BCC Minutes 05/24/2011 R
May 24,2011
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida
May 24,2011
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 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION
in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida,
with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Fred Coyle
Jim Coletta
Donna Fiala
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
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
May 24, 2011
9:00 AM
Fred W. Coyle, BCC Chairman; Commissioner, District 4
Jim Coletta, BCC Vice-Chairman; Commissioner, District 5; CRAB Vice-Chairman
Donna Fiala, BCC Commissioner, District 1; CRAB Chairman
Georgia Hiller, BCC Commissioner, District 2
Tom Henning, BCC Commissioner, District 3
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS MUST
REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKJj:RS MUST REGISTER WITH THE
EXECUTIVE MANAGER TO THE BCC PRIOR TO PRESENTATION OF THE
AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. ALL REGISTERED SPEAKERS WILL
RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY
THE CHAIRMAN.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53 AS AMENDED BY
ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS
SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE
BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
Page 1
May 24, 2011
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS."
PUBLIC PETITIONS ARE LIMITED TO THE PRESENTER, WITH A
MAXIMUM TIME OF TEN MINUTES.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN
ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3335 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL,
SUITE 1, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Rabbi Adam Miller of Temple Shalom
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. April 26, 20 II - BCC/Regular Meeting
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
A. EMPLOYEE
Page 2
May 24, 20] 1
1) 20 YEAR ATTENDEES
a. Mary Valcante, Pollution Control
b. Jacqueline Lockerby, EMS
2) 30 YEAR ATTENDEES
a. Skip Camp, Facilities Management
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation designating May 24,2011 as Thomas S. Monaghan Day. To
be accepted by Thomas S. Monaghan. Sponsored by Commissioner Coletta.
B. Proclamation designating May 24,2011 as Nicholas J. Healy Day. To be
accepted by Nicholas 1. Healy. Sponsored by Commissioner Coletta.
C. Proclamation designating June 6 to June 10,2011 as Code Enforcement
Officers' Appreciation Week. To be accepted by Diane Flagg and
Members of the Code Enforcement Department. Sponsored by
Commissioner Coletta.
D. Proclamation designating May 24, 2011 as Gulfshore Playhouse Day. To be
accepted by Kristen Coury, Founder & CEO, Bob Harden, Board Chairman,
and Melanie Lisby, General Manager. Sponsored by Commissioner Hiller.
E. Proclamation designating May, 2011 as Internal Audit Awareness Month.
To be accepted by Megan Gaillard, Allison Kearns, Pat Blaney, Ron Dortch
and Bruce Brister from the Clerk's Internal Audit Department. Sponsored
by Commissioner Coyle.
F. Proclamation designating May, 2011 as Trauma Awareness Month. To be
accepted by Kathy Wecher of Lee Memorial Health Systems, and Dan
Robbins, Trauma Survivor. Sponsored by Commissioner Coletta.
5. PRESENTATIONS
Page 3
May 24, 20] ]
A. Presentation of the Collier County "Business of the Month" award to
Florida Specialties ofImmokalee. Accepting the award will be Ron Bailey,
Jr., Florida Specialties CFO.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than I :00 om unless otherwise noted.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item was continued from the April 12. 2011 BCC Meeting.
Petition CP-2008-5, requesting amendments to the Immokalee Area Master
Plan and Immokalee Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map, to make
revisions to the entire Master Plan to include: increases to commercial
acreage, industrial acreage, and allowable residential density; elimination of
some existing designations; creation of a new designation for the Immokalee
Regional Airport site; and, re-designation of approximately 103 acres to
Immokalee Urban Area from Agricultural/Rural within the Rural Lands
Stewardship Area as identified on the countywide Future Land Use Map.
Additionally, staffrequests amendments to the Future Land Use Map and
Map Series of the Future Land Use Element to show the re-designation of
the 103 acres to the Immokalee Urban Area. (Adoption Hearing)
B. Recommendation to adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier
County Code of Laws and Ordinances (The Collier County Consolidated
Impact Fee Ordinance) by providing for the incorporation, by reference, of
the trip generation rate analysis entitled "Transportation Impact Fee
Calculations for Select Land Uses," conducted related to the Church,
Convenience Store with Gas Pumps, Manufacturing, Small Medical Office
and Warehouse land uses; amending Schedule One of Appendix A to
provide for the new and amended land use categories and impact fee rates;
providing for definitions for the new land use categories; updating the
provisions related to the use of impact fee credits and providing for a
delayed effective date of September I, 20 II, in accordance with the notice
period requirements of Section 163.3180 I, Florida Statutes.
Page 4
May 24, 20] 1
",- ""'-'~-"-"""-_."''''~''--'--.'-"'-''~_.'----".'-----_._---_..<..""."'"'----,-_.._.~.---._._-~....
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of member to the Pelican Bay Services Board.
B. Appointment of member to the Industrial Development Authority.
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Provide the Board of County Commissioners with the annual update of
the progress of the Horizon Study Oversight Committee, authorized by
Resolution 2009-38. (Mike Bosi, AICP, Comprehensive Planning Manager,
Land Development Services, Growth Management Division/Planning &
Regulation)
B. Recommendation to renew the current franchise agreements with
Waste Management Inc. of Florida, and Choice Environmental Services
of Collier, Inc. for the collection of municipal solid waste, recyclable and
electronic materials and yard waste in Districts I and II, respectively, for
the contractually prescribed term of seven years, ending at II :59 PM on
September 30, 2020, and authorize the Chairman to sign the renewal
agreements. (Joe Bellone, Utility Billing and Customer Service Manager)
C. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners authorize a
Budget Amendment for the purpose of funding the necessary Panther
Habitat Units (PHU's) required for the Oil Well Road Project (Project
#60044) per terms of the Wetland Mitigation and Panther Habitat Unit
Agreement with Barron Collier Companies approved by the Board on
February 24,2009. (Jay Ahmad, Director, Transportation Engineering)
11. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. Request for authorization to advertise and bring back for future
consideration an amendment to Chapter 49 of the Collier County Code
of Laws and Ordinances, relating to economic development, which will
establish additional criteria to be evaluated (I) when there is a request to
lessen or waive certain requirements in existing economic development
ordinances and programs, and (2) when there is an application seeking
grants and/or other incentives which fall outside existing economic
development ordinances and programs.
Page 5
May 24, 20] 1
12. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
13. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
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
1) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water utility
facility for Southwinds Mobile Home Park, 302 Fillmore Street, and
authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to release any Utilities
Performance Security to the Project Engineer or the Developer's
designated agent.
2) Recommendation to acknowledge the Vacation ofthe 50-foot wide
temporary drainage easement as shown on the plat ofItalia, as
recorded in Plat Book 47, Pages 68 through 70, public records of
Collier County, Florida.
3) Recommendation to approve the purchase of a parcel of right-of-way,
along with a temporary driveway restoration easement, both of which
will be required for the four-Ianing of Golden Gate Boulevard
between Wilson Boulevard and DeSoto Boulevard. Project #60040.
(Fiscal Impact: $9,500)
4) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners set a
public hearing date of September 13,2011 for consideration of a
Development of Regional Impact Development Order for the
Hacienda Lakes Project, Petition Number DRI-2006-AR-10147,
Page 6
May 24, 20] 1
..,,-..-- -- .--.-.---- _.'-_._'''-"'._----_.---._----._,...~._~......~'_._.._.,..---,-~---'-'""_.,~..~.__._-~,_.-.~.-._~._,....__._,..,----,--~-~_..._...-.-_..._---_......- -.. ..............-.-.-...
located on the east side of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951) at the
intersection of Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake-Hammock Road
and north and south of Sabal Palm Road in Sections II through 14, 23
through 25, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, and Sections 19 &
30, Township 50 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida.
5) Recommendation for Board approval of the short-list of design
professionals pursuant to RFP # 11-5639 and to enter into negotiations
between Collier County and TYLlN International, Inc., for "Design &
Related Services for replacement ofCR29 Bridge #030161 over
Chokoloskee Bay". (Project #66066)
6) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners authorize
its Chairman to execute a Sovereignty Submerged Lands Easement
instrument with the Board of Trustees of the IntemalImprovement
Trust Fund of the State of Florida (TIITF) for existing roadway
bridges crossing the Cocohatchee River and one of its tributaries on
Vanderbilt Drive within an existing right-of-way. Project #69081.
(Fiscal Impact: Recording fee not to exceed $75)
7) Recommendation to reject Bid # 11-5662, the Lely Municipal Service
Taxing Unit ("MSTU") Doral Circle Bridge Renovation.
8) Recommendation the Board of County Commissioners to enter into a
Landscape Maintenance Agreement with Diamond Lake
Condominium Association, Inc. for work performed along the County
Right-of- Way along Piper Boulevard to be maintained by the
Association.
9) Recommendation to award ITB #11-5663, Traffic Operations Signal
Components & Hardware on a Line Item Basis to each individual
qualified lowest bidder: Temple, Inc., Rainbow Distributors, Inc.,
Control Technologies of Central Florida, Inc., Graybar Electric Co,
Inc., and TPFL, Inc. (Estimated annual expense is: $300,000)
10) Recommendation for Board approval of the short-list of design
professionals pursuant to RFP #11-5690 and enter into negotiations
between Collier County and Atkins North America, Inc., for
"Construction Engineering and Inspection (CEI) and Related Services
Page 7
May 24, 2011
for SR84 (Davis Boulevard) Radio Road to Collier Boulevard;
SR84/CR95I Intersection Improvements; Collier Boulevard (CR 951)
north to Magnolia Pond Drive; and CR951 (Collier Boulevard) north
to the Main Golden Gate Canal". (Project #60073 & #60092)
11) Recommendation to award Bid #11-5674, "Boston Avenue Sidewalk
Improvements" for construction of sidewalk improvements on both
sides of Boston A venue from South 9th Street to South I st Street to
Stevens & Layton, Inc. in the amount $152,353.55 to be reimbursed
by FDOT under a LAP Agreement. (Project #33122)
12) Recommendation to award Bid #11-5679, "Intersection of Lake
Trafford Road at SR29" for construction of intersection improvements
on Lake Trafford Road and SR29 to Gulf Paving Company, Inc., in
the amount $982,923.32, of which $750,000 will be reimbursed by
FDOT under a LAP Agreement. (Project #33124)
13) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners direct
the County Manager or his designee to prepare an amendment to
Ordinance Number 09-22, Planned Unit Development (PUD) time
limits and time limit extension requirements as found in Section
I 0.02.13.D of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) to
extend the tolling time frame from May 12,2011 to May 12,2012.
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation for the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners (BCC) acting as the Community Redevelopment
Agency (CRA) approve submittal of a Rural Business Enterprise
Grant (RBEG) application to U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Rural Development to augment business support, resources, services
and technical assistance provided through the Immokalee Business
Development Center (lBDC) in the amount of $165, 180 and approve
all necessary budget amendments.
2) Recommendation for the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners (BCC) acting as Community Redevelopment Agency
(CRA) approve after-the-fact submittal of a Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) grant application to Collier County Housing,
Page 8
May 24, 2011
Human & Veteran Services (HHVS) seeking grant funding in the
amount of $140,000 to support improvements to the pedestrian
crosswalks in the Immokalee Central Business District.
3) Recommendation for the Collier County Community Redevelopment
Agency (CRA) to approve a Right of First Refusal Agreement with
Bayshore CAP A Center, Inc. in consideration of a potential future
purchase of CRA owned land; execute a Right of Entry for that land
and approve the Chairman to sign. (Fiscal Impact: None)
4) Recommendation the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
accept conveyance of County-owned property (mobile home sites)
within boundaries of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment
Area to enact the residential infill provision of the CRA's Master
Redevelopment Plan; authorize CRA Chairman to sign the HUD
Settlement Statement; direct CRA staff to record an executed
Statutory Deed from the County; and approve payment and authorize
CRA Executive Director to make payment from Bayshore Gateway
Triangle CRA Fund 187 for all costs and expenses necessary to close
the transaction and insure clear title of same. Site Addresses: 3000,
3152 & 3205 Karen Drive. Fiscal Impact to Fund 187: $41,642.18.
(Companion to Item #16EI2)
5) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment authorizing
the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) to reallocate
$1,117,939.01 within the previously approved Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Disaster Recovery Initiative
(DRI) funded grant budget for the Downtown Immokalee Stormwater
Improvements project. These funds will be deducted from the Land
Capital Outlay line item and added to the Other Contractual Services
line item and will result in a zero increase or decrease in the overall
project budget.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to waive competition and authorize sole-source
purchase of closed circuit televisi on pipeline inspection vehicles and
pipeline inspection parts from Community Utilities Environmental
Services, Inc., and approve the purchase of a replacement pipeline
Page 9
May 24, 2011
"""_~_""~""".""''''__''_'''''O''~'.~,_~'"''~''_''_'_~'''"_'"'_"'"__~"''-'''-''~'_'''"~"__~_~~''''_'''''''''.'~~_'~~_.'_'_..~.~..__~___..~___~_
inspection vehicle in the amount of $199,920.
2) Bid #11-5657, Grease Hauling Services, to Rockfill Associates D/B/A
Crews Environmental, Inc. in an estimated annual amount of $50,000.
3) Recommendation to award Bid # 11-5653, "Riverwood Water
Distribution System Replacement" in the amount of $955,626.67
to Andrew Site Work, LLC, to rehabilitate a potable water distribution
system that serves the Riverwood Subdivision. (Project #71 0 I 0.5)
4) Recommendation to approve a utility easement to the Collier County
Water-Sewer District for construction and maintenance of water
utilities for the landfill gas-to-energy facility at the Collier County
Landfill, at no cost to the County.
5) Recommendation to approve a work order in the amount of
$235,283.56 to Quality Enterprises USA, Inc., for Lift Station
310.0 I Rehabilitation under Contract #08-5011, Annual Contract for
Underground Utility Contracting Services. (Project #70046)
6) Recommendation to award Contract #1 1-5673, "Disaster Debris
Removal and Disposal Services" to three firms, and approve
Ash Britt Environmental Services, Inc., as the initial debris removal
contractor in operational readiness for the 20 II Hurricane Season.
The firms provide post-disaster equipment and human resources for
collection, removal and disposal of disaster generated debris, which
will ensure prompt, timely & efficient restoration of essential services.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign an
amendment to a 2009-20 I 0 Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Subrecipient Agreement with the City of Marco Island
approved February 23,2010 (Item #16DI). This amendment is to
revise Exhibit A, to update scope, budget, outcome performance
measures, and extend project milestone schedule dates in order to
facilitate reimbursement.
Page 10
May 24, 20]]
_...._-.,..--~.~_._'___._..__._.~.~~_____,,__""_.__...._.....__M_',"""'_.,,~____,'~~'~.__._~
2) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a
subrecipient agreement in the .amount of$37,707 using 2009-2010
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) operating
grant funds which have been designated for a Community Housing
Development Organization (CHDO). Florida Non-Profit Services,
Inc. (FNPS) is the CHDO which will receive grant funds, and will use
them towards the salary and benefits of one (I) staff person who will
provide accounting and administrative services to increase the
CHDO's capacity.
3) Recommendation to waive formal competition and approve additional
funding to continue consulting services with York Claims Services,
Inc. (PO #4500105855) providing Collier County support required for
FEMA claims for Tropical Storm Gabrielle, Hurricane Katrina and
Hurricane Wilma for time and material not to exceed $65,000.
4) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign
three (3) Community Development Block Grant-Recovery (CDBG-R)
subrecipient grant amendments to the agreements incorporating
additional American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
(ARRA) reporting requirements in response to Ernst and Young's
Single Audit Management Letter Observation 20 I 0-2.
5) Recommendation to approve and authorize Chairman to sign four (4)
satisfactions of mortgage for owner-occupied affordable housing units
that have satisfied the terms of assistance or repayment in full to
Collier County.
6) Recommendation to approve and authorize Chairman to execute an
amendment to a Florida Boating Improvement Program (FBIP) Grant
extending completion date of the Bayview Park Improvement Project.
7) Recommendation to approve and ratify Staft's extension of Contract
#06-3971 "General Contracting Services" with PBS Construction, Inc.
and related Work Order #45-124175, "Goodland Boat Docks
Installation of Ladders & Cleats" for $14,620 in order to process the
final invoice for work completed.
Page 11
May 24, 20] 1
8) Recommendation to award Bid #11-5628 to OAC Action
Construction, Corp. for the construction contract of the Tigertail
Beach Dune Walkover & Boardwalk Improvement Project #90093.1.
and authorize the Chairman to execute the standard contract after
County Attorney approval.
9) Approve and authorize the Chairman to sign an amendment to the
Collier County Hunger and Homeless Coalition (HHC) Subrecipient
Agreement for U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing (HPRP) Grant
approved by the Board on September 15,2009, Item #16DI9. This
amendment will allow for revision of Exhibit A of the Subrecipient
Agreement to accommodate the HHC's request to no longer include
Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) activities and to
allow HHC to more fully expend grant funds.
10) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
and authorize the Chairman to sign six (6) Homelessness Prevention
and Rapid Re-Housing (HPRP) amendments to the subrecipient
grant agreements incorporating additional American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of2009 (ARRA) reporting requirements in
response to Ernst and Young's Single Audit Management Letter
Observation 20 I 0-2.
11) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a
"Grantee Application for Advance Funding" to access funding for the
Criminal Justice, Mental Health and Substance Abuse Reinvestment
Grant. Funding provided through Memorandum of Understanding
#LHZ25 from the Florida Department of Children and Families.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to ratify Property, Casualty, Workers'
Compensation and Subrogation Claims settled and/or closed by the
Risk Management Director pursuant to Resolution 2004-15 for the
Second Quarter of FY 11 .
2) Recommendation to approve a Donation Agreement with Corkscrew
Regional Ecosystem Watershed Land and Water Trust, Inc. (CREW)
Page 12
May 24, 20] ]
for 9.17 acres under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition
Program, at a cost not to exceed $1,000.
3) Recommendation to approve a First Amendment to Lease Agreement,
a/k/a the Cattle Lease, for the Pepper Ranch Preserve under the
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program and direct the County
Manager, or his designee, to implement the Lease Amendment terms.
4) Recommendation to approve an access easement to the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and Declaration of
Restrictive Covenant which will allow FDEP to monitor the cattle-vat
clean-up site at the Pepper Ranch Preserve and restrict public uses
within the cattle-vat clean-up site.
5) Recommendation to authorize release of $250,000 held in escrow to
Lake Trafford Ranch, LLLP, the seller of the Pepper Ranch Preserve,
and approve the associated budget amendment.
6) Recommendation to approve Bid # 11-5644, "On-Call Roofing
Contractor Services" to West Coast Florida Enterprises Inc. and
Crowther Roofing Company.
7) Recommendation to accept a report concerning the sale and donation
of items associated with a County surplus auction held April 30, 2011,
resulting in gross revenue of$187,456.50.
8) Recommendation to authorize a budget amendment to increase the
County-Wide Capital Budget, Fund 301, Project #52525, General
Building Repairs by $250,000 by moving funds from Fund 301,
Reserves for Contingencies; for the purpose of correcting a problem
in the County's high voltage switchgear located in Building K and
serving various buildings at the Government Center campus.
9) Recommendation to approve and ratify staffs Zero-Dollar Time
Extension of Contract #09-5195 with Boran Craig Barber Engel
Construction Co. (BCBE) in order to process the contractor's final
invoice for work completed on the Marco Island Library Rose Hall
Addition; and authorize the County Manager or his designee to sign
the necessary documents.
Page 13
May 24, 20] 1
..~~,.,__.a_~,~.>_,__._,_.-..__~..,.~",~.___,.,.,.__..,__'.'_'~_,"._~~_,,_______.~......,_,...,~~_~~,.._,,_.__
10) Recommendation to authorize the release of$27,105 in final payment
and retainage amounts for the project known as Underground Storage
Fuel Tanks Removal and Replacement, Bid #09-5237, to the bond
provider for Surge Solutions Group, Inc., Evergreen National
Indemnity Company.
11) Recommendation to approve and authorize an amendment to Exhibit
B to a Board approved agreement with Lely Community Development
District for them to supply irrigation quality water to the combined
site of the Emergency Services Center and South Regional Library at
no additional cost to the County, and authorize the Chairman to sign
the necessary documents following County Attorney review.
12) Recommendation to approve a Resolution authorizing Chairman of
the Board of Collier County Commissioners to execute a Statutory
Deed for conveyance of County-owned property (mobile home sites)
within the Bayshore/Gateway Community Redevelopment area to the
Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA); and
waive any code enforcement penalties levied against the property that
is not associated with costs incurred by the County Code Enforcement
Department to abate violations at the Site Addresses: 3000,3152 &
3205 Karen Drive. Fiscal Impact: None. (Companion to Item #16B4)
F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS
1) Recommendation to approve and authorize purchase of a replacement
Water Tender Pumper from the Florida Sheriff's Bid List for the
Ochopee Fire Control District.
2) Authorize the County Attorney to advertise an Ordinance for future
consideration which would amend Ordinance No. 04-12, as amended,
adding provisions relating to requirements for certificate holders
operating Non-Transport Advanced Life Support (ALS) Services.
3) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
to the Fiscal Year 2010-11 Adopted Budget.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
Page 14
May 24, 201]
-."'--'''--~'~''''"-''~.''--''----"'-''_'~~''~'~~_<~"''"___.__ _,'-"_"'-_~_.~____...~,~~_._._.".,_"'.__""_~~~_.,.__.,.__.,.__..,_o~" ,~,.,..___,,_~.__~., __.".....,_.._
1) Approve budget amendments for $612,320 to increase budgeted
revenues and budgeted expenses for the sale and purchase of aviation
fuel at the Marco Island Executive Airport, Immokalee Regional
Airport and Everglades Airpark.
2) Recommendation to approve a t-hangar lease agreement between the
Collier County Airport Authority and Exec Air, Inc. of Naples, and
High Soaring, Inc. and Aircraft Maintenance of Southwest Florida.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the City of Everglades National Day of Prayer luncheon at
Everglades City Hall, Everglades, FL on May 5, 201 I. $7.50 to be
paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
2) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attending the Gulf Citrus Growers Association 20 II Annual Meeting
and 25th Anniversary Celebration at Labelle Civic Center, Labelle,
FL. $10 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
3) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the Eastern Collier Chamber of Commerce Breakfast in
Immokalee, FL on April 6, 20 II. $15 to be paid from Commissioner
Coletta's travel budget.
4) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the Collier County Medical Society's Annual Meeting &
Installation of 53rd President at Grey Oaks Country Club, Naples, FL
on May 7, 2011. $50 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel
budget.
5) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Page 15
May 24, 2011
Attended the League of Women Voters of Collier County Luncheon
on May 9, 2011 at the Naples Hilton in Naples, FL. $20 to be paid
from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous items to files forrecord with action as directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period April 23,
20 II through April 29, 20 II and for submission into the official
records of the Board.
2) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period April 30,
20 II through May 6, 20 II and for submission into the official records
of the Board.
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a
budget amendment in the amount of$9,912.46 recognizing Federal
HHS Vote Program Grant Award 2006 Funds for Voting Accessibility
for Individuals with Disabilities.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to authorize County Manager or his designee to sign
police affidavits, or other agreements, authorizing the Sheriffs Office
to issue trespass warnings for unauthorized use of County property.
2) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a
retainer agreement with the law firm of Henderson Franklin to
represent the County through trial in the lawsuit entitled Darling Elie,
Individually and as Guardian of Jadarrien Elie, a minor child v.
Collier Counzy, et. aI., filed in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and
for Collier County, Florida, Case No. 07-1463-CA, for a total not to
exceed $100,000 without prior authorization.
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
Page 16
May 24, 20] ]
_~'~'_""'_~'"'_"_"'~""'_~'~"~~^,'_'" .'_'__'''_'''_''__'''__''''~~_..'_''N' _,_.....,.."..,,_ ""..m_..., .. .,' .. _......".,._ .... m~_...____..,_.~.,..._._._.. ___,__,_,__,_ ____"__..___.
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS WHICH ARE QUASI-
JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
A. This item requires that ex-parte disclosure be provided bv Commission
members. Should a hearing be held on this item. all participants are
required to be sworn in. PUDZ-2005-AR-8674, Grace Romanian Baptist
Church of Naples CFPUD. An ordinance of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number
04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which
includes comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area
of Collier County, Florida, by amending appropriate zoning atlas map or
maps by changing the zoning classi fication of the herein described real
property from an Agricultural (A) Zoning District with a portion of the
real property in a ST Overlay (Special Treatment) to a Community Facility
Planned Unit Development (CFPUD) Zoning District with removal of the
ST Overlay for a project known as Grace Romanian Baptist Church of
Naples CFPUD. The project allows development ofa 500-seat church, a
single-family residence and preschool of up to 150 students along with other
permitted & accessory uses commonly associated with church and preschool
use. The property is at the corner of Leaming Lane and Li vingston Road
in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida,
consisting of 12 +/- acres and by providing an effective date.
B. Recommendation to adopt a Resolution approving amendments
(appropriating carry forward, transfers and supplemental revenue) to
the Fiscal Year 20 10-11 Adopted Budget.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252-8383.
Page] 7
May 24, 2011
"'_.. ...-.... - ..-----.---_"____~""~.......,._~,~_..~,,,.""'",,.~...'___~._,__"_,_"_w'..A...~"_~__..._._,..___.__.,..,_.....___..,_.~____.__.,_"._.._.._~__.~,..______
May 24,2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, Board of County
Commissioners meeting is now in session. Would you please stand for
the invocation, which will be given by Rabbi Adam Miller of Temple
Shalom.
RABBI MILLER: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission,
thank you for the invitation to be here this morning.
Friends, as the observance of Memorial Day is nearly upon us,
we are more keenly aware of the ultimate sacrifice made by the many
men and women of our country to protect this land, its citizens and our
freedoms. Today we have gathered to exercise the freedom of self-
governance. We ask on this day that the leaders of our community will
receive the wisdom, vision and courage that they need to provide the
services which protect the health, safety, welfare and quality oflife for
all citizens of our county.
May they gain wisdom and quench their thirst for knowledge by
listening to the voices of our citizens, learning from each person
whom they meet about the issues and concerns that require their
attention.
May the leaders of our county be imbued with the vision
necessary to not only address the matters that come before them today,
but to also plan for the future, using innovation and efficiency to
deliver quality government during a challenging time.
And may these men and women be given the courage and
fortitude to make the difficult decisions necessary as part of their
work, standing up for justice, protecting the vulnerable members of
society, while working to ensure that our county provides excellent
services, programs and facilities to all of its residents and visitors.
Amen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Rabbi Miller.
Please remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, County Manager, you have some
Page 2
. .' _"___"'"~"""_"_W'''''_'''''~_"'_ M___;~._..___"_~;~,-..._."""___~,.._~".._,.,,...__^.,,_.,,..
May 24, 2011
changes to the agenda?
Item #2A
TODA Y'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA AS
AMENDED - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED W/CHANGES
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Good morning,
Commissioners.
These are agenda changes, Board of County Commissioner
meeting May 24th, 201 ] .
First change is a request by staff to continue Item 16(D)(9) to the
June 14th, 2011 BCC meeting.
It's an authorization to process an amendment to a sub-recipient
grant agreement. And the staff has some modifications to the backup
documents they need to complete with the County Attorney's
guidance.
Next item is to move Item 16(E)(3) to your regular agenda to
become Item 10(D). It's a recommendation to approve First
Amendment to Lease Agreement regarding cattle grazing and leasing
at your Pepper Ranch preserve. This item is moved to the regular
agenda at the separate requests of Commissioners Coletta and Hiller.
Next change is to move Item 16(E)(4) to your regular agenda to
become Item 10(E). It's a recommendation to approve an access
easement to allow for monitoring of a cattle bed clean-up site at the
Pepper Ranch preserve. This item was moved at the separate requests
of Commissioners Coletta and Hiller.
Next change is to move Item 16(E)(5) to Item lO(F) on your
regular agenda. It's a recommendation to authorize the release of
$250,000 held in escrow to the seller of Pepper Ranch preserve. This
item was moved at the separate requests of Commissioners Coletta
and Hiller.
Page 3
-.. ........- _ _'_""._'._"_''''__"^''"'.''''h~..,,,.__," '__"'__'_'__'_'_'~_"~~_'_""" ~'_
May 24,2011
Next change is to move Item 16(F)(2) to Item 10(G) on your
regular agenda. It's an ordinance amendment regarding -- relating to
requirements for certificate holders operating non-transport advanced
life support services. That item was moved to the regular agenda at
the separate requests of Commissioners Hiller and Henning.
Next change is to move Item 16(C)(6) from your consent agenda
to become Item 10(H) on your regular agenda. It's a recommendation
to award a contract for debris removal during hurricanes and other
emergency conditions. That item is moved to the regular agenda at
Commissioner Hiller's request.
We have two agenda notes, Commissioners, this morning. The
first one gladly I see is overcome by events. The recipients on 4(A)
and (B) are here at the regular time, so we'll be able to make those
timely.
And finally, there's a correction to bid number for Item 16(C)(2).
The bid award number should be 11-5647 instead of 11-5657.
Those are all the changes I have, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you very much. County
Manager -- or County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: I have no changes to the agenda, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we'll start with the Commissioners
for ex-parte disclosure and any further changes to the agenda. We'll
start with Commissioner Henning this morning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good morning. I have no
further changes to today's agenda.
I do have ex-parte communication on 17(A), and that was the
Planning Commission report from staff. That's all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, sir, I have -- under the
summary agenda I have correspondence. As far as the agenda goes,
the only thing I'd like to do is make a motion at this time to continue
the Immokalee Master Plan indefinitely. And the reason being for that
Page 4
May 24, 2011
is the travel time that's going to take place for the residents in
Immokalee to be here at 1 :00 would be an undue burden when we
know the predictable outcome.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you need a motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's a motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We can do it when we approve the
agenda. But Commissioner Henning has a question or a comment?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I -- no idea when this is coming
back?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would assume it's going to
probably come back when the Blocker issue is settled.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
I have questions about the amendment and the plan that I'd like to
get on the public record. I would imagine I could do that at the CRA
Board? That would probably be the appropriate place if it's going to be
revised? I guess -- is the CRA Director here?
Mr. Mulhere, may I ask you a question, please? I apologize.
MR. MULHERE: That's okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I'm not apologizing to you.
MR. MULHERE: Oh, really? Okay. Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is the amendment going to go
back to the CRA Board?
MR. MULHERE: Well, there would be no reason for it to go
back, other than I'm certain to report any action that the Board might
take. There would be no reason for them to hear it. They've already
taken their action, had a hearing and made a recommendation back to
you.
But, I mean, I'm sure that there would be no objection, obviously,
if you wanted to go out and ask questions, and I certainly can make
myself available, if that's helpful.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Ifit's not going to be
Page 5
May 24, 2011
heard by the CRA, maybe we could do it at the Planning Commission
then.
MR. MULHERE: I mean, I guess it would be the Board's
preference. It's already been to the Planning Commission, it's already
been to the CRA Board. If there are questions, again, no one would
object to answering any questions, I wouldn't think.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just don't want to delay it
when it does come back. But I do want my questions on the public
record.
MR. MULHERE: I think we could schedule some sort of official
discussion at the CRA meeting, that would be no problem. Yeah. I
mean, I'm speaking on behalf of the CRA Director, but I'll certainly
confirm that with her.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're talking about the CRA
Advisory Group or just this group?
MR. MULHERE: Yes, yes, the CRA Advisory Group.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, the motion was made by
Commissioner Coletta to continue this item indefinitely, a second by
Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Okay, the item will be continued.
And you had no further ex-parte disclosure, Commissioner
Coletta?
Page 6
May 24, 2011
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, sir, I don't.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The only ex-parte disclosure I have
pertains to Item 17(A) on the summary agenda, and I have read the
staff report of the Planning Commission and that is the extent of my
ex-parte disclosure and I have no additional changes to the agenda.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, no changes or corrections to
the agenda. And also on 17(A), I have received the CCPC staff report
dated March 17th.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have no changes to the agenda.
We received the staff report on 17 and no disclosures on item two.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Very well.
Then I'll entertain a motion to approve today's regular consent
and summary agenda as modified.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Coletta,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signifY by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign.
(No response.)
Page 7
Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
May 24, 2011
Continue Item 1609 to the June 14.2011 BCC Meetin2: To approve and authorize the Chairman to sign
an amendment to the Collier County Hunger and Homeless Coalition (HHC) Suhrecipient Agreement for the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing
(HPRP) Grant approved hy the Board on Septemher 15, 2009, Item 16019. This amendment will allow for a
revision of Exhihit A of the Subrecipient Agreement to accommodate the HHC request to no longer include
Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) activities and to allow HHC to more fully expend grant
funds. (Staff's request to modify back-up documents to satisfy County Attorney's requirements)
Move Item 16E3 to Item 100: Recommendation to approve the First Amendment to Lease Agreement,
aka the cattle lease, for the Pepper Ranch Preserve under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition
Program and direct the County Manager, or his designee, to implement the Lease Amendment terms.
(Commissioner Coletta and Commissioner Hiller's separate request)
Move Item 16E4 to Item 10E: Recommendation to approve an Access Easement to the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and a Declaration of Restrictive Covenant which will allow
FDEP to monitor the cattle vat clean-up site at Pepper Ranch Preserve and restrict public uses within the
cattle vat clean-up site. (Commissioner Coletta and Commissioner Hiller's separate request)
Move Item 16E5 to Item 10F: Recommendation to authorize the release of $250,000 held in escrow to
Lake Trafford Ranch, LLLP, the Seller of Pepper Ranch Preserve, and approve the associated Budget
Amendment. (Commissioner Coletta and Commissioner Hiller's separate request)
Move Item 16F2 to Item lOG: Authorize the County Attorney to advertise an ordinance for future
consideration which would amend Ordinance No. 04-12, as amended, adding provisions relating to
requirements for certificate holders operating non-transport Advanced Life Support (ALS) services.
(Commissioner Hiller and Commissioner Henning's separate request)
Move Item 16C6 to Item 10H: Recommendation to award Contract #11-5673, "Disaster Debris Removal
and Disposal Services," to three firms, and approve Ash Britt Environmental Services, Inc., as the initial
debris removal contractor in operational readiness for the 2011 Hurricane Season. The firms provide post-
disaster equipment and human resources for the collection, removal and disposal of disaster generated
debris, which will ensure prompt, timely and efficient restoration of essential services. (Commissioner Hiller's
request)
Note:
Proclamations 4A and 4B to be presented at end of proclamations due to awardees not available at beginning
of proclamations being presented.
Correction to Bid Number for Item 16C2: ".ward hid #11 5657 Award bid #11-5647, Grease Hauling Services,
to Rockfill Associates, Inc. D/B/A Crews Environmental and authorize the Chairman to sign the agreement
following County Attorney approval, in the estimated annual amount of $50,000. (Staff's request to clarifY
language)
6114120lt 3:27PM
May 24,2011
Item #2B
MINUTES FROM THE APRIL 26, 2011 BCC/REGULAR
MEETING - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The minutes are approved unanimously.
With respect to April 26th, 2011 BCC regular meeting minutes,
are there any changes to those minutes?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If not, I'll entertain a motion to approve
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Approve the April 26th BCC regular
meeting minutes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: A motion to approve by Commissioner
Fiala, seconded by --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- Commissioner Henning.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The minutes are approved unanimously.
Brings us to service awards. County Manager?
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir, Commissioners, would--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to do that down there?
Page 8
May 24, 2011
MR. OCHS: -- you come down off the dais, please.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Item #3A
SERVICE A WARDS - 20 YEAR ATTENDEES: MARY
V ALCANTE, POLLUTION CONTROL AND JACQUELINE
LOCKERBY. EMS - NOT PRESENT
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
Commissioners, this morning we'll be recognizing two
employees with 20 years of service to the county. First recipient 20
years of service, Mary Valcante from pollution control. Mary?
(Applause.)
MR.OCHS: Our next 20-year service award recipient is
Jacqueline Lockerby from EMS. Jacqueline?
(Applause.)
Item #3B
SERVICE A WARD - 30 YEAR ATTENDEE: SKIP CAMP,
F ACIUTIES MANAGEMENT - PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, our final service award this
morning, recognizing 30 years of service to Collier County
government, Skip Camp from Facilities Management.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now we know why there's such a large
crowd here today. Are all of you leaving immediately after this?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We'd like you to stay for the rest of
the meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, we wouldn't.
Page 9
May 24,2011
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Keep us company.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that moves us to item four on your
agenda this morning, Proclamations.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Item #4
PROCLAMATIONS (ONE MOTION TAKEN TO ADOPT ALL
PROCLAMATIONS)
Item #4A
DESIGNATING MAY 24,2011 THOMAS S. MONAGHAN DAY.
ACCEPTED BY THOMAS S. MONAGHAN. SPONSORED BY
COMMISSIONER COLETTA - ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4(A) is a proclamation designating May 24th,
2011 as Thomas S. Monaghan Day, to be accepted by Thomas S.
Monaghan. This item is sponsored by Commissioner Coletta.
Mr. Monaghan, please come forward.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll ask you to stay here for a picture.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Monaghan, would you like
to say a couple of words?
MR. MONAGHAN: Well, you don't want to get me started. I
remember when I -- you know, we're here because in the Ann Arbor
Township, where we were going to build Ave Maria, we couldn't get
the zoning. And a friend of mine down here by the name of Pat
O'Meara kind of gave me the idea to do it here. And I immediately
thought it was a great idea. I went back and I talked to Nick Healy,
our president, and he said that's a great idea, and moved to Naples.
And so I immediately volunteered to come down and get the ball
Page 10
May 24,2011
rolling. And then the first person I talked to is Jim Coletta. Now, I'm
used to being in a township with no growth and I seem to be public
enemy number one, and he said, what do we have to do to get you
here?
And you certainly did it. You rolled out the red carpet. We were
on the Fast Track. And as you know, we opened up that campus in
record time, and forever will be appreciative of that. And thank you
for this event today.
(Applause.)
Item #4 B
DESIGNATING MAY 24,2011 AS NICHOLAS 1. HEALY DAY.
ACCEPTED BY NICHOLAS 1. HEALY. SPONSORED BY
COMMISSIONER COLETTA - ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4(B) is a proclamation designating May 24th,
2011 as Nicholas 1. Healy Day, to be accepted by Nicholas J. Healy,
sponsored by Commissioner Coletta.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Nick, did you have any
comments you wanted to share with us, any words of wisdom?
MR. HEALY: I can only echo what Mr. Monaghan said about
the reception we got from the County Commissioners, all of them at
the time. I think we went and visited after visiting you, Jim, we went
and visited every single commissioner, and it was unanimous that we
would have their support and encouragement. And this has proved an
invaluable part of our decision making all along. And it was a great
decision and we never regretted it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Item #4C
Page 11
May 24, 2011
DESIGNATING JUNE 6 TO JUNE 10,2011 AS CODE
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS' APPRECIATION WEEK.
ACCEPTED BY DIANE FLAGG AND MEMBERS OF THE
CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT. SPONSORED BY
COMMISSIONER COLETTA - ADOPTED
MR.OCHS: Item 4(C) is a proclamation designating June 6th to
June 10th, 2011 as Code Enforcement Officers Appreciation Week.
To be accepted by Diane Flagg and members of the Code
Enforcement Board. This item is sponsored by Commissioner Coletta.
Please come forward.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like a copy of that to hang on
my wall. I'm serious about that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're looking at some people here
that make a huge difference in our community. I've worked with a lot
of them and I attend a lot of the meetings for the East Naples Task
Force. And I'm telling you, these people work so hard. And their job
is not a fun job, it's not an easy job to go in and tell somebody that
their place is a mess or they're violating codes and so forth. And I just
want to hand it to all of you, you are so professional in the way you
approach these things, the way you deal with the people.
And Diane, thank you for being a great leader to this group.
MS. FLAGG: Commissioners, briefly, Diane Flagg, Collier
County Code Enforcement Director, for the record.
We would like to thank the Commissioners, the County Manager
Leo Ochs, and our Deputy Administrator Nick Casalanguida for the
support and the assistance that you have given us in preventing blight
in our community.
As you know, that's been the focus on our efforts, and we've
experienced more than 22,000 foreclosure filings in Collier County,
Page 12
May 24,2011
and there are many more homeowners that are in default due to the
faltering economy. We continue to receive more than 100 new code
cases every week, and these folks are performing more than 500
property inspections every week.
And finally, we continue to work with the banks so that their
money will be spent to abate code violations rather than our funds
being spent. And the banks to date have spent more than $2 million in
Collier County to abate code violations.
So thank you again for your support.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That taxpayers didn't have to spend.
MS. FLAGG: Yes, absolutely. Thanks so much.
Item #4 D
DESIGNATING MAY 24,2011 AS GULF SHORE PLAYHOUSE
DAY. ACCEPTED BY KRISTEN COURY, FOUNDER & CEO,
BOB HARDEN, BOARD CHAIRMAN, AND MELANIE LISBY,
GENERAL MANAGER. SPONSORED BY COMMISSIONER
HILLER - ADOPTED
MR.OCHS: Item 4(D) this morning, Commissioners, is a
proclamation designating May 24th, 2011 as Gulfshore Playhouse
Day. To be accepted by Kristen Coury, founder and CEO, Bob
Harden, board chairman, and Melanie Lisby, general manager. This
item is sponsored by Commissioner Hiller.
Please come forward.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I hold season tickets. I hope all of
you do too.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you want to make a few remarks, tell
us about what you do where and when.
MS. COURY: My name is Kristen Coury. I'm the founder of
Page 13
May 24,2011
Gulfshore Playhouse. And seven years ago I moved to Naples
because it was beautiful and wonderful, and then had the desire to
bring high quality professional theatre and unique educational
opportunities to Collier County.
We ran into several challenges with lack of venue space and lack
of place to sort of call our hats home and hang our hat and call it
home. As a result, there was a possibility we were going to have to
leave Collier County and go to Lee County for a brief period.
And we're delighted to have been able to have found our home
downtown and -- for the past four years and have been able to see a
real embracing by the community over these past several years.
We've doubled our ticket sales for the second time in two years and
we have over 100 workshops currently in the Collier County School
District, in-school workshops that help teach the content curriculum
through the use of theatre arts.
And we now bring a full floor show professional theatre season
to Naples. That's produced here. And brought -- all the actors are
brought in, most of them from New York and whatnot. So we're
bringing in people with Broadway credits and TV credits and film
credits into Naples and producing something that's specifically for
Collier County and enjoyed by Collier County and hopefully is an
economic driver to the area as well.
And so I would like to thank the Collier County Commissioners
for their acknowledgment of this growth that we've had, and as a result
this year we've been named one of the top 20 non-profits nationwide
by Great Nonprofits.org. So we're really delighted by having been
embraced and we'll continue to do our best to continue to provide high
quality professional theatre and unique educational opportunities to
Collier County.
Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
Page 14
May 24,2011
Item #4 E
DESIGNATING MAY, 2011 AS INTERNAL AUDIT
AWARENESS MONTH. ACCEPTED BY MEGAN GAILLARD,
ALLISON KEARNS, PAT BLANEY, RON DORTCH AND
BRUCE BRISTER FROM THE CLERK'S INTERNAL AUDIT
DEPARTMENT. SPONSORED BY COMMISSIONER COYLE-
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4(E) is a proclamation designating May, 2011
as Internal Audit Awareness Month. To be accepted by Megan
Gaillard, Allison Kearns, Pat Blaney, Ron Dortch and Bruce Brister
from the Clerk's Internal Audit Department. This item is sponsored by
Commissioner Coyle.
Would you come forward, folks?
(Applause.)
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner Coyle, for the record, Crystal
Kinzel. We'd just like to thank the Commissioners for recognition and
we thought it would be an opportunity for you to meet your newly
reinstituted professional staff in the Internal Auditor Department. And
we truly appreciate the recognition for the month. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Item #4 F
DESIGNATING MAY, 2011 AS TRAUMA AWARENESS
MONTH. ACCEPTED BY KATHY WECHER OF LEE
MEMORIAL HEALTH SYSTEMS, AND DAN ROBBINS,
TRAUMA SURVIVOR. SPONSORED BY COMMISSIONER
COLETTA - ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item 4(F) is a proclamation
Page 15
May 24, 2011
designating May, 2011 as Trauma Awareness Month. To be accepted
by Kathy Wecher of Lee Memorial Health Systems and Dan Robbins,
trauma survivor. This item is sponsored by Commissioner Coletta.
Please come forward. Thank you.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do you want to say a couple
words?
MS. WECHER: I will. We want to thank everybody from the
Lee Memorial Trauma Center for recognizing Mayas Trauma
Awareness Month. And we also want to let you all know that we are
your trauma center. We cover Collier, Lee, Charlotte, Hendry and
Glades and now parts of DeSoto.
And what that means for you is if you meet the critical standards
for a trauma alert patient, you're brought into us and you will have an
entire team that is waiting for you. So you'll have a trauma surgeon,
an anesthesiologist, two registered nurses, someone from the OR,
someone from the blood bank, a lab technician, a social worker, an ER
physician. Briefly, we have a whole team. Respiratory therapy is in
there also.
Our focus is to concentrate on you, and we are there to make
your recovery much better and quicker, and that you get back to your
activities of daily living. So we are happy to service your area.
We're also available -- I do injury prevention education. If you
have any needs for that, I'm available to drive down and provide any
educational needs that you may have or want. And we do work with
your Safe and Healthy Kids Coalition here as well, which is a
wonderful group. They've done a great job bringing that together in
such a short time. So thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, ifI could get a motion to approve
the proclamations, please.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve the
Page 16
May 24,2011
proclamations, just--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Fiala, second by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, signifY by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
Item #5A
PRESENTATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY "BUSINESS OF
THE MONTH" AWARD TO FLORIDA SPECIAL TIES OF
IMMOKALEE. ACCEPTED BY RON BAILEY, JR., FLORIDA
SPECIALTIES CFO - PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Thank you. That takes us to Item 5 on your agenda,
Presentations. 5(A) is a presentation of the Collier County Business of
the Month Award to Florida Specialties oflmmokalee. Accepting the
award will be Ron Bailey, Jr., Florida Specialties CFO.
Please come forward and accept your award.
(Applause.)
MR. BAILEY: On behalf of Florida Specialties, I would like to
extend our thanks to the County Commissioners, the many department
heads that were involved, the EDC, the CRA, and the staff that made
this possible at Collier County.
We have a very short video presentation. I hope it's very short. I
Page 17
May 24,2011
think it's only about two or three minutes. So what I'd like to do is
start this and just add a couple more comments as to what our
organization does.
(Video shown.)
MR. BAILEY: Just over a year ago Florida Specialties was only
a produce company, shipping to 40 states and Canada. Myles Strohl,
which you saw in this production, acquired the company and he had a
vision to change the company, unlike what's been done in our region
here, into a food processing organization. Right straight from the
fields to the processer.
How were we going to do this? We had to build a facility on a
five-acre site before the end of the year in Collier County, in
Southwest Florida. That's almost unheard of.
We approached the EDC, Tammie Nemecek and Brooke
Gabrielsen, for their assistance in approaching the County Board to
enlist their support to see if we could not all work together to expand
our operation, build this plant, and at that time we thought it would
only take an addition of perhaps 25 to 50 personnel.
I'd like to say that the County Board, each Commissioner, took a
genuine interest in our organization expanding in the Immokalee area.
The County Board approved three grants for us. They approved the
Fast Track Program, the Job Creation Investment Program and the
Broadband Grant.
And what did that allow us to do? The Fast Track Program
allowed us to build a new plant in Immokalee, in less than seven
months. So we had a facility up and running. By the time that we
received the Fast Track approval we had it up and running and C.O.'d
the first of this year. I think that's unheard of.
And I think really I'd like to give applause to the Commissioners,
Planning and Building Department, specifically Nick Casalanguida,
Nick and his staff, for making this possible.
(Applause.)
Page 18
May 24,2011
MR. BAILEY: Now, on the -- in order to get the ball rolling,
Bob Mulhere and our contract group, Phoenix Associates, led the
charge on the ground for permitting and planning, construction, site
development, equipment installation, fire safety, and fortunately we all
worked as a team, and it happened.
So I do want to be a strong advocate that the Fast Track Program
in this county is a success, it does work. And because of that, we have
now expanded the operation that for one shift our operation now takes
60 more employees to operate. We expect to be at two shifts within a
year or 120 full-time employees. That's rather significant in the
Immokalee area, because there's so much agriculture, cyclical-type
work, whereas our processing is done 24/7. It's done year round.
How did the county benefit? The county benefited through -- the
big part was there was about 10 more million dollars added to the tax
base. Over half the expenditures that we spent did go into the county
-- into county businesses and contractors. New wages will amount to
over a million and a quarter per year. Sales tax comes back to the
county. It does help to stabilize the work force in an area that really
needs that, in the Immokalee area.
And I really think that with the installation of this new food
processing, I think the county will now have the ability to perhaps
gravitate other processing companies to consider this region. I mean,
we have the resources here, we grow the product. The fastest way to
the shelf is from our fields in South Florida, process a product here
and distribute it out.
With that said, I would like to again extend our appreciation to
the County Board, department heads, the EDC, the CRA, and the
hard-working employees at Florida Specialties that made this possible.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. It's a great success story,
Ron. We're glad to have you here.
Page 19
May 24, 2011
MR. BAILEY: Thank you.
Item #9 A
RESOLUTION 2011-93: APPOINTING DAVID J. TRECKER TO
THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES BOARD - ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 9(A) on your
agenda this morning. It's appointment of member to the Pelican Bay
Services Board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have a question on this, if I may?
First of all, I notice that there were a couple other applications in here
that of course aren't mentioned on the first thing. And I'm not quite
sure what they're even for at all.
Somebody named John Iazzo. And the other person is named
Michael Levy. And they both say Pelican Bay Services Division, but
they're not on here to be considered. Could I find out what they're
for?
MR. MITCHELL: Commissioner, for this round there were two
applicants -- there was one vacant position. And this followed the
applications for the previous Pelican Bay Services Board. There was
two applicants. There was Ms. Susan O'Brien, Mr. David 1. Trekker,
they were the only two applicants.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How come the other ones were in
here, though? I don't quite understand why --
MR. MITCHELL: Sorry, that must have been a mistake with the
paperwork.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay, fine. I didn't know if
there was something else we were supposed to consider.
And also, in the actual board, there were little asterisks here, but I
wasn't quite sure what the asterisks were supposed to indicate. Do you
know?
Page 20
May 24, 2011
MR. MITCHELL: I don't know, the Board just recommended--
the Board in their letter had recommended Mr. Trekker and they'd
asked that we keep Susan O'Brien's application to be returned for the
next vacancy. But in actual fact --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But you don't know what the little
asterisks are here for as far as the present board members? There was
no clue as to why they were placed there, and I just thought maybe
that was something else we should be aware of. Okay, fine, thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve Dave Trekker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, motion to approve the committee's
recommendations, Mr. David Trekker by Commissioner Henning.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Hiller.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2011-94: APPOINTING GINA DOWNS TO THE
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, the motion passes unanimously.
Page 21
May 24,2011
MR. OCHS: 9(B) is appointment of member to the Industrial
Development Authority.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve the committee's
recommendation of Gina Downs.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Hiller (sic) to
approve the appointment of Gina Downs, seconded by Commissioner
Coletta.
Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I noticed that this position --
I guess there was only one applicant. And whenever that happens,
there's always a concern that the item hasn't been adequately
advertised or people don't understand what the position is about. And
I have a concern about that.
I mean, I think that, you know, we have so many good people in
this county with great credentials, and I think we want to invite a
variety in terms of individuals on boards as opposed to having anyone
individual sit on so many boards. We want to include as many people
as possible in the process and as a source of advice to us.
So I would like to suggest, and I'd like to make a motion -- I
guess we have a motion on the table --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We already have a motion--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, and so I -- but, you know,
before we vote on this motion, I'd like to ask that you reconsider the
motion and that we put this back out, re-advertise and invite more
people to consider participating.
Maybe one thing we need to do is announce when these positions
are open at the Board meetings as soon as we are ready to post the
advertisement and let the public know by way of Collier County TV,
through these meetings, that these positions are available and, you
know, citizens should consider applying. I think it's very important.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, a point to what Commissioner
Page 22
May 24, 2011
Hiller's just said, we did actually advertise this position two times. On
the first round we didn't get any applicants, and then on the second
round we did get one applicant.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's a very interesting point.
Thank you for bringing that to our attention, Ian.
Then I really think that we need to announce these openings at
the public meeting to let the public know what opportunities are out
there. I'm not sure how the advertising is being done and if it's coming
to the attention to as many people as possible.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, that's handled through Mr.
Mitchell's office. So whatever the pleasure of the Board is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I've seen them posted on our television
channel.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have too.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to see them announced at
the meetings.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Very well. We have a motion on the
floor for approval of Ms. Gina Downs.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it passes unanimously.
And we -- is there any objection by the Board to asking that Mr.
Mitchell make -- take some time during our correspondence to
announce any vacancies that might be appropriate?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's fine. As many people as we
can.
Page 23
May 24, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So we'll provide you time in the
future.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, I think that would be a really good move.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Under public comment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Not necessarily under public comment
but we can have it during correspondence and communications.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: During a break?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
So we -- is there any objection to doing that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: None.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I make a suggestion? Why
don't we include a line item in the agenda specifically for Mr. Mitchell
so he can announce advisory board and other openings. And then it
doesn't interfere with any other agenda item and it stands on its own
and the backup is produced as part of the agenda, and that way
everybody will be informed by way of the agenda as well as by way
of your announcement.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm afraid I was just going to say the
same thing, as long as it's a line item, then we'll have a listing of all
those vacancies available so it can be produced when we produce our
agenda, and also it appears on the screen on our television. That's
fine. I think that's a good idea.
MR.OCHS: Mr. Chairman, in might, I hate to be the stickler of
administration (sic), but if we add another number then we resequence
everybody else on this agenda. Is there any consideration to adding
that as part of item nine, perhaps a Board of County Commissioners
and --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure, that's a good idea --
MR. OCHS: -- advisory board appointments, and it will be an
item under nine?
Page 24
May 24, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's a great idea.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It serves the same end.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good.
Item # lOA
PROVIDE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WITH
THE ANNUAL UPDATE OF PROGRESS OF THE HORIZON
STUDY OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, AUTHORIZED BY
RESOLUTION 2009-38 - MOTION TO ACCEPT REPORT-
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Takes us to Item 10 on your agenda, Mr. Chairman.
10(A) is an item to provide the Board of County Commissioners with
the annual update of the progress of the Horizon Study Oversight
Committee authorized by resolution 2009-38.
Mr. Bosi from your Comprehensive Planning staff will present,
along with the chair of your oversight committee, Mr. McDaniel.
MR. BOSI: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Mike
Bosi with the Comprehensive Planning Section of the Land
Development Services.
I'm going to introduce the chairman of the Horizon Oversight
Committee.
Just a reminder to the Board of County Commissioners, this was
an extension of the Horizon Study, which was started back in 2004
where the Commission looked -- was looking at staff to say, how can
we assess the future that build-out will hold for us, in coming up with
ideas and strategies to maximize our efficiencies in providing the
infrastructure and services that are available to it.
This is the third phase of that study. This oversight committee
was created, one, to remind you of the position points that came out of
Page 25
May 24, 2011
that Horizon Study. Two, to make sure that the monitoring and annual
update of the Collier Interactive Growth Model, which was a planning
tool that was authorized by the Board of County Commissioners as
part of the Phase II ofthe Horizon Study, as well as providing for
recommendations in terms of the appropriate use of the CIGM.
Last year at this time in May the oversight committee provided
you the update of the activities. Mr. McDaniel and the committee has
endorsed a presentation.
I would just ask at the end of the presentation just -- that I can put
on a couple of remarks of correspondence that I had received from
some of the committee members regarding the presentation.
With that, Mr. McDaniel?
MR. McDANIEL: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is Bill McDaniel. I serve as the chair of the Collier
Interactive Growth Model Oversight Committee.
I have to apologize this morning. In my need to try to analyze
the agenda, I for some reason thought our presentation was going to
go off after 1 :00, so I just came scurrying up the stairs. So if I seem a
little short of breath, it was because I was hustling to be up here and
not hold things up.
Our committee was formed as an oversight committee out of the
East of 951 Horizon Study Committee which I chaired for you during
that period of time. The committee was formed to identify the issues
that were put forth by the East of 951 Horizon Study Committee and
oversee the utilization of the Interactive Growth Model, its
maintenance and ultimately its accuracy.
As Mike stated before, the committee -- the East of 951 Horizon
Study Committee recommended that you adopt the model for the
entire county. During that process we determined that maybe we
should use it for East of 951 first, truth it, ensure its accuracy and then
come forth later on as those accuracies were ultimately proven.
Part of the purview of our committee, as I said earlier, is to put
Page 26
May 24, 2011
forth the position points of the East of 951 Horizon Study. These
position points have been before you in the past. I won't spend a lot of
time on them other than to say that some of them still need addressing.
Some of them are going to require a cooperative effort between our
county and independent agencies, one of which is the installation of
fire hydrants on some of the force mains in eastern Collier County to
assist with fire suppression.
Our committee took upon ourselves to study some of the
historical data that our community has experienced. We went all the
way back to 1970, looking at specific demographics of our
community .
The model, the Interactive Growth Model, has been used -- it's
been used to test our current FLUE, our FLUE map, which is one of
the planning tools that our Comprehensive Growth Management Plan
utilizes in determining land uses that we have in our community.
It assists in formulating build-out scenarios for the rural sector of
our community. And remember that the model has only been used
predominantly for the eastern portion of our community so far.
It also has been used most recently in the master mobility
planning process. It assists in modeling scenarios that will help reduce
traffic trips for folks within our community, which is one of the issues
that's been put forth by the Department of Community Affairs in
assisting in carbon emissions and such.
In the last round of Comprehensive Growth Management Plan
amendments the model was used as a tool by our staff to assist in
determining market, demographics, utilization of potential land uses
and proposed land use changes.
It serves as a common data base. It is protected. No one can get
to it except for Dr. Van Buskirk and his company. Data is put into the
model to ascertain answers to questions for proposed land use changes
that are brought before us.
It's received national recognition, multiple publications, and it's
Page 27
May 24, 2011
currently being used by a jurisdiction up in Cape Coral and approved
by the Department of Communist -- the Department of Community --
did I say that out loud?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You might have had it right.
MR. McDANIEL: Forgive me for that. Yeah, forgive me for
that.
It's been approved by the Department of Community Affairs for
their use as a planning tool.
That was very disrespectful.
The model uses T AZ units, which have been recently expanded
to develop population estimations for our community. It sets forth
guidelines for commercial use throughout the community to assist in
rendering services to the population that is inevitably coming to our
community. And it also identifies economic deficiencies and
opportunities as we go forth with the ultimate growth of our
community .
As I said earlier, this is just an expansion of what we've already
talked about, but the -- as our community grows, it's important for our
leaders to incentivize other economic bases to sustain us economically
as our community reaches its maturity.
As communities grow, they reach an inflection point or a tipping
point. Currently estimations of population within our community
head us towards the 950,000 mark in overall population. That tipping
point for us is 475,000. And as you can see right now, we currently
reside at about 321,000.
As your population grows and you reach that inflection point, it's
important for incentivization for ultimate -- or for alternative
businesses that are going to sustain us economically.
Construction grows with your population, and as your population
reaches the inflection point and starts to reach maturity, construction
fades away and it's important for us to have economic sustainability
for the future.
Page 28
May 24, 2011
One of the things that we found with respect to the model was its
accuracy in forecasting population. Currently we're relegated to use
the BEBR numbers for estimations of population. We went back to
1980 and the BEBR numbers forecasted our population at 168,000
people for the year 2000. The Collier Interactive Growth Model
forecasted the population, had it been in existence, we tested it and it
would have forecasted our population at 247,000. The actual census
data in 2000 showed a population of 251,000.
The premise behind this slide is to share with you the necessity of
feeding our plans that we already have in place with accurate
information from with which to make decisions, ultimately garnering
the greatest rate of return on the necessary capital expenditures that
we're going to have to spend in order to support the inevitable growth
and development that's coming to our community.
Here's some demographic information, some historical data. This
presentation has been put forth, it's on the website, and folks are
welcome to hop out there and have a look at it. But we traveled all the
way back to 1970, looked at demographics of our population and then
carried that forward with 2009, a one in 10 count that they did in
advance of the 2010 census.
These trends are important for us as decision makers going
forward, because it shows socio shifts, population shifts, and what
portions of our population reside in particular areas, and then what
impact that they inevitably are going to have on our economic
sustainability and where we as the decision makers need to provide
for accommodation of services for this population.
Pick your planning model, pick your planning estimation
methodology, we're staring at inevitable growth. Whether that
number is 800,000 or a million, it really doesn't matter at this
particular juncture. What we need to do is use as accurate of
information as possible to feed into the plans that we already have
in place in order to provide for those that come after us with the
Page 29
May 24, 2011
opportunity to make socio shifts and political decisions with respect
to land uses and inevitably what our population is going to be.
As I said before, construction related industries tend to wane as
your population goes past the inflection point. And it's necessary,
especially in these times currently where we are, that incentivization
provided for light industry and other industries other than construction
to support our community economically going forward.
Some of the recommendations that the model has is for specific
land use changes in the eastern portion of our community that will in
fact allow for those types of industries to come to our community and
sustain us economically going forward.
One of the promotions that the model -- and we have seen
historically, you can look around in other municipalities, whenever
there's a university there's success. There's -- it provides for an
education level that attracts industries to our community because of
the demographic and the education level of our populace. I think this
morning earlier we recognized Mr. Monaghan today, so there you go.
There has been recognition of a need to include the entire county
in the model in order to utilize it to the maximum benefit that we have
available. Having the information of all land uses in our community
will help us better forecast how to manage the inevitable growth and
development that's coming to our community.
And these are some of the things that the model has already
necessarily been utilized for.
There are cost savings that are associated with the utilization of
the model. I've got another slide coming up here in a moment that will
be more specific with respect to that.
It allows for land use budgeting. It's a very objective model to
allow for potential land use changes and then see what the ultimate
output for those proposed land use changes in fact could provide us as
a community.
As I stated earlier, we're mandated in our Comprehensive Growth
Page 30
May 24, 2011
Management Plan to provide certain services and infrastructure as our
community grows. And it's our responsibility to garner the greatest
rate of return for those necessary expenditures. And having a plan,
which we have, our FLUE and Comprehensive Growth Management
Plan, that is supplied with as accurate information as possible will
allow us to garner those greatest rates of returns on those necessary
capital improvements.
Last year when we made the presentation, again it was suggested,
it has been suggested all the way since the East of 951 Horizon Study
days, that the model be adopted for the entire county. And we
suggested again last year that it was adopted for the county, and the
proposed expense for that is approximately $150,000. We've spent
$100,000 so far in utilizing the model since its inception.
This slide shows a cost benefit analysis. By adopting the model
for the entire county, our staff, our independent departments will no
longer have to go out and seek independent contracts for land use
modeling for the AUIR process. There's a lO-year benefit. We get
our money back over 10 years. Not to mention having accurate
information to provide and feed into our plans already to support the
necessary capital expenditures that we have forthcoming.
Out of the East of951 Horizon Study there was a component in
there that talked about -- we met with all of the departments of our
community, and one of the things we found out was that there really
hadn't been a large exploration in collocation of fire and EMS
facilities. Now, there are consequences of all decisions as we go
along. But it's estimated that our community is going to grow some
88,000 people. Our Comprehensive Growth Management Plan
necessitates that for every 16,400 we have to build a new fire station.
We have to put in a new EMS station. And the collocation of those
facilities will save the taxpayers approximately $1.4 million. If we
were capable of doing all five, there would be an excess of $7 million
in savings. May not be possible to do that, and those will be decisions
Page 31
May 24, 2011
that we'll make as we come along, simply because of the dispersal of
the population will necessitate the location of those facilities where the
populace ultimately ends up.
And with that, there's the big Q and A slide.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, I received a copy of an e-mail
as a result of the work I was doing to study this information from one
of the committee members. And I just want to point out, this
committee basically only has three members and one alternate. And
one of the committee members, Mr. Teaters, was very concerned
about the recommendation being made today. And while he had voted
in favor of it earlier, he attempted to call an emergency meeting and
rescind his vote and change his vote to a no-vote. So I'm going to
introduce his e-mail on the record. He's asked that this be continued.
And I would agree. I mean, if someone like Mr. Teaters who's
been involved in this has concerns, I think his concerns need to be
heard. I don't think we're in a position today to accept this as a model
for the entire county.
The other issue is the executive summary didn't discuss any sort
of approval of any cost to expand this modeling beyond how it's
already being used. So I don't believe that this board should or can
vote on this as you're presenting it, because it's not part of the agenda
today.
Lastly, I have concerns about the assertion that this is an
objective model. This model actually becomes very subjective based
on the inputs. And replacing the BEBR with other data to produce
outputs certainly will have subjective implications as opposed to
objective results.
So just based on the little I've heard today and the e-mail
communication that I have seen, I'd like to make a motion that this be
continued and that this be brought back after Mr. Teater's position is
made known and we have the benefit of hearing what his thoughts are,
Page 32
May 24, 2011
since obviously this is a material change.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This item does not request any decision
by the Board, it's merely a status report. It requires no vote, it requires
no action whatsoever, so there is no action to postpone.
We've heard the report and that's fine. If it comes back for a
decision of some kind, I think we need to have answers to the
questions that Commissioner Hiller has raised.
MR. McDANIEL: May I respond to--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. McDANIEL: -- one of her points specifically?
You made a comment with respect to the objectivity of the
model. And I might suggest that there is subjectivity in any dataset
based upon those that are reading it. One of the benefits of this
particular model is there is a test on the input side to determine the
output side. And then there's an interpretation of the output side.
But the model itself provides for objective changes in land use
modeling and population estimates. The subjectivity flows out of the
dataset on the output side and can be truthed. If you have contention
with an output that the model ultimately expresses, you can truth that
as to how the datasets for the input side were in fact taken into and
utilized and accounted for.
Did I cover that okay?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I don't know why
we're even considering using this for the AUIR. Those decisions
should be up to the staff member who puts together the AUIR.
Obviously there has not -- it was not used in the past, there must be a
reason for it.
Mr. Weeks does a great job, and I have all the confidence. I don't
want to tell him how to do his job. Besides, that is against the County
Manager's Ordinance, the interference of the day-to-day business of
the county. They make decisions like this all the time. They have a
Page 33
May 24, 2011
vehicle that is a sub-compact, and they utilize -- and they need to have
a four-wheel drive. They don't need to come to the Board of
Commissioners for those decisions, nor should we be directing the
County Manager to use certain tools for staff to do his job. Period.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Once again, I'll point out, nobody's
asking anybody for a decision.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, here's what it says. We
are being asked, okay, to use this model for the AUIR.
Recommendations to review the progress of the Horizon Committee
Oversight -- Horizon Study Oversight Committee, provide feedback --
committee's progress and direction.
That's my comment, that's my direction.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Mike?
MR. BOSI: Chair, Mike Bosi again with the Comprehensive
Planning Section.
You're correct, they're only asking you accept a recommendation.
If there was any action to expand the model to the entire county there
would be a budgetary request with -- the specifics that Commissioner
Hiller had asked for would definitely be provided within that, if it's
brought back before you.
We're going to hold another meeting of the Oversight Committee
so Mark and the rest of the committee can articulate what their
concerns are. We'll provide that to the Board of County
Commissioners.
And just for a point of clarification, the request from the
committee was to expand the CIGM, it wasn't to officially ask the
Board to replace the BEBR numbers with the CIGM populations.
That would be a question that would come before the Board after a
comfort level was designed with it. But the Chair's correct, it's just --
we're just asking to accept the recommendation today.
I will go back and meet with the Oversight Committee, have the
clarification as to what the concerns are, and at the appropriate time
Page 34
May 24,2011
bring the item back before the Board of County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, just a clarification. The objective
of this executive summary is to provide the Board of County
Commissioners a status report of the activities of the Horizon Study
Oversight Committee.
You've provided us a status report about a new model that might
be used in the future for expansion. And that's okay. But it requires
no vote on our part.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have one more feedback, I
wasn't quite done --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I discovered that the minutes of
this committee are not approved by the Board. Like they have in the
past, other committees, they're not put on our agenda, they're not a
part of the official record the public can view. That needs to be
corrected.
The Clerk is the official minute taker for the Board of
Commissioners by statutes, and these meetings need to be publicized,
just like the others. That's my feedback.
MR. BOSI: And understood, Commissioner. We do send the
minutes as a batch to the Clerk's Office. They are noticed through
John Torre's office, the meetings. But you're correct, in all those
minutes -- and I take those minutes myself as a staff liaison in terms of
a cost-saving effort, just to make sure we get the major points that are
discussed. But that will most certainly be provided, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I'm a little bit concerned
here. We -- one of the things we're very fortunate in Collier County is
we have a number of people that are willing to volunteer their time
and expertise to try to move us to a higher level. And I don't want in
any way to reflect negatively on what's (sic) this is all about.
Page 35
May 24,2011
You brought something forward Bill, that's extremely important
to Collier County, to be able to have accurate numbers in an accurate
time for us. At this time I don't think we're going anyplace with it,
judging by what I'm hearing here today.
My first question is, is the e-mail that Commissioner Hiller had
received from Mark Teaters, would she read it into the record fully,
please?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I actually didn't get it from Mark, I
got it from Leo.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Leo, do you have it to read into
the record?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have -- I'll tell you what Leo
gave me. Hang on. Let me go ahead and read it into the record.
This e-mail came to me from Leo. And this e-mail was sent to--
I don't really know who these people are; Pathen13@aol.com,
BigIslandBill@aol.com, Jeff Klatzkow, Leo Ochs, Mike Bosi, M.
Teaters@aol.com, and Nick Casalanguida. And the subject is CIGM
presentation.
And it says; this is a one-way e-mail. Committee members are
not to respond to this or me under any circumstances. Good morning,
all. This is a statement for your information only. I have requested a
special meeting of the Horizon Oversight Committee be called to
discuss public response to the meetings that our chair has been having
with committee commissioners prior to the presentation to the BCC on
Tuesday, May 24th, 2011.
According to staff this will not happen. I'm hereby rescinding
my vote in support of making the presentation to the Board on
Tuesday, May 24th, as well as my support of expanding the CIGM to
the balance of the county until my concerns have been resolved.
This is as a result of several issues raised after our last meeting.
Number one: As a group we agreed to present the CIGM
proposal to County Manager Ochs to enlist his support. We discussed,
Page 36
May 24,2011
myself and Bill McDaniel, to see Leo together but decided it would be
a violation of Sunshine Laws.
Two: Our chairman has scheduled meetings with the County
Commissioners which I did not approve, nor was it discussed when I
was in the meeting. I believe that this could be considered lobbying or
polling. This was not agreed upon by the committee and should not
continue.
Three: Members of the public were present at said meeting and
have contacted me concerned and confused. Questions were asked
that could not be answered and it appears that citizens and
commissioners got partial or incomplete information.
Four: The members of the public have asked me for
documentation and information that I do not have. Mike Bosi
suggested we discuss it, but not in the detail they asked for. I have
requested this documentation and wish to review it and continue the
process before any further decision to continue or funding request is
made.
Five: A recording device must be in place before our next
meeting. I am concerned that statements and decisions may not have
been included in the minutes of the last meeting.
Six: Due to the importance of this project and the potential
benefit that this program may offer, I take this responsibility seriously
and will not be labeled or my integrity impugned in any way. We will
not have any of the public labeled as naysayers.
Seven: I have suggested that we postpone the presentation to the
BCC until this is resolved. I also understand that if this presentation is
indeed made, there is no request for action of the Board at this time.
Items on the agenda are continued all the time.
I represent the present and future residents of Collier County and
will do what I think is the best for them under any and all
circumstances. Sincerely, Mark Teaters.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If! may, Mr. Bosi, could you
Page 37
May 24, 2011
come up for just a moment.
At that meeting when everything was discussed, was there a lot
of give and take on these different issues, or no?
MR. BOSI: I mean, the development of the presentation was a
two meeting -- over the course of two meetings. So there was a
number of opportunities for discussion. And it was -- the presentation
that was provided to you was agreed upon at the April 8th, at the last
time the Oversight Committee met (sic), because they meet only on a
quarterly basis. And it was agreed upon by the members, that the
content of the presentation was -- met the approval of the committee
as a whole.
Since that time, there has been, I guess some more information
that was brought to Mr. Teaters that has raised concerns. And I
haven't had opportunity to express what -- understand what they are.
At the next meeting that we hold we're going to try -- we're going
to uncover those and we'll provide those to the Board.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I guess my question is,
is the next meeting. What is the objective we're trying to get by this
advisory committee meeting again and again and again to be able to
produce a report to us that will probably not be substantially different
than the one we just received if we're not going to be taking action on
it in the immediate future?
Don't we have several other studies coming up in the future that
will be able to incorporate this in ifthere's an advantage to it?
MR. BOSI: Well, I mean, the CIGM and the land use modeling
and the population projections that are provided for are spatial
population projections, and that's really the basis of what it does.
Everything else is just benchmark to -- related to that population.
That's still -- it's an active tool. It is an approved additional planning
tool that the Board of County Commissioners in 2009 authorized to be
utilized within the planning purposes. We will still utilize that.
What the request was for -- or what the recognition was from the
Page 38
May 24, 2011
Oversight Committee was the process of land use budgeting, that we
have to diversify the economic base, if we want to accomplish the
things we want to accomplish with the Master Mobility Plan, if we
want to increase the efficiencies within our land use patterns, reduce
vehicle miles traveled, bring goods closer to where people live, we're
going to have to utilize land use budgeting. And the CIGM is a tool to
help evaluate how we're doing and what type of land uses need to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We know all that, Mike. And I
do believe that we have had that explained to us with --
MR. BOSI: So we'll continue to utilize within -- what this
request was, was for the Board to start the process of considering,
maybe to apply the CIGM for the entire county. But regardless, even
if that decision's not made, the CIGM in its analysis of the East of951
area will still remain active and will still remain an active planning
tool within the Board's --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that would remain an
active planning tool, no doubt about that.
Let's go back to this advisory group. What purpose is this group
going to do for this Commission in the future?
MR. BOSI: What it does is continues to make sure -- one of the
things the model is, it's updated with each year's CO. So the base, the
things -- the base that it builds off of, that extrapolates and projects
into the future is based off of what is built today. So every year or two
years, whatever the case may be, it's updated -- the CIGM Oversight
Committee is part of that process to ensure that the accuracy of the
information is brought forward with each annual update.
And also, one of the primary purposes is to make sure that the
position points, the concerns that were expressed by the public are still
active and still recognized by the Board of County Commissioners as
issues that the public has said that we feel that we need to address as
we move forward with development in the east.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You don't feel that this advisory
Page 39
May 24,2011
group is at an impasse?
MR. BOSI: Until we meet again, I'm not sure.
Another point of consideration is, this advisory group only has a
three-year window. It is February 24th of2012 that it is set to
dissolve. It would only be an action of the Board of County
Commissioners if you saw the need to continue this advisory board.
The board was really set up to ensure that the growth model was, one,
was updated and how it was being utilized by staff in an appropriate
manner. And as we've utilized it before with analysis of the demand
related to Growth Management Plan amendments, specifically
commercial within the Estates and within the eastern portion of the
county.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, there's three members on
this board is that correct?
MR. BOSI: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Does that number seem to be
effective? I mean, do you think two more would make it a little easier
to go with more open discussion, or --
MR. BOSI: I mean, I think three is adequate. The one thing
we've said, there's been a lot of transition. I mean, the composition of
this committee right now, two of the members weren't originally
named in '09. So in the course of a year and a half, we've had --
already we've had a 67 percent turnover within the committee.
So there are limitations to how far and how effective this
committee's been. But it has been adequate in terms of ensuring that
the model is being utilized by staff in manners that the Board has
deemed as appropriate.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. McDaniels, the
conversation we're having now regarding the advisory board, did you
have anything you'd like to add?
MR. McDANIEL: Only to the extent as to echo what Mr. Bosi
said. The committee -- the first slide that I presented today talked
Page 40
May 24, 2011
about the purview of the committee, why the committee's in existence
today. I chaired up the East of 951 Horizon Study Committee. I was
-- I am the only original member of this committee since its
appointment back in the day.
And as a purview of the committee, it was to put forth the
suggestions of the East of951 Horizon Study Committee. One of
those suggestions was the promotion of the model for the entire
county. And as we've been -- as the model's being utilized, as it's been
tested, as its accuracy has been increased and proven, it's shown to be
an even more valuable tool for us to utilize as planning going forward.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: 1 have no doubt that the model
would work for the county. What I have doubts is, is the committee
going to get us there.
MR. McDANIEL: Well, really, you know what, it isn't
necessarily the job of the committee. At some stage of the game
someone has to make a decision that this is a good tool for our
community to have to feed into the plans that we already have in place
so that we're making as accurate decisions as we can from information
being provided to us.
I would like to make one little correction. Someone made a
statement, one of the Commissioners, that we were no longer going to
use the BEBR numbers. That's not the case. We're always going to
have the BEBR numbers. We get them. Irrespective of their accuracy
we're going to have BEBR numbers at least to have as a comparison
going forward. So there's no suggestion that we throw the BEBR
numbers out.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think that was a carryover,
although I will say that based on the last statement you made, I would
view it the other way around that, you know, this modeling, as has
been used in the past, could be a backup to the BEBR, not the other
Page 41
May 24,2011
way around.
MR. McDANIEL: Six to one.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Not really.
MR. McDANIEL: Half dozen of the other.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That would be the decision by the Board,
and we'll have that chance at some future point in time if we decide to
do that, right?
Okay, well, we're just going to accept the report, right?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Make a motion to accept the
report.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to accept the report by
Commissioner Coletta, seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion?
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: My understanding is that we
weren't going to take any action, including not accepting the report,
because my understanding is there are issues with the report that are
being challenged by the membership of the committee. So when you
indicated that we weren't going to take any action, I really don't think
that there is any vote on this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The acceptance of the report does not
imply that we are endorsing the report, that we are in any way making
a decision, we just accepted your report.
MR. BOSI: Ifthere was an additional action to bring the growth
model expansion back for a budgetary consideration, that would be a
different action. I think you're just advising that you're going to
consider the CIGM and the expansion of the CIGM. I think it's just a
straight acceptance and by no means is it consent towards the
expansion of the model by accepting the report.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you agree, County Attorney?
MR. KLA TZKOW: You're just thanking him for the report is
Page 42
May 24, 2011
really what you're doing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right, that's it.
MR. McDANIEL: Thank you for having that opportunity.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you for taking advantage of the
opportunity .
MR.OCHS: Did you vote, sir?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you will learn more about this
process as time goes forward.
MR. McDANIEL: Time will tell, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. All in favor, please signify by
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
(Commissioner Henning is not present.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, the motion--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just would like to clarify that our
vote represents what County Attorney Klatzkow said, which is just a
thanking for the presentation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Break?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to have a break for 12
minutes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Two extra minutes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You get two extra minutes. So we'll be
back here at 10:40.
(Recess.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, Board of County
Commissioner meeting is back in session.
Page 43
May 24, 2011
Item #10B
RECOMMENDATION TO RENEW CURRENT FRANCHISE
AGREEMENTS WITH WASTE MANAGEMENT INC. OF
FLORIDA, AND CHOICE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES OF
COLLIER, INC. FOR COLLECTION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID
WASTE, RECYCLABLE AND ELECTRONIC MATERIALS
AND YARD WASTE IN DISTRICTS I AND II, RESPECTIVELY,
FOR THE CONTRACTUALLY PRESCRIBED TERM OF SEVEN
YEARS, ENDING AT 11 :59 PM ON SEPTEMBER 30, 2020,
AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE RENEWAL
AGREEMENTS - MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONTRACT
RENEWAL FOR BOTH DISTRICTS - APPROVED
MR.OCHS: Commissioners, we are on Item 10(B) on your
agenda this morning. It's a recommendation to renew the current
franchise agreements with Waste Management, Incorporated of
Florida and Choice Environmental Services of Collier, Inc. for the
collection of municipal solid waste, recyclable and electronic
materials and yard waste in Districts I and II respectively for the
contractually prescribed term of seven years, ending at 11 :59 p.m. on
September 30, 2020, and to authorize the Chairman to sign the
renewal agreements.
Mr. DeLony will present, along with his staff.
MR. DeLONY: Thank you, County Manager. For the record,
Jim DeLony, Public Utilities Administrator.
Commissioners, I have a presentation that parallels your
executive summary. And at the end it leads to this staff
recommendation, which deals with renewal, as read by the Manager of
the record of these two contracts.
You know, as we approach the first term of the three terms of
these two contracts, staff and the Board are faced with two options,
Page 44
May 24, 2011
given the timelines it takes to -- if your decision is not to renew, you
know, you're really at the point where you need to make a decision
because of that timeline. And so we're faced with two options this
morn mg.
Option one is to do what has been recommended, and that is
renew the current agreements.
And the second one of course is to go out for an invitation to bid
or a request for proposal of the contracts that we currently have.
Let's get to some facts here with regard to the current option one,
which is the renewal option. And these are listed here. These are
from your executive summary, and provide some of the background
associated with option one. It's certainly facts that should be
considered and were considered in staffs recommendation for
renewal.
The second slide again speaks to some more of those facts with
regard to this particular contract.
And I'll end at the end that then, separate to staffs action, your
Productivity Committee at your direction did look at this situation and
they too have a presentation for you subsequent to mine with regard to
this matter.
Staff looked hard at five criteria that are listed in your executive
summary in coming up with our recommendation of option one. They
dealt with levels of service, price, performance of the current
contractors, your local vendor preference, and of course customer
feedback.
And in that executive summary and on this highlighter on this
chart are those matters which deal with one of those five criteria, and
that is the level of service. And as you can see there, our level of
service remains quite high. In fact, I would tell you that it is as high or
better than anywhere in the state in terms of what services we provide
under these two existing contracts.
I also would highlight that under our current contracts, any
Page 45
May 24, 2011
automatic adjustments associated with those contracts is related to a
Consumer Price Index, and we index that automatic only at the 70
percent level.
Vendor performance, which is also critical. They have about 20
million-plus opportunities between the two contractors to make a
mistake in the county, given the size, scope, levels of service and the
numbers of accounts associated with this. And you have in your
executive summary at the bottom of the chart what the current error
rate was for fiscal year 2010, as measured by our customer service
records.
So you can see that the error rate is very low, and their correction
rate, which the contract provides them an opportunity to make a --
have made a mistake and make a correction, they have met those
standards with regard to correcting any deficiencies in performance.
But again, an error rate of .007 is quite excellent, quite frankly. That
exceeds Six Sigma.
Consistent with that performance, we have quite high customer
feedback in terms of the status and the feedback we were able to
garner as part of our staff analysis. 1 believe the feedback is a daily
situation, that if people aren't happy in this county they don't wait for a
customer survey to let you know that. And we find that folks are quite
happy with the services they're receiving from these two vendors.
When you get down to price, it's difficult to do an apples and
oranges when you look at the varieties of contracts, contractual
arrangements, levels of service. But, you know, in the end state it's
what the customer is going to bear in terms of direct cost. I mean, you
can compare that.
Now, you may drive a Chevrolet at one price and drive a Cadillac
at another price, and they're different cars, but at the same time the
bottom line is what are you paying. And as we look across the board
at the benchmark counties that were in your executive summary, we
remain at the lowest price on a per residential unit basis for collection
Page 46
May 24, 2011
services, both in District one and District two.
Under option two, it's very simple. If you choose today that you
do not want to renew these contracts, it would be staffs
recommendation we go out for request for proposal or an invitation for
bid. And these would be the criteria, or these would be the items
associated with that invitation bid or request for proposals.
However, it is not staffs recommendation we do that, but rather
that we renew the existing agreement, given the criteria and the
analysis that has been very briefly presented to you this morning, as
well as that which is extensively detailed in your executive summary.
With that, I'll remain available for your questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, how about if we hear from the
speakers first and then I can be the first commissioner after that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: To rebut the speakers, okay.
All right, Ian, would you please call the speakers. How many do
we have? Four, I bet--
MR. MITCHELL: Sorry?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have one speaker, and it's Duane
Billington.
MR. BILLINGTON: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, my name's Duane Billington.
I just have a couple questions. This District I, District II, could
staff please tell me what that defines, what areas? Is it a commission
district, is it a waste collection district?
MR. BELLONE: For the record, Joe Bellone, Manager of Utility
Billing and Customer Service.
I'm going to step over to the visualizer. Thanks, Leo. Thank you,
Leo.
The dark shaded area here is District I, serviced by Waste
Management, Inc. of Florida. As you can see it services the bulk of
Page 47
May 24, 2011
eastern and coastal Collier County.
District II, serviced by Choice Environmental Services,
essentially services the Immokaleel A ve Maria/Lake Trafford areas.
MR. BILLINGTON: Okay, thank you. That also answers then,
clears up some questions I would have had if that had been different.
From a taxpayer's standpoint, I appreciate the quality service that
we're now getting. But also from a taxpayer's standpoint, I'm of the
opinion it never hurts to put things out to bid, because the worst thing
that can happen is you keep your current provider and have that
quality service. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But perhaps at a higher price.
MR. BILLINGTON: I would hope that this Board wouldn't
award it at a higher price. I have that much confidence in you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. First of all, I'd like to share an
experience with everybody, if I may. And that was a commissioner
from another county invited me to meet with him and a waste hauler
because he wanted to acquaint us with this marvelous waste hauler
that serves their county and what a great job that they do and possibly
consider them. And of course -- well, y'all know me, I'll go to
anything and listen to anybody, because I'm always interested to see
what kind of information I can gather.
And so I went and they were telling me of all of the virtues of
this waste hauler, this really, really nice guy. And he was saying that
they had twice a week pick-up and they were saying that they had
single stream recycling pick-up, and that they even go out into the
community and help with community clean-ups and so forth.
And after he gave his wonderful presentation -- and I didn't
comment about ours, I just listened. And then I said, how much is it?
And he said 273 a year. I said, we have everything that you just
mentioned, plus we have other things as well, I said, like door to door
white goods pick-up and heavy furniture pick-up, anything that you
Page 48
May 24,2011
would want, and we pay $100 a year less than what you're paying.
And they both just sat there looking at me rather flabbergasted.
And so I thanked them very much for the presentation and I said, quite
frankly, I'm sticking with what we know is a good product.
I was invited also to Waste Management. They were giving a
presentation actually to their own employees about this Waste Watch.
Well, you know, if it's something I can learn about, I wanted to go, so
I attended that.
And what was interesting was they're teaching their employees
how, while they're on the job doing their job, they also are watching
out for us, the residents of Collier County, just to see if there's
something different going on in our neighborhoods, somebody peering
in windows or somebody's vehicles that shouldn't be there maybe
unloading furniture or something.
And actually, since that program was introduced, I think twice
now they have actually come in and caught some culprit red-handed
just because of the waste haulers. And I'm so pleased with that.
Meanwhile, community clean-ups. They go in -- and I know in
my community especially we've experienced a number of clean-ups
where they've come in and allowed us to use the dumpsters while the
community itself picks up and disposes of trash and tires and so forth
in trying to make their community a better place to live.
We've seen excellent community response, customer response,
and the greatest recycling program, which is saving us money every
day in this recycling program.
So with that, let me say I'd like to make a motion to approve
moving forward with extending the contract -- maybe I should read it
from here. For the collection of municipal solid waste, recycling and
electronic materials and yard waste, renew the current franchise
agreement with Waste Management.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
Page 49
May 24,2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Of staffs -- well, not of staffs
recommendation, but retaining one of the alternatives recommended
by staff.
And seconded by Commissioner Coletta.
Okay, now Commissioner Coletta, you had your light on. Do
you want to say something?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I do. Excuse my voice, I'm
coming down with a cold; Mr. DeLony?
MR. DeLONY : Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: A couple of things. One, thank
you for your years of service here, and we're going to miss you very
much.
MR. DeLONY: Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. You
know, it's about nine years now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that's impressive. I wish
you the best of luck over there in Afghanistan --
MR. DeLONY: Thank you, sir, thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And he had hair when he came here.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, I did. It was a different color.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But sir, one of the questions that
comes up every single year in one fashion or another has to do with
the amount of pickups that take place. And the public has come to us
numerous times, and I'm sure there's a lot of people that don't know
the answer, wanting to know what the savings would be if we were to
eliminate one pick-up a week and just have a single pick-up. And, you
know, usually it's quite a shock what the number is, and I thought you
might like to share it with the public, because that's one of the things
that's always on their mind.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. Let me begin with the end. The level
of service we have at the cost we have remains the lowest cost, you
know, any survey we were able to take. So I'm going to start with the
end and work backwards.
Page 50
May 24, 2011
When we went and looked at what we could probably reduce on
that bill, it was less than a dollar a month for that pickup. And I began
to evaluate that because -- in fact, I've been asked three times on the
record in the last three years, usually at budget time, by one member
of this commission or another, about this.
And I'll re-answer it again the way I did before. I said for that
dollar a month we keep the cleanest county in the state. And here's
the reason why. You're at your home. You ,for some reason forget to
put your garbage out, okay, it's Tuesday and you wake up and you
didn't do it. You don't get a chance to get a re-do till next Tuesday.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Two weeks.
MR. DeLONY: Seven days later, six days later is the next time.
And then meanwhile, it's sitting in your garage and it's stinking
because it's 150 degrees in your garage because your community in
which you live requires that your trashcan be in your garage or, being
your district, sir, it's sitting there and the bears get ahold --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, we've got the animals.
MR. DeLONY: Okay. So consequently you decide -- and you're
not a good citizen, for some reason you're just desperate, and you
decide you've got to get rid of it. What do you do?
Well, there's 2,000 square miles in this county, about 1,800 or so
is the Everglades. That's what happens with illegal dumping. We look
at this county across the board and we see illegal dumping? No, we
don't. Not on the scale you see in other parts of the state or where we
all came from before we got here.
So I would answer the question, for under a dollar a month we
can keep the cleanest county and keep our residents well serviced and
well taken care of for the variety of reasons that I've described.
I hope I've answered your question.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You certainly have. Thank you
very much, Mr. DeLony.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
Page 51
May 24, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Your statement is correct; it's an
apples and oranges comparison. The demographics of communities
that you survey are different, like Monroe County is from Key West to
Key Largo. No, I'm sorry, it takes in part of Homestead also.
So, I mean, that's a vast difference besides the fact as all that stuff
goes to Okeechobee landfill. It is impossible to do a comparable of
any community. The only true way to know if you're getting a good
deal is if you go out to bid.
How much is this contract worth?
MR. DeLONY: I believe that we're talking about $10 million a
year for the vendors.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For one vendor?
MR. DeLONY: That's correct. Between the two it's 10 to $11
million a year.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's $77 million for the --
MR. DeLONY: The seven years --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- for a Waste Management
contract, and approximately $30 million for the Immokalee contract?
MR. DeLONY: No, sir, not 30. It would be -- at most it would
be less than a million dollars a year. Actually it's about half a million
dollars for Choice. Somewhere between 10 and $11 million a year is
what these services are paid to these two contractors.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: When was the last time it went
out to bid?
MR. DeLONY: We actually had to renew in 2005. And before
there was a renewal in 2002.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: When's the last time it went out
to bid?
MR. DeLONY: To my knowledge it went out to bid in, the 90's
was the last time it actually went out to bid, and the prices were
stabilized there at that time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: At that time wasn't a -- they had
Page 52
May 24, 2011
one driver, two men on the truck, picking up garbage cans?
Technology has changed, operation has changed, but the prices have
gone up?
MR. DeLONY: The prices have been adjusted per contract at the
cost of living, at seven percent of the cost of living since the
beginning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The only way that we're going
to find out -- we may be getting the best deal. The only way that we're
going to know is if we go out to bid, bottom line.
I said it last time this came up in 2005 and I'll keep on saying it.
That is the only way that we're going to know if the people we serve is
getting the best deal. Period. It's just anybody else's guesstimate.
Whether it be Commissioner Coletta or anybody else, we would just
be guessing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you very much.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I had an opportunity to
speak with the District Manager Larry Berg, and I do have to say that
Waste Management does do an excellent job in Collier County, and
that's evidenced by the fact there are very, very few complaints with
respect to their services.
But I do have to agree with what Commissioner Henning said.
And quite frankly, Mr. Berg shares a common understanding of
comparing counties to Mr. Henning's understanding.
It is virtually impossible to compare county by county whether
the price that we are being charged here in Collier is a good deal or a
bad deal. The differences between the counties are material. For
example, hauling distances, traffic densities, you know, how quickly
you can turn a truck all make an impact -- all have an impact, I should
say, on what the price is.
And so to limit the analysis to merely the level of service
standard in terms of number of weekly collections and the cost per
Page 53
May 24, 2011
unit as a basis for saying that we should go forward with this I don't
think is a correct argument, quite frankly, to any degree.
However, with that being said, at the same time we are looking at
a performance based contract, and we need to consider what we have
in total. Waste Management doesn't only provide these collection
services, they also provide us with landfill services. And they're also
generating revenues, as I understand, from the gas to energy contract
that we have. Last year alone Waste Management generated about
$20 million in revenues from Collier County, not including what they
generated from the gas to energy revenue source. So that is a very
large contract.
And what I would like is to have the level of comfort that the
overall cost to Collier County of the total of all revenues to Waste
Management is in fact giving us the best possible deal, given the
uniqueness of Collier County.
And I'd like to ask Larry to come up and comment on that and
explain to us how, you know, when you look at the total picture, we're
actually in fact getting the best we can get -- yeah, come on up.
MR. DeLONY: Okay. Larry, we also while you're here go
ahead and introduce Chuck, if you would, please.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. Because I think it's
important to -- you know, when you look at something like this, you
have to look at it in total. And again the comparisons, county to
county. And I'll just, for the benefit of the audience, the -- an analysis
was prepared by our staff that compares the variables that I just
described. And one of the counties they compared us to was Martin
County. And the pricing per unit in Martin County was 157.56, versus
110 in District one.
But there is a reason why there is such a material difference, and
that can be explained. And I'm going to let Larry explain that
difference. And just so you all know, Martin County, by comparison
to all the other counties, is most similar to our county in many
Page 54
May 24, 2011
respects. Besides the level of service, it's a similar type county. And
so, it's a very fair comparison. And Waste Management is also their
provider. So they can explain to us why there is a difference in price.
And you can't really use the analysis and say because, you know,
we're at 100 and they're at 157 that we got the better deal.
MR. DEES: Chairman Coyle, in could respond to that, Larry
just works this area, if that would be --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why don't you tell us where you're from
and what your qualifications are.
MR. DEES: For the record -- yes, sir. For the record, my name
is Chuck Dees. I'm with Waste Management. I'm the Vice-President
of Public Affairs for the company here in Florida. And I preside in
Venice, Florida.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Go ahead.
MR. DEES: Really, the basic difference in Martin County and
Collier County is disposal. They have a transfer station and they
direct that to one of the landfills a little bit further north. So--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's the hauling that causes the
difference in price.
MR. DEES: Well, you know, every county is unique, but then
every county has a lot of similarities. So it's a lot of apples and
oranges, as staff has pointed out.
It's pretty interesting, because the service that Collier County
receives is very unique. It's very hard to find that type -- that level of
service in the state. It's that significant. And the only attempt I know
of to actually come anywhere close to the level of service that Collier
County has is Manatee County. They actually took our fees, very
similar, twice a week, automated, single stream. And the prices came
in north of$13 per home and they rejected all of them and they
actually started the process all over again.
So Collier County has absolutely the best services, the valued
services in the state that I'm familiar with. And I looked pretty hard.
Page 55
May 24,2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that's considering the material
differences between the counties, like for example, as you pointed out,
Martin County, one of the reasons their price is that much higher is
because you've got a greater hauling distance, obviously, to the dump
as compared to our local landfill.
MR. DEES: That's certainly one of the differences. That would
be the one that really I recognize right off the bat.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. And so my point is, is
when you are looking at these numbers between counties, you are
looking apples to oranges, and so the analysis has to go beyond that.
Can you address like the totality of the services you provide,
since you really are the sole provider to Collier County -- I shouldn't
say the only provider, we've got Choice to a very small degree, but
you are really the sole provider for all the Waste Management
services. Can you explain how you're providing us the best deal
overall and that we're not getting, for example, charged more on the
landfill side that would offset the cost on the service side?
MR. DEES: I'm not sure -- you know, I have a content expert
right behind me with Larry, who actually does it every day, so I'm not
sure I'm quite as qualified as he is.
But what's interesting with Collier County is that they've actually
done a really nice job of -- there's a lot of peripheral services that go
into these contracts.
We do the MSW, yard waste, recycling. Matter of fact, the
single-stream recycling, Collier County is recognized around the state
as having one of the largest recycling rates in the state. And that's
been significant for Collier County and the staff because it's
tremendous savings to your landfill and the county and the air space,
which is extremely valuable. So that single-stream is worth every
penny that those carts are collected every day.
But there's a lot of peripheral services. And it's interesting; just
commercial, you've got container re-delivery fees, commercial
Page 56
May 24, 2011
container roll-out, lock bars, rent, extra pickups for handling of the
additional services that may not be in your normal schedule. And
when you go through and you look at that, Collier County has actually
negotiated in their contracts all of that for free, where Martin County
actually pays for those individual services. They pay for commercial
container roll-out, they pay for unlocked container per service, they
pay for casters, they pay rent on a roll-off container less than two
pulls, and on it goes -- odor control. So each one of those services
Martin County has to pay for, which isn't in even the rates that they
analyzed, actually.
Collier County has done over the years a very good job to the
county's favor, and not necessarily the vendor, of really in continuing
to improve the contract for the constituents.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you relate that to the total of
the services? Like for example, the landfill contract and the contract
for the gas to energy.
MR. DeLONY: Can I answer that for you, Chuck?
Those are separate agreements, separate contracts, separate
solicitations, you know, in terms of it. And I work very hard as your
administrator to keep that in perspective, so one does not cheat over to
the other in terms of ensuring we can show the accounting of cost to
the service.
The landfill operating agreement is an independent contract to
the collections agreement. That's the reason we're here today
discussing whether we continue the current renewal or we go to --
back out to bid. There's no audit.
Now, in the case of the landfill operating agreement, the Board in
the 90' s made that a life of site agreement. So we're with Waste
Management throughout the life of site there. Separate agreement.
The landfill gas to energy agreement was a subset to the landfill
operating agreement. So those are separate actions, just to make sure
contractually I've made that clear as I can to you, ma'am.
Page 57
May 24,2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I guess my question there is I
want to make sure that we're not getting, you know, a real favorable
price over here because we're paying --
MR. DeLONY: That's exactly correct. You nailed it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And then the other thing I want to
make sure of too is, you know, is there an advantage, and maybe not
today but in the future, to when we let this contract, that we let it out
for all the services. And because you're basically servicing us in so
many different fashions, you know, availing ourselves of, you know,
the competition based on a very high dollar contract where we might
get even more efficiencies.
MR. DeLONY: One of the things I considered when I first came
on board, I saw this arrangement just the way I've outlined it to you,
and I thought well, why don't we bundle.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, that's exactly --
MR. DeLONY: And I backed away from that very quickly. Let
me tell you very quickly, in may. Just hear my thoughts. And why I
supported staying the course. I never brought you an option, or was
never directed, for that matter.
They're separate activities. One is this and one is that. And
because we own the gate of the existing landfill operating agreement,
that's a very, very, very good position that we control the destiny of
that landfill.
Chuck's firm runs landfills all over the state, for that matter, all
over the word. In very few instances do you find where the owner
operates the gate. We own -- we've got the keys to the city on that
gate.
And looking at the LOA after we were able to refine some of the
odor control issues and some of the other things that had to be taken
care of in terms of working face management and many, many other
disputes that have been positively and affirmatively controlled and at
standard today.
Page 58
May 24, 2011
I would recommend that what we have is an opportunity for this
Board to always make good market-based decisions on how to get this
mix and match.
I could not find any advantage whatsoever in bundling because of
the differences and the complexities of the landfill itself first, and
secondary, the collection services. In my view. And that's the reason
we've kept it that way. I would not tell you that that is the only way to
look at this, but I have looked at that and seen other -- looked at
briefly other counties' experience on that.
And I would recommend that we are probably in the best position
to control our own destiny as a community with regard to both the life
of our landfill and the cost of our collection services the way we
currently have it outlined.
But that's -- never say never. We need to be open to the
possibilities as we move forward.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Isn't that a James Bond movie?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, it was.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's what I thought.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, it was.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner -- are you finished?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
MR. DeLONY: And I'm sorry in -- to Chuck, if there's
anything, I'm sorry, but I wanted to make sure in the Commissioner's
mind that there was separate contractual instruments out there for
those bifurcated activities.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it's all yours.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much. In
could, I'd like to make a couple of comments after Gina Downs gets to
make the presentation from the Productivity Committee.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
Ms. Downs?
Page 59
May 24, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Before we get started, may I make
a comment on that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: On what?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: On the presentation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You may make comments, yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. I have some concern,
because I only received this information yesterday, and I've asked for
back-up. And I didn't receive any of the back-up that I requested. So
I really -- you know, I haven't had any time to really review this the
way it ought to be reviewed, because the information I requested
wasn't provided. And this was only presented to us yesterday. And I
don't really know why it wasn't presented as part of the back-up.
And, you know, we have a rule that we can't accept anything,
you know, once the agenda has been published. So, I mean, I really
don't think it's appropriate.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: County Attorney, could you
comment, please?
MR. KLATZKOW: If the three of you want to hear the speaker,
you may. If three of you agree with Commissioner Hiller, then the
speaker does not speak.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Does it require a motion, just
nods of the head, what's the best way to handle this, sir?
MR. KLATZKOW: I think nods of the head are fine.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I want to hear the
speaker. They put a lot of work into this. And for some reason, if we
have any further decisions we have to make, we can always continue
the meeting on this item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, is this something that we have
to make -- is this just part of the presentation that our own people
want, or is this -- this isn't a decision-making thing, this is just back-up
material, is that it?
Page 60
May 24, 2011
MS. DOWNS: This would be the Productivity Committee's --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, the Productivity Committee.
I'm sorry, I didn't say that correctly. Yes. And we've gotten notes
from the Productivity Committee, or at least I did. So I'd like to hear
it. I think that that's good.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would rather receive it as part
of the agenda packet. If it was that important to have it in the public
forum, we should have had time to study it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That would have been my preference
also, but I rule I would like to hear it now.
MS. DOWNS: A sub-committee was formed at the Productivity
Committee to evaluate this contract, see if it was prudent to
recommend bidding it or not bidding it, taking the renewal clause.
This is just some of my back-up material, which I'm happy to
flood you with e-mails and you can look at that at any time.
There were five people on the sub-committee. Jim Gibson
chaired it, Rich Federman, Vlad Ryziw.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Ryziw.
MS. DOWNS: Okay. And Joe Wall and myself.
So the Waste Management, the Utilities Division came to the
Productivity Committee, showed us the -- essentially the same slides
they showed you. Then we had a sub-committee meeting. Then we
went back to the full committee and it was voted 7-1 to accept our
recommendation and move it forward to the BCC.
What we did, and this is in no way disrespectful to the staff, but
we -- they provided us with findings from five or six different
counties. Well, we did our own independent analysis. Sometimes that
included some of the same counties that they looked at and other times
it did not.
We looked at -- I always like to go out to 10 like-sized counties
in Florida. I put together a spreadsheet, sent it to those 10 counties.
Page 61
May 24, 2011
Some did not respond. Let's see -- if you want to know who they are,
Alachua, Martin County did not respond, and Ocala, I think it was.
I did ask for help from the department, asked them to forward
that spreadsheet to those counties, hoping that they would respond if it
were a county-by-county request. But still, those counties did not
respond.
You can see on the bottom is the population of each of those
counties. And I always keep them in the same order in these slides;
that's a little trick that some people will do, but I won't. And the
yearly cost is at the top of the slide. Collier County is in the red arrow.
Our yearly cost was 173,49. So simply comparing the yearly cost to
the taxpayer, we eliminated the first five counties, St. Lucie, Leon, the
City of Naples, Lee County and Escambia County, because their
prices were anywhere from 25 to 45 percent higher than our yearly
costs.
Next we compared level of service. In the blue at the bottom is
the number of times the yard waste was picked up. Again Collier
County has the red arrow. Every county picked up yard waste once a
week.
In the red, building up from the blue, again, that's recycles.
Every county picked up recycles once a week.
The difference in level of service came with the solid waste
pickup, which is depicted in green. Five of those counties, as does
Collier County, picked up twice a week solid waste. Therefore, we
eliminated for level of service Leon, Lee, Escambia and Sarasota
counties, took them out of the picture.
And remember, we've already eliminated the first -- what we're
honing in on as the sub-committee, we eliminated the first five
counties because of cost. Now when we overlap that with level of
service, we are eliminating these other counties.
Sarasota is shown here twice because they have two distinct
districts and two completely different prices for pickup there, so that's
Page 62
May 24, 2011
why I put them on this chart twice.
That left us with Collier County, population 421,000. Seminole,
422,000 -- I'm sorry, Collier should be 321. Seminole, 422, Manatee,
322,000.
So now we've got our best comps based on price per year and
level of service. There are the three price differences. Seminole
County, 190 a year, Manatee a little bit less than ours, 155. What it
boiled down to was about 10 percent difference each time. Seminole
County 10 percent higher, Manatee County was 10 percent lower.
Then you ask yourself, what are the other differences if it's not
just price and level of service. That's when we get into single-stream
or the convenience to the customer. Single-stream is when none of the
recycles have to be divided. Other counties you may have to take out
your newspaper, bundle it separately. Sometimes cardboard is
separate, glass and plastic. It depends on how they ask you to break
them down.
For the convenience of the customer, we get more recycling. The
easier you make it the more compliance there is. The more
compliance there is, the more cost savings, as Commissioner Fiala
mentioned. The more cost savings because of the high number of
recycles.
So let's look at single-stream. Collier County we know does
offer single-stream recycling. Seminole did not, Manatee County did
not.
What are the other differences? Does the size of the container
matter? Collier County offers up to a 96-gallon container for trash.
They will give you smaller containers if your needs are different.
Seminole County's limit on the size of the trash container is and was
50 gallons. Manatee's size limit is 32 gallons. So clearly we have the
ability to pick up more trash in Collier County. We're a trashy county.
We pick up a lot of trash.
The rate adjustment, the automatic rate adjustment twas another
Page 63
May 24, 2011
factor we thought was important in these contracts. Collier County has
an automatic 70 percent of the CPI. That was the lowest one I found
of any 14 county comparison I did. Seminole County, who we're
focusing on here, had a 90 percent automatic rate adjustment for the
CPI, and Manatee County also 90 percent. Very small difference, but
over several years that can add up.
The big one in my mind is the fuel adjustment clause. Collier
County does not have an automatic fuel adjustment clause in the
contract. Seminole County in all the 14 I looked at had the worst deal.
Twice a year every year they automatically have a fuel adjustment
increase in their contract. Now that's based on their county and state
numbers of fuel that year. Manatee County, yes, they kick in an extra
10 percent ofa factor of the CPI that is separated out just for fuel. So
they're kind of double dipping. They've already done their CPI
increase and then they pay an additional CPI based on the fuel use.
The recommendation, very strong recommendation from the
Productivity Committee was that this was a win win for county
residents. When you say letting this contract could potentially be
beneficial, we see it as potentially very harmful. All of the newer
contracts that have been re-Iet have automatic fuel adjustment clauses
in them. I think based on that it's highly unlikely you would let out a
new contract and not have an automatic fuel adjusted increase in that
contract. So we found this to be a win/win for the county residents.
Now, I have a few more. He's shaking his head. I always like to
have a little fun. These were some knock-your-socks-off moments as
we were reviewing this.
Hodges University did the demographics of other counties
throughout the United States that they find most comparable to Collier
County. Well, I obviously stole their data and I like to hone it down to
three countries that I am constantly watching now; Sonoma County,
California, Lane County, Oregon, and Charleston County, South
Carolina. I picked those three out of their -- basically their 10 because
Page 64
May 24, 2011
those are all coastal counties, the others were not.
What I found in the first one, Sonoma County, they have a
20-year contract and they divide their county into eight zones,
population about 460,000. Their yearly cost is $589.64. Now,
compared to our $173 contract, that's $400 a year less for every
resident here. And like I say, I call that a knock-your-socks-off
moment.
The other two I could not get comps on. Lane County, Oregon.
Notice I say Oregon, because that's how they pronounce it out there.
They only have pickup in Eugene, the City of Eugene. The rest of the
county has no county-wide pickup. They call it pay-as-you-throw.
They make their own arrangements with private vendors or haul it to a
landfill. I have a brother in Portland, Oregon. I called him. His
yearly pickup is 293.40, for comparison.
Charleston County, South Carolina we could not do a comparison
on, because they divide that county up. Even though it's a -- very
strongly resembles our population, they divide it up into 16 service
districts and have 16 separate contracts for their solid waste
management.
So that's it for the sub-committee of the Productivity Committee.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Mr. DeLony? Do you
have any examples of people putting their contract out for bid when
they didn't have to and it went terribly wrong?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, we've got a couple charts for you, sir. If
we may get them up, I'll ask Joe to dig them out of his pile.
But, you know, the actual truth is we haven't found anybody that
we were able to find, and I think Gina had the same comment in her
presentation by her sub-committee, that came out better after a
re-solicitation. In fact, there was a couple of evidences of a few years
ago, and I believe it's one of our sister counties to the north, if I recall,
it was Charlotte County, is that right? Charlotte County that went out,
Page 65
May 24, 2011
you know, thinking that we're going to get a better deal. They didn't,
and they went back.
And so recently, Cape Coral is a good example of one that has
gone out. City of Cape Coral went out thinking they were going to be
able to do it. And actually I have Cape Coral results right here from
their recent re-solicitation. And Joe, if you'll go over those real quick.
MR. BELLONE: For the record, Cape Coral just recently bid
last year. And you may have seen several news broadcasts from Cape
Coral. There have been quite a few issues. They had been with Waste
Management for 15 years and they wanted to see what they could find
out on the marketplace.
They received several proposals, six to be exact. The contract
eventually was awarded to Waste Pro. And you can see the rates that
they're getting, $115.22 per year for one weekly pickup of trash,
recycling and yard waste.
However, commercial rates were increased significantly. And
then due to a lot of public outcry, they were reduced again and they
are using their reserves to fund those differences.
The new contract implemented automated collection. And again,
I think we talked about methods of collection. In the old days there
were two people, two men on a truck, they had to get out and take a
personal can and dump it into the back ofthe truck, the rear loader.
What we do here, we have automated collection. And that is you
roll your cart out, carts that you get, 96, 64 or 48-gallon and they're
loaded automatically into the truck with arms, that's hydraulic.
Cape Coral wanted to do that. However, I think the issue there,
was that they didn't do enough public education. People liked their
private -- their own personal cans, didn't like the large cans. They
offered -- at proposal they offered several containers but again only --
later only offered two. And initially rolled out the 96-gallon cart.
Those were much too large to fit in some garages, and some of the
citizens complained that they were too large and too heavy once they
Page 66
May 24, 2011
were full to roll out. They did offer to replace the larger carts,
however, it was at a charge to the consumer, which we don't do here.
We asked them what they would have done differently now that
they think about it in hindsight, their after-action review. They think
they would have delayed the transition to automate, which we've
already done and our citizens are already used to that to make their
transition easier.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Last presentation showed a
population of Collier County at 421,000 and I thought we're at
321,000.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We are.
MR. DeLONY: I believe she corrected that number in her
presentation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay. Just the comparison
was that 421,000.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the comparison was the
collection and disposal. Are we talking about a contract for collection
and disposal?
MR. DeLONY: This deals strictly with collection services, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Collections. And communities
do different kind of disposal? Some of them haul it out of many
states, some of them, you know, landfill like we do, some of them
incinerate. I'm sure the left coast of California probably eats it, I don't
know. But everything they do in California is expensive. I don't
know why we had a comparison of California.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You know, looking at this
presentation by Productivity, you know, they're materially different
numbers than presented by staff for the same counties. Like if you
look at Lee County, for example, the annual charge per unit is 119.04
Page 67
May 24, 2011
to 158.64, whereas on Page 2 of the presentation Lee County is
represented with a single number, $245.43. That's very different
information.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's the population again.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: For example, you can see Lee says
245.43, whereas the numbers presented -- Sarasota, again, Sarasota
presented by staff is $90.12. Sarasota presented by Productivity is
159.48 and 134.94.
Interestingly, if you look at Sarasota where you've broken it out
into two different numbers, and you go back to Lee, what's indicated
on the staffs report is that Lee actually has five service providers,
explaining the range in rates from Veolia, Waste Pro, Choice and
Waste Management. So -- actually is that one, two three -- yeah, five.
So I just question what -- why are there these material difference in
numbers?
MR. BELLONE: Commissioners, for the record --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I hear it from Gina? It's her
presentation.
MS. DOWNS: Lee County, you are right has five different
districts, and there were differences in prices of them and we gave you
the lower figure of all of theirs. 245.43 was their latest contract of
10/1/2010.
I gave you the rest of the comparisons as far as their level of
service and their price. They may have some smaller areas, some
older contracts that are a little -- they weren't much difference in the
pricing, as I suspect you already know.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, Sarasota's numbers are
different also.
MS. DOWNS: Sarasota's numbers are different than--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, staffhas 90.12 and your
numbers are 159.48 and 134.94 --
MS. DOWNS: I don't know if staffs numbers did or did not
Page 68
May 24, 2011
include collection or -- we independently looked at our numbers, so --
MR. DeLONY: Again, for the record, Jim DeLony, Public
Utilities Administrator.
Again, numbers in the staff report deal with collection services
and the collection services only.
The numbers here that are presented by the Productivity
Committee, do you know if they're including disposal or other
services or administrative fees? I really don't know.
MS. DOWNS: We're looking at what the taxpayers paid in those
counties.
MR. DeLONY: Then most probable, and I don't know for sure,
that these represent a collection, a disposal and potentially
administrative fees associated with their total cost on their waste bill.
As this was a competition of renewal of collection services and
collection services only, the correct comparison from staffs
perspective was to look at collection services cost, not the other two
components of cost, but that singular component of cost with
collection services.
My presentation that I had earlier and the material you have in
your executive summary from staff lays it out just that way. If there's
a difference in the numbers, I suspect it's in the fact they're more all in
and we're singularly focused on collection and collection services.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that's really why I need to see
the backup, because what Gina said is that she drew that number from
the contract, and yet you're telling me you drew it from the contract
and you're telling me she's drawing it from the assessment, but that's
not what she's saying.
So, I mean, I see material discrepancies here. So I have a hard
time relying on this again for the reason that I said.
I'd like to address one other point. The issue of the fuel
adjustment. Yes, I mean, it's absolutely correct that we don't have an
automatic fuel adjustment, but what we do have is a provision that
Page 69
May 24, 2011
provides for reimbursement for extraordinary conditions that are not
foreseeable. And I just want assurances, I mean, we all know that fuel
prices are going up, and it is foreseeable, I mean, it's being projected--
well, maybe they're going down now but they'll be going up again,
probably. So I just want to be sure that the foresee-ability issue doesn't
go to the fuel prices.
I mean, extraordinary conditions, to use your example, Mr.
DeLony, is what did you say, the dove in the windshield or--
MR. DeLONY: Geese.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The goose.
MR. DeLONY: I actually said gooses.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The gooses in the windshield. So I
want clarification. And I think we -- you know, I don't want to see the
extraordinary conditions provision used as in effect a fuel adjustment
proVISIOn.
MR. DeLONY: Let me address that. There's a contractual term
and condition which I read to you yesterday and they're in the record
today. We're suggesting as our recommendation they stay exactly the
way they are in our current agreement.
Just for everyone's benefits, this specific clause, which is clause
27.4 on Page 61 of the contract, provides for an extraordinary rate
adjustment on those costs of operations which could not be reasonably
foreseen by a prudent operator. And it provides for a petitioning
process first through the staff and eventually the Board with an audit
requirement by an independent auditor with regard to these costs.
I will not try to make a recommendation or a representation to
you today about fuel. Fuel is going to be what fuel is. Weare not in
the fuel business, we're in the garbage business. This operator has, by
this clause, irrespective of what the other clauses that Gina spoke to,
which were automatic, this operator has an onus upon them to be
efficient and effective in the utilization of fuel, which by the way, is
my understanding of the collection business, that's your single greatest
Page 70
May 24,2011
cost. It's more than equipment, it's more than labor.
So they're in the game without automatic adjustments. We don't
underwrite their inefficiencies or their lack of fleet maintenance or
fleet renewals.
At the same time, however, in a reasonable accommodation of
contract, which is stated again at 27.4.1, there must be some type of
element of contractual that the risk is appropriately adjudicated. And I
believe this clause does that. If the fuel shoots up out of the sky and
they can bring in the grounds for an adjustment, an equitable
adjustment or what we call an extraordinary rule adjustment, there's a
process to review that, it's a public process, there's third parties
involved, there's a dispute resolution process associated with it, and in
the end this Board makes that decision, as you do on all adjustments to
contracts.
So I think it's a reasonable accommodation. If automatic --
automatic in my mind has always been problematic in ensuring that
we get the best value.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Although when I read this in
27.4.2 it says the Board's decision shall be final and non-appealable.
MR. DeLONY: That's correct. At the end of the day, like all
contracts, you make the call. At the end ofthe day you always make
the call on those contracts with regard to any requests for equitable
adjustment. This is no different than those contracts. Except it is
unusual, it appears, from the survey that we've done and that which
Productivity has done, we don't have an automatic here. You've got to
prove it. And you have to prove it through performance and it has to
be third party audited.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let me just ask a quick question of
the County Attorney.
How would an extraordinary change in the price of fuel be (sic)
defined for this purpose? I mean, we've had a lot of changes in the
price of fuel of late. How would that be handled?
Page 71
May 24, 2011
MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing's happened lately that's
extraordinary. An extraordinary event for fuel, ifthere's an
extraordinary event for fuel, would be like the oil embargo we had in
the 1970's where the spigot got shut off, in essence.
There are options markets out there that these large companies
hedge against as far as pricing goes. The vagaries of the market in
fuel I don't think fall under this clause. The clause is for hurricanes
and for very unusual events.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would agree with you. And I just
wanted clarification. Thank you so much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, so stripping away
personalities and politics and getting back down to the issue, the
Productivity Committee by a 7-1 vote endorses us moving forward to
renew this contract for another seven years, yes?
MS. DOWNS: That's right, we did.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And we have a motion on
the floor and a second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify --
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, Leo.
MR.OCHS: I'm sorry, but when Commissioner Fiala made the
motion, if I'm not mistaken, she mentioned the Waste Management
agreement, but that's only one of the two district contracts. If you
would include the District II contractor as well ma'am, in your motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, let me restate my motion.
To renew the current franchise agreement with Waste
Management and Choice Environmental Services for the collection of
municipal solid waste, recyclable, electronic materials and yard waste
Districts I and II respectively for an additional term of seven years.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's my second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all in favor, signify by saying aye.
Page 72
May 24,2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it passes 4-1, with Commissioner
Henning dissenting.
What can we do in 18 minutes?
MR.OCHS: I'm looking over at the County Attorney to see ifhe
believes 11 (A) can be handled before lunch. Jeff?
MR. KLA TZKOW: I hope.
Item #llA
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE AND BRING
BACK FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION AN AMENDMENT TO
CHAPTER 49 OF COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES, RELATING TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,
WHICH WILL ESTABLISH ADDITIONAL CRITERIA TO BE
EV ALUATED (1) WHEN THERE IS A REQUEST TO LESSEN
OR WAIVE CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS IN EXISTING
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCES & PROGRAMS,
AND (2) WHEN THERE IS AN APPLICATION SEEKING
GRANTS AND/OR OTHER INCENTIVES WHICH FALL
OUTSIDE EXISTING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ORDINANCES AND PROGRAMS - APPROVED
MR.OCHS: Okay, try that one, sir. 11(A) is under County
Attorney's report, it's a request for authorization to advertise and bring
back for future consideration an amendment of Chapter 49 of the
Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances relating to economic
Page 73
May 24, 2011
development, which will establish additional criteria to be evaluated,
number one, when there is a request to lessen or waive certain
requirements in existing economic development ordinances and
programs.
And number two, when there's an application seeking grants
and/or other incentives which fall outside existing economic
development ordinances and programs.
MR. KLA TZKOW: And briefly speaking, this arises out of the
item before the Board at the last meeting. A metal recycler came in;
he was seeking some economic development incentives. Their
application fell outside of our existing ordinance, in that there was
insufficient number of jobs and the wage was below what we normally
would seek.
The question came up as far as waivers or lessening of some of
these requirements. I was directed to come back to give the Board
greater flexibility when people come in here and ask the Board for
economic aid where it doesn't fall within the four corners of the
ordinance.
While I was doing that it occurred to me that you may have from
time to time, like the Jackson case, people coming to you, asking for
something that's completely outside your current ordinances, and how
would you evaluate that.
And so I went through different jurisdictions and went through
the state requirements and I came up with a number of criteria. It
would be my hope that when these come forward in the future staff
would give you a report analyzing this criteria so the Board can make
a full, fair evaluation as whether or not it's the public purpose to award
monies or not.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner -- how many public
speakers do we have?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have two public speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why don't you call the public speakers.
Page 74
May 24,2011
MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker is Duane Billington, and
he'll be followed by Peter Gaddy.
MR. BILLINGTON: For the record, Duane Billington.
I presume the guidelines for all these various programs had a
purpose at the time. I presume they were well thought and researched,
and now we're looking at essentially having no guidelines, no rules, no
regulations. At any point in time you all will be able to make arbitrary
decisions. Some of them may be capricious in nature. You'll be
picking winners and losers. Maybe the best thing to do is just
eliminate those programs and remove all the angst and all the
problems and do things on an individual basis.
Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Peter Gaddy.
MR. GADDY: Peter Gaddy on behalf of the Coalition for Open
Economic Development.
I agree with everything that Mr. Billington has just said. I think
you should just scrap the whole ordinance and just put in a provision
that you can disburse public funds to any person any time you so
choose. That's basically what the new ordinance will say.
I'd like to point out two other deficiencies of the ordinance. The
ordinance has no provision to audit whether or not there has been
compliance with the terms of an economic development agreement.
There should be a provision in the ordinance whereby any applicant is
required to agree to an audit by county staff to assure that jobs have
been created or whatever the conditions of the agreement might be.
There should also -- some of the economic development
agreements that have been entered into tend to bind future boards.
And there should also be a provision in the ordinance that does
not lock you into future appropriations, because you may not have the
money in the future. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think that is part of our ordinance. But
nevertheless, I'll let the County Attorney talk to you about that.
Page 75
May 24, 2011
County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, current programs typically are subject
to appropriation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And they don't lock in any future board
for --
MR. KLATZKOW: From that standpoint, no.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: From that standpoint. Okay.
There is currently a requirement that certain audits are required.
They have to prove they've generated jobs they said they were going
to approve at the appropriate level. That's not going to be changed, is
't?
I .
MR. KLA TZKOW: No, but these are good suggestions, sir. We
do this two step process to get the public input. And I could ask some
of these things to make sure that these get in the ordinance.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But the intent of the ordinance is to give
us flexibility during dramatically changing economic circumstances.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The criteria that were established were
established a long time ago under different economic circumstances.
Now there might be reasons why we would want to encourage certain
businesses to locate here, even though they might not meet all of the
criteria, because we want to rejuvenate our economy here.
The intent is not to provide incentives to anyone unless they
achieve the goals for which the incentives are offered; is that not true?
MR. KLA TZKOW: That is absolutely correct, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Could we make sure that it's
written that way?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did I miss something? You had
direction from three commissioners to provide some flexibility within
Page 76
May 24,2011
the ordinance?
MR. KLATZKOW: You had asked to come back to give you the
ability to waive or lessen requirements in your current programs.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I didn't ask you to do that.
MR. KLATZKOW: The Board did, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The Board did. You hadn't -- so
the answer is correct, you had the majority on the Board wanting you
to have some more flexibility on that?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Should it be based upon median
income? Because that fluctuates all the time, correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: That would be one of the factors to look at,
yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I think the metal scrap
business was a very poor example of giving public monies to a
company that was going to be here anyways.
I don't know if we really need to change anything, because that's
the only example that we have. Any others haven't either come
forward or should have, or what? I mean, I didn't at the public hearing
didn't hear any others wanted public funds to come to Collier County.
There is an auditing that takes place now, I think, Jim -- or Leo,
the -- doesn't Amy track all these, Amy Patterson?
MR.OCHS: Yes, Commissioner, every year.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Every year she makes sure that
the jobs are still there.
MR.OCHS: That's correct. It's a requirement of your existing
job creation and retention, economic consideration.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that shouldn't go anywhere, right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no, absolutely not. And I
have confidence Amy is following up on those.
I just don't understand why we want to -- why we want to do this
Page 77
May 24, 2011
unless we have a burning desire for businesses to come to Collier
County. I think we ought to work on regulations to bring businesses
to the community.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I really think that is the intent. The
wording might need to be adjusted. But we have deviated from
guidelines in the past.
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Many times. And what we're merely
doing is trying to make it clear that we have authority to do that. And
in many cases the results have been very good. We've attracted
companies here that are doing quite well as a result.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, Mr. Gaddy, where are you?
Can I ask you a question?
MR. GADDY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Coyle just
indicated that we basically granted waivers, or I should say this Board
granted waivers in the past and that we've done really well.
What's the total amount that we've given out in economic
incentives? Do you have any idea?
MR. GADDY: I think it's around somewhere between -- well,
there's a question -- I think that about $3 million worth of contracts
have been signed.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Over what period?
MR. GADDY: But I think that only about a million to a million
and a half dollars of that has been spent or disbursed.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Over what period?
MR. GADDY: Over the life of the ordinance, since 2003. So
there's really been little economic development that really has been
fostered by this Board.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
MR. GADDY: So money has been spent.
Page 78
May 24,2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's interesting to me -- if you
could stay there, because I may have another question I may want to
ask of you.
What's of concern to me and of interest to me is the source of
public funding, you know, to benefit these private businesses. Right
now we have an unfunded economic incentive program. And I have
said before and I'll say it again, you know, anything we have in place
by way of an ordinance to incentivize needs to be funded, and there
really should be a referendum when public funds are being used to
benefit private businesses. And I think we need to first establish how
much the funding should be and then I think that funding should be
put forth in a referendum question on the 2012 ballot.
Your characterization of this waiver -- and by the way I do
remember the discussion Mr. Klatzkow, when we had that scrap metal
gentleman come and speak before us. What actually happened was I
had said there was nothing in our existing ordinance that allowed for a
waiver and you disagreed with me. And you presented two
alternatives. One being a State Statute and one being an ordinance
that had to do with tolling of, I think it was PUD applications as the
basis for allowing a waiver in that particular instance.
I don't believe there is any law that allowed waivers in that
particular instance or in the past, so I question the validity of those
historical contracts.
You're absolutely right; this ordinance basically serves to allow
this Board to give anything to anyone at any time for whatever reason
they like. I mean, it's basically, you know, carte blanche. It's
whatever, you know, this Board wants to do.
And there's a real problem with that, particularly since we do
have limited funds. You know, are we going to exhaust the limited
funds we have all on one company to the exclusion of others? Are we
not going to have caps on how much any single company is going to
get?
Page 79
May 24,2011
For example right now I am actually working with five
companies, all of which are contributing in a very significant way to
our local economic development. You know, we've got Arthrex that
has come forward and they met with me last week with three of their
executives and some of our staff asking for millions of dollars. Are
we going to allocate funding to them alone? And then what do I do
about the other five companies that I'm working with that -- and you
know, and one guy is bringing in 100 new employees next year, I
mean, right away. You know, another one is doing, you know, multi,
multi-million dollar expansions that will in turn bring in new
employees as well. I mean, I can go on and on, so I have a very --
MR. GADDY: Can I just answer your question, you know, the
first question you asked me?
I don't know why Collier County has never funded its economic
development program. That creates -- sort of creates a disincentive.
Because anyone that goes through the process knows they're going to
have to go before the Board and the Board's going to have to
appropriate money.
One of the reasons Lee County's program has been successful,
and some of the most successful programs in the state have occurred
where there's actually money put aside and appropriated, so the people
know that those funds are available.
I mean, we ran across that with Jackson Labs. The money was
there but only part of it. You know, there was only a one year
appropriation by the legislature for what was it, 50 million, something
like that.
If you have the money there, ifthere was a referendum, if the
people really wanted to fund economic development in this county,
you could have a viable program. But what you have now is you have
__ you're just spending a lot of money to keep an EDC alive that
doesn't have any money.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That would be true if we've
Page 80
May 24, 2011
basically given out a million-and-a- half in incentives and we're
spending $400,000 a year to over -- since what did you say, 2002, to
keep the EDC alive? I certainly see a problem with that.
To your next point, you said the audit provision. That's actually
an issue which I don't think is satisfied by staff reviewing employee
records. I don't think -- and help me out Jeff, doesn't the Clerk have to
independently audit before he makes an expenditure? So, I mean -- I
need some better understanding of you know, the financial disclosure
that has to be made in order for a private company to get public funds.
Because I think that, as you pointed out, does have to be an element of
this. And I'm not sure that alone would satisfy it.
I'm looking at 288.106 which is the parallel state statute, and they
very clearly have a financial disclosure requirement, not only for
generating new employees by way of their records, but also show their
financials with - evidencing economic impact benefiting a community.
So can you help me with that? How is the Clerk going to satisfy
himself, that the expenditure is justified in serving the public purpose
intended to be served by what we're proposing here?
MR. KLATZKOW: We've had these programs in place for a
number of years. We've had a number of companies take advantage
of them. I know Ms. Patterson audits these companies on an annual
basis. Funding's tied to these audits. Money's been appropriated if
they meet those things.
And to my knowledge, and Amy you can correct me if I'm
wrong, the Clerk's never had an issue with the process. At least the
current process nobody's objected to.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That would be an interesting
question that I'd like to have the Clerk answer in terms of, you know,
what type of evidence he will need to satisfy himself to be able to
make the expenditure. And as I said, referring to 288.106, you know,
there's very clearly a financial disclosure component. And I think it's
a minimum legal requirement.
Page 81
May 24,2011
Your next point, you said binding future boards. Jeff, can you
help me out on that? I mean, I think that based on what we discussed
when we had that discussion over the A TV settlement agreement, I
don't think we can -- or let me ask you the question: Explain to me
how we can enter into a contract to provide economic incentives that
involve disbursements binding future boards?
MR. KLA TZKOW: Generally speaking we identify a funding
source. If it was to be Jackson Labs, the funding source contemplated
among other funding sources would have been the bonding of a
franchise tax that would have been the funding source. If the funding
source is going to be continuing ad valorem payments, at that point in
time in would be subject to appropriation.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we wouldn't have actually a
contract, but instead we would do what the state does where they say
we're not obligating future boards, if you will. I mean, using the board
to compare us to -- or compared to the local board. But rather that you
know, when you come forth in future years you know, if the funding
is in place and if you qualify, then we will pay you? Because that is
how their contract is written, and they make absolutely clear, in fact
they emphasize in the statute that disclaimer has to be written into
these contracts in 1 O-point print so that there is no misunderstanding.
Wouldn't we be subject to the same thing?
MR. KLATZKOW: Our current programs are subject to
appropriation each and every year.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we're not entering into a
long-term contract.
MR. KLATZKOW: That does not mean you cannot enter into a
long-term contract. It depends upon the funding source. You can
identify a funding source now, all right. It would not be future ad
valorem payments but you can identify a funding source now, bonded,
for example, and you're done. That was what the Board could have
done on the Jackson.
Page 82
May 24, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we're not binding future boards
in that respect?
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We're taking current monies. So
what we're saying is we're appropriating the money today and setting
it aside in an escrow account?
MR. KLA TZKOW: No ma'am, it's no different than if this board
went to the public on referendum and asked the public you know, do
you want to float a bond that's going to be paid by ad valorem taxes
over the next 30 years, like we did with Conservation Collier. At that
point in time you're not binding future boards, it's just you're taking
part of the millage rate and you're putting it into a box.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I must be -- I don't really
understand, because we're talking about a contract with a company
where we would be committing to pay them at a future time on future
performance. I mean, that to me sounds like, you know, binding a
future board.
MR. KLA TZKOW: But it's subject to appropriation if it's ad
valorem. That's the way we've structured it. You have the flexibility
with your home rule powers to do other different mechanisms.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
Economic incentives are something that we've always been
striving to get to. Last year what did we spend on economic
incentives?
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, I would ask Amy. I think we spent
about 130,000. About $130,000, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, and Lee County
identified $25 million within their reserves that they committed to it.
I'll tell you, if you did that in Collier County, they'd probably have a
lynch mob here tomorrow and be stringing you up.
This is not a friendly county for business, let's be honest about it.
Page 83
May 24,2011
My district and your district to some degree, and Commissioner
Henning's even more so, has been greatly impacted by the recession
and the economy that we have that's so cyclical. Agriculture, it goes
with the seasons; you can't depend upon it year around. God forbid
anybody ever goes into the construction business again too soon
unless they've got a bankroll or their wife's got a real nice job, or the
other way around.
You know, and the tourist industry. How many people that we
really know that are employed year around on the tourist industry.
Most people are laid off.
What have we got for our residents that live in our districts that
are the breadwinners of the family that aren't here, retired on a Social
Security plus pension and all sorts of supplements to their income to
be able to make it work? We don't have anything.
Now, we keep talking about economic development, we talk
about economic incentives, we've been doing it continuously for just
about forever, but we don't do anything about it. We just, 1,000 some
dollars -- $100,000 last year. You know, that's next to a joke. How
are you going to get somebody that's really interested to be able to
come forward?
So we try working around the edges to bring in small companies
to incentivize others with nickels and dimes along the way, we put in
some infrastructure for them that doesn't cost much, we make them
prove that they're doing it before they get paid over a number of years.
There's an accountability that's second to none. I don't think I missed
anything on that, is that correct, Leo?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You don't get paid until you
prove you produced these jobs, and you get paid over a period of time.
MR. OCHS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We have opportunities out there
that are going to present themselves. And one of them is Arthrex.
Page 84
May 24, 2011
And I think it's absolutely wonderful that they're thinking that they're
ready to make the move to Eastern Collier County with some new
operations, and I want to tell you, I'm supporting them. Anything that
we can do within the limits of what we're able to do, I'm prepared to
do it.
You know some things only happen when you make a
commitment to make it happen. Everybody says, and I'm hearing this
over and over again, first I hear, you know, you're not getting anything
done because you don't have any money. Next I'm hearing you
shouldn't be paying any money for these industries that come here.
We're talking out of both sides of our mouths. There is no sincerity
within this room -- very little sincerity within this room. Everybody is
trying to make a point using both ends of the equation.
So are we going to do it or aren't we?
Jeff, please explain to me exactly what this ordinance change
would be and would it come back to us again in some final form?
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm just asking for permission to advertise.
It will come back to you with some minor changes, as discussed here
today.
The point of the ordinance is to give you as much flexibility as
you can to do whatever this Board feels it needs to do for economic
development.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make a motion for that to
happen.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, motion by Commissioner Coletta
to approve the recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
Let me -- Commissioner Fiala is going to be next, but
Commissioner Coletta touched upon a really important point.
I have never heard such a bizarre debate from people who just
weeks or months or maybe 15 minutes ago were saying you shouldn't
give anybody any money to come here, who are now saying you
Page 85
May 24, 2011
should have funded this program long ago and that there hasn't been
any economic growth or any companies attracted to Collier County.
How many of you were here when Florida Specialities received
the business of the month award earlier today? Were you here, Mr.
Gaddy?
MR. GADDY: No, sir, I'm not. But I was familiar with them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, that's a success story, wouldn't
you say?
MR. GADDY: It's a success story. But here's the point. You
spent $400,000 last year to distribute $130,000.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, you want us to increase your
taxes, is that what you're saying?
MR. GADDY: You should either have an economic
development program or not have one.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, what's the economic development
program for the coalition of -- open economic development in Collier
County? How many companies have you brought here, Mr. Gaddy?
MR. GADDY: We'd like to see the county do the right thing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What's the right thing?
MR. GADDY: Well, get an economic -- an EDC that works, to
begin with.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And are you going to give them
some money?
MR. GADDY: You have to give them some money.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Where are you going to get the money?
MR. GADDY: You're going to have to go to the taxpayers with
a referendum.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that's pretty much what the Board
of County Commissioners and the EDC concluded at their last
workshop. So they're moving at that direction.
But the point right now is that merely by making changes in our
zoning laws, specifically -- well, impact fees, we have attracted 40
Page 86
May 24,2011
new businesses and 40 additional offices of existing businesses in
Collier County in the last 24 months or so, is that correct?
There are other organizations that have taken advantage of job
credits in the Fast Track program that are creating jobs in Collier
County. And yeah, we could do a lot better job if we had millions of
dollars. But current economic circumstances make it difficult to do
that.
So I just find it very bizarre that people who have been arguing
nobody should get paid to come here, are now saying we need to tax
people more so we can pay more for people to come here. Very
strange debate.
But nevertheless, Commissioner Fiala, you're next.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you.
I thought I heard Commissioner Henning say when he spoke that
we don't have a burning desire to attract new businesses here, but I
really believe that we do. We do realize that our future depends on
bringing good, wholesome, thriving businesses here. And I think we
all agree upon that.
Or sustain the businesses. Like for instance Arthrex. We want to
make sure that they stay here and hire more people.
And I'm going to the point that I had made at our last meeting
and that was that I felt that part of this economic development
incentive should be that we state that employees that are hired -- I
wanted to know the bottom end of their pay scale as well as the top
end rather than a median, and I think I mentioned that before, or an
average.
And the second thing I stated was I felt that all employees that
receive -- or all companies that receive any dollars from our -- from
the county, from our taxpayers should be providing health care to their
employees. I feel that that's essential. And those were the two reasons
that I pushed forward to see a change in this. And I'm hoping that
they are included.
Page 87
May 24,2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you said we could do this in 15
minutes. So much for your estimates.
We're going to take one more comment then we're going to vote.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
You know, it's interesting, my son had an opportunity to write a
paper over the past few weeks and he chose to -- it was for his English
Class, an AP Class. And he chose to write a paper on propaganda.
And I read it. And oh, boy, it was absolutely fantastic. It was an
education to what goes on right here at the Board level. And it opened
my eyes. Because quite frankly Commissioner Coyle, the explanation
that you just gave of this allegedly bizarre debate is nothing more than
propaganda and couldn't be further from the truth.
The members of COED and this community do not object to
putting up money for economic incentive programs. What has to be
done and what the community has said over and over again is that the
amount that should be funded and the programs to be funded should
be decided by referendum.
So it's unfortunate that you twisted that argument into a statement
that people don't want to fund economic development. They do.
They want to do it the right way and the fair way and the public way.
With that said, this waiver provision definitely promotes crony
capitalism. This board, by a 3-2 vote, can steer money in fact, all the
money that's set aside towards one company, to the exclusion of other
companies that truly could benefit this community as well. And that's
a problem.
The proposed wording doesn't allow for fair distribution of
economic incentives so as to promote the greatest return, greatest
economic return back to Collier County. And as such, I find it
difficult to support. There are no caps in place.
You know, I do have a question on the audit provision.
I still think we need an answer from the Clerk. I do believe that as it's
Page 88
May 24, 2011
being proposed it does have the effect of binding future boards which,
you know, we can't do. And it still leaves very much open in my
mind; what's going to happen when I bring five companies forward for
money, and where their name is not Arthrex.
Let's just take Arthrex as an example. And I spoke to the County
Manager about this. I have some questions. If Arthrex hires
employees from Hendry County and Lee County who own homes in
Lee and Hendry County, are we proposing that we're going to give
them you know, job credits for employees that are not Collier
employees? Are we going to be using you know, our public's tax
dollars to incentivize a different county? If Arthrex wants a property
tax abatement but they don't own the land, and the company that does
own the land, which is Barron Collier, is actually not the company
that's generating the economic incentive, you know, are we basically
just creating this waiver provision in order to get around what we
couldn't do otherwise with established guidelines which are objective
in our current economic incentive ordinances?
These are questions I have. And I'm very concerned that by
allowing for this blanket-waiver, we're promoting unfairness.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: She learned a lot from her propaganda
project from her son, didn't she?
Okay --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we voting now?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- all in favor of the motion, please
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it passes 3-2 with Commissioners
Page 89
May 24,2011
Hiller and Henning dissenting. And we're going to break for lunch.
We'll be back here at 1: 17.
(Luncheon recess.)
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, ladies and gentlemen, Board of
County Commission meeting is back in session.
Where do we go from here, County Manager?
Item #8B
ORDINANCE 2011-19: RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 74 OF COLLIER
COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES (COLLIER
COUNTY CONSOLIDATED IMP ACT FEE ORDINANCE) BY
PROVIDING INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE, OF THE TRIP
GENERATION RATE ANALYSIS ENTITLED
"TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS FOR
SELECT LAND USES", CONDUCTED RELATED TO CHURCH,
CONVENIENCE STORE W/GAS PUMPS, MANUFACTURING,
SMALL MEDICAL OFFICE AND WAREHOUSE LAND USES;
AMENDING SCHEDULE ONE OF APPENDIX A TO PROVIDE
FOR NEW AND AMENDED LAND USE CATEGORIES AND
IMP ACT FEE RATES; PROVIDING FOR DEFINITIONS FOR
NEW LAND USE CATEGORIES; UPDATING PROVISIONS
RELATED TO THE USE OF IMP ACT FEE CREDITS AND
PROVIDING FOR A DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE OF
SEPTEMBER 1, 2011, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NOTICE
PERIOD REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 163.31801, FLORIDA
STATUTES - ADOPTED W/CLERICAL CORRECTIONS
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we go to advertised public
hearings, Item 8(B). That's a recommendation to adopt an ordinance
Page 90
May 24, 2011
amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and
Ordinances -- that is the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee
Ordinance -- by providing for the incorporation by reference of the
trip generation rate analysis entitled Transportation Impact Fee
calculations for selected land uses, conducted related to church,
convenient store with gas pumps, manufacturing, small medical office
and warehouse land uses. Amending Schedule One of Appendix A to
provide for the new and amended land use categories and impact fee
rates, providing for definitions of the new land use categories,
updating the provisions related to the use of impact fee credits, and
providing for a delayed effective date of September 1, 2011, in
accordance with the notice period requirements of Section 163.31801,
Florida Statutes.
Ms. Patterson is here to present--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
MR. OCHS: -- or answer questions.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, is Amy going to do a
presentation, or are we just going to have discussion on this?
MS. PATTERSON: At your pleasure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Only if the Board asks her to have a
discussion. What is the pleasure of the board? Do you want a
complete presentation or --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No from Commissioner Coletta. No
from Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If any of the other members
want a presentation, I'd go along with that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Commissioner Fiala, you want
Page 91
May 24, 2011
a presentation?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Doesn't make any difference.
Whatever you want. I read everything, so I got all the questions
answered.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's have a presentation. But, you
know, we read it.
MS. PATTERSON: Right. Okay, sure.
MR.OCHS: Hit the highlights.
MS. PATTERSON: That's fine.
I actually have one thing to put on record. There was a number
transposed, or my error, a three and a five mixed up on the fee
schedule included as your back-up. I have it corrected for the
ordinance. Just wanted to put that on the record.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MS. PATTERSON: Okay I'm ready, if you cut the visualizer.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, you've got three minutes.
MS. PATTERSON: We're here at Board direction with these
land uses. This has been a long process, working on what are the
appropriate impact fee rate categories, particularly transportation
impact fees.
In February 2008, the Board directed staff, with the assistance of
our impact fee consultants, to develop additional rate categories when
appropriate, to address land uses not contemplated on the current rate
schedule. This is based in part on input from both Development
Services Advisory Committee and the Productivity Committee, as
well as other interested members of the industry.
Since that guidance was provided, additional rate categories have
been developed or modified and approved by the Board to address the
impacts of specified developments.
You remember the dance studio/gymnastics issue, a modification
to per seat charges for restaurants and we had changed the distribution
for colleges and universities.
Page 92
May 24,2011
In May 2010 direction was provided to conduct a study for small
medical offices which is -- the medical office rate has been an ongoing
issue out there with the industry.
I'm just going to go through a brief summary of what these are
and why we're doing them.
The church rate changed from a per square foot assessment to per
seat assessment. Why? This provides for a clear and understandable
method for assessing the fees. Expansions to churches that do not
contemplate additional seating, for example, a Sunday school building
or administrative office, would not be assessed additional road impact
fees. The reason for this is that's already considered as something
typically associated with a church and is captured in the per seat
calculation.
Churches that have other functions that operate separately from
the church, for example, a day care, schools, things like that, will
continue to be assessed at the appropriate land use category for those
uses.
Convenient store with gas pumps. This arose actually out of an
inquiry from a transportation engineer related to the flat rate per pump
assessment. And this is a move from that flat rate to a tiered
assessment. Why? Because approved data collected provides that
actual demand changes as the number of pumps increase. So this is to
be able to fairly assess the fee.
Manufacturing is a new rate on the fee schedule. Why? This land
use is not currently included as part of the 60 plus land uses on the
road impact fee schedule. But we've had ongoing customer inquiries
for development that would be properly classified as manufacturing.
This is a fairly new development. We've had you know, over the
years, lots of shopping centers, offices, lots of traditional uses, but
now we're getting repeated inquiries for things that would be classified
as manufacturing. It seems appropriate now. This is a land use in the
Institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip Generation Manual. The
Page 93
May 24,2011
data was available so we went ahead and prepared the rate.
Small medical offices, I covered, is a change for the new rate on
the schedule. And this was based on Board direction, based on many
requests by the development industry and the medical community to
come up with a rate that appropriately addresses the impacts of small
offices versus the standard large medical office. This is a middle size
rate for the small offices.
And warehouse. This is another new impact fee schedule for the
same reason as manufacturing. We see inquiries increasing for this
type of land use and so we felt that it would be appropriate for this to
be included as one of our standard land uses.
And I provided a comparison of the rates for the three brand new
categories. For small medical office you can see right now currently
we only have medical office at 23,776 per 1,000 square feet. The
small medical office brings it in at 15,757 per 1,000 square feet.
Some of the urgency has died down a little bit on small medical
offices due to the change of use program where we're finding that
people are finding space in existing buildings. However, this still
would be a useful tool for those that decided to build their own office
or were going into newer space. It's about an $8,000 reduction per
1,000 square feet.
Manufacturing is a proposed rate of2,533 per 1,000 square feet.
Right now they would be lumped in the general light industrial
category at 4,619 per 1,000 square feet, which is a different of just a
little more than $2,000 per 1,000 square feet, but again accurately
assesses for the proposed demand created by that type of facility.
And last, same thing with warehouse, the proposed rate of2,352
per 1,000 versus the 4,619 per 1,000 of general light industrial is a
$2,267 difference per 1,000 square feet. Again, attributable to
demand related to this specific type of land use.
And that's what I have. If you have any questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any questions?
Page 94
May 24, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
Thank you for your presentation, Amy.
I'm very concern where we're selectively -- and this presentation;
I see the two businesses being most benefited are manufacturing and
warehouse -- that this doesn't contemplate reductions that could be
given to, for example, retail that are also making a significant
contribution now. I mean, I know several significant retail operations
where millions and millions of dollars are being invested.
You're giving manufacturing and warehousing a 50 percent
haircut on transportation impact fees. We just reduced impact fees
significantly. I think we reduced transportation impact fees by what,
40 percent?
PATTERSON: Forty-two percent.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, 42 percent.
And now we're giving manufacturing and warehousing 50
percent off of the remaining balance of what's owed.
I really have a problem with that. And it goes to the issue of
fairness. And you know, if we have the ability to be reducing these
impact fees like this, you know, why aren't we doing a greater
reduction across the board to incentivize all the other businesses?
It just seems to me that suddenly to pick out manufacturing and
warehousing and reduce that by an additional 50 percent again may
just be for the benefit of Arthrex. I mean, we know Arthrex is going
to have a major manufacturing and warehouse expansion, and we
know that Arthrex wanted their impact fees waived, which can't be
legally done. And I just think there's just something unfair about
targeting these two businesses or these two types of businesses when
all the others still have to pay 100 percent of that reduced amount.
I mean, I would like to see what I said earlier, why don't we just
eliminate impact fees altogether? Why are we cherry-picking and
Page 95
May 24, 2011
benefiting certain groups over others? There's some fundamental
unfairness --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that a motion, Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I'm asking a question first.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, okay.
MS. PATTERSON: First I need to clarify. This isn't a reduction
to the general industrial rate. These are additions of new categories
onto the fee schedule, which is something that has been done fairly
regularly, as the need arises. And therefore the impact of these
particular land uses is calculated specifically for the land uses. We
haven't gone in and tried to cut the fee in half.
Now, whether that's the result from what they would otherwise
be classified as but for these being on the fee schedule, that is right.
That's the difference.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That is exactly what's happening.
MS. PATTERSON: However, we are -- this is attributable to the
demand created by this type of land use. And the reason for this is the
number of inquiries we've had for land uses of this type or
development of this type. This was underway well before Arthrex
came into the equation.
And on the second point of that is we've made no assessment as
to how the impact fees will be classified or assessed for Arthrex,
because it's highly dependent on the type of building and the type of
use that will go on there. So this is not something that's being done
under an assumption that Arthrex will automatically get these.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It will have the effect of reducing
the impact fees in half where construction was formerly, for example,
either general light industrial and is now manufacturing or warehouse.
It will have the effect of reducing it in half.
But let's go back to what you said where demand for
manufacturing and warehouse is what's stimulating this. Tell me
about all the demand your -- you know, where is it coming from
Page 96
May 24,2011
outside of Arthrex with respect to manufacturing and warehouse?
MS. PATTERSON: Absolutely. Well, initially we had,
obviously the inquiry about the brewery, which has gone away now.
That kind of started the thought process. If you had a major
manufacturing facility come in what do you do to deal with their
impact fees, and we don't have a rate on schedule to contemplate it.
Second we have inquiries, a couple of them actually out of
Immokalee, for some different types of distribution facilities where
they're packaging and doing some different things out there. I had an
inquiry from the CRA pretty recently about that.
And then also we have a materials -- going to the warehouse side,
a materials company that's wanting to do significant expansion, where
they're going to do -- the vast majority of their business is a warehouse
where they store their materials in a very small office space.
Those things are -- they fit to the letter of the definition of these
land uses and therefore seemed appropriate at this time. If we had
needed them sooner, we would have asked. That's -- we've been
working under the direction of the Board to bring forward land uses as
they're needed. Hence the reason furniture store was adopted, luxury
auto sales, those have been things that have been done in the past.
Now it appears that there's a need for these types of land uses where
there hasn't been in the past.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is that all you have by way of
examples to necessitate this change?
MS. PATTERSON: Those are the two I have offhand. But like I
said, we've been collecting information from people. I can't sit here
and give you a list of them. But we see -- deal with people from the
site plan process -- prior to site plan process because of their
requirement transportation impact fees to be paid up front. So when
we're talking to people this is something -- this is a recurring idea that
they have a warehouse type facility, a manufacturing type facility.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I'd like to really see your list
Page 97
May 24, 2011
of, you know, proposed manufacturing and warehouse or where
you've received inquiries. Because that tells me you know, that there
is some economic development going on in that area. And I want to
make sure that those businesses are properly incentivized. So I'd like
to see all your back-up for, you know, the volume of demand for
manufacturing and warehouse.
MS. PATTERSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If you could produce that for me, I
would appreciate it.
MS. PATTERSON: Sure. It's going to take some time, because
understand too my staff deals with people that are not even in the site
plan process yet. So these are customer inquiries that they'll note, you
know, what they've talked about.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But you've been accumulating
that. You said that that was the basis --
MS. PATTERSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- for doing this. So you have to
have the data, I'm sure --
MS. PATTERSON: We'll go back and get--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- to justify.
MS. PATTERSON: -- that for you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like it, please.
MS. PATTERSON: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a motion on the table by
Commissioner Henning. I believe it was seconded by Commissioner
Fiala.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
Page 98
May 24,2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I oppose it. And--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it passes 4-1 with Commissioner
Hiller dissenting.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I oppose it because I think the
impact fees need to be reduced across the board even further than they
have. And I think if we're serious about economic development and if
construction is what we want to spur on, then I think we need to have
an impact fee moratorium.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well let me comment on that please.
An impact fee moratorium would be fine and dandy if we didn't
need any infrastructure to go along with what we're trying to
incentivize to come into our county. But the only way companies can
move in and new developments can occur is if we have infrastructure
to support them. And we do not want to pass that cost on to our
taxpayers, and that's the reason for the impact fees in the first place.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I've got to get my two cents in.
We're one of the lowest impact fees in the state. And the reason
being is, is that we went with that model a long time ago, growth pays
for growth.
We can always modify it, like we're doing today, and try to make
it more user friendly. Truth of the matter is, we do have to pay for
infrastructure at some point in time. Ifwe're not going to do it with
impact fees, we're going to have to do it with general revenue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller one more time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, we have plenty of
infrastructure. In fact, we have more than adequate infrastructure
Page 99
May 24,2011
from what I understand, relative to demand we're facing. If you look
at counties across Florida, county after county are competing using
impact fee moratoriums. So, we might as well go all the way.
I asked for a financial analysis to explain what the impact of
reducing these impact fees by an additional 50 percent would be, and I
was told that that could not be produced, which I was very surprised
about. My understanding is that we forecast all our impact fees out. I
don't know why those could not be adjusted.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just put mine on.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, no, I'm next.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But the point being that the -- a
moratorium certainly would not hurt us.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute, let's not go beyond this
yet.
Nick, tell us the truth, okay?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Norm wants to tell you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, either one of you or both of you.
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, Administrator,
Growth Management Division.
I came here in 2000. At that time there was a declared
emergency for transportation that took seven years. We disproved the
theory that if you don't build it they won't come. We didn't build
anything and everyone came. And it wasn't just in transportation.
The impact fees you're discussing that were reduced 42 percent
was because the actual impact and cost to address those impacts were
reduced and we pulled out the utility portion that's in utility projects.
So I think the essence of what needs to be understood is we need
to have our impact fees truly reflect the actual impact and the cost to
address those impacts. The minute we don't do that, it becomes an
imbalance. That imbalance either becomes a backlog, as we've
already done one time or it has to be paid for by other funding sources.
So it's not that it was reduced 42 percent arbitrarily, it was use reduced
Page 100
May 24, 2011
and we're going to continue to try keep it reflective of the actual cost
to address the impacts.
Adding categories is another reflection of that. We're trying to
make sure that as much as we can, we truly get at the actual impact of
that development, not charge any more, but also not charging any less
than those impacts that occur. And I --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, Nick, you were going to address
the issue about the fact that Ms. Hiller did not get the information that
she requested?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I -- for the record, Nick Casalanguida,
Deputy Administrator for Growth Management.
You adopt a five year CIE every year, which is a forecast. What
I'll tell you is in 2004 we were wrong, what we said in 2009 and 2007
were wrong. For what we said in 2012, I'm sure we're going to be
wrong what we say in 2016.
It's like a hurricane cone in five day projections. The farther you
are out the more variable you have. So when asked about a five year
projection, we provide one every year that the Board adopts as part of
the CIE.
And what I said at the last meeting when we were discussing the
reduction of impact fees is I'd be making very -- they're guesses. It's
all based on economy. If the economy rebounds strongly, we collect
more impact fees. If it does not, then our projection might be
conservative or liberal.
As far as revenues we talked about and what Amy pointed out in
terms of collection, you're not going to get that much of a change next
year, because these rate categories were figured into the amount of
previous year collection. So that adjustment is made almost
automatically.
But anything for me to project out past the first year or the third
year or the fifth year, I know I'm going to be -- I'm off. But I provide
one every year as part of the ClE.
Page 101
May 24,2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So one could look at the CIE and they'd
have an answer to that question; is that correct?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Absolutely, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you very much.
Now, let me make one other thing clear. You don't adjust impact
fees on a whim. You don't just say let's cut them 50 percent, let's
declare a moratorium. That's why we have people whose full-time job
is to calculate impact fees in accordance with the law. There are legal
procedures that govern how impact fees have to be calculated. That's
why we do them with as much precision as we possibly can. That's
why we try to identify the various categories of use as precisely as
possible. And when we find that those categories are inappropriately
being applied to certain kinds of businesses, we try to refine those
categories so that they are applied properly.
Number three, there is a lead time of between three and five
years from the time impact fees are collected until the time that the
infrastructure project can be completed. You put a moratorium on
impact fees, you cut them another 50 percent and you cut off flow of
funds, and the funds will not be available when the economy recovers.
We've always got to stay three to five years ahead in terms of
infrastructure, the beginning of infrastructure improvements.
So we are doing it the proper way, the way that is required by
law, rather than based on political expediency.
So Commissioner Fiala, you are next.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Was Commissioner Coletta first or--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think I was.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think my light--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I turned it off again. Will you go away
now?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No sir, I'm not going to go
away, I'm going to be here for a long time to come.
Page 102
May 24,2011
I've got a question of staff. At what point in time can one
commissioner direct an exorbitant amount of your time for a study that
they see is very important to themselves without the other
commissioners buying in? Is it one hour, 4 hours, 40 hours, 80 hours?
I'm a little bit concerned about, I asked for, I directed. It's not
sometimes a simple request. Give us a little guidance on this. When
something comes down that's heavy, shouldn't it come to this
commission to be able to say yes, we want time from staff to be able
to do this?
MR.OCHS: Commissioner, there's no standard set that I'm
aware of. We try to respond as best we can within our capabilities;
every information request we get from the Board. You had this
discussion on the dais a month ago and no consensus was reached.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'll tell you what, ifI find
out something exorbitant happening as far as materials being spent in
this office or time from staff for something that has not been
authorized that's exorbitant and might have benefits that are nebulous,
to say the least, I'm going to make an issue of it.
I think everyone in staff has to get to a point in time when they
say, you know, that request is going to require too much of staff time,
too much of materials, too much of labor for us to be able to proceed
without a blessing and a direction from the Commission.
I see real problems here. You know, we're wasting an awful lot of
staff time and resources trying to satisfy a single person. I know many
times I've had different visions and ideas and I always brought it to
this commission before I proceeded. And I think we need to establish
some ground rules for that now and in the future. That will be able to
make sure that our resources are well spent. It's not one commissioner
but it's at least three commissioners that's giving direction.
Anybody agree or not?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I agree.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'm on.
Page 103
May 24, 2011
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then I suggest that we give the
County Attorney direction on this, to bring something back to us so
that we can have a clear defined parameter that us commissioners can
work in before we have to come back to the commission as a whole to
be able to seek permission to be able to proceed.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are there three nods?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, you got three nods.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Am I next?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're next.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Going back to what the issue was,
the issue was about a moratorium on impact fees. I think if we think it
through carefully and thoroughly, if we want no future growth and if
we want no residential growth and no new businesses, then we need to
have -- then we wouldn't need any infrastructure and so a moratorium
would certainly be in line.
But if we want to prepare for our future years, encourage some
good growth, good businesses, good growth, good residential
communities, we must have impact fees. Because if you remember,
and this is a fact, this is not just stabbing at something. At one point in
time, just three, four, five years ago we had the highest impact fees in
the State of Florida. We also had the lowest taxes because of those
high impact fees which drew people here, and we had the highest
growth rate in State of Florida and second highest growth rate in the
United States of America with those high impact fees. Don't forget
that.
So I think as long as we have staff that is thoughtfully addressing
our impact fees and modifying them or sectioning them off with
requests that we have so that they make good sense, good business
sense, then we need to move forward. We can't give the impression
that we want to discourage growth and that we want to discourage
lower taxes. We can't give that impression at all. We want to let
Page 104
May 24, 2011
people know they're welcome here and that we embrace good
wholesome growth. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm glad we have a bunch of
opinions up here. Because that's about all we have. And I have no
comment. And I'm glad that Commissioner Hiller has an opinion. I
may not agree with it, but I'm surely not going to get upset because
somebody has an opinion.
I do want to recognize that three of the Commissioners
authorized the County Attorney to draft language that is unlawful.
It has been brought up here before. I will not support it. And
furthermore, I will challenge it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. It's good to have opinions.
Commissioner Hiller, we're going to do this one more time and
then I'm going to call for a vote. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure.
Just in response to Commissioner Coletta and his perception of
demands for unlimited information, here was my question what's the
difference -- you know, what's the back-up? Here's the response.
Couple of numbers, couple of paragraphs. I'm going to enter it into
the record as an exhibit.
And with respect to your remark, Commissioner Coletta, that this
Board needs to limit the right of any Commissioner to get information
from staff, Commissioner Henning is absolutely correct. Chapter 125
makes it clear that an individual commissioner can request whatever
information they need from staff. And I will continue to ask for
whatever information I need to make an informed decision. It's my
right as a matter of law, and you won't stop me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you very much.
We have a motion to approve by Commissioner Henning --
MR. OCHS: You've already taken the vote.
Page 105
May 24, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, that's right, we've already voted.
Why are we talking about it? Does anybody know?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, because after the vote
Commissioner Hiller said she wanted to clarify why she voted against
it. It was a 4-1 vote and that's what started this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And then we had another 30 minutes of
discussion. Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: One other thing I'll add. A
moratorium doesn't need a calculation. And staff today said that they
made the decision based on demand for manufacturing space, not
based on a recalculation of the actual cost of the impact of
manufacturing and whatever else -- warehousing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That is a complete mis-characterization
of what they have said. But we'll save that for a different time
because we will accomplish nothing with these kinds of accusations
flying around.
So where does that take us now?
Item #10C
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AUTHORIZE A BUDGET AMENDMENT
FOR THE PURPOSE OF FUNDING NECESSARY PANTHER
HABITAT UNITS (PHU'S) REQUIRED FOR THE OIL WELL
ROAD PROJECT PER TERMS OF THE WETLAND
MITIGATION AND PANTHER HABITAT UNIT AGREEMENT
WITH BARRON COLLIER COMPANIES APPROVED BY THE
BOARD ON FEBRUARY 24,2009 - APPROVED $1,863,000 TO
FUND PHU'S
MR. OCHS: Takes us to Item 10(C). It's a recommendation for
the Board to authorize a budget amendment for the purpose of finding
Page 106
May 24, 2011
the necessary -- excuse me, funding the necessary panther habitat units
required for the Oil Well Road project for terms of the wetland
mitigation and panther habitat unit agreement with Barron Collier
Companies approved by the Board on February 24th, 2009.
Mr. Jay Ahmad, Director of Transportation Engineering, will
present.
MR. AHMAD: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
Jay Ahmad, your Director of Transportation Engineering.
I do have a presentation, if you wish. This item is a compliance
item. The Board unanimously approved agreements in the past, in
2009 and 2005, and we're simply transferring funds from one account
to another to pay the agreement, the contract that the Board signed.
I'd be happy to present it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's have the public speakers, please.
MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker will be Duane Billington
and he'll be followed by Tim Nance.
MR. BILLINGTON: For the record, Duane Billington.
Kind of interesting we're having public speakers before we're
having a presentation in the case. Sometimes the people that want to
speak publicly may benefit from hearing the presentation.
But having said that--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Before you start, can I -- can you
hold his time for a moment?
Commissioner Coyle, I would actually like to hear the
presentation first, because I would like to hear the public's comments.
I mean, they don't know what to anticipate that staff will say. And I
don't want to bar them from having the ability to be responsive to Jay's
presentation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't want to either. I don't mind
having the presentation. It's just that whatever is presented is in the
executive summary. It's been advertised and people can read it. If
they don't feel that they read it or understand it probably then we'll be
Page 107
May 24,2011
happy to have a presentation to tell you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And ifI may comment on that,
you know, the public only has two working days to review this
material. And for some people it's just one weekend because they
work those other two days. So I think we have to give them the
opportunity to hear the material from staff.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, let's hear your material.
MR. AHMAD: Absolutely, sir.
This is as I stated a recommendation for a budget amendment for
the Oil Well Road project to pay for panther habitat units on the
project.
I have a few slides. This slide is -- in April, 2005 the Board of
County Commissioners in a unanimous vote, 5-0, approved developer
contribution agreements with Ave Maria and Barron Collier.
In that agreement the county is responsible for mitigation for
both wetlands and the PHU's.
Taking you down the project from 2005 through 2008 and
through 2009, it's been in various design stages. The design was the
responsibility of the developer. They hired their own designers and it
went through the 30, 60, 90 public information meetings that we held
for the project.
But in 2009, as we anticipate the construction that is imminent,
the plans were done, and now the permit was about to be issued, the
Board approved the wetland mitigation and panther habitat agreement.
Per that agreement, it stipulated exactly how much we needed for
wetland mitigation and for panther habitat unit agreements. Essentially
30.86 wetland credits and 1,552.5 for PHU's. Part of the wetland
credits carries some PHU's, about 276. So if you look at how many
PHU's are required for the project, it is 276 plus 1,552, it's
approximately 1,900.
In that agreement as well, in 2009 cost per the agreement, the
agreement stipulated the wetland credits will cost $48,000. The PHU
Page 108
May 24, 2011
credits will cost $1,200. And on the right hand side, back then the
open market where you could buy it from banks, the wetland cost per
credit was $62,000 and PHU were $1,500.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sixteen hundred.
MR. AHMAD: That is an error. I apologize.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's fifteen or 16?
MR. AHMAD: It's $1,500.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Fifteen hundred, okay.
MR. AHMAD: Correct.
Now, per the agreement again, it stipulates when do we pay for
the wetlands and when do we pay for the 100 percent for the PHU's.
Now, taking that date of May of 2009, the permit was issued by
South Florida Water Management District. A normal project; when
the District approves the permit, we pay 50 percent of wetland credits
and we pay 100 percent of the PHU's. And normally we would go out
to a bank and obtain those at the prices I indicated earlier.
But of course we had that agreement that gave us about 20
percent discount, so we essentially instead of paying 62,000, we were
paying 48,000. And we paid the 50 percent at that 48,000 rate for the
wetland. We did not pay the PHUs at that time.
And the next slide is February, 2010. The Board approved of
course, the contract with Mitchell and Stark to begin construction.
That's the date we started construction. And the permitting agencies
allowed us to start construction because they knew we had that parcel,
part of the application for mitigation that Barron Collier -- remember,
they were doing the design. They dedicated that parcel of U.S. 41 for
panther habitat units, and they were very close to getting their PHU's.
But they -- at that time they got the wetlands through the Camp Keais
Strand, that the wetland they had, so we paid for that.
Now, in the original-- in the February 24th, 2009 agreement, it
had the one year condition that the county was to obtain the PHU from
Starnes property, a property that Conservation Collier -- and folks
Page 109
May 24, 2011
from Conservation Collier are here to answer any questions that you
may have. The Board directed staff with Conservation Collier; since
we're getting the Starnes property, Pepper Ranch and other parcels,
let's start getting our conservation PHU's and wetlands credits from
those properties.
So the county started that process early on before any of these
agreements, and they were -- we thought and Conservation Collier
thought, Barron Collier as well thought that they would get their
PHU's approved by the permitting agency within a short time. And
that is obviously not -- wasn't the case. The PHU's that the county for
the Starnes, that started in 2008. To date we don't have the PHU's
from that parcel. Neither do we have it from Pepper Ranch. Although
I understand from Conservation Collier that we are getting very close
to getting it from Starnes.
Now at that date of March 2010, a year after the 2009 agreement,
now that county option expired, that we can no longer use the PHU's
from our own Starnes or from our own Pepper Ranch. That's the
agreement we entered into. So now we have to obtain it from the -- as
was initially envisioned by DCA, from Barron Collier. They applied
for the PHU's, part of the application for federal permits that they got.
Now, advancing to the second payment of the wetlands is in
October that was due. And sure enough we paid those amounts. We
paid $740,000 in October, 2010 when South Florida accepted the
wetland monitoring report, and that's also per the agreement, and we
paid the earlier agreement, as I indicated before.
So to date we paid -- to this date, October 20 10, we paid a total
of $1 ,481 ,280 for wetland mitigation from Barron Collier.
Remember this is a much discounted rate. The open market,
$60,000. This is $48,000 a unit. It's a huge deal, I believe, for the
county .
The -- advance to March 2011, U.S. Fish & Wildlife accepted
Barron Collier Trust agreement, now the balance is due. Essentially
Page 110
May 24, 2011
they accepted their bank, or the conservation. At this date we don't
have ours. So -- they submitted an invoice for a total amount of 1.86
__ 1,861,000, I can't read that far, I'm sorry. $1,863,000. $1,863,000.
So now the $1,200 per unit, the agreed upon price, in 2011 is
now -- it is $925. The market for PHU's, due to economic
developments of the -- that we're facing in the county have gone down
from $1,200 in 2009 to today's market of$925. The wetland
mitigation cost stayed the same. It was $60,000, remained $60,000.
So that's the invoice I mentioned that Barron Collier submitted to pay
them the amount due per the agreement.
Now, this slide shows you a calculation, and on the left is the
agreement cost. And the agreement cost, if you consider wetlands as
well as PHU's, the total cost for those two would be $3.3 million plus.
And if we had bought them at the time we got the permit, as we are
required to, it would be $4.39 million. So we have, I think, the
agreement -- per the agreement that was made, we saved over a
million dollars in savings to the county, based on the agreement.
I'm available for any questions, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: My light wasn't on for this. I was
waiting to hear him speak.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Does anybody want to hear the speakers
first?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETT A: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, your light's on.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You don't want to hear the
speakers first?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do we have a valid agreement?
Page 111
"o>_.__.,~~'"._.._-~..-
May 24,2011
This was supposed to be consummated last year?
The transaction was -- oh, it was February ofthis year, right?
MR. AHMAD: Yes, sir. We -- in understand you correctly, we
should have paid the panther much earlier than we are doing it now, is
that the question, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, the question is, is the
agreement still valid?
Is the agreement still valid, Mr. Klatzkow?
MR. KLATZKOW: I believe it is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It has a one year clause in it.
The agreement was signed in February?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What month is this?
MR. KLATZKOW: May.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we still have a valid
agreement.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. We got the benefit of the bargain.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, is it a true bargain?
MR. KLA TZKOW: Yes, it is. Because we would have had to
have paid for these mitigation credits way back when.
MR. AHMAD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But did the Barron Collier have
the mitigation credits way back then?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, but because of this agreement we were
able to proceed with the road project. Without this agreement we
never would have gotten the permit to proceed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And you're saying the
agency dictated where we get the PHU's and the wetland credits?
MR. AHMAD: No, sir, the -- if you recall in the agreement, the
-- both Barron Collier and the county applied for panther habitat.
We were the co-applicant essentially trying to accelerate this project
with Barron Collier for the PHU's on that parcel that they owned.
Page 112
May 24, 2011
And they were going to give it to us at a discount.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What was my question again?
This sure wasn't the answer to my question.
MR. AHMAD: I apologize, I'll try again.
Your question again, sir? I may have misunderstood it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The question is, I believe it was,
does Barron Collier have the PHU's?
MR. AHMAD: They now do, yes. They didn't have it a while
ago. They just got it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How long ago?
MR. AHMAD: They got it in March of this year.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. But they didn't have it at
the time that this agreement expired.
MR. AHMAD: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So this agreement is expired.
I'm reading that it has expired.
But my question was, did we have to buy the units? Did the
agency dictate where we bought the units?
MR. OCHS: Did the agency dictate where we bought the units?
MR. AHMAD: The agency had -- the reason we started the
project without PHU's is because we were a co-applicant. The agency
does not dictate where you obtain it, but by virtue of being a
co-applicant, sir, they knew where we were getting our PHU's.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know why you have a
problem answering questions.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, the direct answer to your question
is no, they didn't dictate that. Because we were able to get a 20 percent
reduction to 1,200 rather than having to buy on the open market at
1,500 at that time, we entered into that agreement.
We also felt as part of that agreement we were given one year to
try and get the PHU's off of Starnes, and we sought to do that.
Unfortunately that didn't come about. So now we're working with the
Page 113
May 24,2011
1,200, which is a reduced rate that we would have had to pay --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You would have had to pay then
when you -- before, prior to construction.
MR. FEDER: Exactly. And to be able to go to construction to
get your permit, you have to pay for your PHU's at that time. So it
was either us buying at an open market for 15, go into this deal with a
reduced rate of 1,200, so that was where we were looking, or an
alternative, we had hoped, have the PHU's off of Starnes to pay for it,
which didn't unfortunately materialize.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, this agreement is between
the Board of Commissioners. And I would hope that if the Board's
going to vote on it, that we recognize that it is a valid -- that the
agreement has not expired. And I think that's a valid point.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I do too. But I'm confused by
some of the answers you got to your questions, though.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Get them from Norm, you might
get it --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I just think there's a failure to
communicate. Did you see that movie? Okay.
The agreement was signed in March of2009, not January or
February of this year.
MR. FEDER: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That agreement didn't have a one year
expiration, it had a provision that said that if the government, Collier
County Government can't get their own PHU's within a year they
have to pay for these.
MR. FEDER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Did I say this right?
MR. FEDER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So we signed an agreement on
Page 114
May 24, 2011
March the 3rd or so, 2009. It was duly recorded in the Clerk's Office.
It has been a valid agreement for the entire period of time. We tried to
get our own panther habitat units on our property, but that was delayed
for at least two years because of a dispute between the state and the
Clerk about who would hold the money.
MR. FEDER: Actually, the federal agency.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry, the federal agency, okay.
And that still has not been resolved. So we could not get our own
panther habitat unit program going in time to meet the time deadline
in this contract.
MR. FEDER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Therefore, we had already used the
panther units in order to get the permit and we owed Barron Collier
the money.
MR. FEDER: At the agreed upon price of 1,200, which is a
reduction from the going rate at the time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Which in the aggregate saved us over a
million dollars including the wetland mitigation and panther habitat.
MR. FEDER: About 900,000, because it's 1,500 a unit, not 16.
But yes, about $900,000.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Almost a million dollars, okay.
So we had a valid contract. We were obligated to pay . We're
now paying. We've enjoyed use of somebody else's money for two
years. And we also saved approximately a million dollars on the deal.
MR. FEDER: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What's there to argue about?
MR. FEDER: I'm not arguing, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, then why are you talking?
MR. FEDER: I'm not.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Okay, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Speaker's first.
Page 115
May 24, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, yes, that's right, public speakers.
MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker is Duane Billington, and
he'll be followed by Tim Nance.
MR. BILLINGTON: For the record, Duane Billington.
Curious about a few things. I believe Collier Corporation was
given $50,000 an acre credit for donating right-of-way for the subject
roadway, is that correct?
And then, I would ask as a second part to that question, did that
relieve them from any impact fee obligations?
MR. FEDER: The first is they were not given $50,000 for the
donation of lands. I believe they valued it relative to issues they had
at that rate, which is about the going rate at the time in 2005.
No, they were not given any impact fee credits for the
right-of-way.
MR. BILLINGTON: Okay. $50,000 an acre is for something
that's contested, an unwilling seller where there's court fees involved.
We have a willing seller here, I just want to point that out.
The mitigation costs, are they included when we can set impact
fees for transportation?
MR. FEDER: Yes, they are. They're part of our impact fee
process.
MR. BILLINGTON: So then Barron Collier through their
impact fees is contributing to these panther unit mitigations?
MR. FEDER: Yes.
MR. BILLINGTON: That's interesting.
From a taxpayer's standpoint, you know, we wouldn't need to do
this work on Oil Well Road if it wasn't for Ave Maria.
MR. FEDER: No, that's not correct.
MR. BILLINGTON: What, are we widening it for the prison out
there beyond the end of Oil Well?
MR. FEDER: No, we're widening it because we started at U.S.
41 on Immokalee Road, widened it out to Oil Well, six-Ianed the
Page 116
May 24,2011
whole way. We're trying to establish a connection between the
Immokalee community and the coastal community. Had worked with
the Florida DOT to look at a project development environment study
for alternates either to continue on Immokalee or out Oil Well Road.
All of this actually before at least Ave Maria was to our attention.
Once we realized that Ave Maria was about to occur and DOT
had already looked at some of the environmental problems on
Immokalee, the decision was to continue it relative to Oil Well, either
to 29 or up Camp Keais, and that's become the further discussion.
So the issue was to meet transportation needs in the county even
before the issue with Ave Maria.
MR. BILLINGTON: How would we need to do this at the
current time if it weren't for Ave Maria?
MR. FEDER: No, it sped things up. We probably would have
been on Golden Gate Boulevard first, yes.
MR. BILLINGTON: Okay. So you said 41 --
MR.OCHS: Commissioner, how do you want to handle this?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, this is not a debate about which
road you were going to build when. It's a debate about complying with
a valid contract.
MR. BILLINGTON: I understand that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are we going to pay for a valid contract
or are you going to suggest to us that we not pay?
MR. BILLINGTON: Well, I'll just sum it up by saying you all
are substantially outgunned when you sit down at the negotiating table
with these contractors. You have not been serving the taxpayer well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Million dollar savings didn't serve the
taxpayers, huh?
MR. BILLINGTON: You're paying more than what the going
rate is now for mitigation credits.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Did you ever buy -- does (sic) anybody
here ever buy stock and have it go down? Did you go back and ask
Page 117
May 24,2011
for the difference back? Does anybody here have a house value
decline over the past years, maybe even below your mortgage? Did
you go back and say, whoops, give me my money back, I want the
difference now?
That's what you're wanting us to do, right? Okay.
MR. MITCHELL: Next speaker is Tim Nance.
MR. NANCE: Good afternoon. Tim Nance.
I think when we're discussing whether we should be paying
Barron Collier Company a cash payment for anything, we need to
look at the developer contribution agreement that was consummated in
April, 2005 and some of the assumptions that were made at that time.
Some of the assumptions included, we were going to build,
despite the fact it's 12 miles through basically undeveloped territory,
an urban four-lane road with a provision for six-Ianing.
Some of the assumptions were that Ave Maria was going to
ultimately be built out by the year 2016 with 11,000 residential units;
that Barron Collier was going to be paying in excess of $60 million in
road impact fees predicated upon the idea that there was going to be
50 -- 120 residential units by 2010 when in fact there turned out to be
374 residential units, according to the Ave Maria Stewardship District
five-year fiscal monitoring report delivered to you in June, 2010.
Associated with that report was a report, that to that date Barron
Collier's development had contributed $9 million in transportation
impact fees and that Collier County had borne the expense of $39
million to date on the road.
So your concern, Commissioner Coyle, that we've been using
Barron Collier's $1.9 million for a couple years pales in contrast to the
fact that they've been using $30 million of Collier County's tax money
where they should have had impact fees to pay for the construction of
the road.
It's my understanding that Barron Collier -- it's reported in the
executive summary that Barron Collier Companies has allowed for an
May 24,2011
arrangement for the county to pursue creation of our own panther
habitat units off our properties and that we have -- possibly have some
alternatives.
I think we should continue to try to apply our habitat units,
request that Barron Collier give us a little more time, and I think that
any cash payment of $1.9 million to Barron Collier Company for
anything, for any cost associated with this road, is absolutely
ludicrous. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Nance, could I ask you a question?
MR. NANCE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Most of what you pointed out is really a
matter of timing. That is, that economic circumstances resulted in
slower growth in Ave Maria, consequently --
MR. NANCE: I agree, sir, that--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: At what time, what day did you forecast
that the market was going to collapse?
MR. NANCE: I did not, sir, and neither did you, did you?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
MR. NANCE: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So in order to look back and say you
negotiated a bad contract, you would have to understand or you would
have to believe that the market was going to crash shortly thereafter.
To go back -- to use current circumstances, to go back and second
guess a decision that was made five years or more ago is, to say the
least, disingenuous. But thank you very much for your crystal --
MR. NANCE: Well, I think, sir, frankly it's very disingenuous
for Barron Collier to hold us to this sort of a request when the
taxpayers of Collier County have been very accommodating to all
these benchmarks and dates that have failed. For us to get all excited
about one more in a stream of about 10 or 12 assumptions that were in
error I think is irresponsible for the taxpayers of the county.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So this is about punishing Barron Collier
Page 119
May 24,2011
Corporation. It's all about --
MR. NANCE: No, sir, I think we've treated them very well, sir,
don't you?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, but you don't want to have that
happen, right?
MR. NANCE: No. I think that they ought to give us a little
break since we've given them a break.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And you don't think we should
adhere to a contract that we signed?
MR. NANCE: No, sir. You want to hear what you agreed to?
The county, in good faith, commits to complete construction of
the project, meaning Oil Well Road, by 2010 subject to its road impact
fee structure remaining substantially intact, which it hasn't, receipt of
sufficient road impact fees, which have not occurred, and delays
caused by matters typically considered to be force majeure.
I think sir, that a variance in this case falls within one of those
exceptions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you?
MR. NANCE: Yes, sir, I do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good, good. Thanks for your legal
advice.
Okay, who's next?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your final speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Seems first there were attacks
on Arthrex, now there are attacks on Barron Collier Company. I don't
understand what all these attacks are. Aren't we supposed to be
addressing the issue?
Now, I'm going to just put it in really common sense simple
terms. I went out and bought a suit for work a couple years ago
because I really needed to wear a new suit to work. But I put it on my
charge because I didn't have all the money and I was hoping to find a
Page 120
May 24, 2011
blouse that matched it. But I wore that suit and I wore that suit. And
then time comes, I haven't finished paying my charge off but here I
notice that the suit is now on sale so I want a lower rate because I
didn't know it was going to go on sale. So I deserve a lower rate, just
take that off my charge card because I don't need to pay it.
That's about what we're saying. That doesn't make any sense at
all. At the time we thought we were getting a good deal, it was
negotiated from $1,500 down to 1,200. That was good for us. And it
served the purpose because we wanted to move forward with this road.
We had to have it.
Yes, the other things didn't transpire as much as we wanted them
to take place so that we could have our Starnes property used as the
PHU's. It didn't come to be, there have been hold-ups all along the
way, but we signed an agreement and we should honor that agreement.
And so I would make a motion that yes, indeed, we authorize a
budget amendment for the purpose of funding the necessary PHU's
required for the Oil Well Road project per the terms of our agreement
in the amount of -- total amount of 1,800 -- I'm sorry, $1,863,000,
with -- and I want to mention we are recognizing that the agreement
that we had signed is still a valid agreement.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Fiala, second
by Commissioner Coletta.
Commissioner Coletta, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll tell you, it's been forever
trying to get a four-lane road to Immokalee. Been working on both
ends of the equation from Naples to Immokalee and from Fort Myers
to Immokalee. Eighty-two we brought that into the strategic modal
system. We got a tremendous amount of support. Money ran out.
We're not quite there. Immokalee's got great visions, despite the fact
they don't have an active master plan, but they've got great visions.
Page 121
May 24, 2011
They need a four-lane road. This is one of those things that
would never have happened probably if it wasn't for the money we
received from Ave Maria to get to the point we are. Once we get
down there to Camp Keais we only have to go down Camp Keais and
we make the connection to Immokalee. Make all the difference in the
world to be able to have a four-lane road go through there.
Mr. Feder, for the public, one more time, would you be able to
state exactly what Barron Collier's commitment to this deal was?
MR. FEDER: Exactly without in front of me, possibly not, but
essentially yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I've got the Developer
Contribution Agreement. Would you like it?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can I ask you to take charge of
your meeting?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just wanted to offer it to help.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Take charge of your meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- you don't have the floor.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just wanted to help him.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You don't have the floor, Commissioner
Hiller.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, thank you, but I think I can get the
essence of it.
Basically they provided right-of-way from what was essentially
100 feet up to 200 feet across their boundary on the -- not only Oil
Well but also on Immokalee if we ever pursue it in the future and on
Camp Keais.
They provided storm water management on their property so that
we didn't have to buy retention areas. Essentially five acres I believe
every three miles. In essence, the equivalent.
Page 122
May 24, 2011
They ended up going into a provision for fill at their cost, but we
ended up as it turned out with the construction not pursuing that.
They also designed it with their funds up front. That they did get
impact fee -- will get impact fee credit for, for the design. But they
fronted the money and then it comes back to them, only in half of the
impact fees that they accrue in a year so that we didn't have that bill
coming and stopping any impact fee collections even under the
original concepts and the original growth rate.
So they did provide quite a bit toward the project, help bring it
forward. And as I said, we also are still trying to connect to
Immokalee, as you raised.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Feder. I
appreciate that. And I think we ought to get on with it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor of the motion, please signifY
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes 4-1, with Commissioner Hiller
dissenting.
And I would just like to make an observation for the audience
and the television viewers, because we're going to see more of this as
we go through the day, that much of what you heard is political
rhetoric by a group of people who are pushing a particular candidate
and a particular position for Collier County Commission.
So much of this public comment and much of the comment from
some members of this board are political statements more than
anything else. But nevertheless, where do we go next?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a request.
Page 123
May 24, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're trying to do the public's
business. Is it possible that we can just stay to the item on the agenda?
We can do it as a Board. We can't demand the public does that, but
shouldn't we do that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What did you say, stage?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Stay on the topic.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Stay on the topic. Well, I wish we
could, but the public just won't let us do that, nor will some of the
members of the Board let us do that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, you're the Chair
and you know the items on the agenda, just like anybody else. I think
it's your duty to point out when a Commissioner strays from the topic.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'll be happy to do that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks, I would appreciate that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Okay, where do we go from now?
Item #IOD
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A FIRST AMENDMENT
TO LEASE AGREEMENT, A/K/ A CATTLE LEASE, FOR THE
PEPPER RANCH PRESERVE UNDER THE CONSERVATION
COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM AND DIRECT THE
COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO IMPLEMENT
THE LEASE AMENDMENT TERMS - MOTION TO CONTINUE
- APPROVED
MR.OCHS: We go to Item 10(D) on your agenda, which was
previously Item 16(E)(3). It's a rec --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Did you say 10(D)?
MR.OCHS: Yes, 10(D), Delta, yes, sir.
Page 124
May 24,2011
And that was a recommendation to approve the first amendment
to lease amendment -- excuse me, lease agreement also known as the
cattle lease for the Pepper Ranch Preserve under the Conservation
Collier Land Acquisition Program, and direct the County Manager or
his designee to implement lease amendment terms.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Forgive me, I just want to -- I
apologize, but before we moved on to that, may I --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, please turn your
light on when you want to speak.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I apologize. Thank you. Sorry
about that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have the floor, Ms. Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just wanted to introduce a
document with respect to my last vote. And I was just having a hard
time finding it and I finally found it. And essentially it was a letter
that supports Commissioner Coyle's interpretation of that contract that
in fact, you know, these time limits had expired.
So I will turn it in after. But I just want you all to know that.
Because the county did assert by way of letter that Barron had not
fulfilled its obligation to obtain these panther mitigation credits when
the county could not do so itself. So -- and I just -- I apologize, it took
me a little bit of time. But the county is -- and I just now -- Barron's
letter is included as well.
It says, your March 4th letter states that the county is not required
to pay the requested amount because no panther habitat units exist --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Ms. Hiller, you can submit it in
evidence --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I just want to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You said you've done that, we're now on
a different agenda item.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you for allowing me to do
that, thanks.i
Page 125
May 24, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. HENNIG: Melissa Hennig, Principal Environmental
Specialist.
I have a brief slide show, two slides, to show you the substantive
changes of the cattle lease amendment.
Originally when we -- all the dust settled after the acquisition of
Pepper Ranch and we met with the cattle lessee, I put the folio
numbers from the cattle lease on the map and we both looked at it and
said we're missing some numbers here. We're missing some of the
parcels we intended to have on the lease. And that was where this
lease amendment started.
You can see from the map the reddish area was what made it into
the cattle lease, and what we both intended to be in the cattle lease was
the red plus the yellow areas. That was why we started the lease
amendment process.
Along the way staff realized the addition of acreage, the rental, if
it was indeed to stay a dollar an acre, the rent charge if we added that
acreage would be $2,293 an acre. And we realized well, they have
mowing equipment out there -- or $2,293 a year. Excuse me.
And we realized well, we have to pay to mow one of the pastures
that's not included and the fire lines that aren't included in the pastures
of the cattle lease.
Under the cattle lease the lessee is required to mow all the
pastures where they have their cattle and maintain the internal fencing.
So we thought it would be to our benefit, since at the time it was
costing us -- or we had a quote that it would cost about $4,000 to mow
the highlighted blue pasture down by the lake and those fire lines that
are also highlighted blue, the negotiation was, okay, instead of paying
the $2,293, will you mow this pasture for us so many times a year, and
that will save us money.
Now, when it went to our committee -- our sub-committee agreed
to those terms. We took it to the committee, they had issues similar to
Page 126
May 24,2011
-- I spoke to Mr. Billington, and they had similar issues that is this the
going rate for cattle.
And so I called Lee County, they were charging a dollar an acre.
I called -- they recommended I call Steve Smith, who is with Babcock
Ranch now, he used to work for Alico, and he didn't scoff at a dollar
an acre but he said, enhhhh. That was his basic sentiment.
But he said, if you are having fewer cattle than are allowable on
the property because of its environmental land, you can't really go and
ask for higher rates.
Later when I did talk to Mr. Billington -- anyway, so I felt
comfortable going forward with our dollar an acre after I looked at the
range plan that was created by USDA for us after they went out and
looked. The cattle use we're allowing is less than would normally be
allowed because it's a preserve for wildlife.
Once it made it to the agenda I did get the call and I investigated
further after looking over some things that Mr. Billington had, and
indeed some places in the area are getting $6.00 an acre for pasture
land. And when I talked to Lykes Brothers in -- just north of here,
they're getting about $2.13 for non-pasture land.
So when I broke that out, we could potentially be getting about
6,000 or so -- I'm sorry, $7,000 a year. And the mowing now after a
new quote is worth about $6,000 a year. So give or take $1,000 we
could if we didn't go into this agreement get more. But the original
lease agreement -- let me go back to my slide. That is how we came
up with the mowing in lieu of the rent. At the time we saw that it
would save us money.
The term extensions, the original term of the lease was for five
years. And I did talk to the Water Management District and they said
that is a normal procedure for them, also to get into a lease agreement
right away with the seller to keep the cattle on. And they normally do
get a slightly reduced rate. And that's where we are there.
That term goes for three years with the opportunity to extend for
Page 127
May 24,2011
two more years after that. We thought it necessary to put in there that
the cattle had to remain for 90 days, because it's a management tool.
We don't want them just to up and take their cattle off if they decide to
terminate.
The added extended term was added to the lease and that's for a
possibility of five more years after the initial five year term of the
lease.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there a difference between
cattle grazing and cattle production?
In the executive summary in the second paragraph, Melissa --
let's see, the property is the sole purpose of cattle grazing and
incidental activities that are directly related to beef cattle production.
Maybe I don't understand beef cattle production.
MS. HENNIG: They graze the land but they also are breeding
the cattle. What they do is they'll breed the cattle and then they'll sell
the calves after --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nothing more than that? Okay.
Well, I guess the question is are they going to be doing -- what
about if they don't mow and they graze the area that you want to be
maintained?
MS. HENNIG: Right. The area we want them to maintain is
going to be open to the public in probably a year or two. And so we
didn't feel it was a good idea to have cattle in that area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. So we're -- bottom
line, we're missing out approximately maybe $1,000 a year?
MS. HENNIG: Possibly.
In could add one thing. It is an issue. When I talked to other
land managers, because we've never dealt with cattle before on our
properties, they really made it a point to tell me how important it was
to get a good working relationship with your cattle person, for what
that's worth. We have a very good relationship with them. They're
Page 128
May 24, 2011
trustworthy. I've heard stories of overgrazing and things like that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let me tell you, I feel uneasy about the
failure to make a good strong positive statement in support of this
agreement. If there is some doubt about how much money we can get
here, we ought to go back and negotiate.
But I'm just not getting a real strong message that this is
something that has been thoroughly examined and whether or not all
of the alternatives have been explored.
When you tell us that maybe we could get some more money if
we went out and checked, I think maybe we ought to go out and
check. But I just tell you, I'm a little uneasy about it.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. A couple things we need
to recognize is the money's almost immaterial to what the services are
that are provided. The Cattle act as a management tool. We're trying
to keep it down. And the mowing that takes place keeps the exotics
from taking over. It's just pure management.
Now, you know, we could put this back out again, maybe we
might come up a couple hundred dollars ahead, but we'll probably
spend that much time and staff time to get to where we need to be.
How long is this agreement for? Let's see, it's cut for several
stages.
MS. HENNIG: The original lease is through next year, and then
with the possibility to extend it for two more years, and then after that
five more years at a one-year increment every year.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In order to give a certain
amount of comfort to Commissioner Coyle and possibly other
commissioners, how important is it that this takes place at this
meeting?
I'll tell you what I got in mind. If we could get the agricultural
agent to come to the next meeting and maybe give us an overview of
what his view on this and what he knows as far as lease rates. I mean,
Page 129
May 24,2011
it's pretty common, even our Airport Authority leases out part of their
land for cattle grazing. I have no idea how they structure it, but it
might be something we could use for comparison.
That would be a great one too because those are facts that are
going to be readily available and we don't have to worry about
somebody mismatching the amounts. We'll be able to get the truer
value of it. They've been doing it for an untold number of years, so
they'll have a running record and they might have a better idea what
the value may be.
Would that be agreeable to continue this and have them come
back and maybe the agricultural agent could join -- excuse me, I think
I'm coming down with a cold. I hope I don't give it to anyone.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Better take some echinacea.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, appreciate that, Dr.
Fiala.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You had some observations, County
Manager, or not?
MR. OCHS: No, sir, except to concur that we ought to take this
back and take a second look at it and make sure we've done our due
diligence and then bring it back when it's ready to go.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to continue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to continue by Commissioner
Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signifY by saying aye --
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, do you want the public speaker?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry. Have Mr. Billington come up.
MR. MITCHELL: The public speaker is Duane Billington.
MR. BILLINGTON: For the record, Duane Billington.
I want to thank Melissa, it's been a pleasure working with her on
this. I think she's done as good a job as anybody could reasonably
expect.
Page 130
May 24,2011
When the county acquired Pepper Ranch, we didn't do it for
cattle grazing, we did it to use as park land and not necessarily to go
out and view cattle. I think we were looking at viewing deer and
turkeys and critters of that nature. So for her to have to go down this
road, something entirely new, I think she's done an excellent job with
the resources that she's had.
I do appreciate your approach at wanting to continue this. I just
want to bring out a couple things. Mowing requirements, fence repair,
fence construction, they're common elements of cattle lease
agreements, a lot of which benefits the cattle grazer or the lessee. The
mowing of improved pasture, which is part of the structure of this
lease, if you look at other leases, that's something that's expected of
the lessee at no cost. So the only thing really beyond is the mowing of
some of their trails.
Then there's the question of going back to what do you want to
see when you go out to the Pepper Ranch? Do you want to see cattle
grazing or do you want to see deer and wildlife? A lot of the mowing
might not be necessary if you just pull the cattle off and devote it to
those other causes.
Commissioner Coletta makes an excellent point, we do need an
assessment by the Department of Agriculture. But I think we also
need an assessment by Florida Wildlife, Division of Habitat and
Species Conservation and come up with an assessment based on
what's the best use, and is cattle grazing going to do more harm than
good.
And again, I'd like to sum up by thanking Melissa, it's been a
pleasure working with her, and I'll communicate with her in the future.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Now, does this -- all in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 131
May 24, 2011
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Does this affect the other two items also?
Are these going to be --
MS. HENNIG: No, they're --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- totally separate issues? Okay. All
right, let's go to the next one.
Item #IOE
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AN ACCESS EASEMENT
TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION (FDEP) AND DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE
COVENANT WHICH WILL ALLOW FDEP TO MONITOR THE
CATTLE-VAT CLEAN-UP SITE AT THE PEPPER RANCH
PRESERVE AND RESTRICT PUBLIC USE WITHIN THE
CATTLE-VAT CLEAN-UP SITE-APPROVED
MR. OCHS: This item is WeE). It was previously 16(E)(4). It's
a recommendation to approve an access easement to the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection and a declaration of
restrictive covenant which will allow FDEP to monitor the cattle vat
clean-up site at Pepper Ranch preserve and restrict public uses within
the cattle vat clean-up site.
Melissa?
MS. HENNIG: Back in the early 1900's, pre-1940's, to deter the
spread of a fever spread by ticks, it was decided by the USDA that all
cattle in Florida needed to go through what was called a cattle dipping
vat. And I have a picture of an old one that was out in ago lands. And
Page 132
May 24,2011
that's what they used to do, the cows had to swim through this slurry
of toxic chemicals, one of which is arsenic.
And you can see that the pit just -- the dipping vat just opens up
into the ground. So they'd fill it up every once in awhile, and where
did that go, that went into the soil.
Now when people buy ago lands, a lot of times old ago lands they
had these cattle dipping vats. And Pepper Ranch was no different.
In the Phase I environmental report it was noted that there was a
dipping vat by the old cattle pens. You can see where it is in relation
to the property, and then I'm going to zoom in here. This item is -- it
was decided upon at the closing of the property that the seller would
incur all charges to clean up the cattle vat, since it was their property
before -- or after the sale, and there was escrowed money put away to
clean up the cattle vat.
The pink area on the map is where the actual cattle vat was. This
area was scooped out. Six feet of contaminated fill was scooped out
of that area. The yellow area, two feet of contaminated fill was
scooped out. And in the blue area the entire area blue area is now
covered with two feet of clean fill and fenced off.
This is what the Department of Environmental Protection
considers engineering controls. That means no one will ever play on
that dirt. Even though all the engineers tell me that you'd have to eat
the dirt for 30 years every single day to get sick.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Some of the engineers might do that.
MS. HENNIG: The stars are the monitoring wells that were put
in place by the seller's consultants. The red line is -- this property is
called an institutional control, it had to be surveyed out of this
property boundary and completely removed from the property so that
it stands out if it's ever sold. No drinking wells can ever go into this
area.
The reason that is, is the arsenic is not completely cleaned up
around the pink area. It is below certain levels and it is below
Page 133
May 24, 2011
standards in the whole red area. But the fact that the arsenic plume
once -- the contaminated soil is actually shrinking based on the
monitoring wells. That's enough for DEP to give it institutional
controls. So this is a great thing. It's cleaned up.
Along with this, that's the declaration of restrictive covenant,
which basically means you can't do this here, you can't put drinking
wells here, you have to put clean fill over it. That's been done.
The second part is an FDEP access easement. And that basically
gives DEP access to this site to monitor it whenever they'd like.
And I do have pictures. That's them digging out the pit and the
clean fill and the fence.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. How are you doing? Are you
okay?
THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right, let's call the public speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Billington.
MR. BILLINGTON: For the record, Duane Billington.
I really have no problem with the easement. There's a couple
things I wanted to bring out though on this.
That if you look at Page 2 of the executive summary, first
paragraph, it reads: Since the acquisition of Pepper Ranch preserve in
February, 2009, Collier County's use of the southern access road
associated with the BCI access easement, that being Barron Collier's
access easement, has dwarfed BCl's use of the same road. Any
potential for loss ofPHU's, which are panther habitat units, at Pepper
Ranch preserve, because of the southern access road would be as the
result of Collier County's current use ofthe access road, not BCI's
current limited use of the access road.
And it goes on to say that there would be -- there's risk of
potential loss of the panther habitat units if additional uses were
granted in that area.
So actually we're kind of shooting ourself in the foot on these
Page 134
May 24, 2011
panther habitat units, if that was the objective of purchasing the land
to begin with.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, I -- Mr. Billington, forgive me for
interrupting. But I believe you're referring to the next item, not the
item that we're on now, which is the easement to FDEP.
MR. BILLINGTON: Covenant which will allow FDEP to
monitor the cattle vat clean-up site.
MR. OCHS: That was 16(D)(4). You're I think reading from the
next item.
MR. BILLINGTON: You are correct, this is a sheet from the
next item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's not repeat this. Let's finish it up
and we'll remember it for the next time.
MR. BILLINGTON: Very good.
So anyhow, when it comes to that next item, I don't see any
reason why we're releasing escrow. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. We're going to
take a break, okay. We'll be here back at 5:00 -- 3:00.
(Recess. )
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, ladies and gentlemen, Board of
Page 135
May 24,2011
County Commission meeting is back in session. We're going to -
Item #10F
RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE RELEASE OF $250,000
HELD IN ESCROW TO LAKE TRAFFORD RANCH, LLLP, THE
SELLER OF THE PEPPER RANCH PRESERVE, AND APPROVE
THE ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENT - APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 10(F), sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 10(F).
MR.OCHS: Which was formerly 16(E)(5). It's a
recommendation to authorize the release of $250,000 held in escrow
to Lake Trafford Ranch, LLLP, the seller of Pepper Ranch preserve,
and approve the associated budget amendment.
Melissa Hennig will present.
MS. HENNIG: Good afternoon. Melissa Hennig, Principal
Environmental Specialist, for the record.
When Pepper Ranch was acquired there was an easement issue
that came up at the last minute. I have a map up of the easement. It's
basically giving Barron Collier Industries the right to access their
cattle and their land to -- just to the south of Pepper Ranch through the
yellow line on the map.
The issue was, will the use of this easement affect the County's
ability to collect a certain number of PHU' s? Will the use of that road
spook the panthers to such an extent that we're going to have to get
less credit because it will degrade their habitats?
We checked with U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service at the time. They
said chances are most likely not, but we can't give you a determination
at this point. So because of that, $250,000 was put in escrow until a
determination could be made by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service if
that easement road was going to lessen the amount ofPHU's on
Page 136
May 24, 2011
Pepper Ranch.
In the agreement, the escrow agreement, it said we'd do our best
to do it within a year. It's been over two years now. We did get a
determination. I talked to the biologist. She told me flat out no, it's
not going to affect it, in an e-mail. And I said, well, can I have a
letter. And the letter that she gave me is what I gave you in the
agenda, in the agenda packet.
Basically says no, that's not our policy. But if it changes in the
future, we're going to -- that's how we'll base our determination on
whatever you submit.
We're probably going to submit to the Army Corps soon, so they
will be able to get us a definite determination.
The biggest issue that struck me, and why I felt the need to
pursue this before a determination, official determination, is that the
oil trucks use the easement -- well, the oil wells are over on the west
side of the property. So the oil wells are going to affect PHUs. That's
a different easement. The use of this easement that is demonstrated in
their access easement can never be above what it is -- current uses
now is for cattle and timber harvesting.
Right now they use that road, BCI uses that road or their cattle
lessee uses it probably once a week or less. I checked our cameras,
our security cameras at the gate. We actually use that road. Collier
County staff, managing that property, uses that road probably average
once a day. That's for exotic contractors, our cattle guy, staff, hunting,
we've had horseback riding.
And for the future this is our plan for public access, which you'll
see when we come to you with our management plan. You can see
where the easement road down there is. That actual easement road is
going to be a multi-use trail in the future. It's going to be a fire break.
It's going to be a hiking, biking, horseback riding trail.
So my argument is, and was, still is, the fact that U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service first of all has never given a lower determination for
Page 137
May 24, 2011
surrounding lands of access road. The access road itself will get a
zero as the amount of PH Us we can get, which we've always known.
But as far as how much that -- the access of BCI is affecting it, we --
our use, Collier County's use is overshadowing any kind of use BCI
has right now.
So ifPHUs are going to be affected, it would be the County's use
and not BCI's use. So the fact that we held up that escrow I don't
think at the point -- at the time it was held up it was made -- we didn't
know what we were going to use that road for. But now two years
later we see that hey, we're using that road more than they're using it
for their access easement.
So we're asking that that escrow be released because of the
determination letter by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the fact
that Collier County uses that road more than the easement people.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We had this discussion during
the Pepper Ranch purchase, the PHU's and the access that -- to the
Barron Collier Company that is leased out.
Anyways, I just wanted to make that statement. So I agree with
your executive summary.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have historical telemetry data on
where panthers go. We must have historical data for this area, because
we've got it for all the rest of Collier County. What I would like to see
is a plot of -- on an annual basis that shows us the change in panther
use of this property over a period of time. Now, that will give us a
benchmark.
And then rather than saying without any scientific analysis that
we're going to chase all the panthers away, I would like to see what
happens.
Now, this puts us in a particularly bad negotiating position
because we're essentially showing trails that somebody might want to
put in here for recreational purposes, but they really haven't been
Page 138
May 24,2011
approved yet by anybody. And if we just capitulate at this point in
time and say well, it's all our fault, the panthers are not going to be
there and we're going to chase them all out, then we don't stand any
chance at all of getting a panther habitat unit out of this.
But I really would like to see a year-by-year analysis of the
number of detections of panthers in this area. Could you do that for
us?
MS. HENNIG: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That would be helpful for me at
least. And that's going to mean that we've got to bring it back too.
But Commissioner Coletta has some questions.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The use of the property and
these trails we're talking about, they're low impact. Aren't they
considered something that's of nonintrusive upon panthers?
MS. HENNIG: Correct, yeah, and they--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if we need something to
determine if we're doing the right thing, I imagine probably federal
Fish & Wildlife over in, where is it, Palm Beach would be able to give
us a determination. But I don't think there's a problem with that. I
hope we don't in any way not get this amenity going for our residents
and our visitors. You've got to remember, they're the guys that spend
the money. The panthers haven't spent a penny yet.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, if these are typical of some of the
trails I've seen out west, the locals generally call them dinner trails for
the bears and the panthers, so --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the bike path, they call that
meals on wheels.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, that's right. That's exactly right.
The animals have a great time with those people.
Okay, we have public -- we have a public speaker, I bet, don't
we? No, he spoke last time.
MR. MITCHELL: He's going to waive. He just waived.
Page 139
May 24,2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Coletta.
I will only ask that you provide that information if the Board
wants it. Okay. The information I asked for, does the Board want
that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure, might as well. We could all
use it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Anybody else?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I got no problem with it. If it's
dated, it already exists. If we have to start collaring panthers to get it,
I'm not --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, I'm just saying, we don't even
measure this stuff, other people do that. So they've got the data. And
all I'm asking is that maybe we just send a copy to all the members of
the Board so we understand the potential impact. Okay?
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't want to burden our staff
with extra information on my behalf.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Three-two vote.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What is?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think it's a 4-1.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I mean asking for information,
3-2 vote.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, you can't deprive me of
information if I need information. I will stand up for my rights to get
information and you're not going to stop me from doing that. Right?
Okay, we've got three people on the Board who would like to
have that information, so if you would distribute it to those three
people, don't distribute it to the other two. Okay. Thank you.
Page 140
May 24,2011
I'm just joking, of course.
All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: In may, just to comment on your
last joke, many a truth is said in gest.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, yes. A philosopher, too.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, actually, Shakespeare.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it passes 4-1 with Commissioner
Hiller dissenting.
Where does that take us now?
Item # lOG
AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE AN
ORDINANCE FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION WHICH
WOULD AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 04-12, AS AMENDED,
ADDING PROVISIONS RELATING TO REQUIREMENTS FOR
CERTIFICATE HOLDERS OPERATING NON-TRANSPORT
ADV ANCED LIFE SUPPORT (ALS) SERVICES - MOTION TO
CONTINUE - APPROVED
MR.OCHS: Takes us to Item lO(G), which was formerly
16(F)(2) on your agenda. It's a recommendation to authorize the
County Attorney to advertise an ordinance for future consideration
which would amend Ordinance No. 04-12, as amended, adding
Page 141
May 24, 2011
provisions relating to requirements for certificate holders operating
non-transport Advanced Life Support services.
Chief Page is here to present or answer questions of the board.
CHIEF PAGE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record,
Jeff Page with Emergency Medical Services.
On Friday, April 15th the EMS Policy Board met and with the
participation of Chief Stolts and Chief Aguilera many changes were
made to the COPCN, and it was agreed upon by Collier County EMS
and the North Naples Fire Department.
On Tuesday, May 17th, I met with Chief Stolts and Chief
Aguilera to address a few remaining issues that they have with the
ordinance as approved by the policy board. And basically I asked that
the two of them just identify the major outstanding issues that they
had and what it was going to take to prevent a disagreement coming
before the Board.
We briefly discussed the concerns -- and then jointly drafted
word-by-word the language that we felt comfortable with.
I e-mailed the changes to Assistant County Attorney Jennifer
White. She made the changes and then I sent that wording to Chief
Stolts that afternoon.
That following morning, Wednesday, we switched out the
COPCN ordinance in the agenda and provided the new language in
there. And I also forwarded that to Chief Stolts by noon-time that day.
Thursday, it's about lO minutes before the deadline for publishing
the agenda, I received an e-mail from Jennifer White requesting yet
another change be made that was never before identified. And then
yesterday we received some additional requests for changes to the
COPCN ordinance that was never identified before.
So at this point I'm requesting that you just allow the COPCN to
move forward with the changes that were agreed to at the time that it
was published.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Henning?
Page 142
May 24, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you mean the ordinance or
the CC --
CHIEF PAGE: COPCN ordinance.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ordinance.
CHIEF PAGE: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The item on the agenda.
CHIEF P AGE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I don't see any
reason why we need to rush to approve something personally. I mean,
ifthere's changes by the County Attorney and requested changes by
the fire department, I think they should be considered.
My observation of this agenda, it's been amended so much it
should have been in a cleaner form to the Board of Commissioners.
Section 1, there's nothing in Section 1 within this proposed
ordinance. I'm sure something is supposed to be in there.
The amendments to -- well, Section 2 with the definition, I'm
asking, should there be more clarification about non-ALS? We have
the Sheriffs Department doing BLS. Is this going to apply to them?
CHIEF PAGE: Well, they're actually doing first responder,
they're not doing basic life support in the sense that they're a licensed
provider.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They are a --
CHIEF PAGE: They are not a licensed provider.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you're saying this only
applies to licensed providers?
CHIEF PAGE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Where does that identify
that in the ordinance that it only applies to licensed providers?
CHIEF PAGE: Let's see here.
MR.OCHS: Commissioner, the whole ordinance relates to
entities that have received the certificate of public convenience and
necessity from the Board. Those are the only entities that we would
Page 143
May 24, 2011
be prescribing under this ordinance.
Mr. Chairman, in might, it's apparent to me there's still some
work that needs to be done on this. And if it's the pleasure of the
majority of the Board, perhaps we could continue this item and sit
back down with the representatives from North Naples Fire and see if
we can't get final-final language resolved and then run this past your
EMS Policy Advisory Board one more time since it appears to be
changing enough to where they may not have recognized it from the
one that they sent forward to you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I would certainly be in favor of that.
Are there other Commissioners who feel the same way?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I agree.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. There's three here that we
have --
MR.OCHS: Save some time and eliminate hopefully some of
the confusion that still exists.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have public speakers?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir, we have five public speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Five public speakers. What, is Duane
Billington going to speak three times?
MR. MITCHELL: I think as I call their names, they might very
well waive, since you're going to continue the item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, call the names.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Aguilera?
CHIEF AGUILERA: I'll waive.
MR. MITCHELL: Laura Donaldson?
MS. DONALDSON: Good afternoon. Laura Donaldson on
behalf of North Naples. I'll be brief.
First I want to thank your staff. Jennifer White especially has
been great through this process of trying to get the ordinance in a
position that North Naples feels is enforceable. Since it applies to us
Page 144
May 24, 2011
as a Class 3 Operator, it does apply to us so it has direct impact.
I do want to dispute one of the statements that was made dealing
with the provisions that I submitted, well, yesterday, but after our
conversation with Ms. White on Thursday.
On Tuesday when Chief Stolts and Chief Page met, it was stated
that I was out of town and I would need to review it. And I have that
in an e-mail as well, saying I'm not a lawyer, I need to have my lawyer
look at it. I was out of the country. When I got back at 7 :00 on the
19th I looked at it, talked to my client and contacted Ms. White saying
wait, we have a problem with this.
The language I submitted is very, very similar to language I
submitted April 11 tho So this was not new language. I just wanted to
make the Board aware. My intention was not to be here. We're trying
to move this forward. We've had a great working relationship. So I
didn't want you to think there's been an internal conflict and we were
sitting on it.
I also just want to make clear we're not looking to fragment
service. The continuing of care issue, which is something that was
discussed in great detail during the COPCN process and was approved
by MSAC, we have not proposed a change to that. We've just
proposed that it be in its own section. Because right now it's in a
certification section. Has nothing to do with certification. It deals
with continuing of care. And also that Dr. Tober still creates the
protocols that we operate under.
So I just wanted to make you aware that we're not -- those are
really two big policy issues. We have not requested changes to those.
It's more clarifying what we believe was the intent. And so we just
appreciate the item being continued so we can continue to work with
staff. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Orly Stolts.
CHIEF STOL TS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Orly Stolts,
Page 145
May 24,2011
Fire Chief for the North Naples Fire Control and Rescue District.
First of all, I'd like to say I want to thank your staff very much
for the time that they've spent working on this document. We feel it's
a very important document to us and certainly Chief Page, the County
Manager's office, the County Attorney's Office has worked real well
with us working through this particular document. So we are -- I'm
pleased that you're willing to let us have a little bit more time to go
back and wrap up what we think is going to be something that will
make this a document that we'll be able to move forward with in the
future. So thank you very much for your time. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, is there a motion to continue--
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Duane Billington.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I thought he waived.
MR. BILLINGTON: For the record, Duane Billington.
I think you're doing the right thing by continuing this.
I do have a question. In this process where does the, quote, Blue
Ribbon Moebius Committee come in? Are they part of formulating
this or are they on the outside now looking in?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think they made their report and they
had a workshop after that and they said that was pretty much the limit
of their involvement.
MR. BILLINGTON: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your last speaker.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to continue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to continue by Commissioner
Henning, seconded by Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 146
May 24, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it is continued.
Item #10H
RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD CONTRACT #11-5673,
"DISASTER DEBRIS REMOVAL & DISPOSAL SERVICES" TO
THREE FIRMS, AND APPROVE ASHBRITT ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES, INC., AS THE INITIAL DEBRIS REMOVAL
CONTRACTOR IN OPERATIONAL READINESS FOR THE 2011
HURRICANE SEASON. THE FIRMS PROVIDE POST DISASTER
EQUIPMENT AND HUMAN RESOURCES FOR COLLECTION,
REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL OF DISASTER GENERA TED
DEBRIS, WHICH WILL ENSURE PROMPT, TIMELY &
EFFICIENT RESTORATION OF ESSENTIAL SERVICES -
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 10(H) on your
agenda. It was previously 16(C)(6). It's a recommendation to award
Contract for disaster debris removal and disposal services and
environmental services, the initial debris removal contractor and
operational readiness for the 2011 hurricane season.
Mr. DeLony will present.
MR. DeLONY: Sir, for the record, Jim DeLony, Public Utilities
Administrator.
I have a presentation here that outlines essentially -- not
essentially but exactly what's contained in your executive summary to
include the recommendation that's found in your executive summary
that's on this particular chart.
Page 147
May 24, 2011
At your direction, Mr. Chair, I can either provide my information
or I can stand by for questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Stand by for questions. Okay, any
questions?
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would love to see the
presentation. The last time AshBritt was hired by the county, it was a
$24 million contract. And this basically could turn into a very, very
large contract if we had a hurricane and they were called to help us out
with that.
And if you could in that presentation also explain the interface
between, you know, Waste Management and AshBritt's services in the
event of a hurricane. You know, when services are suspended by one
and when the other picks up.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am.
In terms of reference, your second question first. In preparing --
in running through and going through the full six phases of a debris
operation, you get to that phase, if you look at between last pass and
staging sites clean-up. At some stage of the game it just makes no
sense to have a huge contractor out there picking up little dribs and
drabs. We'd only make three passes, initial pass, second pass and the
final clean-up pass, all of which are public noticed, and track both in
terms of our outreach and education via the media, as well as our
website.
At some stage in the game the determination will be made when
that point, that tipping point occurs, either by event, scale or just when
it makes sense.
We have in the collections contract which we renewed this
morning there was a provision in there whereby we could negotiate
that debris which is still eligible for federal funding and federal grants
or state grants can be done with our normal collections contractor at
some stage when we -- you know, at some stage, and we can stand
Page 148
May 24,2011
down the big guy.
And that's the interface. It's provided for in both contracts and
we can make that decision.
We did this successfully -- have done this successfully twice
now. We did successfully with Charlie and we've done it successfully
with Wilma. And in both cases the procedures and policies are laid out
both contractually on both sides, in both contracts, this one and the
subsequent collection contract as well as the procedures observed by
the county staff, we've been very successful in obtaining the grant
dollars that we were entitled under both FEMA and the state.
So I hope I've answered your question in my response. IfI've
not, please let me know.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I think that's a very fair
analysis.
Can you explain how AshBritt was selected over the other firms?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am, I'm going to turn to Steve Carnell
because he owns that process. Because this procurement process did
indeed come up with not just AshBritt -- and let me be clear on that.
This is the sequence of events with regard to the request for proposal,
Mr. Carnell, and I'll let you take it from there.
MR. CARNELL: For the record, Steve Carnell, Purchasing
General Services Director.
We had a, as you saw, a very robust competition with 13
responses. And to answer your question directly, the firms were rated
on a multiple criteria as we typically do with a public RFP. And the --
I can just take you briefly through the criteria. They were asked to
submit a business plan in terms of how they would mobilize and
provide logistical service to us, and that was 35 percent of the rating.
Cost was 15 percent of the rating. And then in addition to that their
experience and capacity of the firm related to this type of work was 20
points in the factors. And they also, I had a separate category for
specialization, for specialized team members or special sub-
Page 149
May 24, 2011
consultants, might be anything like a HAZMA T responder. They got
10 points -- rated up to 10 points on that. And then the balance of it
was their references, their actual hard core experience. They were
scored one to 20 on that criterion.
So we took those. Each committee member scored, and then
their scores they turned into rankings. So everybody ranked each of
the competitors one to 13. And those rankings were then compiled.
And that information is in your back-up. And that's how we arrived at
the order.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Got it. Thank you.
MR. DeLONY: At the end of the day, and in the process that
was so correctly described by Steve, we came up with three
recommendations for the Board to consider in terms of these services.
And then subsequently we're making a second recommendation that
the number one rated firm be the lead-off hitter, for lack ofa better
term, for this upcoming storm season.
We have found it to be very advantageous for the county to
designate about this time of year every year that lead-off hitter,
because they could participate with county staff at their expense in
any preparation or any advance training or interfaces we would do as
county staff or with emergency management operations or whatever.
It's really worked very well to do this. I believe this is the fifth year
we've done this, this exact same procedure.
So we know who our first guess is. So in this case we're
recommending AshBritt, which was the number one ranked firm of
the 13 firms that responded when the committee got through. These
were your top three. And if we have a large storm, AshBritt first,
Crowder Gulf second, Tag third in terms of the order of negotiation to
arrive at the right set of resources and responses to our needs with
regard to debris or any other services that are under this contract.
It doesn't say that we're just going to work with AshBritt. If
AshBritt can't meet it, we'll go to the next one or the next one to find
Page 150
May 24, 2011
that right mix of resources and help. Because as you know, it's where
those resources are and their response capabilities could be very
different, based on how much commitment AshBritt or Crowder Gulf
or Tag has committed to other disasters or what they're ready to
posture at the time of the event.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Could we ever be in a situation
where for example all three are committed elsewhere and we don't
have anybody? I mean, is --
MR. DeLONY: That would be unlikely, but potentially. And
that's critical that we have the contractual vehicles here in place
clearly establishing those boundary conditions with those prices so we
can flex to someone else. And so we have that capability.
Three is probably about the right number. I would think that
three would be the right number. If we were to -- we could certainly
put more on this list, if it's necessary or we could go to some type of
exigent contracting situation in the face of that situation. But it's my
recommendation three is probably as optimal as we need to be at this
stage of the game.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And we don't want to have a
contractual provision that protects us by requiring them to respond to
us over anyone else? I mean, basically what I'm hearing you say is
that they have simultaneous contracts?
MR. DeLONY: No, you literally contract one at a time or
multiple, depending on the nature of the event if you needed multiple
capabilities.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I'm thinking about AshBritt
having multiple contracts that basically could take care --
MR. DeLONY: You're talking about exclusive contract.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, essentially that's what I'm --
MR. DeLONY: We do not have an exclusive clause in our
contract. And that would be very expensive, and outside bounds quite
frankly, of what we most probably -- I'm not saying we couldn't get
Page 151
May 24,2011
reimbursed for that, but that's a very problematic situation in my view.
What we have here is it works very well. All the terms,
conditions of contract and the solicitation process, may I say, were
reviewed in detail by the folks at FEMA region four in Atlanta and our
state EM folks.
And we stay in touch with this. This is something we don't just
wait until storm season, we keep this going -- Linda Best Jackson, if
you would stand up. Linda just got back from last week's hurricane
conference with the Governor's Hurricane Conference, where she was
tuned up and looked at that. I think they found that we're doing just
fine down here, right?
MS. BEST: Linda Jackson Best.
We're one of the only countries in the state where we're actually
having FEMA review our scope of work as well as state prior to
solicitation.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's smart. That's very clever.
MS. BEST: Yes, so we're doing it all right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's the hurricane forecast?
MR. DeLONY: Not good.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Really?
MR. DeLONY: No, not good. I don't talk to that. There's only
one guy in the room that speaks to weather and he's back in the corner.
I'll let him take that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It has nothing to do with the
item on the agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, we should have --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He is not permitted to talk about this.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You are.
MR. DeLONY: Ma'am, is there anything, other questions that
you have?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I think that's great.
Page 152
May 24, 2011
I appreciate your presentation, and that clarified questions I've had
since yesterday. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning, second by --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like to hear from Mr.
Summers, just a brief summary of, you know, what hurricanes we are
expecting --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Put him on the clock. Put him on the
clock, it's three minutes.
MR. SUMMERS: For the record, Dan Summers, Director of the
Bureau of Emergency Services and Emergency Management.
The forecast is bad. Do you have any questions?
No, it is, it is -- no, ma'am, seriously, it is 16, nine and five,
depending on which forecaster you use. Sixteen tropical storms, nine
hurricanes, three to five of those might be major.
It will be -- we are in the peak of -- basically a 10 to 20-year
cycle if you look at it historically. There's also a relatively neutral
La Nina and El Nino this year, so it only takes, as I say, religiously it
only takes one storm to impact your life, and we're working hard to be
Page 153
May 24,2011
prepared for that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's great. Thank you for your
update.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was a great question.
And you know, I'm writing a column now to let everybody know
it's time to prepare for hurricanes. You know, I write one every year.
But I was wondering if you are submitting anything or releasing
anything to the newspaper to talk about what -- you know, what the
forecasts are and what La Nina means and -- yeah, La Nina and El
Nino mean and how they can collide with one another.
MR. SUMMERS: Ma'am, I don't typically make a release
because I can't compete with the Weather Channel and 6:00 news that
typically cover the story in great depth. We'll continue as we
normally do our hurricane seminars. We have an enormous number of
speaking engagements already to various groups and organizations. In
fact, I'm not really sure how we're going to fill the bill this summer
with the requests that we've had. But we will put that out.
We also update our forecast all on our website with all of the
current discussion that is out there. So we will announce our -- and as
you know, we do some community seminars as well. We usually do
that a little later in the season and we'll announce those. We do those
at various high schools throughout the county. So we'll get that
information out but I have not published anything formally yet
because the commercial media has managed that pretty well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He gets three minutes.
MR. SUMMERS: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
I think that brings us to -
Item #14
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
Page 154
May 24, 2011
MR. OCHS: Public comments.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Public comments. Well, Mr. Billington
has left so there can't be any public speakers.
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir, there is. The first speaker is Jerry
Blocker.
MR. JOHNS: I'm going to go in front of Jerry. My name is
Randy Johns.
I just wanted to put it on the record today that we don't support
the Immokalee Area Master Plan as it is today. We feel it's
incomplete. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, the next speaker will be Jerry Blocker.
MR. BLOCKER: I'll pass.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He waives?
MR. MITCHELL: He's waived.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, anything? Correspondence,
communication?
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, couple of quick items. First one is to just
get confirmation from the Board that you intend to follow your
longstanding calendar of BCC meetings for July and August, that
being only one meeting in July when you adopt your tentative millage
rate on the 26th of July and then no meetings, no regular meetings in
August. Am I seeing -- Commissioner Henning wants to come in
every Tuesday.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I want to move it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Standard schedule. Leave it alone.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I want to move it up a little, like
Page 155
May 24, 2011
a week.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's that? Move what up?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move up the July meeting a
week. I'd miss staff if I went on too long -- did happen last year.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He can come in a week early, ifhe
wishes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure, start it early.
MR.OCHS: Moving right along. That was such a smash.
Next item is again just to try to give the Board some assurance
that minutes are in fact being taken from your advisory board
meetings and they are being recorded. We're going to work harder to
get them recorded faster with the Clerk. But the normal process is
either they're verbatim minutes or a staff liaison takes summary
minutes. Those meeting minutes are then composed and sent up to
Mr. Mitchell's Office, they're reviewed and then they ultimately get
filed with the Clerk.
I'll just show you an example of a recent filing that was on your
agenda under miscellaneous correspondence on April the 26th. You
can see that there's about three pages worth of meeting minutes from
all types of different advisory boards. All these are again routinely
brought to Mr. Mitchell and then on to the Clerk for filing under
miscellaneous correspondence on your agenda.
So I just didn't want the Board to think that those weren't being
filed. They're not being filed perhaps as timely as we could and we'll
work on that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe I need it clarified. I
haven't seen the East of 951 Horizon minutes in the folders that we
get. You haven't seen them either?
MR. MITCHELL: No, sir, we actually are using the Chairman's
aide. We keep a spreadsheet which shows all the advisory boards, and
we notate when we receive them. They come into the office, we
stamp them with all commissioners' initials, and then they go into your
Page 156
May 24, 2011
circulation files. But we do keep a spreadsheet showing when we got
it. And after you've reviewed them then we send them to the Clerk's
Office for recording. They go onto the agenda as miscellaneous
correspondence.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, you're correct--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I read them and sign them, you
don't.
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What happens to the others, I
don't know.
MR. MITCHELL: But we -- speaking with the County Manager
and also with Patricia Morgan from the Clerk's Office, we feel that we
need to -- I need to work on a process with Patricia to make sure that
rather than just being absorbed into miscellaneous correspondence
they go in actually under advisory board minutes. Because for a
constituent who is then searching for them -- because they go in say a
month, two months later, you know, they could be searching a lot of
minutes. So we're going to try and tighten that up so they're more
identifiable.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, the third item that I have is just a
brief reminder that you're meeting again tomorrow morning with the
Collier County School Board members from 9:00 to 11 :00, a joint
meeting in this room tomorrow morning.
Fourth item, Commissioners, just to tell you that had a little bit of
unusual circumstance last week. We were doing part of our regular
routine road overlay program. And typically when we're overlaying a
road where we have speed bumps we take those out so we can get a
smooth overlay and then put them back in. Well, we took them out,
did the overlay, and then we had the folks on Napa Woods Way tell us
that there was a majority of them that didn't favor the speed humps
going back in.
We're going to go ahead and try to confirm that. We have seen a
Page 157
May 24,2011
petition that appears to represent a majority of the people on that
street. But if in fact if that's verifiable, we'll put that back on your
consent agenda and move forward with that. I just wanted to provide
that as a heads up.
And then the last thing I have is just to -- on a personal note and
on behalf of the County Manager's office and the entire staff, we want
to truly thank Jim DeLony for his outstanding service to the county
over these last 10 years.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Speech, speech, speech.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Speech, speech.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's not on the agenda.
MR. OCHS: That's right, not on the agenda, sorry.
MR. DeLONY: Mr. Henning says three minutes. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, that's enough.
MR. DeLONY: That's it.
I'll be back. This is my home. I'm going to go away for a year
and do something that I think that I've always wanted to do since I left
the Army, is to be back in the company of soldiers and have an
opportunity to twist the stick in the bad guys' eye. And this
opportunity has fallen in my lap and I'm going to take it.
But I leave here with great regrets with regard to not being --
continue to be a part of a great team that's led by our great County
Manager.
I serve with great Americans every day. My staff has been
wonderful. We have formed and normed and stormed appropriately to
where I believe we've got it all done to the very best of our abilities.
But the Navy Seals say that the only easy day was yesterday. So in
Public Utilities, that's really our motto. We know that we have to
make it right every day. And to the professionals that do that.
To my colleagues, the other administrators and their staffs,
particularly those that are in our enabling departments of personnel
Page 158
May 24, 2011
and purchasing and resource management and all the other things that
make this place work, facilities and so on, real estate, fleet, you just
don't know the things they do on an incremental basis that just make it
all happen.
We know we're in a very tough spot right now with this budget.
You have awesome, awesome decisions to come. But I do know this;
that this is the very best place in America to live.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Absolutely.
MR. DeLONY: And we as a team, and I speak as -- if! may,
Leo, our agency, as well as the Board that sits there today, we can
make this happen. We've got to work together as we always have. I
mean, I think about Wilma, I think about Charlie. I think about no
water, I think about no sewer, I think about no landfill. All of those
no's have been yes's in a very short period of time.
Did we get it right every time? No. Did we learn? Yes. Did we
adapt and overcome? Absolutely. So for that, thank you for letting me
learn with you and grow with you. Thank you for giving me the
authority and the responsibility commensurate to that, to the mission
that you've given me. You've given me both. And my staff is -- work
as hard as they can. They appreciate it too.
So with that I bid a fond adieu and God speed to each one of you.
We are keeping our home here. Jennifer will remain in town and I'll
be back as a member of our community very soon.
And I had an e-mail today from one of our former administrators,
Joe Schmitt. He's in Kabul. He sends his regards. He asks, are there
tears of sorrow or tears of joy? Which is it, Jim? Because he knew
today would be my last day.
So I think I've got a little bit of both, I think. I've got great sorrow
in leaving behind what we've done and a great joy in the days ahead.
But I will leave you with this truth. We can do this together. We will
continue to make this the best place to live.
And I thank you for this opportunity to speak, County Manager
Page 159
May 24, 2011
and Mr. Chair. And I believe I'm exactly at three minutes, Mr.
Henning, so I know that you'll appreciate that as well. Thank you
very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. You've done a great job.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Bring me a Saracen's head.
MR.OCHS: That's all I have, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, County Attorney.
MR. KLA TZKOW: That's a hard act to follow, but I do have
one matter.
As some of you know, or all of you may know by now, we've
had mediation in our Vanderbilt Beach Road construction case. And
we've been asked to have a shade session with you to discuss that,
whether or not you want to take this settlement offer.
So this is a notice of a closed attorney-client session. I'm here-by
giving notice that pursuant to Section 286.0118 of the Florida Statutes
the desire of the advice from the County Commissioners in a closed
attorney-client session on Tuesday June 14th, 2011. The session will
be held for a time certain 12:00 noon in the commission conference
room, third floor, this building. In addition to the Board members,
County Manager Leo Ochs, myself, and Litigation Section Chief
Jacqueline W. Hubbard will be in attendance.
The Board in executive session will discuss strategy session
linked to the settlement negotiations in the pending case of KER
Enterprises, Incorporated doing business as Armadillo Underground
versus AP AC Southeast, pending in the Collier County Courthouse,
Case No. 08-3496.
And again, that will be at lunchtime for the next meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Ian, you have something?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir. The first thing is with reference to
Page 160
May 24, 2011
Item 9(A), the backup, as pointed out by Commissioner Fiala, I'm
introducing some more documents into the public record to clarify the
comments that Commissioner Fiala made.
And with regards to your charge earlier today, there is a press
release going out tomorrow for vacancies on Collier County advisory
boards. The Affordable Housing Advisory Committee has two
vacancies. One is for a labor active in-home building and one is for an
alternate. And I should mention that one of those members needs to
live in Immokalee.
The Black Affairs Advisory Board has four vacancies. The
Collier County Code Enforcement Board has one vacancy. The
Environmental Advisory Council has one vacancy for a nontechnical
member. The Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee has one
vacancy. And the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Committee has two
terms that are vacant. And the Land Acquisition Advisory Committee
has a vacancy for a term expiring in February, 2013. And Ochopee
Fire Control District Advisory Committee has a vacancy, and that's
someone who must live in the fire control district.
Those are the current vacancies and they will be visible online
tomorrow. And there are copies in our office, if anybody wants them.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I have several items.
To begin, I received a great deal of information both from staff
and from the Blockers' attorney that I'd like to introduce into the
record for everybody to read. One letter from the attorney
representing the Blockers I think very clearly summarizes that some of
the representations made by the Board against the Blockers at the last
hearing were very wrong. And I'm actually very concerned about the
allegations made in light of the facts. And I'm not going to read the
entire letter, because it will be a matter of public record. So, you
know, the public is welcome to peruse the official records.
Page 161
May 24,2011
But I do want to highlight one of the points made and that is there
was an allegation made that their property rose to the level of slum
conditions and that the county had -- attempts by the county had been
made to get the Blockers to clean it up.
And I just want to read this one paragraph.
The Blockers have never received a conditions of violation notice
from Collier County. Rather, four years after their purchase they were
cited for an alleged zoning issue, not conditions.
And so I think that's a very important thing for people to
understand when they hear this discussion about the Blockers.
The county went ahead and prepared a package of information
summarizing their perspective of some of the salient points throughout
the history of this very long issue. And one of the things that I will
say when I read the Judge's ruling, the Judge's -- Judge Hayes' ruling, I
was very concerned, because his ruling was based on an assumption
that the facts as presented were true, when in fact not all of them were.
As an example, the claim that there was a junkyard next to this
property as a legal permitted use, and that really, you know, wasn't the
case.
So I'm going to introduce this into the record for the benefit of
whoever would like to read it.
What I also learned is that in fact there is a map from 1952 that
supports the legal use of that property and that staff was in possession
of that map. I've made a public records request for that map from
staff. And that for whatever reason that information, that map was
withheld from the Blockers throughout all these legal proceedings.
And it is material to their defense. So I would like a copy of all 1952
maps that relate to that issue.
The second thing that I'd like to address is something that
happened at the last meeting as well, and that relates to the approval
by this board of the A TV settlement. We have an ordinance that
requires that ifthere's an item that is not on the posted agenda, the
Page 162
May 24, 2011
Board has to take a vote. And that is actually not a series of three nods
but an actual vote where, you know, the ayes and nays are recorded.
And then take action. And that didn't happen. And I asked the
County Attorney about that and his response was implicit consent.
Well, I don't know what the rule of implicit consent means. And
we have a very clear ordinance on our books, so I'd like some
clarification on that. Because these laws are made to be followed by
all of us. And obviously there's a fundamental unfairness and
problems when you don't follow those rules.
So I really have a concern that, you know, we didn't do the right
thing when we approved this settlement agreement, which I didn't
accept, by the way. So I'd like an explanation on that. And why --
how we can overstep our own ordinance.
MR. KLATZKOW: Whoops, wrong one. I'm sorry, so many
questions, I got the wrong one there.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's okay, because that's my
next question, so we can go to that one after.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay, my response to you is as follows. Let
me see if I can find it in my sent box so I can get this accurate,
Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can you provide the response at the next
meeting?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, I have it. I just --like I said there were
a number of questions and I'm going through some of the responses
now.
But I can't quite find it. What I said was this: The ordinance
really goes to adding to the agenda. When the Board during the
communications portion elected to hear the matter, they implicitly
consented to hear the matter, all right, nobody said wait a second, we
don't want to hear this matter.
And then by -- when the Board voted on the matter, the Board
expressly consented to hear the matter. There was no time to put this
Page 163
May 24, 2011
on the agenda because the offer came in after the publication. We
could not have a shade session because we had a canal maintenance
agreement that was expiring June 1 st. The issue as to whether or not
to take the settlement offer had to be that day. There was no
opportunity to do it any other day. I don't know how else to get such a
matter before the Board but on communications.
The Board has a history of during communications bringing up
items, some of which had been action items over the course of time. I
don't know what to say, that's just been the Board's custom. That's
what we did in our communications. If the Board wants to reserve
communications for non-action matters, that would be fine. That
would be the will of the Board and we can change our practices. But
that's just what we do.
Now, the Board voted on this. The settlement has been agreed
to. If anyone ofthe three members who voted for it wanted to
reconsider it and bring it back, we could do that. But at this point in
time unless I get the motion for reconsideration, I don't know what
else to say, it's a done deal.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, let me address the point I'm
making.
The ordinance that requires a 3-2 or a majority vote, I should say,
to allow a vote to be taken as a separate action when an item is not on
the agenda came about exactly for the reason that you're describing,
that things would come up under Commissioner communications
where there was no notice to the public. And so -- and no notice to the
other Commissioners. And thereby to protect the interests of those
who didn't have notice, a vote was required to ensure that it was
acceptable to the majority to move forward with a vote on the item
that was non-agenda'd.
The simple collusion to your situation as you describe it is if you
had asked this Commission to vote whether or not they were prepared
to offer a settlement. And while I understand there was a time
Page 164
May 24,2011
constraint, you know, it is the law and it was a simple procedure to
follow and does ensure there is, you know, majority approval to take
the next step.
I mention it for the future, because I think it is important that this
Board does have a say as to whether or not they do want to take action
on non-agenda'd items, no matter what heading they come under,
whether it's communications or otherwise.
The next thing that I'd like --
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, Commissioner, to be fair, before the
meeting I gave each of you notice that I was bringing up this issue, all
right. I could not do that as part of the published agenda.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand.
MR. KLATZKOW: But I did give each and every one of you
notice that during communications I would be bringing this up, and I
didn't get any objections to this, ma'am. So it's not like this was
sprung on anybody.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, but it is sprung on the public.
And the public didn't know about it and the public --
MR. KLATZKOW: It doesn't matter, ma'am, because during a
shade session the Board goes back there, you make a decision and
then you simply come out of a shade session in a litigation matter and
then give me direction. We do not take public comment and public
discourse on a litigation settlement.
As to whether the public, you know, knew or did not know is
irrelevant. The public does not have a right to come to the Board and
discuss the issue of a settlement, that's between the Board and the
County Attorney with the County Manager present. We don't talk
litigation matters --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We still have an ordinance that
requires a procedure. That procedure was not respected. And I'd like
to ensure that it is respected prospectively. And it could have been
done and still satisfied your objective of having this voted on in the
Page 165
May 24,2011
manner in which you chose to do it.
MR. KLATZKOW: I respectfully disagree with your
interpretation.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's fine, and that's perfectly all
right.
The next thing is we passed an ordinance that you and the
members of this board assured the public would not have the effect of
the censorship that in fact it has proven to have. As an example,
today, and I'm specifically referring to 2011-17 which is the ordinance
basically saying that documents, information and materials will not be
accepted by the Board following publication of the agenda, with the
additional wording being, you know, unless there is a waiver to accept
such information by a majority vote of those present.
We were assured that this would not block information and that a
vote would not be required to accept information. And today the
opposite happened.
And I will also say that --
MR. KLATZKOW: What item are you referring to? Everything
was submitted, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, that's the issue. The Board
actually voted -- and that was the other thing actually, if! may say, is
that the Board not only -- there's a requirement that there be a majority
vote to accept additional information once the agenda is presented --
MR. KLATZKOW: Are you referring to Gina Downs?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes.
MR. KLA TZKOW: Okay, what happened there, ma'am, is you
didn't want the information to be presented.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Without a vote.
MR. KLA TZKOW: So I don't understand the issue. And the
reason I gave the answer I gave was because --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Without a vote, because that's
what the law says.
Page 166
May 24,2011
MR. KLATZKOW: -- the executive summary specifically
referred to the Productivity Committee. So the Productivity
Committee was tied into staff. It should have been part of the agenda,
I agree. The ordinance said the Board can either continue it at that
point in time or then can accept it. The Board accepted it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's my point. And there's two
points to that. The first point is, is that without the board's acceptance
that information is not --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The Board accepted it, Commissioner
Hiller. The majority of the Board accepted it. I asked if the Board
wanted to hear it and the Board said yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's not my point. The point is,
is that Board approval is required to accept additional information.
The second point is --
MR. KLATZKOW: Only when--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- a majority vote is a vote, and
three nods doesn't constitute a vote. I really think that we have to
respect the ordinance again. And if it's a three-man vote, it should be
a three-man vote, not nods. I don't think that's the intent of the
ordinance.
The last thing is --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just a minute, Commissioner Hiller. It
wasn't just nods, I specifically asked individual Commissioners, how
do you feel, do you want to hear this. And they each said yes. So
there was a vote.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I heard we have three nods. Okay.
I didn't hear individual, you know, 3-2.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let me ask a question. Commissioner
Fiala, did you say you'd like to hear it?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I did.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Did you say you'd like to hear it?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
Page 167
May 24, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Henning originally
said, I think, that he did not want to hear it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The issue is the ordinance says
take a vote, not a consensus. What you're -- that's the issue.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's exactly right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Give me a break.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, it's a material --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, we've always done nods
before just for 11 years, but if she doesn't want nods --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This is nothing but obfuscation.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, it's not. It is what it is. Ifwe
want to change it to consensus, that works. But that's not what it says.
Anyway, it does show that this is an ordinance intended to
censor. And it does censor by majority vote either being granted or
not.
The last point is something I'd like to raise with respect to what
happened today. Commissioner Coyle, I listened to how you spoke to
the public speakers, and basically where they disagreed with you, you
considered their position wrong and political. And I really think that
that goes to an attempt to chill these people's right to freely express
themselves. And, you know, it would have the effect of keeping the
public away from these podiums for fear of being labeled as you
labeled these gentlemen today.
So I would really ask that you not do that. I don't believe that
these gentlemen were political in any way. I believe that they had
very well thought out comments. And I valued their input. In fact, I
benefited from their contribution. So I'd like to thank them for the
time they took out of their lives to -- their daily life to come here and
volunteer their insight and help us make better decisions for the
benefit of everyone in Collier County.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Are you finished?
I will respond to two things. One, you said that the ordinance
Page 168
May 24, 2011
that we talked about about the late submission of backup material in
fact does work to censor information being presented to us. And as I
pointed out the first time that we debated that, that is absolutely
untrue, and you continue to misrepresent the ordinance and not even
read it properly.
The ordinance says that by majority vote we can vote to accept
the material or by majority vote we can opt to continue the item so
that the material can be contained in the packet and we'll debate it at a
future meeting. There is nothing about the ordinance that says by
majority vote we can suppress the information.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, it's by no vote.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The ordinance is very clear. The County
Attorney has issued his opinion on that. And no matter how many
times you bring it up and try to change its meaning, you're still wrong.
Now, with respect to the people who spoke earlier today, there is
no one who knows those individuals who doesn't understand exactly
what's going on here. They're using the public comment process to
wage a political campaign. And they're doing it very specifically on
issues that they want to establish as the backbone of their attempt to
win election to the Board of County Commissioners. And we all know
that. I think the public should know that.
So I think it's in the interest of transparency, it is important that
people understand why individuals keep coming to the public forum
time and time and time again, saying things that are self-serving and
political in nature, and in most cases that are not true. So I think it's
appropriate that we spend our time talking about that.
With respect to the way I address those people, you will recall
several months back when you cross-examined virtually every person
who got up to speak against an item that was -- that you disagreed
with --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Which one?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't remember what it was, but you
Page 169
May 24, 2011
were cross-examining individuals, including the Board of the
Women's --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're talking about the
quasi-judicial hearing when people were giving testimony under oath
for the COPCN?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, no, that wasn't it, no.
But the point is that it is sometimes appropriate for us to ask
questions if we really want to get to the truth. And when people get
up and make comments that are purely political and self-serving, I
think any of us have the right to question them about their statements.
Now, let's go back to some statements that you made about the
Blockers. And you made allegations that the staff has, I guess,
intentionally withheld information, the County Attorney has
misrepresented the case and is wrong. I would like to make my own
request. I'm not going to let those kinds of comments go by. You just
don't get away with that with me.
So I would like to ask that the County Attorney and the County
Manager respond specifically to each of those allegations, and I'd like
to have their reports the next time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I thought we were going to limit
how much time staff spends with a Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you trying to keep us from getting
accurate answers to Commissioner Hiller's questions?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The majority wants to limit the
time Commissioners spend with staff, which is unlawful.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that's your opinion, okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's what the guidance was.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's what you believe the law says. If
the law in fact says that, I'm willing to be governed by it. But I'm not
sure I agree with what you're saying.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I need to make a comment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Yeah, I'm not -- the question heret
Page 170
May 24,2011
is that Commissioner Hiller continually makes allegations accusing
people of doing things that are in most cases absolutely untrue. And
unless we pin her down on these things, it will continue every single
meeting.
So my intent is to get to the truth. If she is right on these things,
then I will support her. If she is wrong on these things, I want the
public to know that she is wrong on these things. Okay? So let's see if
we can't get to the truth.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I could, sir?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. What my
suggestion was earlier to have the County Attorney come back on is
we have a limited amount of staff time that we can individually ask
for. Anything more would have to come before this Commission for
direction from three Commissioners or more to make sure that the
resource is used wisely. We're at a meeting right now. I think at this
point in time if we need to take a vote on it, we can do so.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You already did.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, I don't think we have.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, a consensus.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, no, I don't think we have.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The three of you wanted to do
it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If three people want it--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Didn't we have three nods --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then we can ask --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Like the bobbing heads in the back
of cars?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make an official motion to
try to cut to the chase here, that we follow Commissioner Coyle's
suggestion and so direct staff to provide us with the documentation
that will prove one way or another that the allegations that
Page 171
May 24,2011
Commissioner Hiller is bringing forward are either correct or
incorrect.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And please go back to the minutes and
get exact statements concerning the allegations, okay?
All in favor -- I'll second the motion. All in favor, please signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion passes 3-2, with Commissioner
Henning and Commissioner Hiller dissenting.
I hope that's all I've got to say about that. It's your turn now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to talk about something
positive, because this kind of talk makes me sick to my stomach.
So I'd like to say first of all, Sue makes a great cheesecake. She's
my aide and she baked a cheesecake for DeLony and his staff and let
us have some too. So that's a positive.
Another positive to the two guys over there that have to put up
with all of this, our County Manager and Assistant Manager, Leo and
Mike. Thank you for all you do. I really appreciate all your support,
all your guidance. It's good, it's great.
I want to thank our staff. We have such dedicated staff and
they're never recognized. They're always just swept to the side. And I
want to say that even though we don't see them here in the meetings,
we know how hard they work behind the scenes, how much of an
effort they put forward to make us look good in the end. We reap the
benefits from all of their hard work, their research and their
dedication. And I just want to thank them too.
And lastly, a big thank you to DeLony over there. We're going
Page 172
May 24, 2011
to miss you. And you're cool.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Keep your head down and move fast.
MR. DeLONY: Keep it on a swivel, right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Afghanistan's got to be a cake
walk after this place.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He's taking the easy way out.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, you are. I think you've
got a couple of people that would like to go with you.
I have two items that I'd like to discuss with you. Hopefully I
didn't bury it too deep. One of them has to deal with one of our
favorite places, that that's Chokoloskee. Remember Smallwood Store
and all that? Well, I don't want to talk to you about Smallwood Store.
Let's see if! can find what I want just for a minute. I get so engrossed
in the conversation that takes place here sometimes I lose my place.
So bear with me just a second as I dig it out again.
We have an issue in Chokoloskee regarding, excuse me, it might
sound trivial but it's not to the people that live there. It has to do with
their access to the water and their right to be able to reasonably
harvest.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's Everglades too, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that too. Wouldn't you
know it, the darn letter happened to disappear at the darnedest
moment. Bear with me just one second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You and the County Attorney are going
to have to get together --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I guess so. I think he got
here to my desk before I did.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Start with Henning and come back
to him.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, you want to go
next --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, let him go first, and I'll
Page 173
May 24, 2011
come back to that. In fact, he might be able to offer some guidance.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, Mr. DeLony, if you find
it kind enough to keep us informed of what you're doing over there, I
think that we would all be interested. Of course that's your private
life. But I personally would be interested in what's going on.
The second thing is the public speakers now have political
agendas? I know that they stayed on the topic. So Commissioner
Coyle, can you provide a look at the minutes of the meeting and
provide what statements that they made that were political?
I really have concerns of elected officials trying to stifle the
public when they want to speak on an item, and specifically on the
agenda different than commissioners. It is very concerning. And I
remember a statement that Barney Frank made to his constituents,
you're dumber than this table. Talking to you is like talking to this
table.
I don't want this meeting to turn out like that. Their comments
were on point, didn't mention about I'm a candidate, didn't mention I'm
here for a fundraiser, didn't mention anything about a political race.
So maybe you can provide that in writing which comment they made
was political.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, no, I'm not. Because as you
pointed out before it's great that we all have opinions. So I'm not
going to justify my opinion to you. But you know as well as I do what
they're doing. In fact, you know better than I do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's your opinion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's your opinion, it's not
mine. I have a different view on the public. I think they should be
respected, especially we are deemed as public servants.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. You finished?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, have you--
Page 174
May 24,2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I comment?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you want me to tell you what Sammy
Hamilton said in his letter?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can tell you what I just heard
from Kenny Brown and his attorney. This has to do with an issue
where they shut down the snook fishing about a year ago and they're
planning to continue it. They're going to be making a decision in
September whether to continue the ban of being able to harvest snook.
Now, it might sound like a minor issue to some people, but when
your livelihood depends on being able to take a customer out, and with
a reasonable expectation to be able to harvest one fish, when that goes
away, the customers do too. They've seen a decrease of about 75
percent in their return rate for fishermen to come back for the charters
and the rentals and all that. Business is at an all-time low.
What I would like this Board to do is to direct the Chair to simply
write a letter to the State Fish and Wildlife Commission just stating
that when they make their decision to keep in mind the human element
that exists within Chokoloskee and Everglades City regarding the
ability to be able to harvest a limited number of fish. And not making
a commitment. We're not scientists, we can't substantiate the fact that
there's enough fish or there isn't. But if it's on the tipping point to go
one way or the other, this might make the difference.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I give you a little bit more
information on what he's talking about? Two years ago there was a
freeze in Southwest Florida and there was a lot of fishkill. They
banned snook, being able to keep a snook not just in Everglades and
Chokoloskee. It was all over --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I ask you, when you say not
keep, does that mean they could catch them but then throw them
back?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, it's catch and release, yes.
I think that's what he's saying. I know there's fishing guides all
Page 175
May 24, 2011
over Collier County from the north end down to the south end. I don't
know how that affects them. I don't know if people go out there to
harvest snook or -- I know I do -- or fishing guides take people out
there for the experience.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There was another issue that I saw,
Mayor Hamilton wrote a letter.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Submerged land lease.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, that's right. But it also has an
impact on the fishing and the livelihood of people there. Because if
they can't have their docks there, they don't have places to put their
boats, and that impacts their livelihoods also. And I thought that was
one of the things you were going to bring up.
But it seems to me that we ought to address both of those issues.
Because ifhe's going directly to the state, if we can offer him any
assistance, I think we ought to do that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the reason I didn't bring
that up or have it on my agenda, is I'm waiting for Sammy to get back
to give me permission to do so. But I see no problem with Sammy's
direction that we write a letter of support. This has to do with the
state's holdings in the waterways. They own the, what do you call it --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Submerged lands.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The submerged lands. And
Everglades City has existed just about forever, and the state is coming
back and saying --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Before the lands were submerged.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. So they're coming back
now and saying that you're trespassing, you have no right to be there.
And this would be an extreme disruption to Everglades City. I
mean, they've already taken a big hit a number of years ago with the
net ban. And then to put this on top of everything else, not only would
it affect the -- what's left of the fishing industry but it would have a
profound effect on the residents there that have docks, and also the
Page 176
May 24,2011
tourism industry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So let me just understand, the state
is saying that Everglades City with whatever new thing that they're
addressing is now trespassing when they have a dock in the water?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: More than one dock, multiple docks.
And they've been there for years and years and years, to the best of my
knowledge. So if Mayor Hamilton needs help, I would encourage that
maybe if Commissioner Coletta could flesh out the details and find out
what kind of help is best and what should we -- what should we do to
help him, I would appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, I'd be more than happy
to. I was waiting for a response back from him before I moved too
quickly on it.
But the other issue has to do with just asking the fish
commission, the Fish and Wildlife Commission to be able to consider
the human element and what would be the continuous loss of business
and income when they make their decision.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we need to write a letter?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's what I'd like the Chair to
do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can we --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make a motion on that--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: As far as the snook fishing goes,
you mean?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: To be able -- yes, to be able to
not tell them to set the limit where they can take fish, but tell them to
consider the human element when they make their decision.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The effect on the economy and people's
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right, exactly, the whole thing,
the whole part of it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, are there three nods?
Page 177
May 24, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'll second that motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, there's a second to the motion.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I've got one more thing, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We recently had the $3 million
settlement on the A TV issue. We now have the money in the bank.
And what I'd like to do on the 28th is work with staff to come back to
you with a proposal. Briefly what I'm thinking of is a 90-day
discovery period whereby we can reach out to see what is available
out there. And I've got a feeling it's going to be a little bit different
than we encountered a couple of years ago because of the economy
being the way it is. There may be possibilities that never existed
before.
I think if! could go into the last meeting, June 28th, the last
meeting in June, that by then we'll have enough information together
to be able to come up with a reasonable plan to be able to go forward
with during the rest of the summer to do our discovery.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm aboard. So you're saying that you
would be able to search around and maybe come up with some
alternatives for the Board to consider by the end --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Alternatives, not sites.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Alternatives, okay.
Page 178
May 24,2011
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just for alternatives we could
look at. And I'd like to be able to work -- I know I could put the item
on the agenda myself but I'd like to be able to get your permission to
be able to use a limited amount of staff time to put it together.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: As long as my questions get answered
first. After that, you're okay. I don't have a problem with you--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know what he said.
What alternatives is --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think that's what he's trying to do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Buy a Wal-Mart building or,
you know, a bicycle path to Alaska or -- what alternatives? Are you
talking --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Leased land, purchased land.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you talking for A TV's?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: A TV's.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: ATV's, okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's what the settlement was
for.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I did not hear that. What I heard
was alternatives for the use of the money. If it's for ATV's, I fully
support that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a motion there?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Make a motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll make a motion that
Commissioner Coletta puts an item on the agenda in the future to
solicit alternatives for A TV use lands.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And use staff time. You didn't
say that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He has aides. I use my aide.
You got one of the best aides, and I --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
Page 179
May 24, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I sacrificed. But I'm really
enjoying the aide that I have because --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My aide is extremely capable,
but when it comes to something like this I need the expertise of some
members of staff --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But she doesn't speak Spanish.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, but I betcha she could learn
in two days.
So I got -- the motion I'm making, contrary to Commissioner
Henning's.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, wait a minute, we didn't vote on
his.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I seconded it. You didn't
want to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you going to withdraw your second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, what--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I want to use staff. He doesn't
have it in his motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You mean you just wanted to add
that to his motion. Would that be something you would consider to
add to your motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Add that he use his aide too.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, he means staff members as
well.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's what they're there for.
The aides are there to assist the Board of Commissioners --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, staff members as well. Other
staff members besides the aide --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I said what I meant. The aides
are there for our use.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll pull my second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion dies for lack of a second. Is
Page 180
May 24,2011
there another motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I make a motion that we go
forward, put together an agenda item with different alternatives for
A TV use for this Commission to consider and to be able to use a
limited amount of staff time to reach that objective.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a motion and a second as
stated. All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One other comment. I just have
to say this because one of the things I believe in is the right of people
to be able to speak their minds whether I agree with them or not.
What we seen take place, you identified it correctly, it is
politically motivated, but there is nothing wrong with what they're
doing. It's completely within the law. As long as we know what it's
all about, that's fine. It's their right to be able to be here, to express
their opinion any way they want. And that's one of the things we're
here to do is to protect that. But I appreciate the fact that you
identified it for what it was.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That was the point, that nobody kept
them from talking, and nobody will keep them from talking in the
future. The point is that people need to understand what's going on
here. And I think a lot of people were confused. But nevertheless,
that's the way it works.
Now, is there a motion to adjourn?
Page 181
May 24,2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to adjourn.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to adjourn by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor, please signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Okay, we are adjourned.
*****
****Commissioner Coletta moved, seconded by Commissioner Fiala
and carried unanimously that the following items under the Consent
and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted ****
Item #16Al
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER UTILITY FACILITY
FOR SOUTHWINDS MOBILE HOME PARK, 302 FILLMORE
STREET, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR
HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE ANY UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR
THE DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED AGENT - THE WATER
UTILITY IS CONNECTED BEYOND THE MASTER METER
AND IS OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE OWNER
Item #16A2
ACKNOWLEDGING THE V ACA TION OF THE 50-FOOT WIDE
Page 182
May 24, 2011
TEMPORARY DRAINAGE EASEMENT AS SHOWN ON THE
PLAT OF ITALIA AS RECORDED AT PLAT BOOK 47, PAGES
68 THROUGH 70, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA - THE RECORDED TEMPORARY DRAINAGE
EASEMENT THAT WAS REQUIRED OF THE DEVELOPER IS
NO LONGER NEEDED AS THE IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN
COMPLETED
Item # 16A3
PURCHASE OF A PARCEL OF RIGHT-OF-WAY, ALONG WITH
A TEMPORARY DRIVEWAY RESTORATION EASEMENT,
BOTH OF WHICH WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE FOUR-
LANING OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD BETWEEN
WILSON BOULEVARD AND DESOTO BOULEVARD.
PROJECT NO. 60040 (FISCAL IMPACT: $9,500) - LOCATED
AT 4221 GOLDEN GATE BLVD. E., FOLIO #40744400007
Item #16A4
SET A PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 13,2011
FOR CONSIDERATION OF A DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL
IMP ACT DEVELOPMENT ORDER FOR THE HACIENDA
LAKES PROJECT, PETITION NUMBER DRI-2006-AR-I0147,
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF COLLIER BOULEVARD
(C.R. 951) AT THE INTERSECTION OF COLLIER BOULEVARD
AND RATTLESNAKE-HAMMOCK ROAD AND NORTH AND
SOUTH OF SABAL PALM ROAD IN SECTIONS 11 THROUGH
14,23 THROUGH 25, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
AND SECTIONS 19 & 30, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 27
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - THE SOUTHWEST
FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL WILL MEET
Page 183
May 24,2011
JUNE 16,2011 TO VOTE ON THE DRI ASSESSMENT REPORT
Item #16A5
SHORT-LIST OF DESIGN PROFESSIONALS PURSUANT TO
RFP #11-5639 AND TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS
BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND TYLIN INTERNATIONAL,
INC., FOR "DESIGN & RELATED SERVICES FOR THE
REPLACEMENT OF CR29 BRIDGE (#030161) OVER
CHOKOLOSKEE BAY" PROJECT NO. 66066 - LIST INCLUDES:
TYLIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., STANLEY CONSULTANTS,
INC, AMERICAN CONSULTING ENGINEERS OF FLORIDA,
LLC, AND CARDNO TBE/PBS&J JOINT VENTURE PARTNER
Item #16A6
SOVEREIGNTY SUBMERGED LANDS EASEMENT
INSTRUMENT WITH THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND OF THE STATE OF
FLORIDA (TnTF) FOR THE EXISTING ROADWAY BRIDGES
CROSSING THE COCOHA TCHEE RIVER AND ONE OF ITS
TRIBUTARIES ON V ANDERBIL T DRIVE WITHIN THE
EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY. (PROJECT NO. 69081) (FISCAL
IMPACT: RECORDING FEES NOT TO EXCEED $75) -
INCLUDES PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR BRIDGES
CONSTRUCTED IN 1964
Item #16A 7
REJECT BID #11-5662, LEL Y MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING
UNIT (MSTU) DORAL CIRCLE BRIDGE RENOVATION -
APRIL 13,2011 THE LEL Y MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Page 184
May 24,2011
MADE A MOTION TO REJECT THE BID AND RE-ADVERTISE
THE BID WITH A RE-FORMATTED TITLE
Item #16A8
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH DIAMOND
LAKE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. FOR WORK
PERFORMED ALONG THE COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY, ALONG
PIPER BOULEVARD, TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE
ASSOCIATION - ALONG WITH ONGOING OPERATION
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PLANTING AND IRRIGATION
Item #16A9
AWARD ITB #11-5663 FOR TRAFFIC OPERATIONS SIGNAL
COMPONENTS & HARDWARE ON A LINE ITEM BASIS TO
INDIVIDUAL QUALIFIED LOWEST BIDDERS: TEMPLE, INC.,
RAINBOW DISTRIBUTORS, INC., CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC., GRA YBAR ELECTRIC CO. INC.,
AND TPFL, INC. (ESTIMATED ANNUAL EXPENSE IS
$300,000) - WITH A CONTRACT IN THE FORM OF A
STANDARD COUNTY PURCHASE ORDER
Item #16AI0
SHORT-LIST OF DESIGN PROFESSIONALS PURSUANT TO
RFP #11-5690 AND ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY AND ATKINS NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
FOR "CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION
(CEI) AND RELATED SERVICES FOR SR84 (DAVIS
BOULEV ARD) RADIO ROAD TO COLLIER BOULEVARD;
SR84/SR951 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS; COLLIER
Page 185
May 24, 2011
BOULEVARD (SR/CR 951) NORTH TO MAGNOLIA POND
DRIVE; AND CR951 (COLLIER BOULEVARD) NORTH TO THE
MAIN GOLDEN GATE CANAL". (PROJECT NO. 60073 & 60092)
- INSTALLATION OF STORM DRAIN STRUCTURES, PONDS,
UNDERGROUND UTILITY RELOCA TION/INST ALLA TION,
SIGNALIZATION, STREET LIGHTING, SIGNING & MARKING,
AND INCLUDES LOCAL ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS THAT
ARE ADJACENT TO THE PROJECT
Item #16All
AWARD BID #11-5674 "BOSTON AVENUE SIDEWALK
IMPROVEMENTS" FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALK
IMPROVEMENTS ON BOTH SIDES OF BOSTON AVENUE
FROM SOUTH 9TH STREET TO SOUTH 1ST STREET TO
STEVENS & LAYTON, INC., IN THE AMOUNT $152,353.55
(PROJECT #33122) AND REIMBURSED BY FDOT UNDER
AN LAP AGREEMENT -INCLUDING DRIVEWAY RE-
CONSTRUCTION THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT THAT
WILL MEET AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
REQUIREMENTS
Item #16A12
AWARD BID #11-5679 "INTERSECTION OF LAKE TRAFFORD
ROAD AT SR 29" FOR CONSTRUCTION OF INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS ON LAKE TRAFFORD ROAD AND SR 29,
TO GULF PAVING COMPANY, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF
$982,923.32 (PROJECT #33124) - $750,000 WILL BE
REIMBURSED BY FDOT UNDER AN LAP AGREEMENT
Item #16A13
Page 186
May 24, 2011
AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NUMBER 09-22, PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) TIME LIMITS AND TIME LIMIT
EXTENSION REQUIREMENTS AS FOUND IN SECTION
10.02.13.D OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE (LDC) TO EXTEND THE TOLLING TIMEFRAME FROM
MAY 12,2011 TO MAY 12,2012
Item #16Bl
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BCC) ACTING AS
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA)
APPROVING SUBMITTAL OF THE RURAL BUSINESS
ENTERPRISE GRANT (RBEG) APPLICATION TO U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA) RURAL
DEVELOPMENT TO AUGMENT THE BUSINESS SUPPORT,
RESOURCES, SERVICES AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
PROVIDED THROUGH THE IMMOKALEE BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENT CENTER (IBDC) IN THE AMOUNT OF
$165,180 AND APPROVE ALL NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENTS -THE GRANT WAS PREVIOUSLY AWARDED
TO ANOTHER ENTITY AND THEY LATER WITHDREW
THEIR APPLICATION AND IN TURN THE CRA WITH THE
RECOMMENDATION FROM THE USDA STAFF, REDRAFTED
THE APPLICATION TO ENSURE FUNDING DURING THE
CURRENT FEDERAL FISCAL AWARD PERIOD
Item #16B2
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BCC) ACTING AS
THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA)
APPROVING THE AFTER- THE-FACT SUBMITTAL OF THE
Page 187
May 24, 2011
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
GRANT APPLICATION TO COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING,
HUMAN & VETERAN SERVICES (HHVS) SEEKING GRANT
FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $140,000 TO SUPPORT
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS IN
THE IMMOKALEE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT - WILL BE
USED FOR A PEDESTRIAN/TRAFFIC STUDY TO DETERMINE
CROSSWALK/PEDESTRIAN DEVICES LOCATION
EFFECTIVENESS
Item #16B3
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA)
APPROVING A RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL AGREEMENT
WITH BA YSHORE CAP A CENTER, INC. IN CONSIDERATION
OF A POTENTIAL FUTURE PURCHASE OF CRA OWNED
LAND; EXECUTE A RIGHT OF ENTRY FOR THAT LAND;
AND THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN (FISCAL IMP ACT: NONE) -
THE CRA HAS IDENTIFIED THIS PARCEL ALONG WITH
SEVERAL OTHER PARCELS AS POTENTIAL SITES FOR
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
Item # 16B4
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) ACCEPT
THE CONVEYANCE OF COUNTY-OWNED PROPERTY
(MOBILE HOME SITES) WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE
BA YSHORE/GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT AREA
TO ENACT THE RESIDENTIAL INFILL PROVISION OF THE
CRA'S MASTER REDEVELOPMENT PLAN; AUTHORIZE CRA
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN HUD SETTLEMENT STATEMENT;
DIRECT CRA STAFF TO RECORD AN EXECUTED
Page 188
May 24, 2011
STATUTORY DEED FROM THE COUNTY; AND APPROVE
PAYMENT AND AUTHORIZE THE CRA EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR TO MAKE PAYMENT FROM THE BA YSHORE
GATEWAY TRIANGLE CRA FUND 187 FOR ALL COST AND
EXPENSES NECESSARY TO CLOSE THE TRANSACTION AND
INSURE CLEAR TITLE OF SAME: SITE ADDRESSES 3000,
3152 & 3205 KAREN DRIVE. FISCAL IMPACT TO FUND 187:
$41,642.18 (COMPANION TO ITEM NO. 16E12) - TO CORRECT
EXISTING BLIGHTED AREAS IN THE BAYSHORE GATEWAY
TRIANGLE AREA THAT ARE DETRIMENTAL TO PUBLIC
HEALTH, SAFETY, MORALS, AND WELFARE
Item #16B5
BUDGET AMENDMENT AUTHORIZING THE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) TO REALLOCATE
$1,117,939.01 WITHIN THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
DISASTER RECOVERY INITIATIVE (DRI) FUNDED GRANT
BUDGET FOR THE DOWNTOWN IMMOKALEE
STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT. THESE FUNDS
WILL BE DEDUCTED FROM THE LAND CAPITAL OUTLAY
LINE ITEM AND ADDED TO THE OTHER CONTRACTUAL
SERVICES LINE ITEM AND WILL RESULT IN A ZERO
INCREASE OR DECREASE IN THE OVERALL PROJECT
BUDGET - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16Cl
WAIVE COMPETITION AND AUTHORIZE SOLE-SOURCE
PURCHASES OF CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION PIPELINE
INSPECTION VEHICLES AND PIPELINE INSPECTION PARTS
Page 189
May 24, 2011
FROM COMMUNITY UTILITIES ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES, INC., AND APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF A
REPLACEMENT PIPELINE INSPECTION VEHICLE IN THE
AMOUNT OF $199,920 - A PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE
PROGRAM FOR 631 MILES OF GRAVITY SEWER MAINS
Item #16C2
AWARD BID #11-5657, GREASE HAULING SERVICES, TO
ROCKFILL ASSOCIATES D/B/A CREWS ENVIRONMENTAL,
INC., IN THE ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $50,000-
REMOVING GREASE AND INSOLUBLE MATERIAL FROM
LIFT STATION COLLECTION SYSTEMS
Item # 16C3
AWARD BID #11-5653, "RIVERWOOD WATER DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM REPLACEMENT" IN THE AMOUNT OF $955,626.67
TO ANDREW SITE WORK, LLC, TO REHABILITATE THE
POTABLE WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM THAT SERVES
THE RIVERWOOD SUBDIVISION, PROJECT NO. 71010.5 -
PROVIDING COMPLIANT AND RELIABLE POTABLE WATER
SERVICE TO COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT'S
(CCWSD) RIVERWOOD COMMUNITY RATE PAYERS
Item # 16C4
UTILITY EASEMENT TO THE COLLIER COUNTY W A TER-
SEWER DISTRICT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE OF WATER UTILITIES FOR THE LANDFILL
GAS-TO-ENERGY FACILITY AT THE COLLIER COUNTY
LANDFILL, ATNO COST TO THE COUNTY -FOR WATER
Page 190
May 24, 2011
UTILITIES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO; WATER
LINES, PIPES, VAL VES, INSTALLED WITHIN THE UTILITY
EASEMENT REQUIRED FOR MAINTENANCE ACCESS AND
FOR FUTURE INSTALLATION OF WATER UTILITIES
Item #16C5
WORK ORDER IN THE AMOUNT OF $235,283.56 TO QUALITY
ENTERPRISES USA, INC., FOR LIFT STATION 310.01
REHABILITATION UNDER CONTRACT #08-5011 - AN
ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITY
SERVICES (PROJECT #70046) FOR WORK ON A 20+YEAR
OLD UNDERSIZED STATION SUSCEPTIBLE TO
OVERFLOWING IN THE EVENT OF A POWER FAILURE
Item #16C6 - Moved to Item #lOH (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16Dl
AMENDMENT TO A 2009-2010 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH
THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND APPROVED ON FEBRUARY
23,2010 (ITEM 16Dl). THIS AMENDMENT IS TO REVISE
EXHIBIT A, TO UPDATE THE SCOPE, BUDGET, OUTCOME
PERFORMANCE MEASURES, AND EXTEND PROJECT
MILESTONE SCHEDULE DATES IN ORDER TO FACILITATE
REIMBURSEMENT - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16D2
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $37,707
Page 191
May 24, 2011
USING 2009-2010 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT (HUD) OPERATING GRANT FUNDS, WHICH
HA VE BEEN DESIGNATED FOR A COMMUNITY HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION (CHDO). FLORIDA NON-
PROFIT SERVICES, INC. (FNPS) IS THE CHDO WHICH WILL
RECEIVE THE GRANT FUNDS, AND WILL USE THEM
TOWARDS THE SALARY AND BENEFITS OF ONE (1) STAFF
PERSON WHO WILL PROVIDE ACCOUNTING AND
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES TO INCREASE THE CHDO'S
CAPACITY - CHDO WILL ACQUIRE AND MAINTAIN STAFF
WITH A RANGE OF SKILLS OR ASSIST IN BUILDING
CHDO'S STAFF SKILLS OVER TIME INCLUDING PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT SKILLS, PHYSICAL PLANNING, FINANCIAL
PACKAGING, AND PROJECT AND TEAM MANAGEMENT
Item #16D3
WAIVE FORMAL COMPETITION & APPROVE ADDITIONAL
FUNDING TO CONTINUE CONSULTING SERVICES WITH
YORK CLAIMS SERVICES INC. (PO #4500105855) WHO
PROVIDE COLLIER COUNTY WITH SUPPORT REQUIRED
FOR FEMA CLAIMS FOR TROPICAL STORM GABRIELLE,
HURRICANE KATRINA AND HURRICANE WILMA FOR TIME
AND MATERIAL NOT TO EXCEED $65,000 - STAFF REQUEST
FOR AN ADDITIONAL $15,000 FOR CONTINUED WORK AND
SERVICES
Item #16D4
THREE (3) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
RECOVERY (CDBG-R) SUBRECIPIENT GRANT AGREEMENT
AMENDMENTS TO INCORPORATE ADDITIONAL AMERICAN
Page 192
May 24,2011
RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009 (ARRA)
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS IN RESPONSE TO ERNST AND
YOUNG'S SINGLE AUDIT MANAGEMENT LETTER
OBSERVATION 2010-2 - HUD GRANT #B-09-UY-12-0016 FOR
CITY OF NAPLES AGREEMENT AMEND #1, ANTHONY PARK
LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS; HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION OF SWFL, AMEND #1 TO AN AGREEMENT
FOR CREDIT REP AIRlHOMEBUYER EDUCATION AND
COUNSELING PROGRAM; AND EMPOWERMENT OF SWFL
AMEND #1 TO AGREEMENT FOR A CREDIT COUNSELING
AND FORECLOSURE PREVENTION PROGRAM
Item #16D5
FOUR (4) SATISFACTIONS OF MORTGAGE FOR OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS THAT HAVE
SATISFIED THE TERMS OF ASSISTANCE OR REPAYMENT IN
FULL TO COLLIER COUNTY - THE FOLLOWING TWO
PROPERTIES FULFILLED THEIR OBLIGATION TO HOME
ASSISTANCE AND WERE ENTITLES AS SA TISF ACTION OF
MORTGAGE, LOCATED AT 1 0217 PALM DRIVE, AND 405 E.
DELAWARE AVE.; THE FOLLOWING TWO PROPERTIES
HAVE REPAID ALL FUNDS EXPENDED FROM SHIP FUNDS,
LOCATED AT 2522 LINWOOD AVE., AND 5261 DIXIE DRIVE
Item #16D6
AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA BOATING IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM (FBIP) GRANT TO EXTEND THE COMPLETION
DATE ON THE BA YVIEW PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT -
EXTENDING THE TERMINATION DATE TO JUNE 30, 2011
FOR PHASE I OF THE PROJECT THA T WAS DELAYED DUE
Page 193
May 24,2011
TO SEASONAL WEATHER CONDITIONS, PERMITTING
REQUIREMENTS AND CONTRACTUAL PROCUREMENT
REQUIREMENTS
Item # 16D7
RATIFY STAFF'S EXTENSION OF CONTRACT #06-3971,
"GENERAL CONTRACTING SERVICES" WITH PBS
CONSTRUCTION, INC. AND RELATED WORK ORDER
#45-124175, "GOODLAND BOAT DOCK INSTALLATION OF
LADDERS & CLEATS" FOR $14,620 TO PROCESS THE FINAL
INVOICE FOR WORK COMPLETED - STAFF REQUESTS THE
EXTENSION OF ORIGINAL CONTRACT (#06-3971) EXPIRING
FEBRUARY 12,2011 TO THE DATE OF JUNE 15,2011; AND
CHANGE ORDER #1 TO PURCHASE ORDER #45-124175 FOR A
WORK ORDER THAT EXPIRED DECEMBER 17,2010
Item # 16D8
AWARD BID #11-5628 TO OAC ACTION CONSTRUCTION,
CORP. FOR A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE
TIGERTAIL BEACH DUNE WALKOVER & BOARDWALK
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 90093.1. AND AUTHORIZING
THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE A STANDARD CONTRACT
AFTER COUNTY ATTORNEY APPROVAL
Item #16D9 (Continued to the June 14,2011 BCC Meeting)
COLLIER COUNTY HUNGER AND HOMELESS COALITION
(HHC) SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT FOR A U.S. DEPT. OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) HOMELESS
PREVENTION AND RAPID RE-HOUSING (HPRP) GRANT
Page 194
May 24, 2011
APPROVED BY THE BOARD SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 AS ITEM
#16DI9. THIS AMENDMENT ALLOWS FOR REVISION ON
EXHIBIT A OF THE SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT TO
ACCOMMODATE HHC'S REQUEST TO NO LONGER
INCLUDE HOMELESS MANAGEMENT INFORMATION
SYSTEM (HMIS) ACTIVITIES AND ALLOWS HHC TO MORE
FULL Y EXPEND GRANT FUNDS - FOLLOWING GRANT
REQUIREMENTS
Item #16DI0
SIX (6) HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION & RAPID REHOUSING
(HPRP) AMENDMENTS TO SUBRECIPIENT GRANT
AGREEMENTS INCORPORATING ADDITIONAL AMERICAN
RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009 (ARRA)
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS IN RESPONSE TO ERNST AND
YOUNG'S SINGLE AUDIT MANAGEMENT LETTER
OBSERVATION 2010-2 - FOR PARTICIPATING AGENCIES
THAT HAVE SIGNED AMENDMENTS AND ARE RECEIVING
FUNDS INCLUDING: CATHOLIC CHARITIES, SALVATION
ARMY (NAPLES CORPS), YOUTH HAVEN, COLLIER COUNTY
HOUSING AUTHORITY, LEGAL AID OF COLLIER COUNTY,
AND HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF SWFL
Item #16Dl1
GRANTEE APPLICATION FOR ADVANCE FUNDING TO
ACCESS FUNDING FOR THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE, MENTAL
HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE REINVESTMENT GRANT.
FUNDING PROVIDED THROUGH MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING #LHZ25 WITH FLORIDA'S DEPARTMENT
OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES - FOR PLANNING AND
Page 195
May 24, 2011
IMPLEMENT A TION OF THE PROGRAM AND TO HELP
COUNTIES IMPROVE ACCESSIBILITY AND EFFECTIVENESS
OF TREATMENT SERVICES
Item #16El
RATIFY PROPERTY, CASUALTY, WORKERS'
COMPENSATION AND SUBROGATION CLAIMS SETTLED
AND/OR CLOSED BY THE RISK MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR
PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION 2004-15 FOR THE SECOND
QUARTER OF FY11 - SECOND QUARTER OF FY 2011
CLOSED 83 CLAIMS AND 36 SUBROGATION CLAIMS
Item #16E2
DONATION AGREEMENT WITH CORKSCREW REGIONAL
ECOSYSTEM WATERSHED LAND AND WATER TRUST,
INCORPORATED (CREW) FOR 9.17 ACRES UNDER THE
CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM,
AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $1,000 - LOCATED IN THE RED
MAPLE SWAMP PRESERVE MULTI-PARCEL PROJECT
(GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, UNIT 53)
Item #16E3 - Moved to Item #10D (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16E4 - Moved to Item #10E (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16E5 - Moved to Item #10F (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16E6
BID NO. 11-5644 "ON-CALL ROOFING CONTRACTOR
Page 196
May 24,2011
SERVICES" TO WEST COAST FLORIDA ENTERPRISES INC.
AND CROWTHER ROOFING COMPANY - FOR MAJOR
ROOFING REPAIRS AND IMPROVEMENTS
Item #16E7
ACCEPT THE REPORT CONCERNING THE SALE AND
DONATION OF ITEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE COUNTY
SURPLUS AUCTION HELD ON APRIL 30, 2011, RESULTING
IN GROSS REVENUES OF $187,456.50 - THE AUCTIONEER'S
COMMISSION OF $29,993.04 WAS DEDUCTED FROM THE
GROSS REVENUE
Item #16E8
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO INCREASE THE COUNTY-WIDE
CAPITAL BUDGET, FUND 301, PROJECT #52525 - GENERAL
BUILDING REPAIRS BY $250,000 BY MOVING FUNDS FROM
THE FUND 301 RESERVES FOR CONTINGENCIES; FOR THE
PURPOSE OF CORRECTING A PROBLEM IN THE COUNTY'S
HIGH VOLTAGE SWITCHGEAR LOCATED IN BUILDING K
THAT SERVES VARIOUS BUILDINGS AT THE GOVERNMENT
CENTER CAMPUS - EXISTING SWITCHGEAR HAD BEEN
INSTALLED IN 1988 AND DURING A RECENT STUDY WAS
FOUND TO BE DEFECTIVE
Item #16E9
RATIFY A STAFF ZERO-DOLLAR TIME EXTENSION OF
CONTRACT #09-5195 WITH BORAN CRAIG BARBER ENGEL
CONSTRUCTION CO. (BCBE) IN ORDER TO PROCESS THE
CONTRACTOR'S FINAL INVOICE FOR WORK COMPLETED
Page 197
May 24,2011
ON THE MARCO ISLAND LIBRARY ROSE HALL ADDITION;
AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS
DESIGNEE TO SIGN THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS - TO
ACCOMMODA TE OWNER REQUESTED CHANGES TO THE
FLOOR-MOUNTED AUDIO/VIDEO/POWER BOX ON THE
STAGE IN THE AUDITORIUM
Item #16EI0
RELEASE OF $27,105 IN FINAL PAYMENT AND RETAINAGE
AMOUNTS FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS UNDERGROUND
STORAGE FUEL TANKS REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT,
BID NO. 09-5237, TO THE BOND PROVIDER FOR SURGE
SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC.: EVERGREEN NATIONAL
INDEMNITY COMPANY - FINAL PAYMENT WAS WITHHELD
BECAUSE SSG (SURGE SOLUTION GROUP, INC.) WAS
HA VING DIFFICULTY OBTAINING RELEASE & AFFIDAVIT
FORMS FOR 5 EXISTING, NON-COMPLIANT UNDERGROUND
FUEL OIL TANKS
Item #16Ell
AUTHORIZE AN AMENDMENT TO "EXHIBIT B" TO A
BOARD APPROVED AGREEMENT WITH LEL Y COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR THEIR SUPPLY OF
IRRIGATION QUALITY WATER TO COMBINED SITES OF
THE EMERGENCY SERVICES CENTER & SOUTH REGIONAL
LIBRARY AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE COUNTY, AND
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE NECESSARY
DOCUMENTS FOLLOWING COUNTY ATTORNEY REVIEW -
FOR AN ERROR DISCOVERED WHILE REVIEWING AN
INVOICE SUBMITTED BY THE LCDD (LEL Y COMMUNITY
Page 198
May 24, 2011
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT) ON APRIL 5, 2011
Item #16E12
RESOLUTION 2011-89: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS (BCC) TO EXECUTE A STATUTORY DEED
FOR THE CONVEYANCE OF COUNTY-OWNED PROPERTY
(MOBILE HOME SITES) WITHIN THE BA YSHORE/GA TEW A Y
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA TO THE COLLIER
COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA);
AND WAIVE ANY CODE ENFORCEMENT PENALTIES
LEVIED AGAINST THE PROPERTY THAT ARE NOT
ASSOCIA TED WITH COSTS INCURRED BY THE COUNTY
CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT TO ABATE THE
VIOLATIONS: SITE ADDRESSES 3000, 3152 & 3205 KAREN
DRIVE. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE. (COMPANION ITEM: 16B4)
Item #16Fl
RESOLUTION 2011-90: AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF A
REPLACEMENT WATER TENDER PUMPER FROM THE
FLORIDA SHERIFF'S BID LIST FOR THE OCHOPEE FIRE
CONTROL DISTRICT
Item #16F2 - Moved to Item #10G (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16F3
RESOLUTION 2011-91: RESOLUTION AMENDMENTS
(APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS
OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2010-11
Page 199
May 24, 2011
ADOPTED BUDGET
Item #16Gl
BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR $612,320 TO INCREASE
BUDGETED REVENUES AND BUDGETED EXPENSES FOR
THE SALE & PURCHASE OF AVIATION FUEL AT MARCO
ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT, IMMOKALEE REGIONAL
AIRPORT, AND EVERGLADES AIRPARK - DUE TO A RISE IN
FUEL COSTS NOT BUDGETED FOR IN THE FYll ADOPTED
BUDGET
Item #16G2
T-HANGAR LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COLLIER
COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND EXEC AIR, INC. OF
NAPLES, AND HIGH SOARING, INC., AND AIRCRAFT
MAINTENANCE OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA - TO BE USED AS
STORAGE, TIE-DOWN SPACE, COMMERCIAL FLIGHTS,
MAINTENANCE, AND MAJOR AIRCRAFT REPAIRS
Item #16Hl
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. HE ATTENDED THE CITY OF EVERGLADES
NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER LUNCHEON AT EVERGLADES
CITY HALL, EVERGLADES, FL ON MAY 5, 2011, $7.50 TO BE
PAID FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET
- 102 NE COPELAND AVE., EVERGLADES CITY
Item # 16H2
Page 200
May 24,2011
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. HE WILL ATTEND THE GULF CITRUS GROWER
ASSOCIATION'S 2011 ANNUAL MEETING AND 25TH
ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION AT LABELLE CIVIC
CENTER, LABELLE, FL. $10 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRA VEL BUDGET - HELD ON
JUNE 1. 2011 AT 481 HIGHWAY 80 WEST, LABELLE
Item #16H3
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. HE ATTENDED THE EASTERN COLLIER
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BREAKFAST IN IMMOKALEE, FL
ON APRIL 6, 2011. $15 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT 1300 N. 15TH
STREET, SUITE 2, IMMOKALEE
Item #16H4
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. HE ATTENDED THE COLLIER COUNTY MEDICAL
SOCIETY'S ANNUAL MEETING & INSTALLATION OF 53RD
PRESIDENT AT GREY OAKS COUNTRY CLUB, NAPLES, FL
ON MAY 7,2011. $50 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT 2400 GREY
OAKS DRIVE, NAPLES
Item #16H5
Page 201
May 24, 2011
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN
VOTERS OF COLLIER COUNTY LUNCHEON ON MAY 9, 2011
A T THE NAPLES HILTON IN NAPLES, FL. $20 TO BE PAID
FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET -
LOCATED AT 5111 T AMI AMI TRAIL NORTH. NAPLES
Item # 1611
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH
ACTION AS DIRECTED
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 202
May 24, 2011
Item # 1611
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF APRIL 23,2011
THROUGH APRIL 29, 2011 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J2
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF APRIL 30, 2011
THROUGH MAY 6, 2011 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item # 1613
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,912.46
RECOGNIZING FEDERAL HHS VOTE PROGRAM GRANT
AWARD 2006 FUNDS FOR VOTING ACCESSIBILITY FOR
INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES - INCLUDING PATHS OF
TRA VEL, ENTRANCES, EXITS AND PRIVACY AT POLLING
FACILITIES
Item #16Kl
COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO SIGN POLICE
AFFIDAVITS, OR OTHER AGREEMENTS, AUTHORIZING THE
SHERIFFS' OFFICE TO ISSUE TRESPASS WARNINGS FOR
UNAUTHORIZED USE OF COUNTY PROPERTY - DUE TO
THE RECENT A TV USE AT A COUNTY RETENTION POND
THAT HAS PARCELS ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL LAND
Item # 16K2
Page 203
May 24, 2011
RETAINER AGREEMENT WITH THE LAW FIRM OF
HENDERSON FRANKLIN TO REPRESENT THE COUNTY
THROUGH TRIAL IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED DARLING
ELIE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS GUARDIAN OF JADARRIEN
ELIE, A MINOR CHILD V. COLLIER COUNTY, ET. AL.,
FILED IN THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CASE NO. 07-1463-CA, FOR
A TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED $100,000 WITHOUT PRIOR
AUTHORIZATION - FOR A PERSONAL INJURY CLAIM FILED
ON MAY 18,2007
Item #17A
ORDINANCE 2011-18: PUDZ-2005-AR-8674: GRACE
ROMANIAN BAPTIST CHURCH OF NAPLES CFPUD. AN
ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE
NUMBER 04-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE
UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR
MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF
THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM AN
AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT WITH A PORTION
OF THE REAL PROPERTY IN A ST OVERLAY (SPECIAL
TREA TMENT) TO A COMMUNITY FACILITY PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (CFPUD) ZONING DISTRICT WITH
REMOVAL OF THE ST OVERLAY FOR A PROJECT KNOWN
AS GRACE ROMANIAN BAPTIST CHURCH OF NAPLES
CFPUD. THE PROJECT WILL ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A
500-SEA T CHURCH, A SINGLE-F AMIL Y RESIDENCE AND
Page 204
May 24,2011
PRESCHOOL OF UP TO 150 STUDENTS ALONG WITH OTHER
PERMITTED AND ACCESSORY USES COMMONLY
ASSOCIATED WITH A CHURCH AND PRESCHOOL USE. THE
PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF LEARNING
LANE AND LIVINGSTON ROAD IN SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP
48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
CONSISTING OF 12 +/- ACRES AND BY PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE
Item #17B
RESOLUTION 2011-92: RESOLUTION APPROVING
AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING CARRY FORWARD,
TRANSFERS AND SUPPLEMENTAL REVENUE) TO THE
FISCAL YEAR 2010-11 ADOPTED BUDGET
*****
Page 205
May 24,2011
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:29 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
'A~w. ~
FRED COYLE, Chairman
ATTEST: .
( "t~,({"
DW I{F'E."BR(g<::K, CLERK
. ;~~~r-L~
"tt~$t ~$ .to-'~J" ,
. \IJII.tlll'. 0111 ~.
These minutes apprred by the Board on J"'~ Z "3, 'Zo/l
as presented ^ . or as corr ted
./
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM.
Page 206