either have to
agree with the petition --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
MR. MIGLIAZZO: -- from the hearing or not.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I know this is difficult to understand.
MR. MIGLIAZZO: Very.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I know it is.
Commissioners sit on all kinds of boards.
MR. MIGLIAZZO: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioners sit on Community
Redevelopment Agency Boards. And what they do on those boards is
Page 19
March 22, 2011
their responsibility as part of that board, not a part of the Board of
County Commissioners.
So when you're looking for an official interpretation or decision,
you have to go to the board that is responsible for making those kinds
of interpretations or decisions. You can't go to the Board of County
Commissioners and say, well, why don't you make that board do
something, because we don't have the authority to do that.
Those commissioners are wearing two hats. They wear one hat
when they sit here, and they make decisions based upon the law here.
When they sit on another board, they make decisions based upon the
laws that govern that board. You can't commingle these things --
MR. MIGLIAZZO: So in a sense I'm at the wrong meeting, I
should be in the Value --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're at the wrong meeting. But I
understand your problem. You've already lost your appeal before the
valuation board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The Special Magistrate, I bet he
went and --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, the Special Magistrate ruled
against him.
MR. MIGLIAZZO: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So he lost his hearing at the valuation
board. He went before the Special Magistrate. Special Magistrate
ruled against him.
MR. MIGLIAZZO: That was all in one meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right. Yes, I understand.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He went in front of the V AB, I bet.
Has he, he's been there too?
MR. MIGLIAZZO: See how this gets confusing for a layman
like myself?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I know, it's maddening. But we have
certain things we can do and certain things we can't do.
Page 20
March 22, 2011
MR. MIGLIAZZO: Right, I understand that. Believe me, I'm not
asking you to bend any rules for me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're governed by the laws, just like
everybody else is. We can express sympathy for you and we can
write a letter for you, and that's about all we can do for you, okay?
MR. MIGLIAZZO: Fair enough.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. So we'll write a letter for you,
okay.
MR. MIGLIAZZO: Thank you. Appreciate your time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Okay. Now, we could go to the Board of Zoning Appeals just to
illustrate what I was just talking about, but we don't have any business
for the Board of Zoning Appeals, do we?
MR.OCHS: No, sir, thankfully we don't this morning. We do
have a 9:00 a.m. time certain item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Item #IOA
REPORT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PURSUANT TO THE RECONSIDERATIONS OF THE AWARD
OF CONTRACT #10-5541 TO PARADISE ADVERTISING AND
MARKETING, INC., FOR TOURISM MARKETING SERVICES -
MOTION TO ACCEPT REPORT - APPROVED
MR.OCHS: And that is item 10.A on your agenda. It's a report
to the Board of County Commissioners pursuant to the reconsideration
of the award of contract number 10-5541 to Paradise Advertising and
Marketing, Incorporated for Tourism Marketing Services. This is a
companion item to item 10.B.
Your Tourism Director, Mr. Jack Wert, will present.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I am going to ask the board to
Page 21
March 22, 2011
hold their questions until staff finishes their presentation. And then
we will discuss it for as long as we need to.
Mr. Wert?
MR. WERT: Commissioners, good morning. For the record,
J ack Wert, your Tourism Director.
And as Mr. Ochs indicated, our first order of business here is to
report back to the board on the questions that were brought up at our
February 22nd meeting that Commissioner Hiller presented to the
County Commission and staff. That includes the Tourism
Department, the Purchasing Department and the County Attorney's
Office have all worked in various aspects related to the various
documents that they would have been working with, and we've
answered those questions.
Actually, there are three separate documents that we'll be going
through. There is a, first of all, a spreadsheet that talks about the
various aspects of bidding on marketing services or really any
marketing services agreement.
And that is, first of all, there's an RFP that we send out to -- there
are responses, proposals from various bidders. And then there is a
resulting contract. And we'll go through that document, followed by --
there's a timeline document also that indicates various events that
happen related to the offer by Paradise Advertising to help out two
nonprofit organizations here in the community.
There's a third document that really covers items that were talked
about at that county commission meeting related to this contract. And
so we have some various comments about that as well.
I do want to point out to the board that the contract that is in
place currently with Paradise Advertising, we did, by Board approval,
extend that agreement that would have expired last September 30th,
2010. We've extended that through March 31st.
And the new agreement that was approved unanimously by this
board on January 25th, that contract, unless there's some action taken
Page 22
March 22, 2011
today, would go in effect April 1 st, as that March 31 st expiration date
comes with the existing agreement.
Overall, Commissioners, through all our review process, we as
staff have not identified any significant conflicts between that
language that we found in the RFP, the Paradise proposal and the
resulting contract. However, we have suggested that, and I use these
terms -- this is really something that the Purchasing Department felt
strongly -- in the abundance of caution we have added a clause
number 23 to the agreement. And I'd like to read this for the record, if
I might.
Order of precedence. In the event of any conflict between or
among the terms of any of the contract documents, the terms of the
request for proposal and/or the contractor's proposal, the contract
documents shall take precedence. In the event of any conflict between
the terms of the RFP and the contractor's proposal, the language in the
RFP would take precedence.
We feel that that's important. And I also point out that the Clerk
of the Courts Finance Department has been a part of these discussions
as well. They felt that the addition of this clause would help in future
auditing of invoices as to whether this particular expenditure comes
under the RFP or comes under the proposal or comes under the
contract. For most of those, the contract would take precedence. And
I think for all of us concerned, we believe that that will help us in the
future to -- in any disputes we might have or miscommunication of
any documents in the future.
Also, there is -- or was a clause in the agreement. Actually, the
original agreement that we had starting back in '06 had a provision in
it that Paradise could charge a two percent material fee on production
jobs that would cover some of their internal costs, art materials, that
type of thing that would go into the production ofajob.
In fact, Paradise has never charged that two percent fee. And
they have agreed and we have received the letter and we have
Page 23
March 22, 2011
removed that two percent fee. They have no intention of charging that
in the future, have never charged it in the past to Collier County. So
that is out of the agreement.
The agreement, as we indicated to you back in February, has
been reviewed by the County Attorney's office and so it is -- has legal
sufficiency for Board action.
What I'd like to do now, Commissioners, is go through the
document that we are calling a cover document. That would be the
second of -- or actually -- yeah, the second attachment in your packet.
And that is some responses to issues that were raised at the last county
commission meeting.
I think it's important to note here, and I've highlighted some of
the things in this document so we can move through it quickly. The
new contract, the one that you voted on unanimously in January, is
virtually identical to the contract that we currently have that was
approved by the board in October of 2006.
That document, as I indicated, has been changed, with the
addition of that clause 23 . We also added a new clause to this
agreement that covers their key staff employees so that there are -- if
there are changes in the future, those certainly need to be reviewed
and approved by the client before they take place.
The -- let's see, what I'd like to do now is move down into the
differences. And I think this may help overall the board understand.
There was a good deal of discussion in the spreadsheet that we'll go
through next, that there were discrepancies between the RFP, the
proposal by Paradise, and then the resulting contract.
I think it's important for us to understand, they are three separate
documents, they really do have different purposes, and yes, in fact
there will be differences. That is a common thing to see.
The RFP first of all is an open solicitation. It really indicates
what we as Collier County are looking for. In this case for marketing
services. It talked about a lot of different things that we are very
March 22, 2011
interested in, in having as credentials by a marketing firm that would
represent us. Not the least of which is having a great deal of
destination marketing experience. It's very important for us to be
working for an organization that understands how to market a
destination, and in fact has represented other destinations and may in
fact currently represent destinations that are not in conflict with
Collier County.
So that's the overall offer, if you will, in getting solicitation
offers.
The second is the proposal. And that's what each of the
respondents to an RFP sends in. It would be certainly appropriate to
say that each of those is going to be a little different, because each
firm is going to take it from their point of view, their expertise, what
they think would be important to Collier County in terms of marketing
them as the destination of choice. So that's kind of their counteroffer,
if you will, to the RFP, which is our offer.
And then finally we have the contract. And the contract is
somewhat a blend of those two things. It talks about the things we are
interested in having. It has, in legal terms, boilerplate information that
are in all of our standard county contracts. But it has very specific
things related to this relationship, which would include things like
termination of services, how we reimburse expenses, that you wouldn't
necessarily see in the RFP, nor maybe you would or you wouldn't see
in the proposal.
So those three documents are different, and I think that helps us
as we go through here to understand why some of the things that were
talked about in the spreadsheet, why they really are no violation of
policy.
There was a good deal of discussion about the selection
committee and the selection committee being primarily from one
department, that being the tourism department.
Weare dealing here with an advertising and marketing firm that
Page 25
March 22, 2011
we deal with on a daily basis. Who better to make decisions of what
kind of firm can do the best job for us than people that work with an
advertising agency on a daily basis. Actually, the county's
procurement procedures do indicate that certainly at least the
department head or the person in charge of that contract should be a
part of that review process. And in fact I was on that selection
committee. And we had a couple of people from my department who,
in various aspects, work with the ad agency or maybe just on a very
periphery basis work with marketing in general with perhaps other
firms as well.
We also did have a member of that selection committee from
another department, from the Growth Management Department. And
so that gave us a little different perspective and a different viewpoint
from someone that isn't involved with an ad agency on a daily basis.
And of course we did have also the Purchasing Department
representative, a non-voting person, overseeing all of that.
It's very important that we understand that we deal with all of our
stakeholders every day in this community. We deal with hotels, with
attractions, with restaurants, with tour operators, travel agents. So it's
important that we as a department understand that the firm that we are
selecting to help us in marketing understands those various aspects,
those various customers that we have in the tourism industry.
The next point was that Paradise Advertising billed Collier
County improperly under the contract. And an invoice from a
magazine publisher, this was Midwest Living, was cited in the
meeting as being something that Paradise had been paid improperly
for, and in fact had been paid a commission on something they
shouldn't have.
In fact, Midwest Living had billed Paradise, and the gross
amount of that billing -- perhaps in normal day terms that's the retail
price. That's what any of us, if we went to Midwest Living, would
pay them for an advertisement in that publication.
Page 26
March 22, 2011
The difference is that publications treat -- and this is true of
broadcast providers as well -- they recognize advertising agencies as
ones that they give a discount to. In other words, they feel that the
advertising agency, they want to deal with them, they understand the
ad agency does research, negotiates with them and comes up with a
proposal to the client. And for that work most publishers feel that a
discount should be given to ad agencies, and recognize ad agencies
only.
So in this case, the gross amount, $8,822.35, on that invoice there
was a discount given. It was called an agency commission. It is a
discount on gross of$I,322.35 showing a net amount on that invoice,
and I have provided as a back-up all of these documents in your
packets. So that's a net amount of $7,499.
That's exactly the amount of money that Paradise billed us. That
is the exact amount of money that was on the estimate that I approved
prior to that insertion, and that is in fact what Collier County paid
Paradise Advertising. All of the documents agree, the net amount was
always the one that was agreed upon and was paid, and therefore
Paradise was not paid any additional fees at all related to that
transaction.
Another point was that rates for service under the new contract
are higher than the previous contract. And that is a true statement.
Over the five years since Paradise first negotiated that 2006
agreement, they have not taken an increase in their rates. There was
one change in our rate structure and that was when some additional
positions were added in the digital marketing area. This was done
because we definitely needed, and I think we'll all agree we are in the
digital age, and we needed some expertise overseeing all of our
various digital marketing components. So they added those services
to our agreement. It did not change the bottom line at all, it still was
all included within our production budget. But those were added.
So we did a $0 change order to the contract in 2008. Those are
Page 27
_" .~,_'___U'_~_"'~'__""'__",_F'~_. __>~___.'".,.",_",~"'_'~' ~~_,_.__~~,....__,,__..~_.__. ... ..-
March 22, 2011
the only changes that we had made. And Paradise had not raised their
rates over those five years. They obviously could have done that.
Every time we renewed the contract, they could have asked for a rate
increase. They did not.
They have asked for it now. They feel that their costs have gone
up. Certainly all costs have gone up. And they certainly, as a vendor
and someone that's trying to make a profit on their business is entitled
to, to ask for an increase in rate.
Had they taken those, it would have been -- each year it would
have been about eight percent a year. As it turns out, overall it's a 44
percent increase. But we feel that that increase is warranted. We
agree that looking at comparable rates, not only with the other
respondents to the RFP, but we've done an extensive study with the
AAAAA's, which is the American Advertising Association of
Advertising Agencies. They have rates that they compile on agencies
all over the country and they -- Paradise's rates are very favorable. In
most cases they are at or below the average of the industry. Certainly
well below what we would be paying if we had a large city agency out
of New York or Chicago, where their rates are really tremendously
higher.
So we feel that those rate increases are justified. It does not
change our basic budget at all. In every single solitary job that we do
with Paradise they give us an estimate. I think you all know that I
spent a number of years in the advertising agency business myself. I
know what costs are, I know what it takes to design an ad or to do a
television commercial. I'm very tough on them and I make sure that
we are not spending more for creative hours than we need to.
Another point was that the proposed contract with Paradise is not
a standard county contract. And in fact, it is -- what we define as a
standard contract is basically that boilerplate language that is in all of
our agreements. What is different about this is we incorporate the
specific things related to the services that we are contracting with
Page 28
March 22, 2011
Paradise Advertising. And so we have a standard contract with
additional language pertaining directly to this relationship with
Paradise Advertising.
Point number six was that Collier County's contract with Paradise
is less favorable than Seminole County that Paradise also does
contract and do advertising and marketing for.
In fact, the Seminole County contract is -- the fee in that case is
$120,000 a year, 10,000 a month for an advertising budget of
$400,000. We are paying $300,000 a year for a basic fee ofa $2
million advertising budget.
When you look at the comparison, the Seminole County contract,
the service fee represents 30 percent of the value of their advertising,
compared with 15 percent of the advertising in the case of Collier
County .
So really, Collier County is buying five times as much
advertising for two and a half times the cost. So not only are we
favorable, but we truly have what I would consider a very favorable
arrangement with Paradise Advertising. They are, in our estimation,
doing an excellent job for us and we are getting excellent value for
their services.
I would also point out in the Seminole County agreement, they
are paying for public relations, we are not. We get some public
relations as a no charge under the service agreement. But we have an
outside public relations firm, so we don't use those services primarily
by -- or from Paradise, we use an outside firm and our in-house public
relations staff as well.
Number seven was there's a conflict of interest for Paradise
Advertising to have that relationship with Seminole County. In fact,
we have a letter that we've provided to you from Seminole County,
from the executive director of the Convention and Visitors Bureau.
And they clearly do not feel that we are a conflict nor do I feel that we
are a conflict with Seminole County. They're an inland county. They
Page 29
March 22, 2011
have much different things to offer than we do. They have some
similar things.
But in fact we do some things with them. We have marketed in
Seminole County a lot. We have worked with their airport. We have
done reciprocal things with them because we get a lot of business from
that area. Those British travelers come into their airport there in
Seminole County. We market to them there and they come down
here. We do that in cooperation with them.
The other thing that's very important about -- you remember that
we have been looking for an ad agency that has destination
experience. If they are buying for more than one client, they are
getting volume discounts in terms of buying. Midwest Living would
be a great example. If they are buying an ad for us, buying an ad for
Seminole in the same publication, they're going to get a volume
discount, a much better rate than I could get if I went to Southern
Living -- or Midwest Living and asked to buy an ad in their
publication. So clearly Seminole County is not a conflict.
There was also a mention that St. Petersburg-Clearwater was a
conflict. In fact, there's a letter in there. They have not represented
St. Pete-Clearwater destination for 10 years. That is a huge part of
their experience level, though, in destination marketing, and one that
they certainly listed in their proposal as this is our experience, this is
one of many that we have represented in destination marketing. So
that is clearly not a conflict.
All right, let's look now at the comparison document. I'll try to
get this a little bigger, if! can. And it's -- let's see if! can -- well,
maybe not.
Anyway, I know that's not real big on the screen there. But let
me go through this document.
This is the --
MR. CARNELL: You want to try it again?
MR. WERT: Let's see if! can move that over a little bit. Scroll
Page 30
March 22, 2011
bar is at the bottom. Thank you very much. All right, let's get that
over there.
Okay. The first box here is one that we added to Commissioner
Hiller's spreadsheet. And it again reiterates what I mentioned before,
the differences between the RFP, the proposal and the contract, which
1 think kind of is the umbrella that really, I think, helps answer a lot of
the questions that were brought up on this spreadsheet.
The first was related to the promotion and advertising budget.
And in the original RFP, that was prepared in the summer before -- it
was sent out and obviously reviewed, so the summer of2010. At that
point we were thinking that our budget in fact might be $2.1 million.
When we went through the budget process, we had to lower that to
two million. So that shows the difference between what people were
responding to, 2.1 million, versus -- yeah, versus what was actually
budgeted and shows up in the contract as a $2 million marketing
budget.
The rest of the terms in that section, we feel that there are no
policy inconsistencies that can be found related to that item.
Paradise's proposal was based on what information we had given
them, and the selection committee certainly felt that they had
responded accordingly. They indicated a one cost proposal because
they knew in the past we had had $2 million rather than 2.1. So 2.3,
2.4, it all relates to the $2 million or $2.1 million budget. And they
were consistent always that the $300,000 administrative fee stay the
same as it had in the previous contract.
And in might just explain what that $300,000 is. That is based
on a $2 million marketing budget. Fifteen percent of the $2 million is
the $300,000. That's why every ad that we place up to $2 million,
every outside service that we purchase through Paradise is billed to us
at the net cost. There is no markup at all.
Then above $2 million, the agency is then able to earn a
commission. Because they're still, all of their administrative costs, all
Page 31
March 22, 2011
their account service people, meeting time, all of that is handled under
that $300,000. That still is under that $2 million. Above $2 million
they are entitled to get some compensation for their additional work
that they do.
The next point in the spreadsheet is related to emergency funds.
And this would be block two.
And emergency funds were talked about in the RFP because we
have a separate fund called Emergency Advertising Disaster Recovery
Fund. That is a reserve fund that we, in order to use funds out of that,
come to you, the Board of County Commissioners declares an
emergency, and then we are able to use a portion of those funds for
additional advertising.
If that occurs in the early part of the contract here, we're probably
still under $2 million, so those expenditures would not earn a
commission. If they happen later in the year and we've already
reached the $2 million point, perhaps there are. Anyway, that's -- we
see no policy inconsistencies in this item.
Moving on to number three, this is related to museums. Our
county museums or county-owned museums are -- use some services
from Paradise Advertising. In the time that we put the RFP together,
we didn't know what that budget was. In fact, at that time it didn't
look like the museums were going to use Paradise at all. But we felt
that sometime during the year it may happen that they did use those
services. In the past the average that the museums had used was
$50,000. That's why we put $50,000 into the contract. So again, we
see no policy inconsistency in this item.
Number four is the -- related to the scope. And in -- that's the
scope of services.
Paradise in their proposal indicated they were going to hold the
line. And what they meant by that was holding the line on their
administrative fee. They did propose some increases in their rates but
not in their basic fee. They understood that the basic budget was $2
Page 32
March 22, 2011
million. That's based on our projected revenue, it isn't a number that
we just come up with. So we see no policy inconsistencies in this
item.
Number five, these are all --
MR. OCHS: Jack, scroll it down.
MR. WERT: Scroll it down, okay. Number five. Actually, four,
five, six, seven, all of these we have found no policy inconsistencies in
these items. These are all -- if there are any differences, it's only
differences in the agreement, in kind of blending the two, RFP and the
proposal together.
Let me go down to number seven here, which is related to
subcontracting. Although--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Jack, we don't know what number seven
is because it's not on our screen. So either use the pointer or
something -- just use your pointer and zoom down.
MR. WERT: Let me just go here. Let's see if this will help.
Yes, I think it will. There we are.
All right, number seven is actually in yellow there, number five.
Subcontracting was a question.
First of all, Paradise does not use subcontractors. They actually
never have. One of the important things about working with Paradise
is that they are a full service agency. So most all of the services that
we need are in-house.
They do work with outside vendors occasionally if they're going
to do printing, if they're going to produce a television commercial.
Those kinds of things they are going to go out. They're going to go to
a professional photographer, if we're going to do a photography shoot.
So all of these different things they will use vendors on a one-time
basis. Those are not subcontractor; those are not contractual
arrangements in any way. So they so indicated they did not list
subcontractors, they don't intend to use subcontractors.
Okay, let's go to -- number eight is related to out-of-pocket
Page 33
March 22, 2011
expenses, and most of the rest of these items are also out-of-pocket
expenses.
This is where that two percent material fee was indicated in the
proposal. As I indicated to you, Paradise has waived that. We have
taken it out of the agreement. Again, we see no policy inconsistencies
with this item.
You see number nine is subcontractors again, so you can refer
back to number seven.
Extra billing related to travel, mileage, long distance and so forth.
These items are either reimbursed to Paradise on the basis of state
statute or they are reimbursed at cost. So fax charges, telephones,
those types of things, they can bill back to us at their cost. They give
us full disclosure as to what those were. We get receipts and so forth
and we audit these invoices when we receive them on an individual
basis.
So that -- down through, let's see, 16 there were no issues related
to the cover letter. They did have a cover letter.
Number 17, this is again subcontractors. We discussed that
earlier. Again, no policy inconsistencies that we found there.
Number 18, description of the --
MR.OCHS: Scroll it down now so they can see 18.
MR. WERT: Yes. I'm talking faster than I'm showing you.
Number 18, at the bottom there is the description of the proposed
team and role. At the -- in Paradise's proposal they listed the team
members and their credentials and experience. And we don't list those
again in the agreement. That would be redundant because the RFP
certainly is incorporated as part of the eventual contract, so we have
those. We don't see any policy inconsistencies with this item.
And although there has been a change in some of the team, those
changes we were well aware of. We -- in fact, as the tourism staff who
deal with them every day, I personally saw the resumes ahead of time
of the people that they hired to replace these key people. I
Page 34
March 22, 2011
interviewed them and found each of them to be even better than what
we had. So I think we have actually strengthened our team. And we
are really looking for some great stuff in the future from the -- from
some of the new team members.
I might also say that in the advertising agency business, this is a
normal course of business. The attrition level is high in this
profession. People come and go. Creative directors come and go. In
the years that I was in the advertising agency business, I probably
worked with seven or eight different creative directors at the same
agency. That happens. It just is a normal course of events. We feel
that there is no problem at all with the present staff, and we are very,
very happy with them.
Number 19 is the details and the plan -- their plan of approach.
Actually, most of the documents showed what their plan was, because
it is based on what they have done for us in the past few years.
The brand of the Paradise Coast that they helped us develop is as
sound today as it was the six years ago when we first brought it into
play. This is a very important way to promote our destination. They
included a lot of examples of what they have done and what they plan
to do. So we see no policy inconsistencies with this item.
Let's see, number 20. Number 20, it was detailed timeline for
completion. Again, this is an ongoing plan as far as Paradise is
concerned. This is something that they have worked on, helped us
develop. They sat through all of our strategic planning sessions last
summer. They understand what the time lines are in very clear terms.
Their approach is seasonal and their approach is very consistent. We
see no policy inconsistencies in this item.
A copy of the report and the work product. Lots of examples in
that proposal of the kind of work they've done for us and for other
destination clients and other clients as well. So we see no policy
inconsistencies with this item.
Number 22, total project cost. We've talked about the various
Page 35
March 22, 2011
costs involved. Yes, that's true, there's no maximum dollar value, but
that's the way this arrangement works. We know what our budget is,
it's $2 million. That's what the County Commission has approved as
our marketing budget.
When we go above that, we have to find additional funds. So in
the past those have come from transfers from other accounts. You'll
recall in 2010 we used a million dollars that you approved from the
beach renourishment reserve funds. This current fiscal year you
approved $1 million from beach park facilities. Those funds, yes, will
take us above two million. But we are not exceeding the $2 million
budget that was set in our budget, is set in the contract. And those
billings above two million, those are the ones that would then earn a
15 percent standard agency commission to Paradise.
Okay, let's see. The total project cost, I think 23 relates to the
same Issue.
The actual advertising plan, no, that's not part of the contract.
That is actually developed when the contract is in place. And
certainly no advertising agency would go to the expense of developing
a plan before they knew they had a contractual arrangement with the
client.
Number 24 is information on the subcontractors. Again, no
policy inconsistencies. They do not use subcontractors, therefore there
was not a list of subcontractors. They only use vendors on a very
periodic basis, not contractual.
Number 25, the -- that's related to the key personnel. And all of
those were in the proposal. And again, it would be redundant to have
those in the agreement, as well as the proposal is incorporated as part
of the contract.
List of previous customers the last three years. There were no
issues identified there.
Number 27, acceptance of conditions. The -- there is a conflict
of interest form in the RFP. They signed that. I think we've
Page 36
March 22, 2011
demonstrated here that although they do have clients that are in the
destination marketing business, they do not compete with Collier
County. We don't feel they're competitors, nor do they feel that we
are competitors.
Number 27, those are all standard contracts. The -- that's the
conflict of interest.
Number 28 is just a restatement --
MR. OCHS: Scroll, Jack.
MR. WERT: Number 28 is just then a restatement of what we
talked about, of the differences between the RFP, their proposal and
the contract. They are distinct, different, have different purposes.
They are related but there is no need for them, nor would you find a
situation in this type of an arrangement where all three would exactly
agree.
All right, the -- this document then would go through -- is the
time line related to the Paradise Advertising donations to two
non-profits in our community.
The timeline that was provided to us, we did add one box at the
top. That's the October 27th box. It is -- just restating and keeping in
everybody's mind that the County Commission did grant us an
additional million dollars back in October of '09. That was from the
beach renourishment reserve fund. And that gave us additional dollars
for marketing.
And that, coupled with some additional dollars that we asked for
and you approved from the Emergency Advertising Fund, our
emergency advertising fund, and some carryforward we had from
prior years, we were able to put together actually close to
approximated $2 million in addition to our $2 million last year. And
that's where all of the discussion began related to the Paradise earned
commissions on those additional advertising funds and how would
they be used.
At the January 25th Tourist Development Council meeting, that's
Page 37
March 22, 2011
block one here, the TDC approved a motion really following along
with our contractual arrangement that anything over $2 million in
billing of media and production, that Paradise would earn a
commission. The TDC simply said Paradise earns those, they can do
with those dollars what they want, they are their dollars.
The discussion related to -- at that meeting related to the Marco
Island Museum and how we might help that exhibit project, that
museum was basically going to open with no exhibits. And we
actually had a discussion here in this chamber in December of'09, a
long discussion related to how can we help them. Because you may
recall, there was a matching grant that the City of Marco Island
offered. How are we going to come up with county funds? That's the
reason that discussion happened at the January 25th TDC meeting.
Are there more TDC funds we can use? That's where that discussion
began.
January 26th, the next day at the County Commission, the
statements in the time line we concur with, don't have any issues with.
And the March 15th, 2010 TDC meeting, also we concur with the
statements there, except -- and I think it's important for us to always
remember that the TDC does not approve. They are not a policy
organization, they only recommend. And that's all that they do is
recommend. And that's all they did at that March meeting was
recommend the additional dollars. That's that additional two million,
which we pared down to 1.975. That's why that dollar amount is a
little different than the two million.
The April 13th County Commission meeting, we concur with the
statements there and the time line.
April 27th, we concur with that.
May 25th, we concur with that item in the time line.
July 22nd, this is the -- that's the solicitation for the marketing
services. That's when the RFP went out and the selection committee
was then appointed. And that process is -- we give names to the
Page 38
March 22, 2011
County Manager, County Manager does actually appoint the selection
committee; that is the Purchasing Department policy.
July 26th, that TDC meeting -- this is an important point here,
Commissioners. This TDC approves -- again, should be recommends.
That was the million dollars for this fiscal year. That's fiscal year' 11.
Don't -- not to be confused with the million dollars from beach
renourishment reserves. This was for this year from beach park
facilities. So these are two different issues, two different fiscal years.
So it is not more funding we gave Paradise for 2010, it was for this
year. And that's what we're operating under this fiscal year.
Item number 10, October 4th, 2010. That's the outcome of the
selection committee. We met on October the 5th, reviewed all of the
proposals, and the ranking was Paradise, Greenfield, Matrix and
Imagery .
Also, just as a point of clarification, it indicates in block one
there that it was a three-year term. Actually, this agreement is an
initial two-year term with options at the county's sole discretion to
renew the agreement for two additional one-year periods. Total of a
four-year agreement.
December 7th, 2010, the issuance of Paradise giving two checks
to two non-profits in the community, we concur with that timeline.
January 24th, 2011, the -- this is the TDC recommendation of the
selection committee's recommendation to choose Paradise Advertising
as our marketing firm. This is a normal course of action that we bring
things to the TDC and they recommend bringing then forward the next
day, the -- that Paradise agreement to the county commission for final
approval.
And again, at the bottom of that block, I have reiterated again the
differences between the RFP, the proposal and the contract, which I
think really does help us understand why there were differences in
those three agreements.
With that, Commissioners, I will certainly try to answer any
Page 39
March 22, 2011
questions you might have. Ultimately we would like your
concurrence with our findings here. And then remind you that we
want to move on to the companion item of the contract itself.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many speakers do we have?
MR. MITCHELL: We have one speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, would the commissioners prefer
to hear the one speaker and then ask questions?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, then let's call the first speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: The speaker is Gerald Greenfield.
MR. GREENFIELD: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you this morning. For the
record, my name is Gerald Greenfield, I represent Greenfield
Advertising Group. We were one of the agencies that participated in
the proposals. And as Mr. Wert noted, we came in second, according
to the voting which we witnessed on the day that he indicated.
We are acquainted with, well-informed about the concerns that
have been raised with regard to this process. And basically I would
just like to say that there have been some concerns voiced that if this
RFP is reissued and if a new agency search is undertaken, that
somehow or other all the advertising that's being done right now
would stop. I believe this is a misconception, because the plan is in
place, the current agency would certainly continue to execute that plan
during the course of the review process, and the new agency as it
comes in would continue to execute that plan as well.
So there should be -- people change agen -- clients change
agencies all the time. Under this thinking, if advertising stops during a
new RFP process, the county would never be able to change agencies
ever, if you take that thought to its logical conclusion.
Agencies are professional. I've been in this business for 35 years.
Clients come and they go, clients change agencies. So everybody is
ethical and honest and professional. The plan would continue to be
Page 40
March 22, 2011
executed by the incumbent agency. If a new agency comes in, they
would be able to take over with a plan in place until such time as the
TDC and the agency come up with a new plan.
So we encourage you to consider renewing this request for
proposal and we would look forward to presenting our credentials to
you once again. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
We're going to have to have a 10-minute break for our court
reporter, so we'll be back here at 10:05.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I just quickly ask, what was
the name of the gentleman that spoke? What was his name?
MR. MITCHELL: The name of the speaker was Greenfield.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Mr. Greenfield.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, so we'll be back here at, well, now
10:06 for a lO-minute break.
(Recess.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, we are back in
seSSIOn now.
We will now go to commissioners for questions. Commissioner
Fiala is first.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. First of all, I'd like to say with
regard to the selection committee, you know, whatever -- whomever
they select, and being that most of them were comprised of people
from the tourism industry, their selection absolutely and totally
reflects on the success of their department. They have a lot at stake
when they're choosing. It's not like they go in frivolously. It would
be much different than if they had somebody from Public Utilities, for
instance. These people from the tourism industry know the tourism
industry and this is important to them.
So I just wanted to say that. And so I felt that the selection
committee was good. I think Jack, that you gave a very good
presentation. You answered all of the things -- I know how important
Page 41
March 22, 2011
advertising is, being that I come from this field, from the tourism
industry field.
And we can see, by the way, the success of Paradise Marketing,
because I've been going around asking different places how they've
done this year. And I'm pleasantly surprised that everybody, no matter
who it is, has done better. In some cases people have said they've
done better business this year than in the last five years. And that's a
good thing too. And that's specifically because our community
derives jobs and taxes and so forth directly from your business that
you bring to Collier County through Paradise Marketing and so forth.
And yet the advertising -- or the tourism industry itself pays for the
marketing. So they have something at stake too because it's their
industry, the bed tax that pays for these things, and that's of course
where they're on the TDC in the first place, to recommend these
things.
So I want to say that I was very pleased with this report. And for
me, this one commissioner, I would make a motion to approve, to
approve Paradise Marketing's contract.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry, modification to the
contract. Accept the staffs report and proposed modifications to the
contract.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we have a motion to accept the
staffs report and to approve the contract with Paradise Advertising
and Marketing, with the one addition to the contract that is included in
the executive summary; is that a correct statement?
MR. WERT: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, is there any discussion?
Commissioner Henning has his light on first.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. What -- Jack, when I met
with you, you said order of precedence, the change number 23 was
Page 42
March 22, 2011
asked by the Clerk of Court.
MR. WERT: It was actually a combination -- yeah, a discussion
with the Clerk of the Court's Finance Department, our department,
Purchasing. We all felt that this addition to the contract would help
alleviate questions in the future related to billing questions on this
contract.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that true, Crystal?
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner, for the record, Crystal Kinzel.
I'm not aware. The meeting that I had with Jack and staffwas in
Commissioner Hiller's office. I don't disagree that this language would
go a step further in making sure that the contract and proposal are
consistent, but we did not approve that to, my knowledge, what staff
approved.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's not what it says.
MS. KINZEL: And Commissioner, that's what I said, I haven't
read this. We did not approve this one. In the event of any conflict,
the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That change does not promote
consistency.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where's the disconnect?
MR. WERT: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where's the disconnect?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Doesn't say consistency at all. It
says inconsistency will be accepted.
MS. KINZEL: And that would be my point, that we do not want
it to be inconsistent. We want to know what the contract is saying that
we should pay. And there should not be conflict between the proposal
and the RFP in the contract. We need to know what the board is
approvmg.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's not what that says.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think that's going to be further
addressed by Commissioner Hiller's comments.
Page 43
March 22, 2011
My next question is, what experience from the person for Growth
Management Department have in marketing and advertising?
MR. WERT: To my knowledge, he doesn't have direct
experience in that. That was one of the reasons that we asked to have
someone not involved, for a different point of view.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But doesn't our purchasing
policy state that the selection committee should have knowledge of the
RFP --
MR. WERT: I'll let Steve answer that.
MR. CARNELL: In our administrative procedures -- Steve
Carnell for the record -- it calls for us to appoint our selection
committees with an eye towards diversity and expertise.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Steve, don't go away. I'm glad
you're up here.
You know, it's my understanding that we have several people that
has a lot of knowledge about advertising and marketing within the
county. I do think it's important that the director would be a part of
the selection committee. But the RFP is written in concert with the
director's or the department's goal. Is that a true statement?
MR. CARNELL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And, you know, I just
think that we can do a better job by having a diverse group. John
Torre is one that knows about Marketing and Advertising. Marjorie
Hempke from Public Utilities knows about, you know, marketing and
advertising. And my point is it wouldn't change my mind about
supporting the motion. My point is I think that there's a potential to do
better, that's all.
MR. CARNELL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- I think, my opinion,
Paradise has been -- has done a great job for the county. I enjoy
seeing their work. I would hope in the future that we can separate --
and we had a problem with this on the board, about affordable --
Page 44
March 22, 2011
donating money for affordable housing when a -- when we were
considering land use. I just hope that in the future we could separate
those things and not have that discussion.
Whether it be land use or an agreement through contracting, it's
got to stand on its own. That's my only comment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
The taxpayers of Collier County are being hosed. I find what's
being proposed here and what's been explained here today completely
unacceptable. The integrity of the purchasing process is
compromised, and it fundamentally promotes unfair competition.
The amendment to this contract suggesting that the request for
proposal, the proposal and the contract should not match is completely
unacceptable. An RFP for apples, a proposal for oranges and a
contract for pineapples doesn't work in the contract's interest. There
are material differences between the three documents presented with
respect to this particular contract.
I will also say that the request for proposal clearly provides that a
nonconforming response to that request for proposal is considered
unacceptable.
The county recently, I believe it was at the last meeting,
approved contracting with an attorney by the name of William Cea
from Becker & Poliakoffto evaluate the county's purchasing policy.
Well, Mr. Cea wrote an article dated January 21st, 2011, and I'm
going to introduce it into the record. And it's about requests or
proposals, what they are and how they work. And let me read you just
two sentences from his brief explanation.
A responsive proposer is a proposer who submits a proposal that
conforms in all material ways to what the RFP requested.
And then the other sentence.
The terms of the contract will be consistent with the RFP and the
selected vendor's proposal.
Page 45
March 22, 2011
Our county is doing the exact opposite. That is unacceptable.
As a matter of policy, this county has regularly and steadfastly
had diversity in its selection committees. All of a sudden to allow for
a stacked selection committee to pick this particular vendor who has a
proposal that does not conform to the RFP and for whom a contract is
drafted that doesn't match the proposal or the RFP again is
unacceptable.
The statement that this contract is boilerplate is not true. This
contract by no means is boilerplate. The inclusion of a few boilerplate
clauses does not make a service contract such as this contract a
board-approved boilerplate or standard contract that could be
approved by the TDC sight unseen or by the Board of County
Commissioners sight unseen.
The interpretation of the contract as explained by Mr. Wert, both
to the Tourist Development Council and here today, is inconsistent
with the plain words of the contract. Contracts have to be read as
written. Subjective interpretations are not binding.
It is very clear that this contract does not provide that the 300,000
in administrative fees is equal to the commission on the first two
million.
It is also uncontested that the rates charged by this agency are 44
percent higher than in previous years.
And this takes us to the argument about the Seminole County
contract, that we actually have a better deal than them. Looking at the
interpretation of the contract as it is written, that isn't the case.
And with respect to the conflict of interest where they said that
St. Petersburg, for example, is not a competitive venue to ours, I
would very respectfully disagree. And just so you all know, the
representation that -- I'm sorry, the City of St. Petersburg is not a
current client and was a client of this agency 10 years ago, goes
contrary to what was included in the proposal by this agency where
they included the City of St. Petersburg as a current client. What are
Page 46
March 22, 2011
we to believe?
With respect to the subcontractors, they do subcontract. And to
state that these relationships, for example, with photographers who are
doing photography for the hourly base design work is not a
subcontractual relationship is just fundamentally incorrect.
The change in staffing was not disclosed to this board while it
was known to Mr. Hames at the time he spoke to us, where he knew
he was in litigation with his partners.
We voted based on the representations that were made, which
included staff unchanged from before. It's unacceptable that Mr. Wert
has the discretion to make the determination that key contract
personnel are good or not good or better or worse for the county and
the county's interest. Discretionary decisions rest with the Board of
County Commissioners, be it dollars or key personnel. It is up to the
Board of County Commissioners, not county staff, to determine a key
very important factor in this contract when changed is good or bad for
the county.
I cannot support this motion. I cannot support the conclusions
arrived at. And if this board believes that it is good public policy to
let contracts in this fashion, then I feel you do not represent the
interest of the taxpayers of Collier County.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, you finished?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (Nods head affirmatively.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just want to make sure that
we're going to have a -- we're not going to have a problem paying
under this contract or added language, Crystal.
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner Henning, at this point I can't
guarantee that we can pay based on the contract that's being presented.
And those have been some of the issues of consistency and maximum
pricing in the contract and some other language that we were looking
for to make it clear what the Board's intent is for the payment and the
Page 47
March 22, 2011
structure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we delegating any of our
authority in this contract?
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So how do we resolve
this conflict? Ifthere's a submittal for payment, does that have to
come back to the board?
MS. KINZEL: That's one option, Commissioner, that we could
do, we could bring the pay request back to the Board for approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have no problem bringing it
back to the Board. But hopefully we can do a contract that we don't
have to bring it back to the Board.
So anyway, that's my comment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Just a couple of observations.
If there was a concern about this contract, what I'm wondering is
why did the Clerk do an audit and then secretly give the audit to
Commissioner Hiller to present in a public session without the staff or
the other Board of Commissioners receiving any of that information?
It would have been better I think had the Clerk provided the
Board of County Commissioners a copy of the audit, and then we
could have had staff respond, as they have responded, that there is no
inconsistency, in their minds, at least, within the contract, the RPF and
the proposal. It would have been solved much more quickly, and any
improvements would have been perhaps devised and implemented
more quickly.
But that's not really what this is all about. This is a political issue
that is being introduced in a way that will cast the most aspersions
against the staff and commissioners.
So the point here is that if the Clerk has a -- and let me correct
something else that unfortunately has been said. This is a post -- I
guess it's a post-audit. Might be a pre-audit, you can't really tell.
But the statement has been made by Commissioner Hiller that the
Page 48
March 22,2011
county has not been audited for eight years. And that just is
fundamentally untrue, as are many of the other allegations that have
been made.
The county has been audited every year for decades by an
independent auditing firm, most recently for the past several years
Ernst and Young. Not only that, the Clerk audits every single
payment, as you just heard the Clerk's representative say. They won't
make payment on anything unless they know exactly what it's for.
And I believe them. I believe they do that job very, very thoroughly.
So to leave the impression that there is -- has been no audit of the
Board of County Commissioners and our county government is simply
untrue.
Furthermore, when we talk about post-audits, and this sort of
falls into I guess both categories, the Clerk has actually performed 22
post-audits within the eight years -- last eight years.
So this is all false information that is being presented to the
public. And I think this is a perfect example.
The -- one has to wonder, with the Clerk's involvement in
encouraging candidates to run for Collier County Commission and in
fact assisting them, whether or not some of these audits are political in
nature. So we will find out about that as time goes on and we'll see
just how these audits begin to take form.
So we have a motion to approve the contract, and with
modifications --
MS. KINZEL: Excuse me.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Crystal?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and comments.
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner Coyle, could I make a comment
for the record?
Just so there's no confusion, this is not an audit of the Tourism
Department by the Clerk's office, okay? We began that audit on
March 4th. Weare still in the process. We've had one meeting with
Page 49
March 22, 2011
County Staff to set the engagement for that internal audit. So this is
not a product of some secret internal audit. That will be in a full
process. We've met with county staff.
So I don't want there to be any confusion on the record. This is
information that was available and is available and has been brought
forward by Commissioner Hiller.
But I did want to put on the record, this is not an internal audit
and it was not proposed as such.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Jack, would you put the slide back on
the screen that shows where this comparison came from?
MR. WERT: Okay.
MS. KINZEL: And Commissioner, let me clarify that. Make no
mistake, please, this is Commissioner Hiller's product. The Finance
Department and the Clerk's Office provides information on an ongoing
basis. I would venture to say there are many people in this room that
request information from our office, and I hope we're pretty prompt
and thorough in providing it.
But the fact that I print an item or that we assist in an item's
presentation or preparation, you know, that does not make it our
product.
I believe it's Commissioner Hiller's product. And, you know, I
want to clear up that. Because I did notice my initials all over the
product. But thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, let's -- you know, let's clear that
up. Did Commissioner Hiller do the analysis or did --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, I did.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- a member of your staff do the
analysis?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I did.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, so all of the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let the record reflect.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- incorrect statements and inferences are
Page 50
March 22, 2011
Ms. Hiller's.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are all entirely my responsibility,
yes, they are. All the correct statements and questions are my --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do we have a decorum?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, I call for the question.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I didn't even hear what you said.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I said can we have a decorum
here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What is a decorum?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, getting into personalities
is --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, we were talking about responsibility
for this report. We say it's important that we know who prepared the
report.
County Manager, you have something to add?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Again, not to drag this on, but the reason
why the staff report indicated that it was our belief that the Finance
Department assisted in the preparation of the report is because the two
items that we received from Commissioner Hiller's aide that were the
items that were presented at the last meeting, there is documentation
behind those documents that show who the authors are of the
documents.
And that's -- that doesn't mean that these folks actually I guess
prepared the document. But when -- this is the document having to do
with the timeline that Jack presented. And you see an author and a
company listed as Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court.
The other document that was transmitted shows a Ms. Kern as an
author. Again, I believe that's an employee of the Clerk.
So we may have been incorrect, but I think it was logical for us
to assume that when the authors are --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The people whom they say they are.
Page 51
March 22, 2011
MR. OCHS: -- the log-in accounts for those two documents are
controlled by the Clerk's Office, we had assumed that they were
involved in the preparation.
Now it doesn't mean that those individuals were or weren't. It
could have been dictated from those accounts. But it seems clear that
the documents that we received were generated from those two user
accounts that are part of the Clerk's IT system, we believe.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well, I think we've solved it.
Commissioner Hiller has said that she performed this analysis and
review all on her own.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So Commissioner Hiller, do we have that
right?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, you do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I'd like to add for the record
that I met with Mr. Ochs' staff and with Mr. Ochs and reviewed these
documents, and asked to actually review them before they went to
print. And on two separate occasions was told that they were not
ready, notwithstanding that they had the information for a month.
And then I was shown the finalized document after it was already
published.
I told Mr. Ochs that his representations were not true.
Notwithstanding staff and Mr. Ochs nonetheless put these
misrepresentations in order to make a public display of the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioners, let's just move
forward please --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I really don't appreciate that,
Mr. Ochs.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- we have just got keep going.
MR.OCHS: Commissioner, I didn't even raise the issue. Did
not even raise the issue, ma'am.
Page 52
March 22, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I asked you to correct the
documents before they were presented.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I call for the question, please.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right, all in favor, please
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I'd like to explain the reason.
The reason I'm opposed to this is because again as a matter of
public policy it is unacceptable, it is fundamentally anti-competitive
and unfair to have a public policy where the request for proposal, the
proposal and the contract do not match. I don't see which vendor
would ever want to bid with this county in light of that. And I feel
that the taxpayers of Collier County are being hosed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the next item?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: There's no reason to call people
names and accusations. Let's just move on, please.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This is so unfair.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Where do we take this now?
Item # lOB
THE AWARD OF RFP #10-5541 TO PARADISE ADVERTISING
AND MARKETING, INC., FOR TOURISM MARKETING
SERVICES AND THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE STANDARD
Page 53
March 22, 2011
CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,350,000 FOLLOWING
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE APPROVAL - MOTION TO
APPROVE CONTRACT W/MODIFICA TION #23 - APPROVED
MR.OCHS: Sir, 1O.B is the companion item to 10.A.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We just did it.
MR. OCHS: Well, you approved the modification that was
suggested in the staff report, not the full contract.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, we did.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, we did.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We pulled them both together. We
accepted the report and then we approved the contract with the
modification that you have included on the executive summary.
You think we've missed something?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. That wasn't the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Attorney, do you think we
missed something there?
MR. KLA TZKOW: No, I think you took the report, then you
voted on the contract.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's what we did.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's what you did.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, my understanding was that we
voted on the modifications to the contract as presented in the
executive summary for this agenda item. The other agenda item was
not brought forward.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So then in lieu of that, let me say I
would like to approve item number 10.B, which is the contract for
Paradise Advertising.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That is exactly what we did
before, despite representations to the contrary --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We'll do it again.
Page 54
March 22, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- but we'll do it again, okay.
A motion by Commissioner Fiala to approve the contract with the
modifications suggested in the executive summary of item 10.A.
Motion by Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please signifY by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
And I'd like to also comment that I'm going to incorporate all my
comments from the previous meeting on this subject in support of my
position, since I was not advised at the time when I was asked this to
be brought forward for reconsideration that there really shouldn't be
any detailed discussion. And I want to make sure the detailed
discussion that we had on the schedule that I presented is included in
this dialogue as well and is the basis for my no vote.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, you have a 10:00 a.m. time certain,
item 8.A.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's go with that one.
Item #8A (Tabled to later in the meeting)
RESOLUTION 2011-58, RESOLUTION 2011-59, RESOLUTION
2011-60 AND RESOLUTION 2011-61: THE 2010 CYCLE OF
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS, INCLUDING
ONE 2008 CYCLE PETITION, FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (DCA)
FOR REVIEW AND OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND
COMMENTS (ORC) RESPONSE - RESOLUTION 2011-58
ADOPTED W/CCPC PARTICIPATION PRIOR TO ORDINANCE
Page 55
March 22, 2011
ADOPTION FOR PETITION CP-2008-1; MOTION TO TABLE
REMAINING PETITIONS UNTIL AFTER HEARING FOR ITEM
#10C - APPROVED; (REMAINING PETITIONS' RESOLUTIONS
ADOPTED LATER IN MEETING)
MR.OCHS: It's a recommendation to approve the 2010 cycle of
Growth Management Plan amendments, including one 2008 cycle
petition, for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community
Affairs for review and objections, recommendations and comments
response.
And Mr. Weeks will present.
MR. WEEKS: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
I'm David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning Section. I just have
a few introductory remarks before we move on to the individual
petitions.
This petition is requesting your consideration to approve for
transmittal four Growth Management Plan Amendments. Two are
private sector and two are county initiated.
I would note to the Commissioners that as is noted in the
executive summary, the back-up materials are substantial in size, they
are not fully included in the electronic agenda. We did provide your
office with a separate binder for each of you, and would ask that you
refer to those for any questions or discussion we might have during the
meeting, because that binder does include the full documentation
relevant to these petitions.
The staff recommendations, and as well as the advisory board
recommendations, will be addressed as each individual petition is
discussed in a few moments.
This is a transmittal hearing. For any petitions that you vote to
transmit, they will be sent to the Florida Department of Community
Affairs and other state and regional agencies for their preliminary
review of statutory compliance.
Page 56
March 22, 2011
Then the Department of Community Affairs will send back to
Collier County an Objections, Recommendations and Comments
report, which will identifY any concerns or issues pertaining to
compliance with Florida Statutes.
This transmittal hearing on each of these petitions requires a
simple majority vote, whereas at the adoption stage it will require a
supermajority vote. And should the Board not approve any petition
for transmittal, then that petition is done, it is effectively denied.
This is a legislative action, not quasi-judicial; therefore, there is
no requirement as in it is optional to swear in participants or offer
notice of ex parte communications.
For each of the petitions, we would ask that you provide a
separate motion and vote.
There is a notice of intent sign-up sheet on the hallway outside
these chambers on the table. This is something required by state law
that for any interested party, if they wish to sign up on that form,
which will be provided to the Department of Community Affairs, after
the adoption hearing and that agency's finding of compliance or
noncompliance, they will receive, those persons that sign up, receive a
courtesy notice of that event occurring.
Finally, Commissioners, as always, we would ask to re-collect
your binders for use to send to the various state agencies, unless of
course you wish to keep them for whatever reason. If you would just
leave those in the commission office, staff would be glad to pick those
up later today or tomorrow.
And with that, we can move on to the individual petitions.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we vote on each one of these
things separately?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We do.
MR. KLATZKOW: (Nods.)
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good Morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of Petition 2008-1. And this is the
Page 57
March 22, 2011
Estates Shopping Center petition.
With me today to answer any questions that I can't answer are
Bob Crown -- it's Bob's company that owns the property -- Wayne
Arnold with Grady Minor & Associates, the professional planner for
this particular project; Mike Timmerman, who prepared the demand
analysis for the center; and Ted Treesch, who prepared the
transportation analysis for this particular request.
I put on the visualizer a copy of the Conceptual Master Plan for
the proposed Compo Plan Amendment. This is in your agenda
back-up. But I just want to briefly describe the project again.
This center is located at the northwest corner of Wilson
Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard. It's about 40 acres in size.
And the request is for up to 190,000 square feet of your typical
shopping center type uses.
We're obviously located in Golden Gate Estates. And I wanted
to make sure everybody understands that all buildings are limited to
one story in height. There will be no multi-story buildings.
The center is to be constructed in two phases. The first phase will
not exceed 100,000 square feet and will include a full service grocery
store that has to be at least 27,000 square feet in size, and has to be the
first Certificate of Occupancy issued within this center.
When the center is complete it will employ approximately 269
people and will contribute approximately $17.7 million annually to the
economy.
We've had over 20 meetings with our neighbors and community
over the past four years. As you recall, we started this process in
2006. It has been a long process with a lot of public information and a
lot of public awareness on this particular project.
We've worked closely with a lot of people. We've worked closely
with all of our immediate neighbors and we've worked closely with
the community as a whole.
As you can see from the visualizer, we have very extensive
Page 58
March 22, 2011
buffers for this project on Golden Gate Boulevard. We have a 50-foot
wide enhanced buffer. I would submit to you that I don't know of
another shopping center anywhere in Collier County that has that
significant a buffer along a major roadway.
We've (sic) also have extensive setbacks and have taken care to
make sure that the building envelopes or the building areas are
compatible with our residential neighbors to the north as well as the
east.
And as you can see in the light brown, that's where development
will occur. And as you can see, you know, about 50 percent of this
site will remain in setbacks and in green open space. Again, I submit
to you I don't think you can find another example in Collier County
with this much green space as part of the center.
We did that because the community was concerned about how
this center would fit in to the semi-rural character of Golden Gate
Estates, and so we have designed the center to make sure that we do fit
in. And this center was designed by our neighbors. They worked with
us in coming up with these setbacks.
And we've also included a very extensive list of permitted uses
and an extensive list of prohibited uses. Again, that input came from
our neighbors, so we would have a very detailed project in front of
you, more detailed than you're used to seeing in a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment. But the community needed that level of detail in order
to understand our proposal.
Now, one of your staff recommendations is to delete that detail.
We submit to you the community wants that detail in, your Planning
Commission wanted the detail in, and we want that detail in to address
the community's concerns. So we would request that you leave the
detail in, should you vote to transmit this to the Department of
Community Affairs.
At the BCC transmittal hearing on January 19th, 2010, these
chambers were filled with a lot of supporters. You couldn't miss them,
Page 59
March 22, 2011
they were the ones in the green shirts. They took their time to come
and speak and voice their opinions on this center. They were
individuals that you're not used to seeing. They were your kind of
your working class people that don't typically involve themselves in
the political process, but they did take their time and effort to come
speak on behalf of this petition.
You also received over 1,800 letters of support prior to the
hearing from community members. We did a survey of over 5,500
people in the general vicinity of this center. To avoid any potential
conflicts we hired an independent company to mail out the surveys.
We hired a CPA firm to receive and tabulate the surveys. We had a
30 percent return rate on the surveys, which is a high percentage. And
of those that returned the surveys, 83 percent of them responded that
they supported this center.
The Collier Citizen also wrote articles on this and did an on-line
survey. I know it's not a scientific survey, but it was a survey, and 65
percent of those participating in the survey supported our request.
There were a few objectors at that hearing. Those people are
familiar to the commissioners, and those people represented that the
community, despite all the information we provided, really did not
want this center.
They requested that there be a complete restudy of Golden Gate
Estates so we can get the input of the people to determine whether or
not this particular center is in fact what the community wants.
The Commission questioned whether or not the center was
wanted or needed by the community. So I suggested let's go to the
community. I said, you've got an election coming up in November,
let's go on the general election, it should be a well attended election,
the Governor's race is on, let's go and ask the people what they think
about this center.
The Commission unanimously supported going to the voters and
asking for their opinion on this center. One commissioner even stated
Page 60
March 22, 2011
that, you know, although she didn't like the center, who was she to tell
the voters that if they want it that they shouldn't have the center.
So we went to the voters. But keep in mind, the Commission
directed the County Attorney to draft the ballot question, directed staff
to come up with the precincts to be -- to participate in the vote. And
the Commission on February 9th, 2010 approved the exact ballot
language that went to the voters and the precincts that were to be
polled.
On the visualizer is a copy of your resolution with the exact
ballot question and the precincts to be polled. The ballot question was
very specific and very clear. And I'll read it just for the audience, in
case they can't see it.
It says, should the Golden Gate Area Master Plan be amended to
permit a plus or minus 40-acre commercial shopping center consisting
of up to 190,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area and
single-story buildings located at the northwest quadrant of the
intersection of Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard, that
may include outparcels, in-line stores, drive-through shopping services
and whose first occupant must be a minimum of27,000 square feet
supermarket. And the question was a yes or no question.
The citizens of Golden Gate Estates knew exactly what they were
voting on. The size of the center was put to them to determine
whether or not they thought this fit in with their community.
For better or for worse, this was my first campaign. You all have
been through a few. To tell you that I didn't learn a lot would not be
true. I did learn a lot about what it takes to go out and campaign. We
as a group, and I personally, met with the voters. We attended
community events, we attended community garage sales. I attended
PT A meetings. And we went out and we discussed our proposed
project.
Golden Gate Estates is a large area, as you all know. It's difficult
to get to the voters, so we also sent out mailers to educate the voters.
Page 61
March 22, 2011
We had a website, we had a Facebook page. We informed the voters
about our proposal.
And keep in mind, every time we inform the voters, and we
informed every registered voter, we informed people who liked us and
people who didn't like us when we were going out there and letting
them know about our proposed project.
I would like to share with you briefly what we heard from the
community on the campaign trail. We heard that the community is
tired of driving to the urban area for services. They want grocery
stores, banks and restaurants. They want the same retail services that
the urban area has. They want a place of their own. They want
competition. They don't want to only have one option.
We heard that this particular shopping center is in the right
location because it's in the center of Golden Gate Estates. It's at one
of the busiest intersections in Golden Gate Estates at Wilson and
Golden Gate Boulevard. These are people who are already on the
road traveling to a shopping center, so we're shortening their trips, and
they like that idea.
We heard that they believe our center will improve their property
values. They can now compete with the urban area, and the urban
area prices as you know have come down dramatically. Why would
you live out in Golden Gate Estates when you had a better option in
the urban area, and they wanted to be able to compete with the urban
area in the real estate market.
Again, they wanted jobs. And as we pointed out, when we're
done completing the construction of the center, we'll have about 269
jobs out in Golden Gate Estates.
We also heard that they were glad someone was willing to invest
in Golden Gate Estates and spend $13 and a half million constructing
a center. They believe that would improve the economy and employ
-- and it does employ about 150 people during the construction phase.
And last but not least, we heard why is it taking so long to get
Page 62
March 22, 2011
this center approved?
Over the objections of some of the people who were opposing
this project, I was allowed, just like they were allowed, to appear
before the Naples Daily News Editorial Board to present our petition.
They also were interviewed by the Naples Daily News editorial board
to express their position.
I'll be honest with you, I was feeling pretty good about the
interview. And then on October 9th, the Naples Daily News decided
to tell the voters, vote against the center. So they had the power of the
Naples Daily News behind them to recommend denial of the center.
Now, the Naples Daily News has been an active participant in
informing the community about this proposed center. On July 9th
they ran another article about the center. They discussed our project,
they discussed the Randall Boulevard project. There was complete
disclosure about what's out there and what's been approved. And they
also ran another poll.
They ran the poll -- the poll questions were basically three
questions -- four questions: Do you want the Randall center; do you
want the Wilson Boulevard center; do you want both centers; or do
you want none of the centers?
The results were 53 percent of them wanted just our center; 23
percent wanted both centers, so 76 percent of the people wanted our
center; nine percent wanted just the Randall center. But if you give
them the 23 percent that wanted both, there was 32 percent in favor of
both. And only 12 percent said they wanted neither center.
As we got closer to the election, 1 remembered all of the positive
comments about our center; however, you know, I was a little
nervous, I'll be honest with you. Talk is cheap. Will the people really
show up and vote for us or were they just being nice to our face? And
were our opponents right, do the people at Golden Gate Estates not
want this center?
Naples Daily News ran another article on October 28th, 2010
Page 63
March 22, 2011
right before the election. So we finally had election day. And
election day, it was a good turnout. About 50 percent of the vote
came out. It was a Governors race that was hotly contested. Voter
turnout was about 50 percent. There are about 18,000 registered voters
in the six precincts that we were polling. And of those, 9,300 cast
votes, so you had about a 50 percent turnout at the precincts. And of
that, 7,038 voted for this center. That was a 76 percent voter approval
for this specific center. We won every district by a substantial margin.
And I'll put the results up on the visualizer.
Now, as you can see, we didn't lose a single district in this.
Everything was well over 70 percent except for I think one of the
districts, which is District 555, which is the one closest to Collier
Boulevard. I think that number was 67 percent. I can't read without
my --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 67.9.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I can read it from here.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you.
That was our worst showing, you know. But three out of four
voters voted for our particular center.
Now, I thought, you know, clearly the detractors would get the
message that they are in the minority, and the substantial minority,
that the community really wants this center. I was optimistic.
Probably unrealistic but optimistic.
And then I find out not too long ago one of our detractors decides
to take it upon himself to call Publix and tell Publix -- who had given
us a letter saying, hey, we're interested should you get through this
process, we're interested in negotiating with you to come to the center.
I find out that one of our detractors takes it upon himself to call Publix
and tell Publix, the community doesn't want you, the community does
not want this center.
Now, out of a 76 percent vote, you don't think I already told
Page 64
March 22, 2011
Publix the results of the election before they got that call? Well, they
called us and let us know that, you know, someone's out there telling
us you're not wanted.
And we said, well, we know what the election results are and
we'll continue to monitor as you go through the process.
I think it's time for those who are opposing this project to realize
that yes, they are opposing this project, but they are in the substantial
minority when it comes to this project. You can't ignore this election.
This election was clear, three out of four voters said yes to this
specific center. They knew exactly what they were voting on.
Weare asking at this point that the County Commission transmit
the proposed GMP amendment to DCA for review and approval. The
voters want it, there's a demand for it, there's benefits to the traffic
system. The infrastructure is in place for this center to go forward and
be successful.
I can answer any real detailed specific questions you want to
have, but we had a pretty long hearing the last go around. You have
all the back-up. But I thought what we needed to do was focus on the
community involvement and what the community wants. And the
electors have spoken. And I think -- we would request that the
Commission honor what the electors have said.
With that I can answer any questions, specific questions, or
Wayne or anybody else can answer them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, did you want to
wait for the speakers or are you going to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you get paid by the word or
the petition?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The what?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you get paid by the word,
how many words you create, or the petition?
Page 65
March 22, 2011
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's time.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Time.
Where can I find in the resolution that states that you're going to
build a grocery store first? Is it in the exhibit or --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You find it right in the ballot question
itself.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, it's got to be in the
resolution.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh, in my Compo Plan language?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh, okay, okay. Well, the resolution
attaches our Comprehensive Plan language. And when you get to --
let me get to that page real quick, unless Wayne, you have it handy.
Here it is.
If you go to -- I believe it's Page 36 of218, go to item letter E,
and it says one grocery -- I'll put it on the visualizer.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, that's not in the -- our
resolution goes up to -- doesn't go that high.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, if we need to make it clearer. But
my understanding is the resolution transmits our very specific request
as an attachment. So that attachment in Item E makes it very clear
that our grocery store has to be the first CO within the center.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I'll wait for staffs
interpretation of that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Does staff have a presentation?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question of county
staff.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you want the question now or after --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll wait for speakers.
MS. MOSCA: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
Page 66
March 22, 2011
For the record, Michele Mosca with Comprehensive Planning staff.
What I'd like to do is actually put the subdistrict text from the
resolution so that we can first clear that up.
So you can see F.3, that identifies the applicant's language where
it requires the first CO be a grocer.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. MOSCA: And I just want to give a brief presentation.
Commissioners, due to the recent Board direction not to move
forward with the restudy of Golden Gate Area Master Plan for the
purpose of determining future commercial and noncommercial needs
within the Estates, staff revised the original recommendation for the
Estates shopping center subdistrict to approve a neighborhood
shopping center size commercial development, limit the uses of those
-- limit the commercial uses, rather, to C-l through C-3. And this
would replace the applicant's list of permitted and prohibited uses and
limit each commercial user to no more than 20,000 square feet except
for the grocery store use.
Additionally, staff would also recommend removing the
conceptual site plan.
Staffs recommendations are based on the review of the
applicant's petition, which includes the commercial needs analysis and
the evaluation of the State's criteria for reviewing comprehensive plan
changes. This includes a 1.25 market factor or supply to demand ratio
within the Comprehensive Plan's planning horizon, which is year
2020. And when the 1.25 market factor is exceeded, review of other
factors such as suitability of the property for change, locational criteria
and community desire.
The applicant prepared two commercial needs analyses. One
using the Fishkind and Associates methodology and the other using
the Collier Interactive Growth Model or CIGM.
Review of the applicant's commercial needs analysis using
Fishkind's methodology indicates that the 1.25 supply to demand ratio
Page 67
March 22, 2011
is exceeded based on the total commercial supply and the potential
supply within the project's defined market area. Or simply put, the
commercial need is already exceeded without the proposed project.
Review of the applicant's commercial needs analysis using the
CIGM indicates there is a demand for neighborhood shopping
commercial within the Comprehensive Plan's planning horizon of
2020, but there is no need for community shopping center
commercial.
Because the 1.25 market ratio is exceeded, the Board may
consider the other factors that I previously stated.
Staffs concern for this petition, as submitted, is fivefold:
Lack of need at the proposed size and use intensity.
Potential impact on the character of the community and the
vision of the community, as reflected in the existing Golden Gate Area
Master Plan.
Lessening of the need for neighborhood commercial
development further east of the site proximate to area residents.
The degree of specificity. The petition contains a detailed list of
permitted and prohibited uses and a conceptual site plan. The
adoption of the site plan into the GMP is unprecedented. We've never
done this in the past.
And finally, the subdistrict text states that the conceptual site
plan satisfies the native vegetation preservation requirements of the
Conservation Coastal Management Element, but there is insufficient
information provided to verity the statement. Such determination is
typically made during the subsequent development order review, not
during the GMP phase.
However, should the Board wish to include this petition as
submitted, size and the use intensity, staff would recommend the
conceptual site plan and correlating subdistrict text not be adopted into
the Growth Management Plan.
That concludes my presentation. If you have questions.
Page 68
March 22, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. Has Ray Smith or his staff
took a look at the uses described under this growth plan and -- I know
we got the City of Naples wellfield right there, we have the county's
wellfield right there. And these are extensive uses. It was my
understanding gas stations wasn't allowed in the protection area.
MS. MOSCA: Let me defer to utilities staff, they're here to
respond.
MR. SMITH: For the record, Ray Smith, Collier County
Pollution Control Director.
We have been taking a look at the uses at that particular site,
most specifically the wastewater treatment plant. And that is outside
zone one where it's prohibited.
The mention of petroleum storage tanks at a gas station, the state
law is 500 foot setback.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's our -- what is our --
MR. SMITH: Within the LDC, setback requirement refers to the
state law, 500 foot.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So did you look at all
these other uses and see if --
MR. SMITH: As we go through the process and the details come
out where they're located, then I'll be looking in great detail.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I guess I have a concern
about what Michele said of having all these uses within the GMP
unless we have a full analysis. Because, you know, once it's in the
GMP and there's a conflict, we're going to have issues. This board has
to solve it. I just don't want that.
If those uses don't need to be in there --
MS. MOSCA: If the uses are included at time of rezoning, and
more specifically Site Development Plan review, those uses will be
evaluated, and the location of those uses will be evaluated consistent
with the wellfields.
Page 69
March 22, 2011
That's not typically done at the time of the Compo Plan
amendment phase.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. So this is setting
precedence -- well, not precedence, but it's not typical that it not have
all those uses in there?
MS. MOSCA: Well, we do have -- there are several site-specific
subdistricts where we have that level of specificity. Staff would
recommend against it. We've been asked by this Board as well as the
Planning Commission not to include that level of specificity.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I remember that.
MS. MOSCA: Yeah. More concerning is the conceptual plan
because there's not enough detail on it to state that it is consistent with
the CCME. So that was our objection. And we've never, for any
specific site plan amendment, adopted a conceptual plan.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would you recommend to have
certain uses within the commercial districts?
MS. MOSCA: Well, because staff is recommending a
neighborhood commercial center rather than a community size
commercial center, we would request that the uses be limited to those
uses typically found in your C-l through C-3 zoning districts. And
there's really just a handful of uses, I went through the applicant's list,
that are C-4 and potentially C-5.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I know a gas station is --
MS. MOSCA: The gas station I believe would be C-2 or C-3.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The -- my other
question, I mean, I know your original recommendations was not to
transmit. We actually went through a political process to gauge the
sentiment of the community for us to decide, but I guess did it change
your mind to -- that process change your mind to recommend to
transmit?
MS. MOSCA: Well, as staff we did consider the community
desire. It's obvious to staff that that ratio, that supply to demand ratio
Page 70
March 22, 2011
factor has been exceeded. But as staff, we also have to look at other
things.
Again, that voter referendum does in fact gauge community
support. But to what degree, how do you weigh that? That really
becomes a policy decision.
We look at compatibility, we look at the existing Golden Gate
Area Master Plan, we look at the appropriateness of the site, I mean,
and the list goes on. So it's a matter of weighing what's important.
And those items really again become a policy decision after that needs
is exceeded.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. My last question is, your
recommendation for how many square feet of commercial again?
MS. MOSCA: We looked at neighborhood. Neighborhood
community -- I mean, commercial generally the upper limits is
100,000 square feet. It can go up to 150,000, but then you really have
to start looking at how many people this center will serve.
And based on the applicant's information and staffs information,
it looks like within that market area it's roughly over 24,000 people.
And that's in the year 2020, I believe. Let me just confirm that,
though.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Isn't that the -- what is projected
in outer years for Golden Gate Estates? I forget.
MS. MOSCA: Okay, the population of Golden Gate Estates
estimated at build-out -- now, this is the entire Estates, including the
Orangetree area -- is 88,791.
Within the applicant's market area -- now, we're only reviewing
this plan to 2020, that's the planning horizon. In 2020 the market area
population is roughly 24,742 people.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. MOSCA: And typically a neighborhood center serves
roughly 2,500 to 40,000. That's your typical.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
Page 71
March 22, 2011
MS. MOSCA: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're up.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, couple of questions.
Your horizon is 2020 that you're looking out to; that's what you
just stated.
MS. MOSCA: That's the State's criteria.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This is 2011 now, so we're
talking nine years. The center's going to be starting off with a large
grocery store first if they get approval to be able to go forward. We
still got to go through the -- we're going to go through the transmittal,
then we're going to have to go through the adoption phase later. That's
probably what, about six months from now?
MS. MOSCA: At least.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And then after the adoption
phase it has to go and come back to us in what form? What do we see
after that?
MS. MOSCA: After that, if the applicant doesn't submit the
PUD, the Planned Unit Development, rezoning concurrent, then after
that whatever period it takes for the submittal of them.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're pretty knowledgeable of
about how this process works. If everything went perfect as far as the
applicant goes, in other words, if everything kept falling in order, how
far off would it be before they could break ground?
MS. MOSCA: I would have to defer to the applicant. I don't
know what -- I mean, we've heard what the Randall Boulevard -- they
were approved for 340,950, and their build-out was 2020. I haven't
seen any activity on that particular project.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And you probably won't. And
I'm going to get to that in a minute too.
Nick, if you would, please. It doesn't have to be totally accurate
Page 72
March 22, 2011
time line down to the hour and the minute, but what I'm trying to
establish is the fact that as normal business goes forward no one's
going to build over capacity in any market, especially what we've
been through recently.
What time would they be breaking ground, do you think, to do a
supermarket if everything came together the way it should?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida.
If they submitted appropriately the PUD immediately following
transmission, got that approved in say roughly six months and
submitted at the same time an SDP, they would be sometime in 2012,
middle of2012 at the earliest.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So we'd be looking at
2012 to build the supermarket, and that takes at least a year or so.
What we're doing is we're getting close to that horizon date. It's hard
to believe that we're coming up on 2020. It's even hard to believe
today, you know, we're in 2011 sometimes, you know, when I stop to
think about it.
But in all realistic approach, and I know that you have quite a
business background, is it highly unlikely that they're going to build
past the capacity of the public out there to be able to absorb the retail?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: One thing I'll tell you, and I want to
elaborate a little bit on Michelle's comments that she made, is you can
tell by her comments, we allow them to do their technical analysis and
provide you the information.
One of the things that she didn't say, and I'll give my perspective
from a prior job, the Transportation Planning Director, I think that
location is a great location when we talk about transportation analysis.
You're right, market factors as you've discussed usually work
themselves out, especially in terms of commercial.
One of the things we talked about as staff is do you diminish the
other value of the other centers? We agree, you're going to have a
diminishing effect. But it is a market factor that takes place. They
Page 73
March 22, 2011
will only build and develop as they see the need.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right, as they see the need for
it. And that's true.
Also, too, I mean, there's been talk about two centers being way
overkill. I don't know, my own personal opinion, you mayor may not
agree to it, that if you have two competing centers that are separated
by a decent distance that would serve two different corridors, the first
one to get built would probably be the one that would move forward
most expeditiously, while the other one may have to wait till time
catches up with them.
What I'm getting at is if you didn't have a competing factor in
there of someone else to your, you know, two or three miles distance
away from you, you might not have the incentive to move to be the
first one on the ground to be up and going. As you men -- it was
mentioned, Randall Boulevard hasn't started yet, correct?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're correct.
And even your County Interactive Growth Model, when you go
out to build-out, shows a lack of commercial, industrial and office
space. So you're looking at a horizon year of 10 years to 2020. But
when you start going farther out, we're in a deficit situation throughout
the county. We've looked at that study.
I'm going to put something on the viewer real quick.
As you're looking at the location, which is right here, and you
can see the Randall location over here and the other potential site,
which -- Everglades and Golden Gate Boulevard, in my opinion in
looking at this location is definitely a positive location in terms of
transportation and vehicle miles reduction.
One of the things we're looking at as part of our analysis, not as
much on size but more on location, do these centers serve the
population within those areas? Your Interactive Growth Model
doesn't work as a -- by the transportation grids, it almost goes in --
linear analysis is done. But when you look at the transportation grid,
Page 74
March 22, 2011
Golden Gate Boulevard heading east, Immokalee Road heading east, I
think the centers serve two different populations, south and southeast
versus north and northeast. So from our perspective that location is an
ideal location to get that vehicle miles traveled reduction.
Argument about size. I think it becomes self-regulating. We
looked at some of the analysis in terms of what is a center of 100
neighborhood community, you know, up to 400,000 square feet. That
-- to me I think you're beginning to a hybrid type design at that
location, you're at 190,000 square feet.
The last comment I'll give you, because I think Commissioner
Fiala had asked me if! could give her a comparison of what's out there
today, you have Brooks Village, which is at the corner of Pine Ridge
and Collier Boulevard, and that's roughly a 120,000-square foot
center. And I believe it's on -- it's on 22 acres. And Mission Hills is
approximately a 200,000-square foot center and that's on 35 acres, and
that's at Vanderbilt and 951.
So you have one here, roughly 200,000 square feet, one here
roughly 120,000 square feet, and you're looking at 190 here, 300 here,
undetermined yet potentially towards full build-out here.
So in terms of location and size, they're comparable. This center
is 40 acres. So it's a little more spread out than the other centers are.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In your professional opinion,
sir, aside the fact, you know, that we have conflicts with the master
plan and various other rules and regulations within the county, from a
transportation standpoint, does this make sense?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It absolutely makes sense from a
transportation standpoint.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, the problem with this
started all the way -- as far as the resistence and the difference of
opinion, all the way back to the Collier County Planning Commission,
where they came up with a split vote. And on that split vote, who
were the Planning Commissioners that were opposed to it?
Page 75
March 22, 2011
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The commissioners that voted for it
were Commissioner Vigliotti, Schiffer, Wolfley, and Homiak. Voted
against were Kolflat, Commissioner Strain, Murray, and
Commissioner Caron.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, this is going to go back to
them for reconsideration again if it passes the Commission at this
point in time. When it comes back to us for adoption, it first goes to
the Planning Commission; is that correct?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And at that point in time the
Planning Commission can entertain the same things that we're
entertaining, which I'm referring to is what we have down here as
noted on Page 4. As noted previously here within, the Florida Senate
report provides that if the commercial ratio of 1.25 is exceeded, other
factors such as stability of property for change, location criteria, job
creation, community desires, and so on may be considered.
They'll be also taking those facts into consideration.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: They should.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
I'll just say -- mention a couple of my concerns. I have a whole
page of them here. But one of my main concerns is the immenseness
of this shopping center.
Now, even if it was scaled down, say for instance they kept both
sides of the street, both properties, and they built just on 10 acres each.
To give you a comparison, you all know where King's Lake Shopping
Center is on Davis Boulevard, okay? That's 9.6 acres and it's 85,000
square feet. And in there we have a Publix and a bank and seven
restaurants and a dry cleaner and -- I mean, there's just, you know,
everything you could want in a neighborhood shopping center. And
Page 76
March 22, 2011
that's fine. And you'd have two of them because you have both sides
of the street. And that's good.
To give you an idea, I was searching, searching to try and find
out how big this could be, because I couldn't fathom that. So I asked
Nick, bless his sweet heart, and we came up -- I asked him how Eagle
Creek is -- you all know where Eagle Creek is at the corner of 951 and
U.S. 41? It's the one where the new Lowes was just built? That's
187,000 square feet. So you kind of get an idea of what it would be in
your neighborhood, if that's what you wanted.
My biggest concern is you could build something smaller and not
change forever the unique quality of Golden Gate Estates. I'll tell you,
no place else like it in the United States of America. We all know that,
right? People that moved out there recently, I've heard them say over
and over again, well, people moved out there, they have different
feelings about it now than it used to be. People didn't move out there
because they were looking for low income housing. Heck, it's all over
the place. They're not looking for low income housing. They were
looking for peace, tranquility, darkness in the night, quietness, easy to
sleep, rural character. In my opinion, that's what they were looking
for.
I started asking around, I have some close friends and family
living right along there. And I wanted their opinion. And I tried to
not even influence them with what I was thinking. But they all said
the same thing. They said everybody in the Estates has a car, we all
have to drive someplace because we all have a car. If you live out in
the Estates you can't ride a bike anyplace and you can't walk up to a
bus stop, because there isn't anything.
And he said, so we all go past shopping centers all the time. We
can pick up anything we want. And if you build on two corners there,
you've still got two 10-acre pieces of property or five-acre, I think
that's according to the master plan. Five acres you can build a pretty
nice shopping center. You can get your Publix there immediately.
Page 77
March 22, 2011
You could put a gas station there. There's a lot of things you can do
with five acres. You can surround it with a lot of things that you want,
such as buffers and everything. Be careful about buffers, by the way,
how many times we've been promised by developers we're going to
have buffers and then we see a skimpy tree here and there. But they're
going to grow in 10 years, so -- not that this -- Mr. Crown is that way,
but I don't know ifMr. Crown, ifhe's ever even built a shopping
center. You know, he might just be flipping the property to somebody
who will. And how do we know what that guy is going to do.
So anyway, I'm just expressing some of my concerns right now.
I have more. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Mr. Casalanguida, can I ask
you a few questions?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
To begin, before I get started, I'd like to make a few comments
regarding what Commissioner Fiala just said. I listened very carefully
to her remarks.
But there was a referendum out there. And that referendum was
directed by the Board of County Commissioners. And as I understand
from the presentation made this morning, the wording on the ballot
was prepared by the County Attorney and the districts -- the voting
districts were established by staff. And it is the opinion of the people
of the community, based on that referendum, that -- they were given
all the information about the size; is that correct?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The size was put on the ballot, yes,
ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The size was on the ballot?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, so -- and they understood
exactly what was going to be included in this shopping center?
March 22,2011
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, they didn't list the uses but they
really talked about the size and location. So I think the uses weren't
really -- those weren't put on the ballot.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But they understood full well that
it was going to be this size.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. That to me is a very
important factor. There was full disclosure as to the size. And with
that information, 75 percent of the people in that community voted for
it based on a ballot prepared by the county in districts selected by the
county.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am. And I think, as a person
who's out there quite a bit, there was a lot of talk about the project as
well. So I think it was -- there was a lot of communication as to what
this project would be.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And one of the reasons I bring that
up, because this was all going around -- going on at the time of about
Amendment 4? You all remember that, when the question was being
put to the people as to whether or not we wanted the people to have
the ability to vote on development in their community?
And I didn't support Amendment 4 because I thought it was
overly broad that too many people were being asked to vote on these
kind of decisions where it would not directly affect them. But I would
have supported Amendment 4 if it had done exactly what you're doing
here. So I actually applaud that the Board of County Commissioners
made the decision to put it to the vote of the people.
And quite frankly, I think the -- when I read the minutes, because
I wasn't a part of this board at that time, it was very clear to me that
had the people voted no, that this would not be here today. So I think
it's very clear, you know, what the intent of the board was and, you
know, where we are today with respect to this application.
I want to also address the statement with regard to diminishing
Page 79
March 22, 2011
value to other centers. The only thing that will determine value is the
market. It won't be what the government does, the market will dictate.
And to that end, what I will tell you, living in the northwest end
of the county, we have actually superstore grocery stores catty-corner
to each other. I mean, literally where all I have to do is cross the
street. I can go to the Publix superstore on one side and I can go to the
Whole Foods superstore on the other. Maybe I'm using the word
superstore -- you know, I mean, like a mega grocery store literally
across the street from each other, okay? And both of them are
thriving.
In fact, when Whole Foods came in, it precipitated Publix's desire
to expand and get bigger and give us more in the community than we
had. And this Commission didn't see any problem with that.
So quite frankly, if you look at how markets develop, and these
are in effect clusters, be it McDonald's, you know, Burger King,
Chick-fil-A, Taco, they love to cluster next to each other, because that
actually promotes value and it promotes cross-selling and it promotes
wealth creation.
So actually, you know, encouraging this kind of center in
proximity to the other centers that are being proposed, you know, four
or five miles away is beneficial to all of them. I think it will actually
promote the wealth of the community, not in only in terms of the
commercial values, but also in terms of the residential values because
now you're adding amenities to a community that obviously based on
what the voters are saying are in need and in want of the amenities.
So I'm just listening to everything discussed here today, and I
have to say, I'd like your comment on what the results of this vote are
as compared to the academic calculations done by, you know,
Fishkind and his comrades.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think your Senate interim report was
pretty clear, that you shouldn't just be using technical analysis, you
should be valuing things like community desires, job creation,
Page 80
March 22, 2011
reduction of vehicle miles traveled. I think you balance that against
what the community's concerned about, that rural character.
In my opinion, I think you can strongly weight the community
desire, but you also have to take into consideration let's maintain the
character of that community. I think putting the onus on the developer
by regulations we put in this GMP --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's an excellent point. And
that's where I was listening to you saying you don't normally add this
detail. I think the public needs the assurance and the protection of the
detail that you are proposing as opposed to submitting it blank.
Because I think introducing that detail ensures the public that they will
have those buffers, that they will have the guaranteed, you know, first
build, those being a shopping center, you know, that they get what
they bargained for. And I'd like that tied up now.
I mean, you can always go back and modify, and if you think that
there's something that was permitted shouldn't be allowed because of
some environmental reason, I completely understand that. But I think
if this is going to transmit, it needs to be transmitted with full
disclosure and as much detail as possible so the public knows that they
got what they supported.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. I agree with my staff to a
certain extent that too much detail is a problem. I think you want to
make sure that the rural character is maintained. I thing, you know,
between now and adoption if this does get transmitted we need to
work on that. Because I think having too much detail in a Compo Plan
subdistrict is a problem. But ensuring that the character is maintained
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It has to be maintained --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- is also extremely important.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. And you -- can you maintain
that like in -- and I know you can't, you know, control artistic and
aesthetics to a large degree, but I would like to see this, you know, this
Page 81
March 22, 2011
shopping center designed not like the rooftop that I'm looking in this
diagram over here, but rather in that, you know, Olde Florida, you
know, very, you know, low key like tin roof type of center. Not, you
know, some commercial Spanish center which might work well in a
different community or some, you know, art deco style center, you
know.
And I want, if this does get approved, a lot of vegetation, a lot of
buffers, you know, a really controlled project that is in keeping with
the character of the community, if this were to go forward.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think it's a balancing act. I think
that's something we could definitely look at. I agree with the buffers, I
agree with the setbacks, I agree with the uses. We should have some
restrictions in this GMP because I think the community expects that.
But having it too detailed also risks that inflexibility that the GMP has
that --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would defer to you. I mean, I
don't know, but I do think that because the people voted on it, they
need to get what they bargained for. And they shouldn't get any
surprises in any way, or be deprived of what they were promised.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ian, how many speakers do we have?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have 26 speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we're going to take a break at
11 :30 for the court reporter. But I would suggest to the board that we
work straight through lunch, if that's okay with you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And get as much of this done as we can
before some of you have to leave.
(Commissioner Henning has left the room.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You might want to make it a
IS-minute break.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Fifteen-minute break?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Give everybody time to go pick
Page 82
March 22, 2011
up a sandwich and bring it back here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, I'm hoping the speakers will just
leave and get hungry. Go out somewhere and eat, you know, don't let
our schedule bother you any at all.
We're going to take a lO-minute break, and then we'll continue
through as long as we can all stand it. And then we're going to have to
take another break.
(A recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, we are back in
session. Now we're going to take the public speakers for this item.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question real quick.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we not taking lunch today?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You weren't here when we discussed
that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's on our agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I'm--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: On the first page.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to amend the agenda to
eliminate lunch.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we can do that, that's fine.
That's a process of a democracy on the board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, we -- I asked the board if the board
objected to working right through lunch to try to get everything done
before some of them had to leave. So there was a majority --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- agreement.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That isn't what I was told, but if
that's what happened I'm fine with that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Let's call the first
speaker. We're going to have -- we're going to have -- call two names.
One speaker come to that podium, one speaker come to that podium
Page 83
March 22, 2011
and we'll keep trying to work two podiums. Doesn't mean you speak
at a time, we'll have one speak and then the other one speak. But at
least you'll be ready to go, because we need to move things along.
And if somebody's already said something that you want to say,
there's no need to repeat it, you can just say I don't like it. That's
sufficient.
Ian, call the first two speakers.
MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker is Judy Montgomery, and
she'll be followed by Leonard Montgomery.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, the two of you couldn't possibly
disagree.
MR. MONTGOMERY: You want to bet?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh-oh. Okay.
MRS. MONTGOMERY: Your marriage must be different from
ours.
MR. MITCHELL: Mrs. Montgomery, you can start.
MRS. MONTGOMERY: For the record, my name is Judy
Montgomery. I'm a resident of Golden Gate on Third Street, which is
at the corner where the proposed shopping center is.
One of the things we do love about Golden Gate is that we are
truly the American melting pot. We have not only Whites but we
have WASPS and Rebels and Crackers and Yanks, we have Japanese,
we have Orientals, Indians, Pakistanis, Cubans, Guatemalans. Weare
the American melting pot.
We did not all agree on this when we started talking about the
shopping center, but through the process of democratic behaviors and
meetings and talking we did come together, so that a positive majority
is in favor of this shopping center. We voted for what we thought we
were going to get if the vote passed, and that was 190,000 square feet.
It was a building that we were guaranteed. And for those who have
been to the meetings, we know about the lakes and the brush and the
shrubbery and the trees and the setbacks that we have been promised
Page 84
March 22, 2011
and have no reason to believe that will not be provided for us.
I am extremely concerned because there appears to be a vocal
minority that is trying to twist things around from the vote and make
those of us who are in the majority give up our dream of what we hope
to have in the Estates.
This is not the American way. We voted for something, and I
appreciated councilman's (sic) Hiller's remarks saying that we did
have the vote and we should be given what we were promised by that
vote.
Weare not trying to change anything. I am stunned and
disappointed by the fact that we are here yet again. We have been
attending meetings for four years. We thought the last meeting was
the last meeting. Apparently this is the last meeting. And I hope and
pray it will be a successful one for the majority of us who voted yes on
the shopping center. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
Now you couldn't possibly say anything different.
MR. MONTGOMERY: Yes. May I speak, honey?
MR. MITCHELL: Shari Monetta is next.
MR. MONTGOMERY: Ms. Fiala, before I get started I have to
apologize for you. Last time we were talking together it got a little
heated. If I said anything I shouldn't have, I'm sorry.
The shopping center itself has no problem with me. I live at 570
Third Street SW. It's going to be building there, there's (sic) going to
be messed up on the driveways, you're going to have a shopping
center there, you're going to have construction there for years. This
started when I was 63 years old, and I don't think it will be finished by
the time I'm 73, which isn't too many years away.
It's just the idea that we are the melting pot. I think on our street
we are the minority. And it's like that through the whole Estates. It's
people who can't go anywhere, they can't afford to even go out.
They're home all the time. They can't go to the gas station, they can't
Page 85
March 22, 2011
drive down to the corner to get milk. They can't drive to the shopping
center every day. They don't drive all the time. The guy's at work, the
woman is at home, they have one car.
I don't think it would be right for anybody to turn around and
deny us a privilege of having a shopping center by where we live.
I live at 570 Third Street. If you go down my street and stand in
my street at night, I don't care how much traffic you put down on the
corner of that street, I won't hear it. I won't see the lights in the
shopping center, I won't know it's there, no matter how much noise
you make. It is just the way it is out there.
Yeah, the people will be affected close to it. I understand that.
And most of them haven't voted against it. Some have, some haven't.
But a 76 percent majority is a 76 percent majority. I don't care how
you look the it. We want it, we need it.
And don't forget that somebody said something about mileage, I
forget who it was, the Planning Commission, I think, said it, about the
mileage difference. When gasoline is $5 a gallon and it costs you
$2.50 to go to the store and back, if you have a high mileage car.
Most of the guys out there have pickup trucks that are getting eight to
10 miles a gallon because they need it for their work. Can you
imagine spending $12.00 to go to the store before you get there?
Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Bryan Matson, and he'll
be followed by Scott Murphy.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we've got one person, who is the
other one?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What happened to Shari Manetta?
MR. MITCHELL: She ceded her time to someone else.
MR. MATSON: Hi. I'm Bryan Matson. I live at Ninth Street
NW. And I just want to say that I am opposed to this only because of
the size. Forty some plus acres is just way too big. It's the size of
Coastland Mall.
Page 86
March 22, 2011
Commissioner Fiala, I agree with what you said as far as
disrupting the quality of our neighborhood, the characteristics of our
neighborhood. It's just way too big.
I believe when they said about do you want this center, it wasn't
so much do you want a Coastland Mall, they said do you want a
grocery store. And the people said, yes, we want a grocery store.
They did not say they want a Coastland Mall. And that's what we're
getting with this size.
Coastland Mall, when it was built -- I've been here for 30 years --
when it was built it promised buffers to the Lake Park neighborhood
and to the high school right across the street there. There's no buffers
left. The buffers are parking garages. There's hardly any trees left.
And then let's not forget that more and bigger is not better. All
we have to do is take Coastland Mall and go down the street. We used
to have a shopping center for those that are here, Grand Central
Station. It was a beautiful shopping center. It had restaurants, it had
stores, it had an Eckerd's, it had all kinds of beautiful things. But
today, I parked there last weekend to go to the Depot to see the auto
show. It's a parking lot. All the buildings are gone.
We can only support so many shopping centers. We've got a
brand new shopping center at Pine Ridge and 951. We have another
one at 951 and Vanderbilt. We've got another one at 951 and
Immokalee Road. All shopping centers right there. Let's not forget
Ave Maria has got a brand new shopping center out there. But it's --
there's just -- they can't make it out there. Even though it's there, it's
just being subsidized.
So do we need another great big huge shopping center? No. The
Walgreen's right across the street there, it's doing a fantastic business,
and they followed the rules on five acres.
I think this is way too big, way too much, and I just see a ghost
town in our future, as well as destroying the beauty that we have out
there. Golden Gate Estates is beautiful, let's keep it that way.
Page 87
March 22,2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
MR. MADSEN: Thank you very much.
MR. MITCHELL: Geraldine Conde.
MR. MURPHY: Scott Murphy. I live on Amberwood Lane in
Golden Gate Estates.
First of all, a lot of the shopping centers that have been talked
about that are too big, yeah, they're concrete jungles, they were built
years ago. From what I've seen on this master plan for the shopping
center is green space. That's what the Estates is about, is green space.
Almost half of this plan is green space.
And I think they have said that this is going to be built in
segments. It's not going to be boom, there's all these empty
storefronts. From what I understand, it's going to go as the population
needs it. So I don't believe in empty commercial, that's -- we'll be
fine.
But we voted for this, we voted for 190,000 square feet. That's
what was on the ballot, that's what we deserve. We need it. We need
to save gas, we need jobs, the county needs the taxes. We need to stop
all this argumenting (sic). Let's get it done, let's get to work, that's
what we need to do. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Karen Acquard.
MS. CONDE: For the record, my name is Geraldine Conde. I
live adjacent to where the shopping center's going in. And I just want
to go on record saying that I think the shopping center is a good thing
for the neighborhood. There's enough vegetation out there
surrounding it to still have our rural look in the area. And it will
create jobs. And I'm just for it 100 percent.
But I want the whole package. I don't want it cut in half or -- I
want what we voted for on November the 2nd. We had a right to vote,
we voiced our opinion, and I'm asking the county commissioners to
honor and to respect our vote. And I thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Pat Humphries.
Page 88
March 22, 2011
MS. ACQUARD: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, it's Karen Acquard.
Over the period of time we've discussed this shopping center
there has been a number of references made to the current master plan,
what was discussed, what was included in the master plan, what wasn't
included. I hope I can clear up a few ofthese things.
You have been given this paperwork. This is the first three pages
of the presentation that was made to you on June lIth, 2003 by the
chairman of the master plan committee.
It is -- it contained all of our recommendations and what we
thought should be in the master plan. At the conclusion of that
presentation you approved it unanimously and moved to have it
transmitted to be put in its official form.
If you'll turn to Page 3, you will see that we clearly stated in
provisions for commercial services to support higher intensity
commercial uses on the outskirts of Golden Gate Estates.
You approved it. For some reason, when it was put in its new
form, the official form, whoever was doing it omitted this one crucial
statement. It is part of the master plan because you approved it to be
part of the master plan. We put it in, you approved it. It is there,
whether it was added or omitted by mistake or not.
We put it in there for a reason. We were told by many people,
most of them who lived along Golden Gate Boulevard, that that was
what they wanted. And you're still having almost 2,000 people tell you
the same thing, no, they don't want large scale commercial in the
Estates.
If you feel that the opinions of the Estates residents have changed
that much, I would encourage you to please seat a new master plan
committee and let them start from scratch and -- because there is a lot
of misconceptions out there with the straw ballot.
Also, if you're going to approve a smaller area, which is being
recommended by staff, I would encourage you to only transmit for the
Page 89
March 22, 2011
change of zoning for the acreage that is going to be required for the
smaller shopping area and it begin with the corner of Golden Gate
Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard, which is already designated as a
neighborhood center. And then as they need to grow, let them get the
changes done as they need to grow. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Lori Burns.
MS. HUMPHRIES: My name is Pat Humphries; I'm a resident
of Golden Gate Estates.
Previously when you addressed this petition a motion was made
to transmit, but no second was obtained. But at the request of the
project's attorney, a straw ballot was approved. This was
disappointing because for a brief moment I was hoping that our rural
community would be saved and the Golden Gate Master Plan would
be upheld.
This straw ballot generated an unprecedented campaign on the
part of the developer. Close to $196,000 was spent on promoting the
Estates shopping center vote. Yard signs were given out free and
appeared all over the Estates. Code enforcement was notified of the
many violations. Signs were removed but unfortunately quickly
reappeared. They gave the community a very tacky and shabby
appearance. Fliers were stuffed in mailboxes intermittently at first and
then every day for a week before the election.
This promotional material was contracted outside the county. So
much for creating jobs in Collier County.
Potential voters were being told that the Estates shopping center
would create jobs and increase the value of their property. Not true. If
you live in a rural residential community that is surrounded by urban
development, then you are unique, and that uniqueness alone makes
your property more valuable. Once you commercialize it, the value
goes down.
And full-time jobs, not for a long, long time. We have to fill the
many empty commercial vacancies first. And this shopping center be
Page 90
March 22, 2011
ready in 2012? I seriously doubt it.
Two straw ballots similar to the ones in East Naples regarding the
fire district consolidation would have been appropriate. That way
voters would have had more pertinent information other than do you
want a grocery store? But this option was not open to us. The
outcome came out in their favor. The supporters had deep pockets, the
opponents don't.
And there are other obstacles. The manager at Walgreen's got
permission from his regional office for me to collect signatures in
front of his store against the shopping center. A similar request by
Mr. Bishop, the realtor for the developer, was turned down.
Apparently that didn't sit well with Mr. Bishop because he came to the
parking lot at Walgreen's and tried to intimidate me by swinging a
cane in my face, accusing me of lying about his shopping center.
Coincidentally, almost immediately after that incident a phone
was made at Walgreen's corporate office complaining about my
petition signing and ending my campaigning.
A similar incident occurred at E's when I once again was invited
and a mysterious phone call ensued. This kind of aggression is
unacceptable.
It's unfortunate that the Planning Commission could not have
reviewed this project again before this request for transmittal, since
significant changes have taken place in the Estates since the January
19th, 2010 meeting.
And as far as that Naples Daily News poll goes, that was
accessible to people outside the Estates, outside the county, outside
the state, and you could vote on it every day. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Fred Rump.
MS. BURNS: For the record, my name is Lori Burns. I'm a
homeowner at 210 Third Street NW. I'm a little nervous so I am going
to read and not look up, so I apologize.
With the evasiveness of who and how many homes and people
Page 91
March 22, 2011
actually comprise the First and Third group, and a neighbor that was
originally part of the group yet unaware of the arrangement being
made by the leaders and the developer on their behalf and never again
contacted by them, and the following statement made by
Commissioner Coletta at the Board of County Commissioners meeting
last January, 2010, quote, because the commission does not approve
projects if we have the immediate neighbors in opposition, total
opposition, end quote, the surrounding homeowners immediately
affected by the proposed shopping center deserve to be heard and
represented, myself included.
There are more than just adjacent and abutting neighbors
affected. To reach out, a small group of us went door to door to obtain
the position of the homeowners, beginning on First and Third Streets
NW, as they will be the most impacted. Of 129 pieces of property, 24
percent were vacant lots. Of the 68 pertinent houses, we were able to
speak with 87 percent of them. There are people opposed that are
going to be affected. Those we spoke to, 56 percent were opposed, 22
percent were for and 22 percent were neutral, undecided or split in
their household. While this isn't uniform opposition, there isn't
uniform support either.
As we didn't have the resources to speak with all of First and
Third SW, we still wanted to represent them as best as we could, so
we contacted 33 houses, beginning at Golden Gate Boulevard as to
include those closest. This result was more equal. We did know, by
the way, Montgomerys, we knew you were opposed to it, so we
included you on our account that you were for it.
I will be submitting for the record a petition containing the
signatures of all those opposing the center with the reasons listed on
the petition. There are 87 signatures representing the 49 homes in
opposition. It's unfortunate that yet again the vacant lot owners were
unable to be heard. Many do not even know of this center.
With all due respect, how can a straw ballot represent an
Page 92
March 22, 2011
opportunity for public input from all when many seasonal and rental
second homeowners, as well as vacant residential lot owners, are
paying taxes yet are unable to vote on a project that could directly
impact, a project at the end of their street, or in my case 500 feet from
my home? This represents 27 percent of the properties on First and
Third Street NW.
What's the rush? With all due respect, build up the proper way.
Please don't allow the unprecedented nature of this shopping center
and the straw ballot and the recent piecemeal approach to
comprehensive plan amendments and the inconsistency to become the
precedent. Please don't allow the vision and integrity of the master
plan, which sometimes is there to protect us from ourselves, and the
unique rural lifestyle and character so many of us bought become
casualties all in the name of convenience.
Thank you for your time.
MR. MITCHELL: Frank Cweklinski.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just a moment, please.
MR. RUMP: My name is Fred Rump. I live on Fifth Street NW
directly behind the shopping center, one block away. I will dispense
with my remarks because I think it's all been said before here.
I really would only like to encourage the board to respect the
concept of democracy, go with what the people voted for. We voted
for a particular plan that the developer developed along with us, the
neighbors, the people who live there. It's really -- they spent an awful
lot of time doing what they thought we wanted.
And that deal of a large 40-acre thing I think is good for Golden
Gate because it is a large lot thing. We have five-acre lots,
two-and-a-half-acre lots. So they have a 40-acre lot with a lot of
space and a lot of landscaping that suits the particular neighborhood.
So just think about what you're voting for. This is what the people
wanted, we've already spoken. Thank you very much.
MR. MITCHELL: Kathy Cweklinski.
Page 93
March 22, 2011
(No response.)
MR. MITCHELL: John Greaves. And he'll be followed by
Eugene Pawelak.
MR. GREAVES: Good afternoon, Commissioners, staff, and my
fellow citizens.
I'm going to tell you, this is just a bad case of deja vu to me. We
had our vote -- I'd like to address a couple things that I've just noticed
from the commissioners, trying to read how you're going to go on this
thing. And as an observer who's followed this all the way through,
been active, got an article in the paper, the whole schmear, I sit here
and I can easily tell the position, I'm sure as you can, of anyone who's
speaking at this podium.
But I look at Commissioner Henning and looking out for us
getting a grocery store. I'm glad to see that. But I'm a little not sure of
where you really stand on this thing.
And I go back to Commissioner Fiala. I mean, when you stop
telling me things like, you know, it's an immense center, it's -- you
know, and because you have a few friends out there that you talked to
and they're really against this, I don't know where you live, but I'm
going to tell you where I live. I live 500 feet from where the center is
going to be. And the nearest Publix shopping center a family can go
to shop at and feed their family for a week without going into the city
is eight miles from that spot. And God bless anybody who lives east
of that, it's even worse.
For you to sit there and take the position that we don't need this
out there because it's immense, I guess that's a subjective thing in my
book.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sir, I said they could still build a
Publix on both corners and still build shopping centers on both
corners. I did say that.
MR. GREAVES: Well, I get the feeling that you're not going to
support this. And I don't know who's twisting you around about it.
Page 94
March 22, 2011
But when three or four of my neighbors out here need this, want this
quality, and are subjected now to shopping at convenience stores, I
don't think that's right for you to pass judgment in our area when we
are sitting here saying that we need it, and you're giving us excuses
like that.
As for the master planner over there, Melissa Mosco (sic),
clinging to her story and she's sticking to it, stating her facts and her
statistics, again, as the other gentleman said, this area is a main traffic
flow out to not just this little circle you draw around that shopping
center, it serves far more citizens all the way out east. And I don't
know why you're sticking to a plan that's 10 years old when gas was
probably less than a buck a gallon, and everybody else is struggling
today.
I don't know where you live either, but our neighborhood needs
this. And it's not right for you to position us where we have to travel
to Randall or out to 951 to get our shopping needs done the nearest
place other than going to a convenience store.
So those are the things that bother me. Everything else has been
stated on these cases. But frankly, I'm disappointed that we have to
keep coming back on this thing when it's already been voted on, it's
already been determined at least from a straw poll. What is the
difficulty here? What don't you guys get? I've been to many meetings,
and I just don't understand what you don't get.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sir, your time has expired. Did we get
your name for the record?
MR. GREAVES: John Greaves. I live at 190 Wilson Boulevard.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, sir.
MR. MITCHELL: Toni Kincaid is the next speaker after this
gentleman.
MR. P A WELAK: My name is Gene Pawelak. I live at 231
Third Street NW, about five houses behind the shopping center.
I'm just asking the board to vote against this proposal. This is not
Page 95
March 22, 2011
what the master plan wants. I have no problem with the five acres that
are on the corner now that are zoned to be built. That's fine. But I
keep hearing that people want a shopping center and they voted for it.
They do want shopping centers and they want it according to the
master plan. They want it at Randall and Immokalee, they want it out
on DeSoto, they want them on the ring roads.
I've been living there at my house now for 11 years. I like it the
way it is. I bought out there because it was rural. We have people
now that are moving in now, and the first thing they want to do is they
want to change everything. Why the hell did they move there in the
first place? I just don't understand that.
The other thing I'm worried about is I don't think the people that
are proposing to build the shopping center right now are actually
going to build it. They just want to rezone it and they want to flip the
land and try to save as much money as they possibly can, because
there's no way they can make a profit on this venture.
I'm all in favor of more shopping centers, but it's got to be
according to the master plan.
There was another thing. The First/Third group, I was a member
of that. There were some deals that were cut under the board that I'm
not familiar with. And although my name and my wife's name is on
the record as being members, I don't want any association with that
group at all. And as far as I'm concerned, I don't know of anybody
that they represent but maybe one or two people, and those are the
ones that were in charge of the group.
I think if you do approve the shopping center, you're doing it
against the master plan. And then if somebody else wants to build a
shopping center anywhere on Golden Gate between 951 and DeSoto,
you're going to have to do it because you'll be discriminating against
them for not building it. I visualize Golden Gate Boulevard as 41
some day, just massive shopping centers one right after another, the
whole eight miles. And I don't want that.
Page 96
March 22, 2011
Like I said, I've been there 11 years and I really like it the way it
IS. And I have no problem with building on the five acres.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Rob Long.
MS. KINCAID: Hi. My name is Toni Kincaid. I'm here to make
known my concerns about amending the Golden Gate Master Plan and
thereby paving the way for this proposed shopping center.
The Estates began as a residential neighborhood. People
understood and accepted that to live there in the Estates meant that
you were willing to plan and drive for services such as food, gas,
medical care, entertainment. The trade-off was huge. You were
guaranteed peaceful country living where you could enjoy less noise,
more wildlife and the feeling ofliving in one of the largest truly
residential neighborhoods in America.
Through the years the above mentioned services have come
closer and closer to our doorstep. Collier and Pine Ridge, Collier and
Vanderbilt, Immokalee, Randall, Ave Maria, and in some cases next
to our houses, such as the four corners at Wilson and Golden Gate
Boulevard.
Although some of us would have been satisfied with E's store, the
existing Growth Management Plan allowed growth at the intersection
of Wilson and Golden Gate, as seen with the building of the
Walgreen's and the shopping center on the southeast corner. Please
note that that shopping center has never had 100 percent occupancy.
And please check into how many businesses have already come and
gone. As of this writing it still is not at 100 percent occupancy, and
now there are plans for a larger grocery store to open there to replace
the failed former Jack's grocery store that was there.
Now we have to worry about the power of money and greed
stepping in to try to manipulate and change the Growth Management
Plan.
Page 97
March 22, 2011
Why must we spend energy and time defending the original
intent of Golden Gate Estates? Mainly because if this change in the
Growth Management Plan gets your approval, the existing plan will be
null and void. It will cause excessive shopping centers of this sort and
that will become the new Golden Gate Estates. Projects like this
proposed center will uproot and destroy people's Estates style of
living.
Somehow the whole concept of people needing conveniences
every three miles seems to me ridiculous, especially in the middle of
this residential neighbor. It's shocking to me that the owner of these
40 acres bought out people's properties by offering them money for
their land with the intention of building this shopping center, even
though it was not and is not allowed according to the existing plan.
To me this shows that he already had been told that he would not have
a problem to do this project. But the question is, told by whom?
Please show us with your no vote that these types of deals will
not be tolerated.
Even back in the Sixties we already caused habitat loss,
environment impacts. If you are not aware of watershed and sheet
flow issues in Collier County, please educate yourselves, because
projects like this will only make our future worse.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Randall Cohen, and
he'll be followed by Mark Teaters.
MR. COHEN: Good afternoon. Randall 1. Cohen, 6064 Sallows
Way, Naples, Florida, 34109.
Just from a background perspective, I have a B.S. in economics,
where I graduated first in my class, Master's in economic
development, second in my class, and a law degree, ninth in my class.
I've reviewed hundreds and hundreds of market studies over my
career.
Page 98
March 22,2011
Market studies. In the movie Big, Tom Hanks as the character
Josh Baskin asked in his innocence, what is a market study? It was
explained to him. And his response was I still don't get it.
The petitioner has provided you with a market study based on a
defined market area which falls under the guise of microeconomics.
It's very important to take a look at the county as a whole from a
macroeconomic standpoint when we look at market ratios.
In the 2008 petition when you originally received it, you had a
market study ratio analysis for the county of3.5 to 1 for community
commercial. It was not included in this particular proposal. I don't
know why. But it's a very important thing because it affects the
vacancy rates in every one of the community County Commissioners'
districts.
Let's talk about vacancy rates. They're not talked about in this
market study. We have a proliferation of vacancies throughout this
county. And when you approve additional community commercial and
you're dealing with the same consumer, you're going to increase
vacancy rates in those areas where people are trying to pay down a
huge debt based on what they paid for that particular property.
It exists in Commissioner Hiller's district, Commissioner Fiala's,
Commissioner Coyle's, Commissioner Henning's and even
Commissioner Coletta's.
We saw it happen with the Mercato. When the Mercato was built
we saw people leave existing businesses on 41 and move into the
Mercato, and those particular buildings are still vacant.
At this point in time I think you need to take into consideration
what you've done. It was interesting to hear the statistic that nine
percent of the people wanted the community commercial at Randall,
23 percent wanted Randall and this particular one. Yet with 32
percent of the people wanting that at Randall Boulevard you still
approved it. And these particular market areas overlap.
I don't know the answer to the question. What I do know is that
Page 99
March 22, 2011
by continuing to approve community commercial on a whole, you're
going to have resultant increases in vacancy rate. And just like in
Naples Daily News yesterday you saw where a --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could you wrap up, please?
MR. COHEN: Sure, no problem.
Where you saw a description of a bankruptcy of an existing
community commercial center which was bought for a lot less where
you had vacancy rates and the prime tenant did not locate. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, the next speaker is Mark Teaters. He's
got 12 minutes by people who have ceded to him.
MR. TEA TERS: Thank you very much. Thank you,
Commissioners. Thank you very much, Commissioners.
For the record, my name is Mark Teaters. I do live within the
intersection within 1,000 feet of this project and I am involved in this
process.
Key issues as I see them here is there are two grocery stores that
are already approved. One of these two is already coming online
across the street from this project, which is going to be an IGA
between 18 and 20,000 square feet. The principal of that is here with
us here today.
1,924 residents oppose the grocery store. We're not here to say
we don't want this. I've never, ever said to the petitioner that I didn't
want this. But I can't accept the size and the sheer scope of this. My
wife was ready to go shopping. She'll drive a golf cart across the
street. The size is just too big.
Okay, there is compelling evidence that many adjacent neighbors
are not for this project. You heard about the First and Third group. It
ended up being two individuals at the end that had a gentleman that
filed the paperwork with you. There was basically two.
This is one of 10 neighborhood center subdistricts as defined by
the Golden Gate Estates Area Master Plan, so it will open the door to
more.
Page 100
March 22, 2011
Naples Daily News did recommend no on this. Something you
need to remember is the editorial stafflistened to all of us and watched
the video. And to show you how people can twist things, there were
articles written by other people within Naples Daily News, but the
editorial staff took into consideration both sides, okay?
Let's see. First of all, hey, you know what, you want a Publix?
Look at all the Publixes. All the pink are all Publix. Every road
leading into Golden Gate Estates has a Publix on it. Some of them
have a Sweet Bay, some of them have one or two Wal-Marts. Even
out here in Ave Maria. Every entrance to Golden Gate Estates has as
Publix. Everybody either works in the urban area in Naples, the folks
that work in Immokalee can stop on the way home, okay. Makes a lot
of sense.
As far as the Publix folks are concerned -- by the way, shame on
you. I did speak with Leann Goodson. I did not tell her the
community was against it. What I told her was it was against our
master plan. And she told me that it would probably -- it hadn't gone
to committee. It was on the radar screen only and that it would
probably take them two years to get to where they could build a
grocery store. That came from the same lady that you put in the letter
on the website.
Now, okay, if everybody can see that, that is Wilson Boulevard
and Golden Gate Boulevard. Look down on the right, that's the
Wilson Boulevard Center that's already there. E's is in the upper right
hand corner. That's Walgreen's. And right above the top of that is the
property that is the petitioner's.
This section right here is the five acres that's already approved
for commercial. He has in that quadrant with the three parcels 13.42
acres. Okay? 2.1 acres is in the back, 5.15 acres, 5.46 acres. This is
from the Collier Property Appraiser's paperwork.
Commissioners, next I gave you the spreadsheet -- there you go
-- that Commissioner Fiala referred to a little bit ago that will tell you,
Page 10 1
March 22, 2011
these are some supermarkets, full size supermarkets that have been
built on property in Collier County that you have approved. The
largest would be 11.34 acres. And these are full size supermarkets
with retail. They're not -- well, the only one that would be a
standalone would be Marco. Got all the pictures, I've given you all the
pictures. This is real stuff that came from your Collier Appraiser's
website.
Now, let's get to the meat and potatoes.
We did have an election, we did have campaigning. However,
we had some misinformation that was put out that was kind of
interesting. There we go, thank you very much. I'll pay you later.
The website for the petitioner, it's kind of interesting. Says here
the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council approves the
shopping center. That's really interesting.
There was your First and Third group, we talked about that
earlier. I'm not going to cover that, we know the situation there.
The -- when I saw that the Estates Shopping Center website had a
press release that talked about the Regional Planning Council
approved the plans for the grocery anchored shopping center, I started
to get interested in that. So what I did was I contacted the county via
e-mail and copied everyone in the room on it.
David Weeks responds to me that the petition had not been
transmitted to the Regional Planning Council.
So I went to the Regional Planning Council. And by the way,
very nice people. They wrote me a letter of clarification that said, as
we discussed in our meeting of March 8th, 2011, council staff does not
agree with the statements shown on the developer's internet site that
implies the council approved the proposed development. As we
related to you, council does not approve or deny projects but makes
recommendations as to the consistency of the proposed
Comprehensive Plan amendments with the SRPP, which is a regional
-- a larger scope.
Page 102
March 22, 2011
And more checking, I went back to the minutes of the March
18th, 2010 Regional Planning Council meeting, where I found
something very interesting. Our commissioner asked the rest of the
members there, and it's stated in there, it's highlighted on Page 4 under
the minutes of the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council, he
asked them to approve this amendment. It hadn't even been
transmitted. I find that really odd.
The folks at the Regional Planning Council did as well.
Now, couple last things. I noticed in the documents that were
provided by the county, the updated documents, thank you for the
updates, by the way, Michele. Let's see here. It talks about the sites.
Okay, on the last page on Page 18 it says the proposed project
size, use and intensity are out of character with the surrounding
semi-rural development pattern. Approval of this project, a
community size center and use intensity may diminish the value of
existing commercial properties. We've heard all that. Project size is
located 3.5 and 5.5 road miles of approved community centers and
right across the street from one that's being opened next week. With a
butcher, by the way. They're going to have Angus beef, from what I
understand.
I understand the will of the community. I'm not here to tell you
that we don't want this. The deal is it has to be right, it has to be the
right size.
Couple of other things I want to cover. There is an issue with the
environmental data provided on the site plan. I'm concerned whether
it's going to meet the compliance in the policies of the Conservation
and Coastal Management Element. And I know that you're going to
get involved in that soon.
Also, I think they left out, and I think Michele may have covered
it, it is inconsistent with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. It was
noted in the earlier meeting that we all attended, the big long one that
was a CIrcus.
Page 103
March 22, 2011
Reference to the CIGM. I am on the Collier Interactive Growth
Model Committee. One thing you have to remember is the Collier
Interactive Growth Model is an urban model. It uses an urban
standard. It's basically facts in, facts out. It just -- it converts what
you put into it. It's a machine, basically. The architect of that, which
is Dr. VanBuskirk, will tell you, as he has told all of us, there's other
people in this room, that any master plan or any local decisions trump
the CIGM.
So I find it odd that staff now has switched the master plan for
the CIGM. The CIGM doesn't even respond -- is not even taking into
consideration all of Collier County. So how can you look at that and
say the CIGM is telling you something when you had nine other
Publixes that weren't even included in the CIGM? It's kind of
interesting.
Recently you voted 5-0 to maintain the Golden Gate Area Master
Plan. We're just asking you to do it again.
And I think that's probably all I have today. I'm recommending
that you deny this. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE:
Commissioners, Mr. Teeters had a minute left. May I ask --
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Duane Billington
and he'll be followed by the last speaker, Greg Carlisle.
MR. BILLINGTON: For the record, my name's Duane
Billington. I agree with Mr. Teaters, this is a size issue. You're going
to -- we have a surplus of commercial in this county. Commissioner
Fiala pointed out some of the size problems and comparisons, and she
is correct.
Commissioner Hiller mentioned that shopping center's across the
street. Well, I was recently at one of those centers. The Borders is
going out of business, that's going to be vacant. And in that center
they are about 40 percent vacant even before Borders goes out --
Page 104
March 22, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's not the location. That's not
where the shopping centers are. The shopping centers are at -- they're
catty-corner at the intersection of Vanderbilt and 41. One is in
Mercato and the other is across the street --
MR. BILLINGTON: I apologize.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Murray, Murray, what's the name
of the center by Pelican Bay?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, let him finish.
You can clarity it later. Don't interrupt him.
MR. BILLINGTON: Okay, let me restate that to compare it to
the shopping centers at the intersection ofImmokalee Road and U.S.
41. And that in fact one of those is 40 percent vacant and now
Borders is going out of business. We have a surplus of commercial
land, period.
The referendum that was held was not restricted to people of the
Estates. There are people of Orangetree that voted on that. That's a
very diff -- that neighborhood has a very different character. The rural
Estates is a special place, should be treated that way.
The exhibit that the petitioner brought in, if we could put that on
the visualizer.
That hasn't been vetted by county staff. It hasn't been vetted for
any regulations. It could be an artistic rendering such as Mr.
Y ovanovich brought to our civic association meeting a couple months
ago on another project. That project was going to have 110 assisted
living units. And it had 18 parking places.
Well, actually it requires 75, but nonetheless, I assure you it had
a lot of green space. So this can't be interpreted without vetting as
being representative of what's going in there. And I think the overall
argument on this is let's keep this small if you choose to grant it. We
don't need a Coastland Center in the rural Estates. Thank you.
MR. CARLISLE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Greg Carlisle. I do own the plaza that's located directly across the
Page 105
March 22, 2011
street from the proposed plaza. I'm not prepared because I was only
asked recently to comment on this. When I was presented that they
were doing it, my response was it's smoke and mirrors. Nobody is
going to put in a large facility ofthis scale in this economy. You've
got a seven to 10-year -- you know the facts, seven to 10-year
absorption rate on the vacancies right now. So banks are not going to
go in and finance it. The insurance companies are not going to
finance it. The only way it'll happen is private money.
I think that the -- I applaud Mr. Crown's enthusiasm, but I do
question if the voters were aware of the vacancies in the immediate
area.
As I stated, I own a six-acre parcel that encompasses 36,000
square feet. Each and every individual that supports this and
optimistically believes it succeeded failed to address the current
market conditions, which are easily quantified by my center's
performance. Of the 14 tenants that have occupied the center over the
course of the last 18 months, only three are still operating. This is a 79
percent failure rate.
I've not been able to attract quantified tenants, and found that the
only way to fill the vacancies is to put my personal capital and operate
them myself.
I further question if what was presented to the voters was
transparent. Did the voters realize that in order for a large grocery
store to take occupancy that it will need to go -- it will not go in on a
septic system? The closest sewage and water lines are five miles
away.
Did the public realize that the number of public vacancies
directly across the street that I just stated?
Additionally, a bank was, I think, one of the uses that I was told.
But a bank already owns the parcel right across the street. They own
it free and clear. They're not willing to go in and put the additional
money in, which is $400,000, because they don't feel the need's there
Page 106
March 22, 2011
in this market condition.
Everything else I needed to discuss was pretty much covered,
other than I am currently working with my architect to put in a
grocery store that has a large produce and meat center. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. That was the last speaker?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Was Commissioner Henning or Hiller
first? Which would you prefer?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Always ladies first.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. One of the speakers, I
believe it was -- I think it was Mark, you presented the Southwest
Florida Regional Planning Council's letter.
MR. TEETERS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: This is the first time I've seen it,
and I just want to comment on what it says. Because it says, based on
the county staff report the proposed development went through
parameter changes as it was reviewed by the Collier County Planning
Commission and the petitioner worked with county staff to resolve the
required changes.
I just want to clarity for the record, did you go through the
changes with the Collier County petition -- I mean Collier County
Planning Commission and make the modifications that they
requested?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The answer -- let me take a step back, if
you will. First of all, yes, we made the changes that we committed to
at the hearing in front of the Planning Commission. And that's what
was presented to the Board of County Commissioners at the
transmittal hearing.
We did not provide the petition to the RPc. That came from the
county. And the RPC reviewed it, made their recommendation, and
we put their recommendation on our website.
Page 107
March 22, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Got it. Thanks for the
clarification.
So this was actually presented to the Regional Planning Council
by the commissioners, or by the Board of County Commissioners.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It wasn't by us, I can tell you that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let me just continue.
And then basically as a result you reduced the size based on the
recommendations of the Planning Commission and you increased the
project's buffers and increased the project's building setbacks.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. And then you additionally
dealt with the -- with providing additional analysis and data, which in
part addressed the need for the services that would be provided by the
project, as well as the environmental impact to promote energy
conservation and efficiency.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And so then the conclusion of the
council -- and this is the part that's interesting to me; this is what I
want to bring out when I read this -- is that in fact that the design of
this project would in fact reduce vehicle trips traveled, and by
promoting commercial and employment opportunities proximate to
the area's residents. And that the council staff agreed with the county
staffs traffic observations. The council also determined that it was not
regionally significant and that it agreed with respect to its character as
a needed shopping facility in Golden Gate Estates.
And then it went on to say what Mark said, which is staff also
found the proposed development, given the development parameter
conditions being placed on the development by the petitioner and the
county are consistent with the SRPP, which is the Strategic Regional
Policy Plan. And that the role of the council is not to approve or deny
but to make recommendation as to consistency with proposed
Comprehensive Plan Amendments with the SRPP.
Page 108
March 22, 2011
And their conclusion was, was that they did approve the staff
recommendations made to the DCA.
So I think those comments, in other words, they're -- and they
made a comment that they're one of the reviewing agencies. So I
guess in their opinion they concurred with what was proposed.
So I think that's very important.
The other thing that I heard in the comments made, and I think all
the comments -- I'm very glad that they're all on the record and reflect,
you know, the various positions of the various people affected by this
project -- is that with respect to the individuals who are immediately
close to the project, there does not seem -- and those are the ones,
obviously, you know, I want to hear what their concerns are. But
there doesn't seem to be a consistency in the position or a consensus in
the position with respect to how they would be adversely impacted.
In fact, there was a survey done by one of the speakers which I
thought was very important, because they actually came out with
specifics, if you'll bear with me one minute.
Okay, that when they went and polled the people in the
immediate proximity of the center that would be adversely affected by
it or positively affected, as the case may be in their respective
opinions, that in total it was basically a split. And that in total 49
homes were in opposition.
And, you know, let's assume that that represents double the
number in terms of actual residents, in all fairness, as compared to
what was said, that 7,900 in the community voted for it.
So I mean, I do always feel very much for the people who are
immediately close to a project, but I think because of your design--
and that's why I feel very strongly that this should be submitted with
the detail that there be very significant buffers to protect those people
in the adjacent neighborhood, that they're not adversely impacted.
You know, I see a lot oflakes, I see a lot of vegetation, and 1
again want to ensure that that is preserved on the record in transmittal
Page 109
March 22, 2011
to the state to protect the interests of those immediate residents.
But I have a very hard time making the argument that, you know,
7,900 people said yes and let's double the number from 49 to -- I
mean, let's just round it to 100. I mean -- or, you know. That's a very
disproportionate representation. And I would really be very
concerned in denying what 7,900 people want. I think it would be a
big problem.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Chair, I just have a few comments. I
don't know if it's appropriate at this point or if it's question and answer
time. Whatever the Chair --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, it's apparent to me that we'll spend
the rest of the day on this issue. So at some point in time it would be
my intent to break away from this issue and go to the one important
issue of business that we have here today, which is the property
insurance proposal. But I don't see this ending any time soon.
But go ahead and make your comments. And we're going to take
a break. I think our next scheduled break is at I :00. So we'll continue
this debate for 20 more minutes.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I'm not going to -- I'm hopefully
not going to take that long. But real briefly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I know you aren't.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Real briefly. I want to address a couple
of comments that were said.
First of all, I know this is a deviation from the Growth
Management Plan. I wouldn't be here proposing a Growth
Management Plan Amendment if I wasn't asking for something
different than was already allowed. I get that.
The gentleman who most recently spoke talks about a
neighborhood center on five acres. He makes the point that it's a
failed concept out in Golden Gate Estates. You've got to have
anchored centers to be successful. You've got a bad concept out there
today.
Page 110
March 22, 2011
Coastland Mall is on 70 acres and it has a million square feet.
That is not a comparison that is even close to what we're asking for.
What we're asking for is that master plan right there that calls for
about 50 percent of the site being green open space. We can't build
King's Lake or any other urban center out in Golden Gate Estates
because water and sewer doesn't exist.
A lot of that area will be our water plant and our sewer treatment
plant. We will not be building a septic system. We will be spending a
lot of money to put in the properly sized package plant to support the
grocery store that the community wants. So we will be providing that.
Mr. Teeters put up some examples of shopping centers and he
said the River Chase Shopping Center, I think he had it at like 67,000
square feet. That's the Publix. He didn't tell you that the River Chase
Shopping Center is actually 167,000 square feet. Nor did he tell you
that Pebble brook is actually approved for 231,000 square feet. So the
exhibits he put up there was the Publix envelope, not the shopping
center envelope.
The bottom line is this: They want you to ignore the voters.
Why do they want you to ignore the voters? It's because that's the
only way they can win. They never liked the fact that we were going
to the voters in the first place. I was in the hallway after we had the
transmittal meeting, and we got continued. They were not happy.
They didn't want to go to the voters because they were afraid that
maybe I was right and our client was right. If we went to the voters,
the voters would speak.
They spoke resoundingly. Three out of four people said we want
this center. There was no ambiguity in that language. They want to
take away the voters' right to vote. They want you to ignore the
voters.
They say the voters were uninformed. I think that's far from the
truth. We provided plenty of information to the voters, and I think
that that's frankly a little insulting to the voters to tell them they didn't
Page 111
March 22, 2011
really know what they were voting on, especially when it was three
out of four people who voted yes.
We -- you know, current events around the world today, you
could see that we live in one of the greatest countries that there is. We
have the right to vote. We have the vote to tell our elected officials
what we want. The community has done that. Other countries don't
have that luxury. We do have that luxury. And you shouldn't take
away someone's vote simply because a minority of the people out
there don't like this proposal.
You voted not to do a restudy because the community said after
the election, don't restudy. If you follow what people are saying -- and
I'm going to put one last exhibit up there. This is from your staff
report. This is the same methodology that the Randall Boulevard
Center went through. If you look there, you'll see in the year 2020,
when you combine community center or neighborhood center
demand, it's almost 800,000 square feet of demand. If you include
Randall, you include us and you include Orange Blossom, you're still
60,000 square feet short.
It gets worse as the years go out. And I submit to you, if you
follow the recommendation that caps us at 100,000 square feet, you'll
have two major centers out there and at least four 100,000 square foot
centers on the corners. Ifthat's not changing the character of Golden
Gate Estates, I don't know what is.
What we're proposing is a quality center. Between us, Orange
Blossom and Randall, we could satisfY the demand that's out there and
it's under the methodology that you had previously accepted.
And with that I conclude my remarks because I would hope that
maybe we can get through the transmittal portion of this to DCA
before your 1 :00 hour.
But we are available to answer any questions you may have
regarding the details of this center, should you have any.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
Page 112
March 22, 2011
MR. TEETERS: Since he directly --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Public comment period is over. If one of
the commissioners wants to ask you a question, we'll invite you to the
microphone, okay?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What I would like to see, we
don't know -- the Governor is proposing to do away with the
Department of Community Affairs. Things have changed.
I would like, regardless whether DCA is there or not, for the
Planning Commission to look at these issues. I think there's a lot of
important things that were brought up that we don't have the time to
divulge them and make an informed decision. That's why we really
rely on the Planning Commission. That's one thing.
The second thing is I would like to see the particular uses come
back in the form of the PUD, not the Growth Management Plan
Amendment.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can I address that real quickly?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm not done yet.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. We're already in for the
PUD, just to let you know.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And the site planning, I
don't know why Commissioner Hiller and I are disagreeing so much
today, but don't let it happen again. I don't believe we need that detail
in the Growth Management Plan, personally. Those uses need to be,
you know, analyzed by not the comprehensive staff but the planning
staff. So that's what I would like to see.
And with the recommendations from the Planning Commission, I
think that we can make an informed decision.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I respond to your comment,
Commissioner Henning?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, Commissioner Coletta is next.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
Page 113
March 22, 2011
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
Wow, this is probably one of the most interesting meetings I've
been to in a long time. We heard a lot of real neat comments. I'm
shocked and disappointed, one person said, that this has taken so long.
Of course we've never seen anything in government here go fast.
When you've got 300,000 shareholders plus and they all want to weigh
in at some point in time, it does take a long time to get there. And all
the amount of discovery and public meetings and everything.
Can't afford to drive a distance. One car moving to get groceries
with the cost of gas and everything, it's $5.00. If the family's got a
limited budget, underemployed or unemployed, it means a lot that
$5.00. And that's not something that's going to change for a long time.
Even in our best of times, families with children and everything,
money has always been a strong consideration. This area that we're
talking about does represent large families. It's not a retirement
community, it's a family community, and it will be into the future.
Center has green spaces, another person commented. And that's
what the Estates is all about. And that's correct, you know, we love
the greenery and everything, and the buffers put in place are to
preserve that.
I live next to it and I'm for it. And we heard that from a number
of people. We also heard some other people that live next to it that
they hate the idea of it. We went through the same thing with the
center that went in on 951, and what was that, First? What was that
one where Publix went in, the last one? Pine Ridge and 951. Man,
this room was filled time after time.
And as it went forward and the thing was built, have you ever
heard somebody come back and tell you that it was a bad idea?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It wasn't.
Okay, Commissioner Henning has. Of course that is his side of
his road and his district, so he probably would hear that when I
Page 114
March 22,2011
wouldn't. But I mean, the acceptance of it was pretty universal for the
most part.
Respect the concept of democracy. That's an interesting one.
You know, we talk about the master plan, we refer to our rules and
regulations, we refer to our Planning Commission, refer to the
different departments, refer to the studies as far as transportation.
What are all these studies done for? They're done for one reason: To
seek out the will of the people so you can go forward with a plan that
happens.
None of the rest of those things count other than the people. And
to try to come up with the will of the people is a difficult task, I'll tell
you. As Commissioner Coyle would say, it's harder than herding cats.
It's very difficult to get to that process.
So what did we do, we broke the norm in this case, we put this on
the ballot. And the ballot came back 3-1 saying do it.
I knew this was the direction it was going. I was part of the old
guard. I was there for the first master plan in '92. I chaired it. And I
can tell you people were extremely conservative back then. They
were even opposed before that to G's going in. And they fought him
to a dead stop for a number of years out there.
And the old guard has changed. There's been an evolution taking
place over the years. And what you have there is a completely
different animal than it was before. People originally moved out there
for the idea of farmettes, to be able to raise vegetables, have some
horses in the back, chickens. That's how they advertised the Estates
back, you know, 40 years ago.
Well, that's all changed. Now it's become a family community.
And stop and think about it. Is it really that rural? I mean, didn't we
put a bunch of schools out there to meet the population needs? What
about the EMS and fire departments? We don't have enough of them, I
grant you that. But we got them through the place. We got one library
and we're fighting for more libraries. Parks are going in. By the way,
Page 115
March 22, 2011
fellow Commissioners, not fast enough, by the way.
So let's be realistic in where we're going. Let's make sure that the
plans that we're doing really reflect, one, the will of the community
and are sustainable.
And I don't know about you, but I've got all the faith in the world
in the free market system. I really do. And what happened in this past
recession, you can't draw parallels to what's going to happen in the
future. People built like crazy because there was such a pent-up
demand, they thought it would never be satisfied, they overbuilt.
We're at a different point in our history now. What happens
another 30 years from now, anybody's guess. But meanwhile you got
to meet the needs of the residents. And nothing about Golden Gate
Estates fits our standard model for providing services, whether it's for
roads, drainage, libraries or even retail services.
The location of this project at the intersection of two main roads
serves Golden Gate Estates makes sense, because it can easily serve so
many people on their way to and from work. Certainly the residents of
the area have overwhelmingly said they think it makes sense.
What I'm hearing from staff is that we do not have to be bound
by definitions of neighborhoods or community shopping centers, and
that if we believe that the proposed 190 square feet center makes
sense, we can transmit it.
I support the project and would like to make a motion to transmit
CP-2008-1 to DCA with the following findings?
One: The voters of Golden Gate Estates overwhelmingly
supported the shopping center at this location and at the size of
190,000 square feet.
Two: That it is needed for retail services in Golden Gate Estates,
and the proposed shopping center helps address the demand.
Three: The location of the center will reduce traffic already on
the road system traveling to other shopping centers.
Four: The center will provide employment opportunities to
Page 116
March 22, 2011
residents in Golden Gate Estates.
And five: The proposed center will reduce greenhouse gases
because it reduces vehicle miles traveled.
And that's my motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you include staffs
recommendation, I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One more time, Commissioner
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you include staffs
recommendation, I'll second your motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Staff recommendations, as they
stand. I think we'd need more discussion on that before I can do it. If
you want to go through them item by item, I'm willing to do it. But
right at this point in time I want to try to meet the will of the voters.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: If! might, just to tell you, Commissioner
Henning, I think we can get to the same place as what you raise.
We have submitted our PUD application, and our goal was for
the PUD hearing and the Compo Plan adoption meeting to occur at the
same time. If that in fact occurs, then your concern about specifics in
the Compo Plan and the specific master plan can be addressed, because
we could -- because you'll have your PUD right there so the
community will have the specifics it needs, and it may not be
necessary to include it in the Compo Plan itself.
We're pushing to make sure that those two things happen at the
same time to gird the community's certainty. If for some reason we
get delayed on the PUD Amendment, the Compo Plan may need to
include the details and the master plan. But it's certainly not our intent.
Our intent is to make both of those happen at the same time.
So I just wanted to respond to one of your concerns about the
specificity in the Compo Plan language and your desire to have the
PUD address all that. It's our desire as well, and it looks like they're
going to track at the same time.
Page 117
March 22, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm waiting for Michele Mosca.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do we have a second yet?
Not yet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Michele, the recommendations
is to have uses of C-l through C-3 and the maximum square feet of
commercial uses --
MS. MOSCA: That's correct. That's staffs recommendation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Is 190. Am I on the right
page? No, that's Planning Commission.
MS. MOSCA: It's Page 18 of the supplemental staff report.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, supplemental. That's the
second tab -- or first tab. Why don't you go through them for us,
please.
MS. MOSCA: Staffhad recommended C-l through C-3
commercial land uses; a limitation of20,000 square feet cap for
individual uses, with the exception that the grocery use may exceed
the cap.
Staff also recommended a neighborhood size center, which
typically ranges up to 100,000 square feet. Can exceed that but we're
recommending a neighborhood size.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that one I'm not sure
about because there's just -- that's what the Planning Commission I
think is for too. I'm looking on the internet and I'm finding different
things to what was presented, so I'm just not sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I make --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ifwe can keep that in there and
let the Planning Commission deal with the square footage of
commercial, I would feel much more comfortable.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would agree with you there,
but I'm reluctant on the 20,000 cap unless somebody can explain to
me what the repercussions would be for the intent of the original
referendum that was out there and how we're fulfilling it.
Page 118
March 22, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll tell you why. You'll get a
Walgreen's if you don't put a cap on a single use.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You mean a Wal-Mart?
MS. MOSCA: I[I may --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart. yeah, you
could get a Wal-Mart. With just one Wal-Mart that has a grocery
store that would fit. And I'm not sure if that was really what the people
in Golden Gate Estates wants. They want the rural character look--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can we go into discussion?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, it's your motion --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Because we do have to get
through this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, it's your motion. But, you know,
I'm not sure it's clear to the petitioner what we're talking about. The
best way I think to resolve this would be to ask you, do you
understand what Commissioner Henning wants you to do, and
Commissioner Coletta, and is it agreeable to you? And if not, let's
focus on the differences.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe, Commissioner Henning, to
address directly the 30,000 square foot number, I think that's really
what we're talking about right now. Right now I think you're saying
let's transmit the 190 and let the Planning Commission deal with it
when it comes back. But the 30,000 square foot cap your concern was
we could put a Wal-Mart in together with a grocery store because a
Wal-Mart is 30,000 square feet or less. I--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think it says 20,000 square feet.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well that's staffs recommendation. Ours
is 30,000. We already have a 30,000 square foot cap.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: So we already have a 30,000 square foot
cap in there. So the 20, you know -- and I don't know ofa Wal-Mart
that's 30,000 square feet or less. So we already have a 30,000 square
Page 119
March 22, 2011
foot cap other than for the grocery store.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No problem with C-l through
C-3, correct? There's nothing in C-4 you'd want to put in there, is
there?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Honestly, there are some uses that are
office space uses that actually are C-4 and C-5 type uses, but you
would never think they are those uses.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, but you're not going to
have storage with them, correct?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's the difference. That's
what makes them the higher use, because you're not going to have
blocks, you're not going to store --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: What I would like to -- I would like to--
of course you know what I would like. But if we could transmit and
then get to those types of details, if there's a C-4 use that we need to
modifY because it would include storage that we need to maybe take
that use out, I'm not prepared to tell you today which one of these uses
are C-4 or above that we might need to keep in.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 1 know.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: So we could do that as part of the -- well,
we've already gone through every one of these uses with our neighbor,
and we took out storage related to contractors' offices and all those
good things. That all came out in the review. So, I mean, I would --
that's the only I've got to say. I can't -- I don't know that we can agree
to a flat cap on C-l through C-3.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you would include in your
motion that the Planning Commission make recommendations prior to
adoption, I will be okay with it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I'll put that in my motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He already did.
Page 120
March 22, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, you seconded it?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Henning was
going to, but it doesn't matter, whoever wants to.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't care.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we have a motion by
Commissioner Coletta and I seconded it.
(Laughter. )
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Like they say in government, too
much too late.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
No, it really was either Commissioner Henning or Commissioner
Hiller. Commissioner Henning says he doesn't care, so we'll let
Commissioner Hiller take credit for the second.
Okay, we still have two people who want to speak, and
Commissioner Hiller is one of those.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just wanted to clarity for
Commissioner Henning, normally I would agree with you, I wouldn't
put in detail -- I just wanted to make sure that detail was included
because people voted on it. And I just didn't want there to be any
doubt in anybody's mind that whatever was being transmitted was in
fact what they were being voted on.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It wasn't. They didn't get the
specificity of the different SIC codes in the vote.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Got it. And that's where I stand
corrected, and I don't disagree with you. Because normally I think the
detail should be at the level you described.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Just Michele, with the owner's
property as-is, they already -- if they just built on both five-acre pieces
of property, they could already build a Publix, right, and so forth? I
mean, they could build two neighborhood shopping centers, right?
MS. MOSCA: Well-- I'm going to let you finish. Go ahead.
Page 121
March 22, 2011
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's my first question.
MS. MOSCA: Okay. They have five acres currently that's
designated neighborhood center. The other two tracts are transitional
conditional use sites. So they would be limited to that five-acre site.
And because they are within wellfield zones, I'm not sure what
development they could place where because of that limitation.
To typically get a grocery anchored shopping center with the
required buffering that we have within the Golden Gate Area Master
Plan, I don't know if that is likely.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What happens to those well fields? I
mean, if they get this approval for 40 acres, what happens to the
wellfields?
MS. MOSCA: I'd have to defer to Utilities. But the uses
themselves will be addressed during the Site Development Plan phase
to make sure those uses are consistent with those well field zones.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I remember one time we were
working on a Wal-Mart -- and it's interesting that Commissioner
Henning referred to a Wal-Mart as well, because this was in my notes
-- we were working on a Wal-Mart here to go on 951 right across from
Eagle Creek Shopping Center. And it was interesting, because I said
to them -- because I just didn't feel it should belong there, especially
with neighborhoods all surrounding it.
And I said, and what about night deliveries? Because of course
Wal-Mart is a 24-hour store. They said, we don't have night deliveries.
I said, you don't? You know, I thought you delivered at night.
No, they said, we don't start deliveries till 4:00 a.m.
That's kind of interesting, isn't it? So later on when you start
working on this, make sure -- I don't think a lot of people realize
what's going to happen. I live a mile away from King's Lake
Shopping Center, half this size, and I hear them doing all of their
garbage dumping in the morning and picking up all their recyclables
and all. And I live a mile away and I hear the delivery trucks.
Page 122
March 22, 2011
For people that are living right next door, that's going to be tough
for them. So, you know, I can't vote for this.
And Mr. Greaves, it's my family that lives there. Not only my
child but my grandchildren. So anyway --
(Speaker shouting from the audience.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Anyway, so I cannot vote for it
because I'm afraid of what's going to happen. I know that they can
already build. I know that they've already got a grocery store that's
near completion, as well as a Walgreen's and so forth. So it isn't like
anybody has to go very far, they're right there already. And they've
got the permission to continue to build.
I just feel something this immense could have some
repercussions, and I'm concerned with that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signifY by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, the motion passes 4-1 with
Commissioner Fiala dissenting.
We will take a 10-minute break. And by the way -- well, before
we take the break, I would like to make a motion that we table the rest
of this Growth Management Plan Amendment for a very short period,
I hope, and go to Item 10.C, because that is approval to purchase our
property insurance, and if we don't get that done at this meeting it
could have --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- have cost implications for us.
So there's a second to the motion to table.
Page 123
March 22, 2011
All in favor, please signifY by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And then we should handle 9.B and
C, because --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, we'll do that immediately after we
get this other item out of the way.
(A recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, ladies and gentlemen, we are back
. .
III seSSIOn.
Item # lOC
THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY INSURANCE EFFECTIVE
APRIL 1,2011 IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,105,825, A REDUCTION
OF $313,123, AND EXECUTING ANY APPLICATIONS OR
OTHER DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO BIND COVERAGE AND
SERVICES - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We will go to Item 10.C--
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and I hope that it will go quickly. And
if so, we will return to our time certain, at least one of them.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, this is a recommendation to approve the
purchase of property insurance effective April 1,2011 in the amount
of$3,105,825, reduction of$313,123, and authorize the County
Manager/Designee to execute any applications or other documents
Page 124
March 22, 2011
necessary to bind the coverage and services.
Mr. Ray Carter from your Risk Management Department is
available to take questions or provide a presentation at the Board's
please.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- Commissioner Henning, seconded by
Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Fast enough?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That was pretty darn fast.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
MR. CARTER: Thank you, Commissioners.
MR. OCHS: Thank you very much.
Item #8A (Tabled from earlier in the meeting)
RESOLUTION 2011-59, RESOLUTION 2011-60 AND
RESOLUTION 2011-61: THE 2010 CYCLE OF GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS, INCLUDING ONE 2008
CYCLE PETITION, FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (DCA) FOR
Page 125
March 22, 2011
REVIEW AND OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND
COMMENTS (ORC) RESPONSE - RESOLUTION 2011-59
ADOPTED FOR PETITION CP-2010-1; RESOLUTION 2011-60
ADOPTED W/STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PETITION
CPSP-2010-2; AND RESOLUTION 2011-61 ADOPTED
W / AL TERNA TIVE #2 FOR PETITION CPSP-20 1 0-5
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, we will remove from the table the
Growth Management Plan Amendments and try to finish up the two--
we have two more to go?
MR. OCHS: You have four more, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Four more.
MR.OCHS: I'm sorry, three. I'm told three.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right, let's split the difference.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You mean, 9.B and C?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, we're -- no, no.
MR. OCHS: We're finishing 8.A, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're finishing 8.A.
MR. OCHS: We're bringing that on--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So we'll finish 8.A as quickly as we can
and then we will go to 9.B and C.
MR. OCHS: Petitioner?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry.
At the risk of being too brief, I'm going -- I'm Rich Y ovanovich
on behalf of the petitioner. With me is Doug Nelson, who represents
the property owner, and Wayne Arnold as well.
This is an amendment to amend the Vanderbilt Beach Road
Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict to eliminate a 20,000 square
foot cap on uses for just a limited number of uses. We worked with
our neighborhood, with the representatives of the surrounding
neighborhood. We've agreed that prior to the adoption hearing we'll
have in effect an appropriate deed restriction to address all of their
Page 126
March 22, 2011
concerns.
The Planning Commission recommended 9-0 unanimously in
favor of the proposed change to the com -- this subdistrict. I think it
would be on summary agenda if you had a summary agenda for
comprehensive plan amendments.
I know you have commissioners that need to leave, so at the risk
of being too brief, we're requesting that this be transmitted to DCA for
their review and comment.
And again, it was unanimously recommended for approval by the
Planning Commission.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Rich, there's no way you could ever be
too brief.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Why did I expect that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: This is the project that Mr. Foyer
and his group had concerns about, was that correct?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr.?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Foyer.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, yes. I know them by first names,
I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just wanted to clarity that.
I'm very happy that you've resolved all the issues with them and
so I'd like to make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, motion to approve by
Commissioner Hiller, seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
And Commissioner Henning, did you have something?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I just -- I'm glad you
worked it out with the neighbors, because it would have been a long
meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: See what brevity can get you?
Page 127
March 22, 2011
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I should have tried earlier.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signifY by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you.
MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, I'm David Weeks of the
Comprehensive Planning Section, and I'm presenting the first of two
staff -- or county initiated petitions. This is CPSP-201O-5 (sic). It's a
-- we'll call it batch petition in that there are multiple changes being
proposed.
I submit to you that there are four that could be considered of
substance. The first is a proposed change to Policy 5.1 of the Future
Land Use Element, which would allow redistribution of uses, density
and intensity for qualifYing properties.
Secondly, a modification of the office and infill commercial
subdistrict pertaining to its applicability.
Third, changes to the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle
Redevelopment Overlay for the purpose of deleting a development
standard, adding a use and adding clarity regarding the applicability of
certain Future Land Use Element policies. And I would note that
those changes are at the request of the Bayshore CRA.
And finally, and importantly, an update to the Collier County
well-field protection areas and proposed wellfields and ASR's map.
Policies within the Conservation and Coastal Management
Element require a modeling effort of the wellfields periodically and if
Page 128
March 22, 2011
necessary, based upon that modeling, to update the map. And that is
part of this request. The modeling report is in your backup materials.
Subsequent to this map change, assuming you approve it, then
the Land Development Code which contains maps with much greater
detail of the well-field zones and at the regular story component, most
particularly regarding restriction of certain land uses, would need to be
amended as well.
And that brings me to my concluding comments, and that is that
this petition is different than others in that we have two requests of
you. First is a recommendation to approve the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment.
Secondly is to authorize staff to initiate the amendments to those
Land Development Code maps so that they could be brought back to
you simultaneously at adoption.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. First of all, I might have
misunderstood you. Did you say CPSP 2010-2 or 5?
MR. WEEKS: Two. Hopefully I said 2.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay, good. But I thought I
heard you say 5 and so that's what -- I thought we were on 2.
So with that, I'd like to make a motion to approve both sections
of --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Including both of staffs
recommendations?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's motion by Commissioner Fiala.
Seconded by?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signifY by saying
Page 129
March 22, 2011
aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
MR. SCHMIDT: Commissioners, good afternoon. This is
CPSP-2010-5.
MR.OCHS: For the record?
MR. SCHMIDT: For the record, Corby Schmidt with your
Comprehensive Planning Section.
In December some decisions were made by the Board and you
directed staff to prepare amendments to the Davis Boulevard/County
Barn Road mixed use subdistrict.
Two alternatives were developed: One that kept a subdistrict as a
single use subdistrict and another alternative, alternative two, which
removes subdistrict language from the comprehensive plan entirely.
Staff, as well as the Planning Commission, agreed and
recommended alternative number two, and that's the recommendation
we bring to you today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there any speakers?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There are--
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, there are no speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: My green light is on.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the landowner is in favor of
alternative two, is that your understanding?
MR. GOLDMEIER: (Nods head affirmatively.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, it is?
Page 130
March 22, 2011
Your name, for the record?
MR. GOLD MEIER: I'm Barry Goldmeier.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Goldmeier is in favor of
alternative two.
I'll make a motion to transmit with the recommendations of
alternative two.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, motion by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala to approve the transmission
of Petition CCSP-20 10-5 with alternative two.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signifY by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion carries unanimously.
MR. GOLD MEIER: Thank you.
MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, County Manager, that takes us to
9.B.
Item #9B
BOARD CONSIDERATION OF A CHANGE TO THE TOURIST
DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL ORDINANCE THAT WILL ALLOW
FOR THE COUNCIL TO DIRECT TOURIST DEVELOPMENT
Page 131
March 22, 2011
STAFF, COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT STAFF AND
COUNTY MUSEUM'S STAFF INDEPENDENT OF THE COUNTY
MANAGER WITH REGARD TO MATTERS WITHIN THE
TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL'S PURVIEW -
DISCUSSED; W/COUNTY ATTORNEY VERIFYING ON THE
RECORD THAT IN HIS OPINION THERE HAVE BEEN NO
VIOLATIONS REGARDING THE COUNTY MANAGER
ORDINANCE
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, that's your time certain for 11 :00 a.m. 9.B,
yes, SIr.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We just barely made it, didn't we?
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir.
It's board consideration of a change to the Tourist Development
Council Ordinance that will allow for the council to direct Tourist
Development staff, Coastal Zone Management stuff and County
Museums staff, independent of the County Manager, with regard to
matters within the Tourist Development Council's purview.
And this was added to the agenda by Commissioner Hiller.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The reason I brought this forward,
because I know that's a question that's been asked of me, was because
the County Manager's Ordinance precludes commissioners from
directing staff with respect to tasks. And there is nothing in that
ordinance that allows -- and in fact let me add that this ordinance
provides that it's criminal if a county commissioner directs staff by-
passing the County Manager.
So obviously because it's a criminal ordinance, the County
Manager can't volunteer to allow a county commissioner to direct
staff. Because to do so in effect would be, as the article in the Naples
Daily News said, in effect aiding and abetting. And we certainly don't
want to put the County Manager in that kind of situation.
Page 132
March 22, 2011
And my understanding is the County Manager has not allowed
commissioners to deal directly and task staff.
However, what is going on with the TDC is a little bit different.
We have -- and the TDC is different from the advisory boards.
They're not -- it's not a comparable board because the TDC is a board
that is created by statute, like the Planning Commission. And the
TDC by the vote of its board, which does include a sitting county
commissioner, appointed through vote of this Board, will direct staff
to engage in tasks.
And so to -- and the County Manager doesn't want to come to the
TDC meetings. He's got a lot on his plate and he doesn't want to be
there. So we want to basically facilitate his ability not to have to
attend these meetings and not to be in violation of his own ordinance.
And so I spoke to the County Attorney about this. And he said,
well, the solution is very simple. He said, I understand exactly what
you're saying, not a problem, I get it. We just need to amend the
Tourist Development ordinance to parallel what we have in the
Planning Commission Ordinance.
And it's a minor change; it's a -- really it's housekeeping, if you
will. And basically that would allow Mr. Ochs not to have to attend
the TDC meetings and to allow for the TDC to vote tasks directed at
county staff.
And it works very effectively with the Planning Commission and
the planning staff of the county. And it should work the same way
between the TDC Board and the staff that serves that board.
So I'd like to, you know, ask that the board consider that the
recommendation made by County Attorney Klatzkow be brought
forward as an amendment to the Tourist Development ordinance to
allow for the Tourist Development Council to, you know, direct staff
by majority vote and to not require County Manager Ochs to attend
these meetings without there being any, you know, consideration that
it be viewed as a violation of the County Manager's Ordinance.
Page 133
March 22, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I never gave it any thought, but
I think you really hit it on the head. There's a lot of times that the
Tourist Development Council will say okay, we approve this item but
we direct you next year bring blah, blah, blah, and that's exactly what
you're talking about. So in that case you can't vote for it because it's
actually directing staff to --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- do something. And you're not
talking about a one county commissioner directing staff, you're talking
about the council.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. And it does directly affect
the one county commissioner, but it affects the council as a whole.
And so I just -- the first set of eyes seeing something maybe no one
saw before.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. I'm going to make that
motion that we direct the County Attorney, because we can do that, to
bring back the amended ordinance.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, I -- so far there's no second so I'll
chime in here.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The question is, has this been run
through the TDC?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't know. And I'm not sure
that this is a matter that necessarily would be -- I have to think about
that. Because I think this really more directly affects the
commissioner sitting on the TDC than the whole board.
Because I'm not sure -- and, you know, you need to help me on
this, Jeff. I don't know that the whole board is necessarily affected, I
think it would be like the individual commission. What do you think?
And do you think that this would have to go through the TDC?
Because again, I'm not sure -- and let me just restate it. I'm not
Page 134
March 22, 2011
sure that this is even -- I don't think that this is even something that we
cannot do. Because quite frankly, not to do it does immediately put
Leo, now that we're all aware of it, in a compromise situation.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I don't agree with that. We've had the
TDC for many, many years. They've never had this ordinance.
You had an issue with it and you had conversations with the
County Manager. I gave you a possible solution to that issue. But this
is not my item, this is not my recommendation, this is your
recommendation. I don't know that you need to -- whether you want
to send it back to TDC that they need this, that's up to the board. This
is pure policy.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I don't think it is pure policy.
We have a County Manager Ordinance which very clearly states that,
you know, a commissioner cannot direct staff with respect to task,
indirectly, directly, any way you call it, and that it's criminal if it's
done. So I think there's a problem.
And in our discussion that wasn't the way you characterized it.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, ma'am, I couldn't disagree with you
more. You came up with an issue that was created between you and
the County Manager. You asked me to give an opinion whether the
County Manager was in violation of his ordinance or his contract. I
told you he wasn't. Then you said, well, it's in my opinion that I have
to, you know, get this done. I said well, you could be the same as the
Planning Commission then and have their staff done that way, but--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, you didn't say that you didn't
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, I did, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, you didn't say you didn't think
it was in violation of the ordinance.
MR. KLATZKOW: Ma'am, we've been doing this for decades.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't care if you've been doing it
for centuries.
Page 135
March 22, 2011
MR. KLATZKOW: And we've got commissioners on other
advisory boards too.
But I don't mean to spar with you, ma'am, but this is your item,
not my item.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the -- I think that the issue is that
the Tourist Development Council and the commissioner who chairs
that council serves in an advisory capacity. You have absolutely no
authority to spend money or implement a project. You have the
authority to make recommendations to the Board of County
Commissioners. Therefore, there is no need for you to exercise
management control over county staff on issues.
And let me illustrate for you. Let's take Ron Jamro in the
museum staff. They get TDC dollars. Mr. Jamro will take those TDC
dollars and go spend them on something like getting displays done,
which will require contracting, perhaps even putting out requests for
proposal and evaluating lowest cost.
What you're asking for is the ability to supervise those people
doing those kinds of tasks.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, actually, that's not what we're
asking.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That is not -- that is the practical effect
of what this change will do.
But I will -- what I would suggest is that we get this item back to
the TDC and find out from the TDC if they have a problem with the
way they've been operating for a very, very long time, and then the
TDC can make a recommendation to us.
Once again, it is the TDC that is responsible for making
recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. A
commissioner who chairs the TDC does not have the authority to
unilaterally make decisions on the part of the TDC and ask for BCC
approval of those things.
Page 136
March 22, 2011
So my -- well, we can debate this all day.
But Commissioner Fiala or Coletta, who was first?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Take me off.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you just said everything I was
going to say so you can --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So all in favor of the motion,
please say --
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we do have public speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, okay, yes, call the public speakers.
MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker is Murray Reichenstein and
the second one is John Sorey.
MR. REICHENSTEIN: My name is Murray Reichenstein,
Naples resident for about 15 years.
I understand the concern about efficiency. I was vice president
and controller ofFord for many years, okay, and so I drive for
efficiency.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There's nothing efficient about
government. Let's not get the two confused.
MR. REICHENSTEIN: Oh, I feel very much at home here.
So I understand the point of effectiveness and everything.
My concern, truthfully, is that the Tourist Development Council
over the last two years has strongly pushed for reducing the money
available to the museum to provide more advertising money. And so I
am concerned the direction that this is going to take: Well, we'll cut
back on the museum and effectively long-term could mean its closure,
which would have a serious effect on this place. So I'm concerned
about the indirect effects of this. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is John Sorey, and he'll be
followed by Murray Hendel.
MR. SOREY: Good afternoon, Commissioners, 11 :00 time
certain. Thank you for being here and for all the interesting dialogue
Page 137
March 22, 2011
that went on forward.
For the record, John Sorey. I'm vice Mayor of the City of
Naples, Chair of your Coastal Advisory Committee and a member of
the Tourist Development Council.
But I'm appearing here today as a concerned citizen. I'm here for
two reasons: One, managerial concern; and two, as Mr. Coyle said,
the fact that neither the CAC or the TDC has discussed this issue.
If we're going to have these committees, they should discuss that
and make recommendations before discussion to the BCC. And I'm
not pleased with the fact that we were not consulted.
There are right ways to do things and wrong ways. Frankly, this
is the wrong way.
I have an Undergraduate Degree in Business, an MBA and
attended the program for Management Development at Harvard
Business School. In addition, I have over 40 years of managerial
experience, having been involved with over 100 companies as owner,
consultant or employee, and have served seven years as a member of
Naples City Council. Therefore, I think I am a student of Best
Management Practices.
Allowing the TDC to direct staff is one of the worst management
ideas I have seen in my career. There's good logic to the County
Manager's ordinance. The County Manager should not attend TDC
meetings unless an issue arises which would be good utilization of his
time. And if that occurred, I'm sure he would be there.
We should not allow a committee member, even if that
committee member is a county commissioner, to direct staff. This is a
situation that would be counterproductive. And the way that I think
that we typically do that will suggest to staff that they consider a
particular alternative and then they'll have that discussion with the
County Manager.
All items that we discussed have been reviewed with the County
Manager, detailed write-ups provided, and staff is present to make
Page 138
March 22, 2011
their presentation and answer questions. The answer that is provided
may not be the one that the particular person is looking for, but I think
is completed staff work.
So as far as I'm concerned, there is a physical impact, and I think
that this would be a bad decision, and I respectfully request that you
not adopt this change.
Also, Mr. Hendel had to leave, and he's ceded his three minutes
to me and I'll read his statement.
Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, my name is Murray Hendel.
I have served on the TDC for almost seven years and the last four
years as Vice Chairman. I have served with each of you when you
chaired the TDC and you all served with distinction, and we never had
any problems of communication or coordination.
The TDC is composed of nine members, with the commissioner
serving as chair. We are an Advisory Board. The other eight
members are volunteers and attend monthly meetings.
As I understand the proposal, the TDC would be allowed to give
staff direction with regard to TDC, CAC and County Museum tasks
and projects. We do not have the ability nor knowledge to manage
these operations. To do so would create havoc within the county.
Each staff member would be two bosses, TDC and the County
Manager.
Number two: What would be the priority of the projects?
Number three: The BCC would not be aware of the projects
given staff.
His final comment is this proposal belongs in the garbage heap.
Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Now we have Commissioner Hiller and Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Thank you for your
comments, Mr. Sorey. I completely disagree with you.
Just to clarity, we have a County Manager's Ordinance. That
Page 139
March 22, 2011
ordinance is very clear. It is absolutely clear that a county
commissioner cannot task staff.
As such, sitting on the TDC as a commissioner, voting on actions
that do task staff -- and we do task staff by our votes on the TDC -- it
does become problematic. And therefore, my recommendation to do
this continues to stand.
Now, I continue to be concerned about what's really going on.
County Manager, can I ask you a question?
MR. OCHS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do you allow commissioners--
and I'm not talking -- and I personally don't want to direct staff, this
has nothing to do with the CAC or any other advisory board. I don't
want to direct staff individually with respect to what I'm proposing
here.
But just out of curiosity, have you ever allowed a commissioner
to directly task staff? And, for example, you know, prepare exhibits
for a meeting and attend a meeting on behalf of that commissioner
where you've allowed the commissioner to directly task staff to do
that, or anything along those lines? Have you ever allowed a
commissioner to direct staff --
MR.OCHS: No, I don't believe that I have, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate
that clarification.
Do you believe you would have the ability to allow a
commissioner to direct staff? Could you voluntarily say yeah, just go
ahead and ask him to do whatever you want, could you do that,
pursuant to the County Manager Ordinance?
MR. OCHS: No, my understanding is the Board, under the
County Manager's Ordinance, can request information but not direct
the staff.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But that's not my question. My
question is have you ever allowed a commissioner to task staff without
Page 140
March 22, 2011
you directing staff what to do?
MR.OCHS: No, ma'am, I answered that the first question.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Maybe I didn't express myself
clearly. I wasn't sure that it came across that way.
All right, thank you.
I still feel there is a need to do this. And, you know, if this Board
feels that there isn't and the County Attorney is of the opinion that in
no way I or the TDC are in violation of the County Manager's
Ordinance and that the way we vote -- for example, at the last meeting
we voted that staff needs to bring us back, you know, quarterly
financial reports that include full detail, from example, Coastal Zone
Management and the Museums, which they had not been doing -- if
you don't consider that tasking staff by way of vote and you consider
that acceptable and if you feel the County Manager does not have to
be at the TDC meetings and address these issues and that none of this
rises to the level of, you know, potentially criminal conduct or a
waiver on his part of what potentially would be deemed aiding and
abetting, then I don't see the need to do that.
And I'd like Mr. Klatzkow to put it on the record that none of that
is the case. And then I'm fine with it.
MR. KLATZKOW: I always feel like I'm in a courtroom here.
This is --
MS. HILLER: I may be a lawyer and so are you, so it's a matter
of perception on your part.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, no, this is a legislative board, ma'am,
not a courtroom. It's--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's legislative, executive and
judicial. We're talking about an ordinance which is creating law--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let the County Attorney respond.
There's no point in getting argumentative.
MR. KLA TZKOW: Any advisory committee, doesn't matter
which one it is, has the ability to ask staff to come back with a report
Page 141
March 22, 2011
or for information or for anything else if it deems necessary and is
tasked.
And the custom in Collier County has been, for as long as I
know, that has never, ever been an issue. There's not a violation of
County Manager Ordinance, it's not a violation of any ordinance. It's
the way advisory boards run.
It's why we assign staff to the advisory boards, to help the
advisory boards. Ifthe TDC votes to ask staffto come back for a
report, that's not a violation.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I just want to clarity, why do
we have it in the Planning Commission Ordinance?
MR. KLA TZKOW: I couldn't tell you why it's in there. I know
that I went back -- it's been in there at least since 1991. Could even go
back further than that. In the special act I took a look at yesterday, the
special act authorizes that staff could be assigned to it, and that goes
back to 1967. So I'm guessing that it's just been the practice in Collier
County for close to 50 years.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So in other words, there's no
problem.
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't perceive this as a problem, ma'am,
no.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Well, it was different from
our conversation, but that's fine.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: As the planning agency, the
Planning Commission under Florida Statutes, I think there's -- i[I
recall, they can direct staff for more information.
But I'm going to remove my second. But I think it's important
that the Board recognizes the County Attorney's opinion on this
ordinance, and the fact that the County Manager's opinion on the
Board's Ordinances, that we can ask the staff for information.
Page 142
March 22, 2011
And I'm going to make that in the form of a motion, that we
recognize the County Manager's Ordinance that we can ask staff for
information, and we're not in any violation of County Manager's
Ordinance when we, sitting as a board member, ask staff for
information.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Doesn't the County Manager's Ordinance
already say that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, it doesn't. In fact, we tried
to put that in. County Manager tried to put that in when Tom Oliff
was the County Manager, that we can ask the administrators for
information. And we decided not to do that.
So if it's the interpretation that the County Attorney's -- the
County Manager and the County Attorney, there's no violation, we
can ask staff for information, then let's do it. Let's formally -- I make
a ruling that's a part of the ordinance.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You can't reach down into the County
Manager's organization and start asking people to work on studies and
that sort of thing for you without the County Manager's approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That isn't what I said.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, yes, it is what you said--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I said --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- that's exactly what you said.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I said information. Ask for
information.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I want a study of the return on
your investment for Tourist Development funding for the past 10
years. I want to see how it changes. Okay, you're going to go do that?
MR. WERT: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, the Clerk of Court --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're not going to do that?
Page 143
March 22, 2011
MR. WERT: Not directly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Right. That's right.
So the point is that if we start tasking individual employees
without coordinating with the County Manager, then we're giving
them a work load and a responsibility the County Manager is unaware
of. That is not a good management practice.
And I ask staff for information, but I do it through the County
Manager.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's the way I do it. I'm fine
with that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I don't have a problem with that.
I've never had a problem with it.
So even when I have questions about this agenda, I e-mail those
in many cases to the County Manager with copies to the staff so that
the County Manager can manage that and get the information back to
me. It always works. There is no problem with this process. And
that's why this is such a bizarre recommendation.
But Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And you're right, I do the
same thing. I go to the County Manager for things that are within
reasonable request.
Now, we got to be careful about make-work projects that require
a tremendous amount of data. The County Manager, if he starts
assigning every time we get some bright idea to the county staff, he's
going to exhaust that resource. It's a limited resource.
What I've done, and I've come to you numerous times before
under comments. I[I had anything that was of any substance that was
going to require staff time over and above a simple answer or
supplying me with an already written document, I come to this
commission and I say, you know, this is what I'm doing, can I have
some staff time. And I think probably nine out of 10 times you've said
yes and we went forward.
Page 144
March 22, 2011
But there's that control in there to make sure that whatever that
information is, it's the will of the commission to be able to expend that
time for something that's worthwhile. And I think we'd better define
that in the very near future where those lines are drawn, or else we're
going to burn them out.
Because lots of the information that's being asked for with all the
detail and analysis that goes into it is used for superficial type of
reasons. If you come to the commission beforehand and maybe
present a white paper what you're looking to do, you go to the next
step. That's what I'd like to see us get to the point of doing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, we just covered this a couple of
weeks, maybe a month or so ago. We said County Attorney, you don't
work for one commissioner, you work for the entire board. And if
anybody's going to task you to do things that's going to take an
inordinate amount of time, you're going to have to say get it to the
Board to get approvals for them.
County Manager does the same thing. Ifhe's asked by a
commissioner to conduct a big study or allocate people's time, his
proper action is to come to the board and see if there are three
members of the board who'll agree with that. Because time is money,
and that's just the proper way to deal with it. And we've already dealt
with this at a prior board meeting.
So Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just have to say, it makes me
very uncomfortable to hear insulting remarks and accusations such as
aiding and abetting and criminal. I think we use --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's the ordinance.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- better words than that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it's the ordinance. It's a
Criminal Ordinance.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, it made it sound as if -- just
like you called us drunken sailors on the program --
Page 145
March 22, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I said you spent like drunken
sailors.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, you did.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I did.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You did say that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I did.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And, you know, I would like
to request that you refrain from using some of those things. There's no
reason to be hurtful. We should always be respectful of one another.
And that's --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- all that I have to say.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We haven't voted on this, have
we?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I withdraw my motion.
Because the County Attorney says that there is no violation of the
County Manager's Ordinance with respect to how we vote on the TDC
Council.
He -- the County Manager has said he will not allow and does not
allow a commissioner to task staff by permission. So as long as we've
established that and it's on the record, then I'm good and I don't feel
there's a need to amend this ordinance. So thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Or the County Manager's
Ordinance.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's going to bring us to our next time
certain item?
Item #9C
UPDATE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON THE
STATUS OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY COLLIER COUNTY
Page 146
March 22, 2011
GOVERNMENT AGAINST THE PARAMEDIC TRAINING
SCHOOL WITH A MOTION TO CLOSE THE COUNTY'S
INVESTIGATION OF THIS MATTER - MOTION FOR THE BCC
AND COUNTY MANAGER TO RETRACT STATEMENTS
CLAIMING THE SCHOOL WAS ENGAGED IN VIOLATING THE
LA W AND ISSUE A PUBLIC APOLOGY - FAILED; FURTHER
DISCUSSION WAS HAD
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, 11 :30 time certain. Item 9.C is a discussion
to update the Board of County Commissioners on the status of the
complaint filed by the Collier County Government against the
Paramedic Training School with a motion to close the county's
investigation of this matter.
Commissioner Hiller brought this item forward.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
First of all, what I'd like to say is, you know, closing the
investigation by the county is probably an inappropriate description,
because I'm not sure there was an investigation. But I'd like
clarification on that.
But anyway, the reason I brought this forward, because -- is
because on March the 4th the County's EMS Department received a
letter from the Department of Health. And I'm going to very quickly
read it into the record.
Dear Chief Page: This is to inform you of the outcome of the
complaint against Medical Career Institute. Based upon the
information provided, we initiated in inquiry of the matter. After an
extensive investigation it was determined that there was no violation
of Chapter 401 Florida Statutes or Chapter 64J-l Florida
Administrative Code.
And then it goes on to say, you are reminded that the allegations
in the complaint remain confidential, as required by Section
Page 147
March 22, 2011
401.414(3) Florida Statutes. And this letter serves as the department's
final action in this investigation. If you have any questions -- and so
on. And then it's signed by the investigative manager.
This matter was raised in November, on November 9th, 2010.
And this board decided, after a great deal of public discussion, to file
the complaint with the state based on the allegation that there was --
and I'm going to read the words from Chief Page -- definitely a
violation here of some sort.
And the allegation was that there was improper testing going on
at this school, which was in Lee County.
Now, I did a little bit of research. And had the County Attorney
done this research, I think he would have advised this board not to
submit this complaint. Because what I found is that the statute that
governs this school does not require that any -- the type of testing that
this school was engaged in to train its students to be prepared to pass
what the statute does require, and that is a single comprehensive final
written and practical examination evaluating the skills, describing the
current U.S. Department of Transportation EMT Basic our EMT
Paramedic National Standard Curriculum.
So the bottom line is, notwithstanding these very public
accusations that was made against this private business owner, which
did hurt his reputation in that there was a claim made that there were
definitely violations or a violation of some sort, this school did
nothing wrong.
And even if this school had given all the answers to all this
particular test to its students, it would not have been in violation of
anything, because there was absolutely no reason, no need for this
school to give those tests. That school gave those tests to help its
students to prepare for what is required by law and that is the final
comprehensive exam.
This claim that was made was absolutely baseless and it was
unfairly targeted against a private business owner. And I think that
Page 148
March 22, 2011
the Board owes this private business owner an apology, a retraction.
And I say the Board, and I don't say Chief Page, because Chief
Page is a member of staff. And the ultimate responsibility for
everything that goes on here rests with the Board. And it was the
Board who allowed Chief Page to make the statements he made, it's
the County Manager who permitted him to make the representations
he made. And it's the County -- I'm going to add the County Manager
in, I forgot that. It's under the County Man -- it's the County Manager
and this Board who should apologize to the owner of this school for
what happened.
The other thing I'd like to address is that in the process of
compiling information to file this complaint, this county made a great
deal of information public. They published affidavits and made
representations in the record, for example, that there were tape
recordings and that they had those tape recordings in their possession,
and went to a great deal of -- went to quite an extent to release that
information publicly.
So if in fact all this information was supposed to be kept
confidential pursuant to Section 401.414(3) of the Florida Statutes --
and I have a very serious concern that that confidentiality has been
breached. And I would like to know what the remedy is and, you
know, what violation has been committed by releasing the information
that has been released so far.
If by contrast 401 -- Florida Statute 401.414(3) does provide for
confidentiality on the part of the county -- and I'm not sure it does,
because I read the statute, and the particular statute when it addresses
the department is referring strictly to the Department of Health -- then
if this information can be made public at this point, since this case is
closed, then I would ask that all of it be made public.
I have made a public records request which -- to the County
Attorney and to the County Manager, both of which have been denied
to me. And they're relying in their denial -- I don't know, County
Page 149
March 22, 2011
Manager, did you -- are you -- what exemption are you relying on?
MR.OCHS: Ma'am, I'm relying on the advice of the County
Attorney.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And County Attorney, you're
relying per your -- well, you don't even have to answer because --
MR. KLA TZKOW: No, I will answer.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I have the e-mails.It.s okay, I
don't need --
MR. KLATZKOW: No, I will answer.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, it's okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: You have a statute that specifically provides
that this material is confidential. Unless and until it is waived by the
person who is the target in the investigation. And to release it violates
not only this particular section, it violates the public records law.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Then we have a real problem,
because we have released information already pursuant to these
allegations.
So, I mean, I think if what you're saying is the case, then we have
a violation in that we did release public records pursuant to these --
you know, in support of these allegations and part of this
investigation.
Is the owner of the school here? Could you come up and speak
for a moment? I'd like to ask you a question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: When you do this, Commissioner Hiller,
you are revealing information that could be damaging to the school. If
that's what you really want to do -- or do you want to grandstand here?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Could you come and -- I'd like to
continue on my line of speaking.
MR. GONZALEZ: Good afternoon.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Hi, good afternoon.
First of all, I do hope that this Board and the County Manager
consider --
Page 150
March 22, 2011
MR. MITCHELL: Could you identity for the record, please?
MR. GONZALEZ: Richard Gonzalez, owner ofMCI.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because what happened to you
should not happen. And I don't believe that what you were subjected
to is acceptable. I absolutely feel that the way things were handled
would hurt your business reputation, and it concerns me greatly. I
don't think this is the appropriate forum for the type of discussion that
was had and the manner in which it was had.
Would you be willing to, since the County Manager makes the
claim that -- I'm sorry, the County Attorney is claiming that all ofthis
is confidential, notwithstanding that a great deal of information
pursuant to this investigation has been leaked to the press, obviously
intentionally, would you be willing to waive your right and open up
all the documents that are currently in the possession so the public can
see everything that was communicated on this subject within the
county?
MR. GONZALEZ: By all means.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
The victim of these false accusations has on the record waived
his right to confidentiality with respect to everything.
So I'm going to repeat my public records request for any and all
documents, any tapes, any videos, any e-mails related to this matter in
possession of the county.
And if you refuse my records request, I'd like you to state with
particularity the public records exemption, the statutory exemption
that you're relying on. And that's for the Board of County
Commissioners, the County Manager and the County Attorney. And
with respect to the County Manager, his staff.
And again, I personally -- even though I wasn't here and had no
part of it, I apologize to you for what has happened.
So I'd like to make a motion that we --
MR. MITCHELL: We do have speakers.
Page 151
March 22, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. I'm sorry, go ahead.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many?
MR. MITCHELL: Well, two. So the first one is Mr. Gonzalez.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Mr. Gonzalez?
MR. GONZALEZ: Yes. I have a few questions to the Board.
What is your policy for a complaint to get filed in Collier
County? Somebody?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's your time to speak.
MR. GONZALEZ: Correct. Well, what I'm trying to figure out
is the statements that was made by Chief Page were totally, totally
false. Not only are they false, but he himself went in his own personal
vehicle or a county vehicle to Tallahassee, driving probably on time
paid for by the taxpayers, to hand deliver the complaint to
Tallahassee. And the state confirmed to me that he did so.
Also my question is in regards to what he did. I'm going to turn
in a form to request all county e-mails, with Chief Page being number
one, to be turned in because it is public record. Okay?
On top of that, since Chief Page went about himself to do his
complaint on the school, earlier today I went and filed a report with
the Collier County Sheriffs against Chief Page and yourself for
violating Statute 934 of Florida, and U.S. Chapter 119. So if you don't
mind, I would like to turn in my request on the record.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
MR. GONZALEZ: No, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You can give it to the County Attorney.
MR. GONZALEZ: And I will also attach my formal complaint
that I made with the Sheriff this morning. And you can have those for
every member of the Board.
Another thing which is pretty ironic was that a complaint filed
back in Collier County back in May of 20 10, it took Chief Page nine
weeks to close that complaint. It took him nine days for my
Page 152
March 22, 2011
complaint. I find that pretty ironic how he sped through this whole
process to push mine in nine days only.
I have nothing else.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala?
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Eloy Ricardo.
MR. RICARDO: For the record, Eloy Ricardo.
Once again, I'm here again talking about some administrative
issue that should have probably never happened.
Everybody's heard my comments before and I'll say it again. I've
been serving this community for 10 years. The system, this politics
involved in me providing service somewhere needs to end.
I had to go to a school outside of Collier County because the
current school didn't have enough students enrolled in it. This
gentleman came over, created a private school, contacted fire
departments, and I happened to jump into that class because that is the
evolution of the fire department. It has happened since the Seventies.
And we've been part of this EMS system for even further.
So we could sit here and talk about what was wrong, what was
done, but this was a personal attack I feel on the students that were in
there. I truly believe that it was a timing issue, if you look at the
timing. It was ironic where that timing happened.
But I'm here to protect and serve the community. I will continue
to do it despite all the political attacks that constantly happen on the
firefighters, especially here in Collier County. So I just want to make
sure that message gets across to the Commission, and thank you for
your time, because I'm a little hungry, you know, 11 :30.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, me too.
MR. MITCHELL: That was your last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Sadly accusations seem to leap
to the forefront in the newspaper. And when North Naples was
Page 153
March 22, 2011
accused of cheating and then you were accused of cheating and East
Naples was accused of cheating, and it just broke my heart because I
knew that they weren't. And yet when -- I know East Naples
firsthand, they went through a whole series of investigations. They
produced a volume of stuff and I never saw that leap to the front pages
of the Naples Daily News that they were exonerated or proven not
guilty .
Same with the North Naples guys. And so that's -- I think what's
really sad is that bad news that is unsubstantiated makes the
newspaper but the good news doesn't. And so I'm sure that that's what
lingers on and hurts people like Ricardo as well.
So I just wanted to insert that on this topic.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller again.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to add one other comment
and then I'd like to make a motion.
The other thing that concerned me a great deal about this process
was that I had heard from different people that employees of the -- of
our emergency services staff were coerced into giving affidavits in
support of this action, which very much concerns me. And I had
asked questions about that, and I did receive answers.
I will not come to any conclusion on this till I have reviewed all
the documents presented to me pursuant to my public records request
to ensure whether or not that did or did not happen. And I will
introduce that as part of the record as well.
And with that, I'd like to make a motion that this Board and the
County Manager retract its statements where the county claimed that
this school engaged in a violation of the law, and that we apologize to
him for what he was wrongly accused of.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, the motion dies for lack of a
second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question for the County
Attorney.
Page 154
March 22, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know I voted against it. I
think it was a 4-1 vote for the Chairman to send a letter to Tallahassee
complaining against this gentleman.
Can I second her motion, even though that I voted against --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay. Then I'll second the
motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we have a motion on the floor.
Any further?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signifY by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, the motion fails 3-2 with
Commissioner Henning and Hiller voting for the motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just heard what Commissioner
Hiller said. Is that all true, or is it --
MR. KLA TZKOW: Is what true, ma'am? There's been a lot
said.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm so sorry. I'm sorry, about our--
what we did with this gentleman? I just -- I don't seem to remember it
that way, but, you know.
Page 155
March 22, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have the minutes here, if you'd
like a copy.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, let's -- you know, we might be
involved in some legal action here, so I think it probably doesn't serve
to spend a lot of time talking about it.
But the -- some of the points that have been made are made
entirely on the basis of what somebody has told Commissioner Hiller.
And she has drawn her own conclusions from that.
The point is that we did not allow the staff to submit a complaint
until we had heard it and we had examined it. And we had a full
hearing here where everybody had a chance to speak, including the
members of the class, the firefighters, the administrator of the school,
Mr. Ricardo, who happened to be a member of the class at the time,
and members of our EMS.
And everybody had their say. And we said we're not going to
make any decisions or judgments, we want to forward this to
Tallahassee to see what they have to say about it. There -- it was no
county government investigation; consequently there is no
investigation to terminate, as Commissioner Hiller had previously
requested.
As a matter of fact, I have never received a reply from the agency
in Tallahassee concerning the letter that I was told to write. So I don't
know what happened with it. But I know that Commissioner Hiller
has a letter that she obtained through -- I guess through fire
department channels, but --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, actually it wasn't through the
Fire Department. This letter was to Chief Page. And it was received
by the EMS Department March 4th, 2011. Would you like a copy of
't?
I .
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I have never seen that. And I saw it in
the backup material for this item.
But the point is that the letter that I was asked to write by the
Page 156
March 22, 2011
Board Members has never been replied to. So I don't know what
happened in Tallahassee.
But we decided at that point in time that the proper thing to do
was to send it there and let them make a decision as to whether or not
there was an issue. Collier County Board did not have -- did not make
any allegations or accusations whatsoever. We merely forwarded
information to Tallahassee.
And by the way, we did that publicly because of transparency,
okay? We felt this was an important issue and we didn't want it
fought out in the press between members of our EMS staff and the fire
departments.
It was not directed at the fire districts, it was not directed at the
firemen, it was directed at a situation that occurred in the school.
That's it.
If Tallahassee decides there was no infraction, then that's fine, it's
over with. We didn't try to make a decision concerning that. Nor
should we have.
So I hope that answers your question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I[I--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just -- your recollection's the
same as mIlle.
At the time I thought the information was a bit sketchy, but I'll
tell you something, if we decided not to do anything, we would have
had a different group of people who were saying where's the
transparency, why didn't you pass it on to a higher authority to make
this decision?
I'm personally glad that ended the way it did, you know, and I'm
getting sick and tired of this fighting back and forth between the two
different groups out there. I'll tell you what, your all crazy. You all
need to be disciplined somehow. I wish to God we could throw you
Page 157
March 22, 2011
all in a pit and the winners would come out alive at the end.
But I'm losing respect for both sides of this situation. Till the day
comes they can get you all with wearing the same shirts, this is never
going to end.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And I was just going to say, at
the time when we talked about it I had the same feeling, if we would
have not voted to send it in to have it seen by Tallahassee, then
everybody would have accused us of trying to hide something. I
know that would have made the headlines, we were hiding something,
we were in favor of the fire departments. I knew they would come out
fine because they did nothing wrong.
I remember that day. You know, of course, you know, I love the
fire departments too, so, you know, it's pretty obvious. But still in all,
I knew that they were going to come out clean. But we couldn't have
ever come out with that result if we hadn't sent it up to Tallahassee.
And that's why we voted.
And I don't apologize for that. I think we did the right thing,
actually. And as you can see, it came out the right way. So thank
you.
MR. SPENCER: Can I make a quick comment in response?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you a registered speaker?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to hear what Chris has to
say. Go ahead.
MR. SPENCER: This is in response to -- my name is Chris
Spencer, President of North Naples Firefighters.
In response to Commissioner Coletta, I don't know where you
came with that last comment about you're all crazy and stuff.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well--
MR. SPENCER: Wait, let me finish what I'm saying and then I'll
let you talk too.
Page 158
March 22, 2011
This whole issue is an issue about a private business from another
county, a guy trying to do stuff, and firefighters trying to go out there
and serve their public better. That Mr. Ricardo works for a fire
department in the county is something that I don't understand what
you're saying, you know, what is the problem between --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure, let me help you with it,
because I want to be very explicit about it.
This business about retribution going on from one group to
another on a continuous basis going back quite a few years is never
ending. And everybody's trying to make a point that the other side is
evil as all hell. And personally I'm getting tired about it.
So the word crazy, if you took it the wrong way, maybe I should
have used a different descriptive adjective to get you in the right
direction. But the truth of the matter is I'm beginning to see the evils
of both sides of this thing. I'll be honest with you. I'm not happy at
what's happening at the county end and I'm not happy at what's
happening on the other side. This continuous bickering out there over
the smallest of things and blowing them out of proportion. This time
it was the county, the time before it was some other fire department or
some other union or something else that was out there. It's never
ending. It's got to end.
MR. SPENCER: Mr. Coletta, you are aware that for the last 27
years that I can document, fire departments been coming forth looking
for a better way to service the people of the community. Finally North
Naples is given its COPCN.
And to achieve that we've agreed to do everything that the
medical director has asked the county medical director. We have
followed his protocols. But it's been a 27-year fight. That's a lot
longer than you've been sitting up there. So don't tell me that you're
tired with having this fight go on --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So we're in agreement.
MR. SPENCER: These men and women are out there and
Page 159
March 22,2011
they're doing their best to serve the people of this community better
every day, now a guy starts his own business in another county and
that there's allegations against him, don't throw our firefighters from
North Naples or East Naples --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sir, you're taking this out of
context. I'm not attacking the firefighters of North Naples --
MR. SPENCER: Those are your words. Those aren't my --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- or East Naples.
MR. SPENCER: -- words, those are your words.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What I'm saying is you've got to
bring this business of everybody fighting with each other -- here we're
doing it --
MR. SPENCER: That's your job.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- here right now.
MR. SPENCER: That's your job, sir. That's what you're elected
for.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, okay, we're not here to argue.
MR. SPENCER: I'm not arguing, sir, I'm just stating my point as
a taxpayer.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, you've stated your point.
MR. SPENCER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now can I state a point?
MR. SPENCER: Please.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Your perception of how this all works
out is your perception.
I can tell you that a large part of our community in Collier
County has lost a lot of respect for the Firefighters and the EMS. And
if you think you're winning, I think you're wrong and your perception
IS wrong.
Nor are we winning. We are all losing here. And we're going to
keep losing. And we have been losing for many years now because it
makes no difference who is in charge of the Collier County EMS and
Page 160
March 22, 2011
never has, because you've always pushed for a replacement. You
always had a problem with them, and you always will until you
control everything. So yes, that is hurting you, and there is not much
that we can do about that.
So let's hope that in the future we can move together in a more
harmonious way and stop the fighting.
But when people come to us with allegations that something
improper occurred in a school, we think enough of the training
requirements of firefighters and paramedics that it is important that we
report those things. As a matter of fact, I think state statute requires
that kind of reporting.
So there is no good side here. Okay? There is no good side here.
We all have lost some respect in the community. And if you don't
recognize that, I think you need to take a closer look. But thank you
very much.
MR. SPENCER: I would also say that this isn't a winning issue.
This is the men and women from EMS, great paramedics --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I know the wonderful --
MR. SPENCER: -- and firefighters --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- political -- I know the wonderful
political speeches --
MR. SPENCER: -- and we're not winning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- that you can give and we've talked
about it.
MR. SPENCER: Well, we're just making sure that the County
Commissioners that are elected by the people do their job and we hope
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I hope that we're doing that.
MR. SPENCER: -- that we can resolve this --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're doing that.
MR. SPENCER: -- issue very soon.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
Page 161
March 22, 2011
MR. SPENCER: But please don't think that this is a game that
we're playing that we're looking for a winner. We just want to do
what's best by the people and for the people. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So do we.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right, let's bring this to a close.
MR.OCHS: Commissioners?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. OCHS: I was just going to suggest, if it's the Board's
pleasure, you have two items --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. OCHS: -- in your Airport Authority that Commissioner
Coletta may have an interest in the debate before he leaves, if you
want to take those up.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right, let's do that. We've
closed this one out.
Item #13Al
A SECOND AMENDMENT TO LICENSE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY
AND IMMOKALEE REGIONAL RACEWAY - APPROVED
MR.OCHS: That would take you to 13.A.l on your agenda,
Commissioners. It's a recommendation to approve a second
amendment to license agreement between the Collier County Airport
Authority and the Immokalee Regional Raceway.
Mr. Curry, your executive director, is here to present.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Third.
Page 162
March 22, 2011
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good job, Chris.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Coletta,
second by Commissioner Fiala to approve Item 13.A.1.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signifY by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The item passes unanimously.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wonderful speech, Chris.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners.
MR. CURRY: Thank you, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Don't go away.
Item #13A2
A LONG-TERM GROUND LEASE AND SUBLEASE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT
AUTHORITY AND TURBO SERVICES INC., TO PERMIT USE
OF PROPERTY AT THE IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT AS
A JET ENGINE TESTING FACILITY - APPROVED
W/MODIFICATION
MR.OCHS: 13.A.2 is a recommendation to approve a Long-
term Ground Lease and Sublease Agreement between the Collier
County Airport Authority and Turbo Services, Inc. to permit use of
Page 163
March 22, 2011
property at the Immokalee Regional Airport as a Jet Engine Testing
Facility.
Mr. Curry will again present, or answer questions.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could we go right to questions?
I think we can get there. Everyone's--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do we need to ask --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- pretty familiar with it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- any questions? We've had a
presentation on this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We have. There was some
issues about noise, but all my questions were answered. And there's
enough redundancy in the lease agreement to be able to protect the
residents of Immokalee.
The only thing in there that I see that gave me just a hair of
concern, if we're trying to maximize our return on investment. It's on
Page 789 where it says except that the rent shall, at the leaser's
options, be increased by changes in the CPI. There I'd recommend
that you strike out the leaser's option and just automatically increase it.
It's a small amount, but I'd hate that to get away from us over a
10-year lease where we find out at the end because of administrative
overlooking we never administrated that small little increase every
year. That's the only suggestion I have, and that's my motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, motion by Commissioner Coletta,
seconded by Commissioner Henning for approval with modification
as stated.
You have a problem with the modification, Chris?
MR. CURRY: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Chris Curry,
Airport Authority.
I have no issue with the recommendation by Commissioner
Coletta.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all in favor, please signifY by
Page 164
March 22, 2011
saYIllg aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion pass unanimously.
Okay, where do you want to go next?
MR.OCHS: Back to 9.A on your agenda, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you going to have to leave right
now, or can you stay till 3:00?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll stay till 3:00.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We'll try to get as much of this
done as we can, and then we're going to adjourn.
Item #9 A
RECONSIDERATION OF ITEM #lOD FROM THE MARCH 8,
2011 BCC MEETING REGARDING RFP #10-5450-ASPHALT
ROADWAY, CONCRETE, CURB, SIDEWALK AND DRIVEWAY
INSTALLATIONS - MOTION TO RECONSIDER - APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 9.A is a request for reconsideration ofItem 1O.D
from the March 8th 2011 BCC Meeting regarding RFP#10-5450,
Asphalt Roadway, Concrete, Curb, Sidewalk and Driveway
installations.
Commissioner Henning has placed this item on the agenda.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I want to apologize to
Commissioner Fiala, I was wrong about the ordinance on the
reconsideration. There shall be no discussion under land use, but not
Page 165
March 22, 2011
under general items.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wouldn't have known the
difference anyway, but thank you for the nice words.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the County Attorney
pointed that out.
I spoke to the Clerk and I also spoke to the County Attorney, and
both agree there's some issues with this item about giving more than
administrative functions to negotiate these contracts.
And we heard that day these prices did not -- these quotes did not
include equipment. We don't know what those prices are for those
individuals contractors. Individual contractors have different prices.
Historically we have done it under the lowest price and gone with the
one and two of the lowest price.
We also heard that we'll attempt to obtain three quotes under
$50,000. We also heard it was an endeavor to get -- obtain quotes
under $50,000. It's not a surety that there's going to be a quote under
$50,000.
So the Clerk is going to have a problem paying this unless all
these contracts come to the Board of Commissioners after a fact
approval, or we can --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Anybody have a problem with
reconsideration?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion to reconsider.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signifY by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
Page 166
March 22, 2011
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it's unanimously approved for
reconsideration.
Item #lOD
RESOLUTION 2011-62: THE CONDEMNATION OF THE
PERPETUAL AND TEMPORARY EASEMENT INTERESTS
NECESSARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF STORMW A TER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE OUTFALL 3 AND 4 SEGMENTS OF
THE LEL Y AREA STORMW A TER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT -
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes you to Item 10.D. It's a
recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the condemnation
of those perpetual and temporary easement interests necessary for the
construction of stormwater improvements for the outfall number three
and four segments of the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project.
Estimated fiscal impact, $1,556,500.
And Mr. Jay Ahmad is available to answer questions or make --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Anybody have any questions?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Fiala.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Coletta.
MR. AHMAD: Mr. Chairman, this is a resolution for a
condemnation, and we must put some stuff on the record, if you allow
me to.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We've already read it, but go ahead.
Page 167
March 22, 2011
MR. AHMAD: I will be very brief.
This is a recommendation to adopt a condemnation resolution for
the project -- one of the L.A.SJ.P. projects, outlet (sic) three and four.
As you may recall, you have seen this project on January 25th,
the project you asked me about, the meandering of the canals. And
this is the second step in the process, is to allow us to go to the second
step, which is a condemnation -- adoption of the condemnation
resolution for those parcels needed to acquire and move on to
schedule.
But before you adopt this resolution, it is my hope that you have
studied carefully the executive summary and the technical
memorandum that's attached and prepared by Agnoli, Barber and
Brundage for this.
And there are five elements that you must consider before
adopting this resolution. The first is alternative alignments of these
canals, both canals.
The second one is the cost of those alternatives. And we've
calculated carefully the alternatives in relation to cost.
The improvements to public health and safety and welfare. And
of course this is to alleviate flooding, and that's the purpose of this
project.
And its impact on long-range planning. And this been (sic), as
you know, been in the works for 18 years in the permitting, and that is
one of the reasons we're doing this project, we finally have the permits
after 18 years of work.
And lastly, the environment. That we have considered the
environment and obviously have gone through all the permitting that's
necessary for this project and we're ready now to take it to the next
steps.
And this is the conclusion of my remarks.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signifY by saying
aye.
Page 168
March 22,2011
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is approved unanimously.
Item #lOE
RESOLUTION 2011-63: ACQUIRING BY GIFT OR PURCHASE
THOSE PERPETUAL AND TEMPORARY EASEMENT
INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE US-41 DITCH
SEGMENT OF THE LEL Y AREA STORMW A TER
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 1O.E is a recommendation to adopt a
resolution seeking authority to acquire by gift or purchase those
perpetual and temporary easement interests necessary for the
construction of stormwater improvements for the U.S. 41 ditch
segment of the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project, No.
51101. Estimated fiscal impact, $1,927,569.
Ms. Margaret Bishop is available to present.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you feel compelled?
MS. BISHOP: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
MR.OCHS: No, no presentation necessary, just questions, if the
Board has them.
MS. BISHOP: Yeah, if you have questions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. With the assistance of the
Page 169
March 22, 2011
County Attorney, the resolution is not delegating the Board's authority
for some of these appraisals. And then exceeding -- couldn't exceed
up to -- what is it, one quarter? 10 percent or not to exceed $50,000, if
we allow staff to enter into an agreement?
MR. KLA TZKOW: Yes, you're giving staff direct parameters on
what they can and what they cannot do to purchase property to ready
-- approve the purchase for eminent domain.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And we're -- are we delegating
to the Chairman to sign that and that's legally we could do that?
MR. KLA TZKOW: Yes, you can, sir. You have enough
guidelines in place.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signifY by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #lOF
GRANT RELATED EXPENDITURES IN EXCESS OF $50,000
FOR THREE (3) PROPERTIES ACQUIRED UNDER THE
NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PROGRAM TO FUND
Page 170
March 22, 2011
REHABILITATION ACTIVITIES. FUNDING WILL ENSURE
COMPLIANCE WITH COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING CODE
REGULATIONS AND FURTHER THE GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PLAN - APPROVED W/USING THE MOST
COST EFFECTIVE REHABILITATION
MR.OCHS: Commissioners, 10.F is formerly Item 16.D.5. It's
a recommendation to approve grant related expenditures in excess of
$50,000 for three properties acquired under the neighborhood
stabilization program to fund rehabilitation activities.
Funding will ensure compliance with Collier County Building
Code regulations, further the goals and objectives of the housing
element of the Growth Management Plan. Estimated fiscal impact,
$172,500.
MS. POXON: Would the commission like a presentation or
questions?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning is going to be
asking questions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I've got to get to my bookmark.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's up to you whether you provide any
answers.
THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please?
MS. POXON: For the record, Meghan Poxon, Grant Support
Specialist, Housing, Human and Veteran Services.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
Don't mean to put you on the spot. I just have a concern. These
-- rehabbing these houses and putting impact glass in there when you
can get by with lesser money by putting in shutters. Which most -- in
my opinion most of the residents have shutters. This is a more
expensive process. That's my comment.
And these are already done.
Page 171
March 22, 2011
MS. POXON: No, sir, they have not been done yet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They haven't been done?
MS. POXON: We have obtained bid specs on two that we
competitively procured.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, I'm looking at one. The
materials and labor cost is almost $9,000 to remove the windows,
dispose of them, replace them with all necessary painting, caulking,
blah blah, blah. Those are the impact glass.
MS. POXON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did you get a price for putting
shutters up?
MS. POXON: We have not at this time.
In accordance with the NSP Admin. plan, we are -- Collier
County had an initiative to harden the homes against hurricane
damage, so impact glass was the best practice route that we pursued.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, that's not the only route.
You can put shutters up.
MS. POXON : Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I think it's a lot cheaper.
And what is --
MS. POXON: The home does still require -- all three homes
would require windows to be replaced anyway. These homes, most of
them -- two of them are from the Eighties and one is a home in the
Nineties, but due to damage from the homes already we would be
replacing windows and shuttering them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: These houses need to conform
to the Florida Building Code, if I recall, and that's it.
MS. POXON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what section of the Florida
Building Code says that you need to replace windows that are 1980?
MR. TOWNSEND: My name is Chris Townsend, Health,
Human and Veteran Services.
Page 172
March 22, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon me? Which department
are you with?
MR. TOWNSEND: Health, Human and Veteran Services.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. TOWNSEND: I'm a rehabilitation specialist.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sorry?
MR. TOWNSEND: Rehabilitation specialist.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For homes?
MR. TOWNSEND: Yes.
The -- generally a home, to convert windows and shutters, runs
about $4,500. To go impact resistant is an increase of about $1,500.
On this particular house the reason why it's so high is all the
windows are odd sized. That's what drove the cost up there. This
house has not started construction yet. There are alternatives. We
haven't begun.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, what's -- hearing my
concerns, I guess if the Board doesn't have any concerns about how
staff is proceeding, then I'll just vote no on the item.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I just --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm afraid, Chris, I didn't understand
what you just said. To replace all the windows cost $4,500?
MR. TOWNSEND: I was saying in a basic home like the homes
that we're procuring, generally impact windows cost about $6,000 to
shutter and replace the windows. They're usually damaged. Mostly
these houses, the windows don't operate properly.
To do windows and shutters is about $4,500. So there's a little bit
difference there. What we gain with the impact resistent windows is
we gain a Low-E value which helps the new homeowner in energy
cost. It also kind of protects us in the future, if there is storm damage
to the house that the new homeowner -- if the windows get smashed,
that the new homeowner isn't prepared for the hurricane, they come
Page 173
March 22, 2011
back to us and we have to use DRI money to replace the windows
again. It just seems like a logical advancement to go with the Low-E
impact windows and move on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, Commissioner Henning,
you pulled it off for a good reason. The amount of the cost of
hardening the windows is high. He said there's an alternative, so I'm
kind of lost why you're prepared to have us make the motion so you
vote no. Why don't you make a motion around the alternatives or ask
him to come back, rather than just sitting back and let it unfold
without your guidance?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, you know, I know that
you could repair windows. I don't know the particulars of this. I
would like the lowest and best cost to repair these homes.
MR. KRUMBINE: For the record, Marcy Krumbine, Director of
Housing, Human and Veteran Services.
The motion before you is to permit us to go over $50,000.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's no motion.
MS. KRUMBINE: Well, the item -- excuse me, the item before
you is to give us permission to go over $50,000. Either which way,
that's what we're asking for permission for. If you'd like to give us
guidance to not pursue the impact resistant windows, we still need
your permission to go over $50,000.
And I do want to go back to the record on two of these three
homes. The windows do not work. These are homes that have been
foreclosed and abandoned. Some of them have broken windows,
some of them do not lock at all and we are jury rigging them to keep
them -- to keep the home safe while we're getting ready to repair it.
So no matter what, the windows will need to be replaced. So we
either replace them and then buy shutters or we replace them with
impact resistant windows. The cost difference might be right around
$1,500, and we'd be happy to bid that, if that is the Board's pleasure.
Page 174
March 22, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, I'll make a motion to
approve. And on these items for consideration, all these items, that we
want the lowest and best value to get the house on the market, such as
fixing the air conditioning instead of replacing, and all the other stuff.
And windows. You understand the motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You want to fix the air conditioners
instead of replacing them?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I mean, ifit can be fixed
instead of replacing, why not fix it? That's the point. And a good
service technician, air conditioning, can tell you your best value is
going to last you for two or three years, or his recommendation is to
replace it.
MS. KRUMBINE: Commissioner, again, for the record, our
rehab specialist, one of them is a Florida State Contractor. Chris has
specialities -- behind me, he's trained.
So when they go out and do these bid estimates, that's exactly
what they're asking for. They're going by their best expertise; is this
something that could be repaired or does it need to be replaced.
So that's what we're going into it with. We're not just going in
and thinking well, let's start off with the most expensive. And again,
we've had these conversations before. We will also want to make
sure, though, the home is marketable, because we have several liens
and constrictions that will be on it because it's for low income or an
income qualified person. So it has to compete with the marketplace.
And so the saleability factor is there as well.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What difference does it make
what kind of windows? The issue is to protect it for hurricane. What
does that have to do with the marketing of the house?
MS. KRUMBINE: It's huge. It's absolutely huge based on -- we
have several realtors on staff and we also check with realtors, is that
many times people are looking at homes with impact resistant glass to
buy because of where we live. And also because of the energy
Page 175
March 22, 2011
efficiency. It is literally saving people hundreds of dollars in their
electric bill.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That's my motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, and the motion was to approve
with the guidance that you do the most -- make the most cost-effective
decisions in deciding how you rehab those things; is that true,
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And it's seconded by Commissioner
Coletta.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signifY by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is approved 4-1, with Commissioner
Hiller voting no.
Item #14
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes you to Item 14, public
comments on general topics.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any public speakers, Ian?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, no, we've no public speakers.
Page 176
March 22, 2011
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, staff and commission, general
communications.
County Manager?
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we have just one 10-second
request for some guidance from the Board on a matter related to your
master mobility plan.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Just an update, Commissioners.
For the record, Nick Casalanguida.
I attended a civic association meeting last week with some of the
gentlemen who were concerned about public involvement.
Commissioner Coletta and Commissioner Henning were there. I
offered up to the folks to have them sit in on our 18 breakout sessions
under one condition, that they wouldn't interrupt the sessions and that
they would just listen on a rotating basis. I thought that was about as
open as I could be. And I offered up some other solutions to them as
well too.
1 received e-mail back from the president who said that was not
satisfactory enough. So I just wanted to give you an update that I'm
still trying to give that up to them, and we offer that up to them to sit
in on a non-comment basis, but they chose not to.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute, we have -- Commissioner
Henning and Coletta first.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I thought Nick's
proposal, alternative is -- would clear the air. And I wish they would
take it because --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Me too.
Page 177
March 22, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- you know, Wilson-Miller and
Bob Mulhere are local. And if there's any doubt, then I would love
those people to have the opportunity to hopefully prove they're wrong.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. To be clear, I said it would be
rotating, you know, one or two people that would not provide
comment. They could sit and take notes and tape it however they
wanted to. But different people every time so that they wouldn't
interrupt or participate, and that was the offer we had put out to them,
so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, Nick, I don't think
we ought to give up on it. We were talking about, you know, you're
probably going to have some people from the environmental
community just like to be more knowledge. And even though you got
a notice that they weren't interested, that might not be true. You
know, that group consists of three or four people and one of them may
want to occasionally come in and sit on it just to see how it's taking
place.
Once again, this is for them to be able to take notes, watch what's
happening, not to get involved in the discussion. Because you get a
nontechnical person involved, you go through a learning curve, you're
never going to get to where you need to be. But maybe have a
breakout session at the end where you can answer questions.
I still for one would like to see it go forward.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, my only problem was if you
open it to the public I could have 50 or 100 people --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- showing up to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You have them sign up and you
do it on a rotating basis. You pick three people at random --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- and then the next time it's
Page 178
March 22, 2011
three other people. And I got a feeling you're not going to have more
than five people sign up to do this. And if you get one or two at any
one time it's going to be remarkable. But it opens it up more so when
you get through the public involvement portion of it, way over and
above anything that took place beforehand.
Because, I mean, the argument was strong. The reason why this
plan failed is because we didn't have it open to the public. Now we're
going to have it open and they're not interested. Do it anyways.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Nick, why don't you -- aren't you
videotaping these meetings?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, these are working sessions. These
are where actually consultants come in and look at technical data and
say I think this is inaccurate or this map should be modified. These are
actual working sessions where staff actually looks at data, makes
comments with the consultant.
These are -- we've never done this before, Commissioner. And
again, for extreme transparency 1 offered this up, so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why do you feel compelled to limit the
number of people there if they're not going to participate? If they're
not going to be disruptive, they're not going to ask questions, why do
you care whether or not there's 10, 20 or 50 there?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Accommodations. These could be
held in small meeting rooms. If all of a sudden I opened up to
everybody and 50 people showed up and wanted to -- you can
imagine, picture this, a map gets put on the table and everybody wants
to look at it and we're looking at lines or we're looking at spread sheets
with population projections and people say well, I want to copy that.
It becomes very disruptive to get work done.
I think what the offer was is they could listen just to hear that we
weren't up to anything strange; just to hear that we were going over
data.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Commissioner Hiller?
Page 1 79
March 22, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to make a suggestion. I
agree with Commissioner Coyle, I think numerically limiting it is a
problem.
You could meet in CDS in the room where you have the
Horseshoe (sic), like where they had the floodplain committee
meetings. And why not just conduct it the same way we do all the
advisory committee meetings where anyone can sit in the audience
and you have a period of time at the end where, you know, someone
from the community can comment or make a public records request
and limit the amount of time they can speak, like we do in the
advisory committee, so it's non-interruptive but it still allows for, you
know, openness and transparency.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: As long as, ma'am, it didn't affect our
work -- ability to work --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Again, this is --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It shouldn't.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- far above and beyond anything
we've ever done before.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, because it's so important to
the community and because people -- I mean, even the newspaper, I
read the article where they interviewed you. I mean, obviously there's
a lot of interest as well as concern, both of which are healthy. I mean,
you want a healthy debate in this process.
And I think people want to see what the alternative maps are
going to be and, you know, the alternative recommendations. I think
the more open you are -- and I think you can easily accommodate it
where you have your offices.
And I really do agree that not that many people will show up.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just a --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Just in case.
Page 180
March 22, 2011
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- final note.
The difference between what you're talking about and what I'm
suggesting is normally you hold these meetings after you put together
enough data and different ways to be able to get to a point where
people can make logical decisions based upon the data they got.
In this case here they're in the process of just trying to go through
a thinking process to get the data. There's no set agenda. And it could
-- it doesn't follow anything. And it would be very difficult for them
to be able to hold it like an open format meeting where they --
questions and ans -- they'll never get to where they need to go. They
need to be able to come up -- if somebody wants to question the
process when you bring it to an open meeting, they can do it at that
time and they can add to it, they could take from it, or we can end the
whole thing if it's not --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: My understanding -- thank you for
the clarification.
My understanding was that this was really Phase II, that this is
not the data gathering process, but really the map design, you know,
study, compilation phase of this project. And so as a result it's a little
bit different than just compiling data.
And the other thing you could do is you could take these
meetings and post them to your website and people could just click
and listen and they could, you know, direct questions outside of the
meeting and get answers that way too.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, just to do things like that is
funding. I mean, you know, we're -- for me to post meetings to a
website --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Would it be expensive to tape it
and post the -- Mr. Ochs, would it be expensive for Mr. Torre or
whoever it is to post an audio to our website to do that?
MR.OCHS: I'd just have to see what kind of conflicts. As long
as it doesn't conflict with one of the regular board meetings or other
Page 181
March 22, 2011
meetings that --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Not necess -- I don't mean
necessarily video it, they could just post the audio to the website.
MR.OCHS: I don't think that's problematic.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That would be great.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Again, the offer was just to make sure
that folks could hear, that there wasn't some sort of secret agenda
gOIllg on.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. And maybe that's the
transparency. Maybe just tape all the meetings and post the audio tape
on your website, and then people might call you with questions. And
then everyone could access you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, then you wouldn't be able to do
the planning.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So okay, do you have the guidance you
need?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Oh, God, worse than I --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Try again. But look, you need to
understand what the end game is.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The end game is that people want an
excuse why they're going to oppose it in the end, okay? That's what
it's all about.
So if you limit it, they're going to say well, he wouldn't let us in
to see what was going on, so something must have been really bad
going on there, so we want to vote against this plan.
So that's what all of this is about. It's not about getting people
really informed about stuff, it's about giving people an excuse to
criticize you and undermine the plan later down the road.
So anyway, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just a final point.
Page 182
March 22, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've got to get out of here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I do, I have to get going.
But this is no different than the Golden Gate Master Plan where
there was tremendous push within a group of people to get the thing
on schedule and make it happen. The very last minute they all turned
the other way and said they didn't want to do it.
Now we're hearing the same thing this time, they didn't want to
get involved with this.
I still would like to see it where you had the three volunteers
come in just be able to see what's happening and then maybe talk to
them some point in time in the end.
If I don't have the support of two other commissioners then
you're home free, kid, and you don't have to do anything.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I just want to give you an update.
That's all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You're going to try some more,
right? That's it.
Okay, so now County Attorney, do you have anything?
MR. KLA TZKOW: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I do. I want to clarity a statement
that you made earlier, Commissioner Coyle, about external audits
versus internal audits.
(At which time, Commissioner Coletta exits the boardroom.)
COMMISSIONER HILLER: They are two very different types
of audits. This Board has not been subject to internal audits during the
time that this Board litigated against the Clerk of Courts' right to audit.
In fact, it's very clear that an external auditor cannot engage in
internal auditing and still conduct an external audit without impairing
his independence and therefore being unable to issue an opinion.
What's interesting to note is that the Board of County
Commissioners has never publicly I believe acknowledged the court
Page 183
March 22, 2011
ruling where it was decided that the Clerk does have the ability to
independently audit to whatever extent, whenever and however he
feels is necessary to do so.
So I think what I would like to do, I'd like to ask that this be
brought forward on the next agenda. County Manager Ochs, if you
could put a copy of the opinion of the Supreme Court and the
appellate court. And I'd like to just make sure that the public really
understands, you know, how the Clerk can audit and that there is a big
difference between the internal and the external audit.
And just so you know, the external auditors do not as their
primary objective audit for fraud, which is usually relegated to the
internal auditor. And the external auditor depends heavily on the
audits of the internal auditor when they do their own testing. Which
they obviously, you know, verity doing their own independent testing
as well. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you very much. Now, just --
MR. OCHS: Just a clarification.
I place those under Board of County Commissioner agenda?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute. We've already done that.
Commissioner Hiller has already read into the record the Supreme
Court ruling already. She has read into the record --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I didn't.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, you did.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: When did I do --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: At a prior meeting you said, I'm going to
read into the record the decision of the Supreme Court and the Clerk's
right to audit. Nobody has taken exception to that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't recall that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I recall it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, thank you. If I've done that,
then --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's been done.
Page 184
March 22, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, then if it's been done then I
don't really understand why you're saying what you're saying.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, what I'm saying is that you said we
have not had an audit for the last eight years.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I said by the Clerk of Courts.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, you didn't.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, I did.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You said they have not been audited for
eight years.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: By the Clerk of Courts.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And they're spending money like
drunken sailors.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think you are.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, I'm not familiar --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I still think you are.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm not familiar with the spending
patterns of drunken sailors. But nevertheless, these are remarks that
you make and presented them as fact. And I don't know if you
recognize that you're doing that, but I'm here to help you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I'm going to be here to remind you
when you say things that are not true.
And so the point really is that we have had independent audits,
most recently by Ernst and Young, every year. We have had audits by
the Clerk 22 times in the last eight years. You said we had had none.
And we can show you those audits by the Clerk.
And we know from our discussions today that the Clerk does in
fact engage in audits of payments, and they looked at it from the
standpoint of making sure that we're legally obligated to pay and that
there is nothing irregular going on with respect to the staff. And that
is an ongoing process, and there's nothing wrong with it. And it's
healthy and it helps everybody improve.
Page 185
March 22, 2011
We've had discussions today about those kinds of audits that are
being done.
So the statement that we haven't been audited for eight years is
simply untrue.
Secondly, if we're really spending money like drunken sailors, I'd
like to ask you to be specific and tell us which projects --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure, let me go ahead and do that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, just a moment.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I figured you would ask that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just a moment. I haven't finished.
I'd like for you to tell us if you would approve the jail
construction, would you have approved the courthouse construction,
would you have approved the emergency services building? Which
projects -- would you have disapproved expenditures on the landfill
that have extended the use of the landfill by 25 years?
So let's -- when you do things like that, I'd appreciate it if you
could be very specific about what you would not have spent money
on.
And furthermore, you made the allegation that we are rubber
stamping things and everything is getting done in back room deals.
Once again, that is a false accusation. Back room dealing is a crime
here.
And I notice you didn't exclude Commissioner Henning from any
of these accusations. And it is -- if you have evidence that crimes
have been committed by the commissioners, I would very much
appreciate it if you would get specific and file some charges against
somebody and let's get those corrupt commissioners out of here.
Okay?
Now, I'm finished, temporarily.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. At the MPO meeting the other
day we were talking about the interconnectivity of our transit systems
Page 186
March 22, 2011
with Lee County. And I was just going to ask the County Manager if
he would work with transportation and see about investigating if -- I
realize we can't do it this year because this year's out of the question.
You know, we're going to take another hit so we can't do anything like
that.
But possibly investigate for next year if it would be something
that we could work with Bonita and Lee County on so that we could
provide transportation.
Maybe you could come up with some of the figures, how many
people. They don't even know how many people they're going to
carry right now. But once they do -- and of course we're carrying --
I'm just so proud of our people over in transportation, they're doing
such a great job, not only with the CAT bus system but the paratransit
system.
Yes, we've had a few things to work out with paratransit recently,
but we're working on that as well.
So if you wouldn't mind, is it okay ifI could just have them get
back to us with some ideas for -- not now. And they don't have to
come back at the next meeting, just any old time to investigate that for
next year.
MR. OCHS: You're talking about perhaps providing some
operating funds?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Interconnectivity between Lee
County and Collier County so that we can get workforce back and
forth between the two counties.
MR.OCHS: Yes, ma'am. Commissioner, we're going to be
coming to you next month I believe with a proposal to do just that in
working --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: For interconnectivity?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, no kidding. Okay.
MR.OCHS: Okay?
Page 187
March 22, 2011
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
MR.OCHS: And what I'd suggest to you is after you hear that
presentation, if there's something additional that you'd like us to look
into as part of the FY 12 budget cycle, then we'd be happy to do that,
of course.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Finished?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Hiller, you need
to exclude me from the others.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, association by guilt is
no excuse.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: For the record, I do exclude you
from the others.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, that's nice, you're not a
criminal but we are.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I never said criminal.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And furthermore --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, really?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- today I'm very surprised that
we haven't agreed on most of the things. And I'm very disappointed,
and you need to get in line to agree with --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I agree. I agree that we need to
agree.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Agreed. Yeah, it's not a
representation forum.
Weare supposed to get a report on the Clam Pass Bridge
emergency. It's been two weeks. Do we have anything?
MR.OCHS: Commissioner, I'm expecting the report tomorrow,
Page 188
March 22, 2011
as a matter of fact. And I will forward it immediately on to the Board,
if that's acceptable.
We contracted with a structural engineer to go out and do a
thorough review, and we're waiting on that report. But we're
expecting it tomorrow, actually.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Tomorrow. Well, I'm going to
be out there Thursday. If that bridge falls on me, I'm going to be very
upset.
MR. OCHS : We all would be very upset, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going under the bridge, I'm
not going over the bridge.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, wait, it could be a naming
opportunity. We could name the bridge after you. Oh, my goodness.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, boy, how lucky I am.
MR.OCHS: Mr. Chairman, I hate to belabor this when you're
getting ready to end the meeting, but I'm not sure that I got board
direction on Commissioner Hiller's request to place the court rulings
on the agenda for the next meeting. I don't know if I have three --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why waste the time? You're not going
to get three here now, I don't think. I hope not.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll put it on the agenda. I mean,
I have every right to put anything on the agenda that I want.
MR. OCHS: Well, that's true. I'll put it on.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, it hasn't been on the
agenda. I know there was a Grand Jury investigation on the agenda
(sic) that was referred to, but I never seen that.
I also wanted to bring up, our last discussion at our last meeting
-- I didn't want to do that because there wasn't a full board; I thought
everybody was going to Tallahassee -- and that was the County
Commission meeting ordinance and work with the County Attorney
on that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, could I suggest that you put
Page 189
March 22, 2011
that on the agenda as well and that we address, you know, Roberts
rules and all that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to adjourn.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to say one more thing,
as one of the drunken sailor spenders. And Commissioner Henning,
I'm afraid you were one of us too.
When we first took office, and I hate to repeat this one more
time, but we all knew we were going to have to spend money because
we all knew we had some problems to attend to because the roads
hadn't been built and the wastewater treatment plant in the north was
seeping and the -- and FDEP shut us down because we didn't address
it ourselves and we didn't put any money toward it. We had a stinkin'
landfill that needed to be cleaned up and then we needed to provide
more air space. So in the end it saved us millions of dollars but we
had to spend the money to get there.
And that's only just a few things. And I think it's so unfair to
label people when -- thank God we did it when we did, by the way,
because when the economy went down the toilet we at least had those
things done so our people wouldn't be at a loss.
And we never have any problems with traffic anymore. I just
think that -- I think we've done a good job, quite frankly, no matter
what anybody says.
And I think you did too, Commissioner Henning, because you
were right with us on it. And I just wanted to say that for the record.
Thank you.
And I will make a motion to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I honestly did not see him in any of
those back room deals.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Were you there?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, yes.
Page 190
March 22, 2011
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to adjourn.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's a second by Commissioners
Henning's motion.
Okay, we are adjourned.
** * * Commissioner Henning moved, seconded by Commissioner
Hiller and carried unanimously that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted ****
Item #16Al
RESOLUTION 2011-53: FINAL APPROVAL OF ROADWAY
(PRIV ATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE
FINAL PLAT OF MAJORCA AT FIDDLER'S CREEK WITH THE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PRIV A TEL Y
MAINTAINED AND RELEASE THE MAINTENANCE
SECURITY
Item # 16A2
RELEASE AND SA TISF ACTION OF LIEN IN THE CODE
ENFORCEMENT ACTION ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS VS. MFC INVESTMENTS (FORMERLY
ANGEL AND LISSETTE RIQUELME), CODE ENFORCEMENT
BOARD CASE NO. 2006110568 (A.K.A. 2007-34), RELATING
TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2095 47TH A VENUE NE,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - WAIVING $97,550 IN FINES
BY ACCEPTING A SETTLEMENT OF $607.80 FOR
FORECLOSED UPON PROPERTY THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT
INTO COMPLIANCE BY NEW OWNER, MFC INVESTMENTS,
LLC
Page 191
March 22, 2011
Item # 16A3
RELEASE AND SA TISF ACTION OF FOUR LIENS AND ONE
ORDER IN CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION ENTITLED
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS VS. MARION SMITH
AND JAMES A. SEALS, RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 5408 CARL TON STREET, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA -
WAIVING $674,300 IN FINES FOR PROPERTY BROUGHT
INTO COMPLIANCE AND $10,158.49 IN HARD COSTS PAID
BY HABITAT FOR HUMANITY
Item #16A4
ENDORSE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TO
AMEND THE NAPLES DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A5
REQUEST FOR A ZONING AMENDMENT PETITION FEE
REDUCTION REGARDING THE SABAL BAY PUD AND
DIRECT THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO
CONSISTENTL Y APPLY THE FEE REDUCTION POLICY ON
OTHER SIMILAR APPLICATIONS - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A6
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF THE QUARRY, PHASE 3A,
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVING THE
Page 192
March 22, 2011
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY - WI
STIPULATIONS
Item #16A 7
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF VERONA WALK PHASE
4D, APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVING THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY - WI
STIPULA TIONS
Item #16A8
RESOLUTION 2011-54: SECOND ANNUAL REPORT ON THE
"IMP ACT FEE PROGRAM FOR EXISTING COMMERCIAL
REDEVELOPMENT" AND A RESOLUTION THAT EXTENDS
THE PROGRAM FOR ONE YEAR, SUNSETTING MARCH 24,
2012, UNLESS OTHERWISE EXTENDED - FOR CONTINUED
INTEREST IN THE PROGRAM AND NEED TO F ACILIT A TE
ECONOMIC RECOVERY
Item #16A9
REQUEST BY THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF
COLLIER COUNTY TO ALLOW TURBO SERVICES, INC. TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE FAST TRACK REGULATORY PROCESS
PROGRAM FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A TEST
FACILITY AT IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT - ALLOWS
THE PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS TO BE EXPEDITED FOR
THE BUSINESS THAT SELLS AND LEASES GENERATORS,
PROVIDES PARTS, SERVICE AND CLIENT TRAINING BUT
DOES NOT MEET CURRENT FAST TRACK REQUIREMENTS
Page 193
March 22, 2011
Item#16Bl
COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY REVIEW AND APPROVE THE BA YSHORE
GATEWAY TRIANGLE AND IMMOKALEE CRA'S 2010
ANNUAL REPORTS, FORWARD REPORTS TO THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND CLERK OF COURTS
AND PUBLISH A PUBLIC NOTICE OF THE FILING - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16Cl
RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSENT AGREEMENT & MEMORANDUM
OF RIGHT -OF - WAY CONSENT AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA
POWER & LIGHT CO. CONSENTING TO A UTILITY
EASEMENT AND FOR ACCESS ON, OVER AND ACROSS A
PORTION OF PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE ROOST ROAD
RIGHT-OF-WAY -A PORTION OF PROPERTY ON THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF FIDDLER'S CREEK, PHASE 4
NEEDED TO INSTALL AND CONNECT A NEW WATER MAIN
Item #16Dl
CONVEYING EASEMENTS FOR ELECTRIC, TELEPHONE,
CABLE & RELATED SERVICES AT THE MARGOOD HARBOR
PARK, 321 PEAR TREE AVENUE, GOODLAND, FLORIDA, AT
A COST NOT TO EXCEED $85 - CORRECTING TWO PRIOR
EASEMENTS WITH LCEC AND TO CONVEY EASEMENTS TO
COMCAST AND CENTURY LINK FOR FUTURE SERVICES
Item #16D2
Page 194
March 22, 2011
REJECT RESPONSES TO BID NO. 11-5613, IMMOKALEE
SOUTH PARK "NEW COMMUNITY CENTER" PROJECT - DUE
TO EXCESSIVE CONTRACTOR BIDS THE CONSULTANT
AND STAFF PLAN TO REVIEW ALL OPTIONS, RE-FORMA T
THE BID INVITATION AND RE-ISSUE THE SOLICITATION
Item #16D3 - Continued to the April 12, 2011 BCC Meeting
(Per Agenda Change Sheet)
AGREEMENTS WITH THE DAVID LAWRENCE CENTER,
NA TIONAL ALLIANCE ON MENTAL ILLNESS OF COLLIER
COUNTY, INC. AND COLLIER COUNTY'S SHERIFF'S OFFICE
TO OPERATE THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE, MENTAL HEALTH
AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE REINVESTMENT GRANT AND
ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENTS. FUNDS PROVIDED
THROUGH THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
#LHZ25 FROM FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND
FAMILIES - IMPLEMENTING A $548,490 GRANT OVER A
3- YEAR PERIOD TO HELP IMPROVE ACCESSIBILITY AND
EFFECTIVENESS OF TREATMENT SERVICES FOR PEOPLE
WITH MENTAL ILLNESS, SUBSTANCE ABUSE DISORDERS
AND THOSE MOST AT RISK OF ENTERING THE CRIMINAL
OR JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM
Item # 16D4
GRANT RELATED EXPENDITURE IN EXCESS OF $50,000 FOR
REAL PROPERTY ACQUIRED UNDER THE NEIGHBORHOOD
STABILIZATION PROGRAM TO FUND REHABILITATION
ACTIVITIES. FUNDING ENSURES COMPLIANCE WITH
COUNTY BUILDING CODE REGULATIONS AND FURTHERS
Page 195
March 22, 2011
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF
THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN. (ESTIMATED FISCAL
IMPACT: $53,548.26) - FOR ADDITIONAL UNFORSEEN
REPAIR COSTS AT 3120 WILSON BOULEVARD
Item #16D5 - Moved to Item #10F (During Agenda Changes per
Commissioner Henning)
Item #16D6
RESOLUTION 2011-55: SUBMITTING A FLORIDA BOATING
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANT APPLICATION IN THE
AMOUNT OF $285,000 TO FLORIDA'S FISH AND WILDLIFE
CONSERVATION COMMISSION AND AUTHORIZING THE
BOARD CHAIR TO EXECUTE THE ENABLING RESOLUTION
- WILL BE USED TO FUND REPAIRS, CONSTRUCTION AND
EXPAND FACILITIES AT LAKE TRAFFORD'S ANN OLESKY
PARK IN IMMOKALEE
Item #16El
TWO FIRST AMENDMENTS TO LICENSE AGREEMENTS
WITH AMERICAN TOWER ASSET SUB, LLC, INCREASING
COMBINED MONTHLY FEES FOR EACH SITE BY $50 TO
COMPENSA TE COUNTY USE OF THE LICENSOR/OWNER'S
EXISTING ELECTRICAL SERVICE - FOR LEASED PORTIONS
OF COMMUNICATION TOWERS AT 101 SOUTH CHURCH
STREET, IMMOKALEE AND ON 1-75 AT MILE MARKER 51.2
IN OCHOPEE THAT ARE USED FOR COUNTY SAFEPOINT
LOCATION SYSTEMS
Item # 16E2
Page 196
March 22, 2011
TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP FOR CONTRACT #09-5319 FROM
CHOICE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. TO SWISHER
HYGIENE, INC. DIBIA CHOICE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES,
INC. FOR SOLID WASTE, RECYCLABLE MATERIALS, AND
YARD TRASH COLLECTION SERVICE - DUE TO AN ASSET
PURCHASE OF CHOICE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
Item #16E3
AN AGREEMENT FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $25,000
BETWEEN GAC LAND TRUST AND THE BIG CORKSCREW
ISLAND FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT FOR THE
PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT TO BE USED BY THE DISTRICT
- WILL BE USED FOR PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT
INCLUDING: 8 SETS OF BUNKER GEAR, SELF-CONTAINED
BREATHING APPARATUS, 5 CARBON-MONOXIDE GAS
MONITORS, HELMETS AND A FIRE ENGINE HOSE NEEDED
TO MEET NFP A COMPLIANCE STANDARDS
Item #16Fl
RESOLUTION 2011-56: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING
GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE
PROCEEDS) TO THE FYI0-ll ADOPTED BUDGET
Item # 16F2
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
FOR NCH HEAL THCARE SYSTEM FOR AMBULANCE
SERVICE AND A BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING
AND APPROPRIATING THE $250 ANNUAL RENEWAL FEE
Page 197
March 22, 2011
Item #16Hl
COMMISSIONER HENNING'S REIMBURSEMENT
REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. HE ATTENDED THE MARINE
CORPS LEAGUE OF NAPLES, "HONOR THE FREE PRESS
DAY" EVENT ON MARCH 16, 20 11 AT THE HILTON HOTEL
IN NAPLES, FL., $30 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
HENNING'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT 5111
TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH, NAPLES
Item # 16H2
COMMISSIONER HILLER'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE SEMPER FIDELIS ANNUAL
HONOR THE FREE PRESS DAY LUNCH MARCH 16, 20 11 AT
THE NAPLES HILTON IN NAPLES, FL., $25 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER HILLER'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED
AT 5111 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH, NAPLES
Item #16H3
COMMISSIONER HILLER'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE AVE MARIA FOUNDER'S
DAY DINNER MARCH 15,2011 AT THE NAPLES HILTON IN
NAPLES, FL., $50 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
HILLER' S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT 5111 T AMIAMI
TRAIL NORTH, NAPLES
Page 198
March 22, 2011
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 199
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
March :22. 20 I I
I. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Minutes:
I) Animal Services Advisory Board:
Minutes of September 21, 2010.
2) Collier Countv Code Enforcement Board:
Minutes of August 26, 2010; September 23.2010.
3) Collier Countv Planning Commission:
Minutes of January 6, 201 I.
4) Contractors Licensing Board:
Minutes of October 20, 20 I 0; January 19, 20 I I.
5) Forest Lakes Roadwav and Drainage Advisory Committee:
Agenda of September 8, 2010; October 13,2010;
November 10. 2010; December 8, 2010.
Minutes of August 25, 2010; September 8, 2010;
October 13,2010; November 10, 2010.
6) Golden Gate Communitv Center Advisory Committee:
Minutes of November 1,2010; January 4, 201 I.
7) Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee:
Minutes of July 26, 2010; September 27, 2010.
8) Immokalee Beautification Advisory Committee:
Agenda of April 28. 2010; October 27,2010; November 17,2010;
January 26, 201 I.
Minutes of March 24, 2010; September 22,2010; October 27,2010;
November 17,2010.
9) Land Acquisition Advisorv Committee:
Minutes of January 10, 20 I I.
10) Library Advisory Board:
Minutes of September 15,2010; October 13.2010.
I I) Parks and Recreation Advisory Board:
Agenda of September 15, 2010; October 20, 20]0.
Minutes of August 18,2010; September 15,2010; October 20,2010.
12) Radio Road Beautification Advisory Committee:
Agenda of February 1,201 I.
Minutes ofJanuary 18.201 I.
13) Radio Road East M.S.T.U. Advisorv Committee:
Agenda of October 6,2010; December I, 2010; February 2, 201 I.
Minutes of October 6.2010; December 1,2010.
14) Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee:
Agenda of November 4,2010.
Minutes of October 14,2010.
B. Other:
I)
Code Enforcement Special Magistrate:
Minutes of January 14,201 I.
March 22, 2011
Item # 1611
USE OF CONFISCATED TRUST FUNDS AND A BUDGET
AMENDMENT OF $1,000 FOR FLORIDA SHERIFF'S YOUTH
RANCHES, INC., TO PREVENT DELINQUENCY & DEVELOP
STRONG, LAWFUL, RESILIENT AND PRODUCTIVE CITIZENS
- THE RANCHES HAVE SERVED OVER 115,000 AT-RISK
CHILDREN SINCE 1957, THE FUNDS WILL BE USED TO HELP
RE-OPEN 5 OF THE YOUTH RANCH COTTAGES THAT HAD
CLOSED DUE TO A DECREASE OF CHARITABLE GIFTS
Item #1612
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF FEBRUARY 19,2011
THROUGH FEBRUARY 25, 2011AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #1613
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF FEBRUARY 26,2011
THROUGH MARCH 4,2011 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16Kl
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT PRIOR TO LITIGATION WITH
RAILHEAD INDUSTRIAL PARK OWNER'S ASSOCIATION,
INC., FOR THE SUM OF $33,705.50 TO BE PAID TO THE
COUNTY AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE
THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page 200
March 22, 2011
Item #16K2
A SETTLEMENT PRIOR TO TRIAL IN THE LAWSUIT
ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V
LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, FILED IN THE
TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, FOR THE SUM OF $3,560.93 AND
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ANDIOR RELEASE - FROM
VEHICLE DAMAGE IN 2009 THAT OCCURED WHEN A LAB
CORP (EMPLOYEE DRIVEN) VEHICLE STRUCK A COLLIER
COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES VEHICLE
Item # 16K3
SETTLEMENT OF THE LAWSUIT FILED BY COLLIER
COUNTY AGAINST JUSTINA T. MENACHIO AND RANISHA
L. KNOWLES, IN THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN
AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA (CASE NO. 11-00228-
SC), IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,935.30 FOR TOTAL DAMAGES,
PLUS $390.00 IN COSTS OF LITIGATION AND AUTHORIZE
THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE RELEASE - DAMAGES
FROM A 2009 ACCIDENT IN WHICH AN AUTO CRASHED
INTO A COUNTY FENCE ON SR29
Item #16K4
OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENT, COLOMBO
ENTERPRISES OF NAPLES, INC., FOR PARCELS 131 A, 131 B
AND 133 IN THE AMOUNT OF $378,000.00 IN THE LAWSUITS
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF
NAPLES, ET AL., CASE NO. 04-3587-CA, AND COLLIER COUNTY
Page 201
March 22, 2011
V STONEBRIDGE COUNTRY CLUB COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AI., CASE NO. 04-3588-CA, WHICH
HAVE BEEN CONSOLIDATED INTO ONE LAWSUIT, IN THE
IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT #66042 (FISCAL IMP ACT:
$199,800 IF OFFER IS ACCEPTED)
Item # 1 7 A
RESOLUTION 2011-57: SV-2006-AR-9400 RELATING TO AN
AFTER- THE-F ACT SIGN VARIANCE FOR SWAMP BUGGY
RACESIFLORIDA SPORTS PARK. THE SIGN VARIANCE
REQUEST IS TO ALLOW AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING,
OFF-PREMISES DIRECTIONAL SIGN TO REMAIN AT AN
EXISTING LOCATION UNTIL THE RATTLESNAKE-
HAMMOCKICOLLIER BOULEVARD BRIDGE IS EXPANDED
OR AN ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER ALLOWS THE SIGN
TO BE MOVED ONTO THEIR PROPERTY. THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
COLLIER BOULEVARD AND RATTLESNAKE-HAMMOCK
ROAD ON PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Page 202
March 22, 2011
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:06 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
~w.~
Fred Coyle, Chairma
;:;':r;,," "
c~;,.'x~".~tl';~:.:\. .
"1'<./': :;; :;:-i:.\/,""
A TTESl::~~~:~.,:,~~:i:;~:;/,'~ . ....
. r..\,' :. "",'.' ":&' "
DWIGl\r'~".L~I&:9~,".,CLERK
"H ''''i r,; :<!y~' { .' }:~",] ~ .
These minutes ap!Ved by the Board on 12l or kL, 2 D II
as presented ^- or as corrected .
J
Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Court Reporting,
Incorporated by Cherie' R. Nottingham, CSR.
Page 203