BCC Minutes 09/27/2011 R MINUTES
BCC
Regular
Meeting
September 27, 2011
September 27, 2011
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida
September 27, 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
ALSO PRESENT:
Donna Fiala
Tom Henning
Georgia Hiller
Leo E. Ochs, Jr., County Manager
Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Ian Mitchell, Executive Manager to BCC
Mike Sheffield, Operations — CMO
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB)
Airport Authority
AGENDA
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor
Naples, FL 34112
September 27, 2011
9:00 AM
Fred W. Coyle - BCC Chairman; Commissioner, District 4
Jim Coletta - BCC Vice - Chairman; Commissioner, District 5; CRAB Chairman
Donna Fiala - BCC Commissioner, District 1; CRAB Vice - Chairman
Georgia Hiller - BCC Commissioner, District 2
Tom Henning - BCC Commissioner, District 3
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS MUST
REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE
EXECUTIVE MANAGER TO THE BCC PRIOR TO PRESENTATION OF THE
AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. ALL REGISTERED SPEAKERS WILL
RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY
THE CHAIRMAN.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53 AS AMENDED BY
ORDINANCE 2004 -05 AND 2007 -249 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS
SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY
Page 1
September 27, 2011
COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE
BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS."
PUBLIC PETITIONS ARE LIMITED TO THE PRESENTER, WITH A
MAXIMUM TIME OF TEN MINUTES.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN
ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3335 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL,
SUITE 1, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112 -5356, (239) 252 -8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Pastor Sammy Mosquera - United Penecostal Church
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for consent and
summary agenda.)
Page 2
September 27, 2011
B. September 8, 2011 - BCC /Budget Hearing Minutes
3. SERVICE AWARDS
A. EMPLOYEE
1)
20 Year Attendees
a) Carl Gibson, Pollution Control
2) 25 Year Attendees
a) Jacinto Cervantes, Parks and Recreation
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation congratulating Marco Beach Ocean Resort for its continued
contributions and efforts in recycling and its "Going Green" mission. To be
accepted by Dan Rodriguez, Director, staff from Solid Waste Mgt. & Jeffrey
Bullock, Hotel Manager and Branka Guberina, Operations Manager of
Marco Beach Ocean Resort. (Sponsored by Commissioner Fiala)
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Recommendation to recognize Yaneisy Camps, Administrative Captain,
Emergency Medical Services, as the Employee of the Month for August
2011.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 pm unless otherwise noted.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item has been continued from the June 14, 2011 BCC meeting. This
item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
Page 3
September 27, 2011
members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required
to be sworn in. PUDZ- 2007 -AR- 12292: Cope Reserve RPUD -- An
ordinance amending Ordinance Number 2004 -41, 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 the Estates (E) Zoning District to
the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District for a
project to be known as the Cope Reserve RPUD. The project proposes a
total of 43 single - family detached dwelling units in Section 8, Township 50
South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 14.3± acres;
and by providing an effective date.
B. A Resolution approving, with conditions, Petition CSLV PL20100001812:
requesting a Variance from the Coastal Construction Setback Line (CCSL)
and Preserve to allow for the construction of a new restroom and concession
facility seaward of the Coastal Construction Setback Line (CCSL) to replace
the existing restroom structure, all of which are located on or near the
existing Vanderbilt Beach restroom with a street address of 100 Vanderbilt
Beach Road, located in Section 32, Township 48 South, Range 25 East,
Collier County, Florida.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Request for reconsideration of Item #16A17 from the September 13, 2011
BCC Meeting, titled "Recommendation for Board approval of Hole Montes,
Inc., as the design professional short-list for REP # 11 -5724 and to enter into
negotiations between Collier County and Hole Montes Inc. for "Construction
Engineer, Landscape Inspection and Site Restoration Services for Vanderbilt
Beach MSTU:FPL Underground Conversion Project - Phase 1, 2, 3"
pursuant to RFP # 11 -5724. (Commissioner Hiller)
B. Appointment of members to the Collier County Planning Commission.
C. To direct the County Attorney to obtain all financial records from the Collier
County Economic Development Council. (Commissioner Tom Henning)
Page 4
September 27, 2011
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to complete the Annual Performance Appraisal for the
County Manager. (Leo E. Ochs, Jr., County Manager)
B. This item continued from the September 13, 2011 BCC Meeting.
Recommendation to review and approve the Parks and Recreation Master
Plan prepared by Tindale - Oliver and Associates, Inc. with the addition of
citizen input meetings held April 6 and 7, 2011. (Marla Ramsey, Public
Services Administrator)
C. Recommendation to approve the Local Coordinating Board (LCB)
recommendation for the provision of paratransit service in fiscal year 2012,
including completing a required Title VI Fare Equity Analysis to evaluate
impacts of a potential fare increase to the riders and budget for the Collier
Area Paratransit system; and to approve a budget amendment in the amount
of $25,000 to fund this analysis. (Michelle Arnold, Director, Alternative
Transportation Modes, Growth Management Division)
D. Recommendation to approve and ratify staff's unauthorized Zero Dollar
Time Extension Change Order for Professional Engineering Services with
Atkins North America, Inc. (previously known as PBS &J) to Work Order
No. 4500100227 in order to process final invoice for work completed for
"Clam Pass/Bay Estuary," ratify staff's unauthorized action of request for
services, and then make a finding of quantum meruit based on the value of
the benefit received. (Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management, Public
Services)
E. Recommendation that the County Manager or his designee be directed to (1)
develop an amendment to Ordinance Number 98 -37; (2) revise the Irrigation
Quality Water Policy; (3) develop a standardized Agreement for Delivery
and Reuse of Reclaimed Water (Major User Agreement) for customers that
use or request an allotment amount equal to or greater than 100,000 gallons
per day of reclaimed water; and, (4) develop a standardized Customer
Agreement for Delivery and Reuse of Reclaimed Water (Customer
Agreement) for customers that use less than 100,000 gallons per day of
reclaimed water, all for future Board of County Commissioners'
consideration at a public hearing. (George Yilmaz, Public Utilities
Page 5
September 27, 2011
Administrator)
F. Recommendation to approve the Category "A" Tourist Development Fund
183 Grant Applications for Beach Park Facilities for FY 2011/12 in the
amount of $1,025,000, make a finding that the expenditure will promote
tourism, and authorize the Chairman to sign necessary agreements following
County Attorney approval. (Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management,
Public Services)
G. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a Short
Sale Policy and Procedure for the State Housing Initiatives Partnership
(SHIP) program. (Kim Grant, Interim Director, Housing, Human and
Veteran Services)
H. Recommendation to award a construction contract to Oldcastle Southern
Group, Inc. d /b /a APAC Southeast, Inc. for Bid No. 11 -5757 - Oil Well
Road Safety Improvements (from 1/4 mile west of the Faka -Union Canal to 1/2
mile west of Oil Well Grade Road) Project No. 60016, in the amount of
$1,698,855.46. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Growth Management)
I. To provide to the Board of County Commissioners information regarding
the requirement to obtain a building permit when replacing a water heater, as
specified within the 2007 Florida Building Code and Collier County
Ordinance 2009 -59, as directed, in follow -up to the September 13, 2011
Public Petition Item #6A. (James C. French, Director, Operations and
Regulatory Management Department, Growth Management Division)
J. Recommendation to approve the purchase of Liability, Automobile,
Workers' Compensation, Flood, Aircraft, Airport and other insurance and
related services for FY 2012 in the annual amount of $1,443,951, a reduction
of $147,390. (Jeff Walker, Risk Management Director)
K. Recommendation to obtain direction from the Board of County
Commissioners on how to proceed with an Easement Agreement for use
between Collier County and Beachfront Property Owners requiring the
Property Owners to provide public beach access in exchange for publically
funded major beach renourishment, vegetation planting and dune restoration
to the subject property. (Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management, Public
Page 6
September 27, 2011
Service Division)
L. Recommendation to approve the Ribbon Cutting Ceremony for the new
Transit Route between Collier County and Lee County to be known as the
"LinC" and to authorize the Chairman to sign all applicable agreements
associated with use of private property for the event scheduled for October
6, 2011. (Michelle Arnold, Director, Alternative Transportation Modes,
Growth Management Division)
11. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. The Annual Performance Appraisal for the County Attorney.
12. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
13. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND /OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
A. The Annual Performance Appraisal for the Airport Authority Executive
Director.
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) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. This is a
recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Reflection
Page 7
September 27, 2011
Lakes at Naples — Phase 3D.
2) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission Members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. This is a recommendation
to approve for recording the final plat of Veronawalk Phase 4C,
Benelli and Karina Court Replat, approval of the standard form
Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount
of the performance security.
3) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission Members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. This is a recommendation
to approve for recording the final plat of Ave Maria Unit 11, Del
Webb at Ave Maria Parcels 106 & 112, approval of the standard form
Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount
of the performance security.
4) Recommendation to approve Invitation to Bid (ITB) #11- 5629RR
"Background Check Services" to Global HR Research and Azura
Investigations, and terminate the interim contract with Global HR
Research (approximate annual cost: $60,000).
5) Recommendation to waive competition and approve Agreement #10-
5553, Software License Agreement and PremierPro Support and
Maintenance Agreement with Selectron Technologies, Inc. for the
Interactive Voice Response System.
6) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a
Release of Lien for the Brittany Bay Apartments, Phase I, due to the
impact fees being paid in full in accordance with the Agreement for
Deferral of 100% of Collier County Impact Fees for Multi- Family
Affordable Housing, as set forth by Section 74- 401(e) and 74- 401(g)
(5) of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances.
7) Recommendation to award a Construction Contract to Better Roads,
Inc. for Bid No. 11 -5759 - Old U.S. 41 Intersection Improvements at
Page 8
September 27, 2011
Rail Head Road, Project No. 60016, in the amount of $179,424.3 5
8) Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid (ITB) #11-5760 "Traffic
Signs and Related Materials" to various vendors in the estimated
annual amount of $75,000.
9) Recommendation to approve Change Order #I to ITran Partners, Inc.,
Contract No. 11 -5602, in the amount of $65,254 and extend the
contract completion date by 60 days.
10) Recommendation to approve Request for Reimbursement as an
exception to the County Manager Agency Organization Code
( "CMA ") #5346, Reimbursement of Relocation Expenses in the
amount of $8,666.67, for Anthony Khawaja, Engineer of Traffic
Operations for the Growth Management Division.
11) Recommendation to adopt a resolution amending Resolution No.
2011 -71, which authorized the condemnation of easements necessary
for the construction of a replacement bridge on White Boulevard and
a new bridge on 23rd Street SW, both over the Golden Gate Main
Canal, together with the realignment of the intersection of White
Boulevard and 23rd Street SW. The amending resolution will correct
a scrivener's error in the location of the tract corners as depicted in the
legal descriptions and sketches. (Transportation Bridge Repair and
Replacement Program Project No. 66066.)
12) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission Members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. This is a recommendation
to approve for recording the final plat of Reflection Lakes at Naples -
Phase 2A, 213, 3E and 3I.
13) This item continued from the September 13, 2011 BCC Meeting.
Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Caldecott with the
roadway and drainage improvements being privately maintained and
authorizing the release of the maintenance security.
Page 9
September 27, 2011
14) Recommendation to authorize a $402,000 budget amendment to add
gas tax funding in Project #60116, US 41 /CR 951 intersection
capacity improvements to address the resurfacing, restoration and
rehabilitation improvements which cannot be funded with impact fees.
15) Recommendation to direct the County Manager or his designee to
amend the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) and Right -
of -Way Ordinance in regards to storage containers, Planned Unit
Development (PUD) Annual Monitoring Reports, specific standards
for the location of accessory buildings and structure provisions to
include Personal Storage Containers (PODS), number of dogs allowed
in residential districts, and exceptions to a Right -of -Way (ROW)
permit meeting specific criteria.
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation that the Collier County Community Redevelopment
Agency (CRA) approves and executes an amendment to the
employment agreement between the CRA and David L. Jackson, the
Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Executive Director, extending the
term of employment four years and modifying severance terms, and
authorize the CRA Chairman to sign.
2) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
to approve the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA's membership and
participation in the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council's
Brownfield Coalition, authorize the CRA Chairman to sign a Letter of
Intent, and declare participation in the coalition as serving a public
purpose. (Fiscal Impact: None)
3) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
to approve and execute a Sweat Equity Grant Agreement between the
CRA and a Grant Applicant within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle
area. (3179 Francis Avenue - fiscal impact $965.28)
4) Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
approve one member of the CRA staff attend the Florida Division of
Emergency Management's Workshop on Cost Benefit Analysis: Entry
Page 10
September 27, 2011
Level Training; authorize payment of attendee's lodging, travel and
per diem from the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Trust Fund (Fund 187)
travel budget; and declare the training received as serving a valid
public purpose.
5) Request for authorization to advertise and bring back for future
consideration an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2002 -52, which
established the Immokalee Beautification Advisory Committee,
allowing the Immokalee Community Redevelopment Agency, through
its Executive Director, to assume administrative and management
duties of the Immokalee Beautification Municipal Service Taxing
Unit such as employing staff to assist the Committee.
6) Recommendation for the Collier County CRA Board to approve a
CRA Resolution to amend the Fiscal Year 2011 -2012 Bayshore
Gateway Triangle CRA Commercial Building and Impact Fee
Assistance Grant programs and approve the amended form of the
CRA Grant Agreements.
7) Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
approve an amendment to the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Event
Policy and Procedures Manual that governs CRA sponsored or
coordinated event activites. (Fiscal Impact: None) (Companion to
Item # 16B8)
8) Request for authorization to advertise and bring back for future
consideration an ordinance amending Ordinance No 2002 -38, as
amended, "The Collier County Redevelopment Grant Program
Ordinance" to create a new CRA Community Event Grant program
for the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA. (Companion to Item
# 16137)
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve the Satisfaction of Lien for the 1996
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments
where the county has received payment in full satisfaction of the lien.
Page 11
September 27, 2011
Fiscal impact is $28.50 to record the Satisfaction of Lien.
2) Recommendation to approve Exhibit A -1 Contract Amendment 43 of
the Master Agreement for Demand Side Management and Energy
Efficiency Services Agreement with Florida Power & Light Company
to change the scope of an energy conservation option and decrease the
contract amount by $148,820.02.
3) Recommendation to approve a Work Order in the amount of
$247,077.50 to Mitchell & Stark Construction Co., Inc., for Clearwell
and Concentrate Pump Station Rehabilitation under Contract #08-
5011 - Fixed -Term Underground Utilities Contract, Project #71002.
4) Recommendation to direct the County Manager or his designee to
develop an amendment to Ordinance Number 2001 -73, as amended,
the Collier County Water -Sewer District Uniform Billing, Operating,
and Regulatory Standards Ordinance, to provide clarification and
revise administrative procedures.
5) Recommendation to approve the annual rate resolution to establish the
fees, rates, and charges for the use of Collier County Solid Waste
Facilities, including landfill tipping fees, recycling center fees, and
residential multi - family and commercial waste collection fees for
FY12. This resolution adopts the rates that fund the FY12 budget for
solid waste collection and disposal.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to accept and authorize the Chairman to sign the FY
2011 -2012 State Aid to Libraries Grant Agreement, Long Range Plan,
Technology Plan, and Current Year Action Plan, permitting the
Collier County Public Library to apply for State Aid to Libraries.
Fiscal Impact ($187,400).
2) Recommendation to reject solicitation (ITB) # 11 -5622, and the
associated proposal for the Boat Trailer Parking Lot Addition and
Boat Ramp Replacement at Port of the Islands.
Page 12
September 27, 2011
3) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign one
(1) release of lien for deferral of 100 percent of Collier County impact
fees for owner occupied affordable housing dwelling units that have
been repaid in full.
4) Recommendation to approve and authorize Chairman to sign a
Sovereignty Submerged Lands Easement Renewal between the
Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida and Collier
County granting a nonexclusive easement on, under and across the
sovereignty lands.
5) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign
agreements with the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA)
and Physicians Regional Medical Center (PRMC) to participate in
alternative intergovermental transfer (IGT) programs. The total
financial commitment is $2.2M which is currently budgeted.
6) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign an
agreement in the amount of $237,523 with the Agency for Health
Care Administration and an agreement with Collier Health Services
(CHS) to participate in the Medicaid Low Income Pool Program.
Participation in this program will generate $301,566 in Federal
matching funds that will provide additional health services for the
people of Collier County.
7) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign one
(1) Subrecipient Agreement in the amount of $528,122.54 with
Habitat for Humanity of Collier County using Home Investment
Partnership Program (HOME) grant funding. HOME funds for this
Single Family Rehabilitation project will be utilized for the
replacement and installation of new roofs for eligible low income
households residing in Collier County who are at or below 80% of
Median Family Income or (MFI) under HUD Income Guidelines.
8) Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid (ITB) #11 -5770 in the
amount of $108,900 to Pinnacle Pool Construction, Inc., for the three
collection tank replacements at North Collier Regional Park at Sun -N-
Page 13
September 27, 2011
Fun Lagoon and to authorize the necessary budget amendment.
9) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment recognizing
$284,110.45 in revenue generated as program income when
conveying property acquired through the Neighborhood Stabilization
Program. (Fiscal impact $284,110.45)
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to waive formal competition and approve and
authorize the Chairman to execute the renewal of a Lease Agreement
for the County's Confined Space Gas Monitor System with Industrial
Scientific, Inc. in the amount of $27,044.64 per year.
2) Recommendation to approve a Revenue Commitment Contract with
Naples News Media Group to receive discounted pricing on
advertising.
3) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving the 2012 Fiscal
Year Pay and Classification Plan inclusive of additions, deletions or
modifications from July 1, 2011 forward, and to continue authorizing
the creation of new classifications, modification and /or deletion of
classifications and assignment of pay ranges from the proposed 2012
Fiscal Year Pay and Classification Plan, using the existing "Archer"
point- factor job evaluation system, subject to a quarterly report to the
Board of County Commissioners.
4) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign the
Assumption Agreement from MACTEC Engineering and Consulting,
Inc. to AMEC E &I, Inc. for County Wide Engineering Services.
F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS
1) Recommendation to approve Agreement # 12- CP- 03- 09 -21 -01 -185
between the State of Florida, Division of Emergency Management and
Collier County accepting $9,038 for the preparation of Hazard
Analysis Reports for facilities storing extremely hazardous substances
Page 14
September 27, 2011
within Collier County and approve the necessary budget amendment.
2) Recommendation to approve an Agreement between Collier County
and Dr. Marta U. Coburn, M.D., Florida District Twenty Medical
Examiner dba District Twenty Medical Examiner, Inc. to provide
medical examiner services for Fiscal Year 2012 with a fiscal impact
of $1,063,200.
3) Recommendation to provide after - the -fact approval for the Assistance
to Firefighters Grant application that was submitted to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency for the purchase of two Carbon
Monoxide Detectors for Emergency Medical Services in the amount
of $9,800.
4) Recommendation to provide after - the -fact approval for the Assistance
to Firefighters Grant application that was submitted to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency for the purchase of three
replacement ambulances for Emergency Medical Services in the
amount of $560,514.
5) Recommendation to approve the Fiscal Year 2012 Strategic Plan for
the Naples Marco Island, Everglades Convention & Visitors Bureau
(CVB).
6) Recommendation to approve the after - the -fact submittal of a Federal
Emergency Management Agency Assistance to Firefighter's Grant in
the amount of $200,928 for the purchase of new self - contained
breathing apparatus and portable radios for the Ochopee Fire Control
District.
7) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign FY
12 Tourism Agreements for Category B Grant Agreements totaling
$65,000; Category C -2 Grant Agreements totaling $240,000; and a
Tourism Department printing project totaling $24,000 and waive grant
application multiple year funding guidelines where appropriate.
8) Recommendation to approve the carry forward of Tourist Tax
Emergency Advertising Funds up to $373,500 for continuing
Page 15
September 27, 2011
promotion of the group meeting market in FY 12 and authorize all
necessary budget amendments.
9) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
to the Fiscal Year 2010 -11 Adopted Budget.
10) Recommendation to authorize budget amendments appropriating
approximately $277,556,493.57 of unspent FY 2011 grant and project
budgets into Fiscal Year 2012.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners review
and approve the proposed FY 2011 -2012 Action Plan for Chris Curry,
Executive Director, Airport Authority.
2) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Airport Authority
Executive Director to enter into an Agreement with the Seminole
Casino at Immokalee to create a cooperative partnership aimed to
enhance general aviation and promote the casino through joint
attendance at air shows throughout the State of Florida.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Proclamation designating October 8, 2011 as James Garvin Day. To
be presented at an event for Mr. Garvin on October 8, 2011.
Sponsored by Commissioner Coletta.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of August
27, 2011 through September 2, 2011 and for submission into the
official records of the Board.
Page 16
September 27, 2011
2) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
September 3, 2011 through September 9, 2011 and for submission
into the official records of the Board.
3) Recommendation to approve a Resolution changing the boundaries
and numeric designations of certain precincts.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution approving the County
Attorney's Office 2012 Fiscal Year Pay and Classification Plan,
which is identical to the current approved plan.
2) Recommendation to Approve a Mediated Settlement Agreement and a
Stipulated Final Judgment to be drafted incorporating the same terms
and conditions as the Mediated Settlement Agreement in the amount
of $30,000 plus $12,000 in costs and attorney fees, for the acquisition
of Parcels 108FEE and 108TCE in the Lawsuit styled Collier County,
Florida v. Lamartine Petit Monsieur, et al., Case No. 10- 2681 -CA
(Collier Blvd. Project No. 68056). (Fiscal Impact: $37,600)
3) Recommendation to Approve a Mediated Settlement Agreement and a
Stipulated Final Judgment to be drafted incorporating the same terms
and conditions as the Mediated Settlement Agreement in the amount
of $60,000 for the acquisition of Parcels 157FEE and 157TCE in the
Lawsuit styled Collier County, Florida v. Katheryn Moreno, et al.,
Case No. 10- 2741 -CA (Collier Blvd. Project No. 68056). (Fiscal
Impact: $49,700)
4) Request for authorization to advertise and bring back for future
consideration an amendment to Ordinance No. 04 -12, as amended,
relating to ambulance and advanced life support services, for the
purpose of clarifying /updating certain provisions and adding a new
classification of Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity
(COPCN) that allows non - transport Advanced Life Support services.
5) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners review
and approve the proposed FY 2011 - 2012 Action Plan for Jeffrey A.
Page 17
September 27, 2011
Klatzkow, County Attorney.
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS WHICH ARE QUASI -
JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
A. DOA- PL2011 -0354: Ronto Livingston DRI (aka Tuscany Reserve) -- A
Resolution amending Development Order 2000 -01, Ronto Livingston DRI, a
Development of Regional Impact, providing for Section One: Addition of
Expiration Date and Extension of Buildout Date; renaming DRI to Tuscany
Reserve DRI, and changing the report to biennially; Section Two: Findings
of Fact; Section Three: Conclusions of Law; Section Four: Effect of
Previously Issued Development Order, Transmittal to DCA; and Providing
an Effective Date. The property is located in Sections 7 and 12, Township
48 South, Ranges 25 and 26 East, in Collier County, Florida.
B. This item is being continued from the September 27, 2011 BCC meeting
to the October 11, 2011 BCC meeting. Recommendation to Approve
Growth Management Plan Amendment Petition CP- 2006 -11, David Torres,
for Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC (Adoption Hearing).
C. This item has been continued from the September 13, 2011 BCC
meeting to the September 27, 2011 BCC meeting, then to the October
11, 2011 BCC meeting. DRI- 2006 -AR- 10147: Hacienda Lakes DRI, A
Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida approving a Development Order for Hacienda Lakes, a Development
of Regional Impact located in Sections 11 through 14 and 23 through 25,
Township 50 South, Range 26 East, and Sections 19 and 30, Township 50
Page 18
September 27, 2011
South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida which will allow up to 1,760
residential dwelling units including conversions to recreational vehicle park
and senior housing for independent living, assisted living and nursing care,
327,500 square feet of retail use, 70,000 square feet of professional and
medical office including a conversion of retail use to professional and
medical office, a 135 -room hotel including a conversion to business park,
140,000 square feet of business park or educational facility, a public school,
and continuation of existing "Junior Deputy" passive recreation and existing
"swamp buggy" attraction; providing for Findings of Fact; providing for
Conclusions of Law; and providing an effective date. (Companion to
Petitions PUDZ-2006-AR- 10 146 and CP- 2006 -11) [Coordinator: Kay
Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner]
D. This item is being continued to the October 11, 2011 BCC
meeting. PUDZ- 2006 -AR- 10146: Hacienda Lakes MPUD -- An Ordinance
of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending
Ordinance Number 2004 -41, as amended, the Collier County Land
Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations
for Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or
maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real
property from the Agricultural (A), Agricultural - Special Treatment Overlay
(A -ST) and PUD zoning district (Swamp Buggy Days PUD) to the Mixed
Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district for a project known
as the Hacienda Lakes MPUD that will allow a maximum of 327,500 square
feet of gross retail commercial floor area; 70,000 gross square feet of
professional and medical office space including a conversion of retail use to
professional and medical office; 135 hotel rooms including a conversion to
business park; 140,000 gross square feet of business park or education
facility; a public school; continuation of existing "swamp buggy" attraction
and "Junior Deputy" passive recreation; and a maximum of 1,760 residential
dwelling units including conversions to recreational vehicle park and senior
housing for independent living, assisted living and nursing care. The subject
property, consisting of 2,262 +/- acres is located on the east side of Collier
Boulevard (C.R. 95 1) at the intersection of Collier Boulevard and
Rattlesnake - Hammock Road and north and south of Sabal Palm Road in
Sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 23, 24 and 25, Township 50 South, Range 26 East,
and Sections 19 and 30, Township 50 South, Range 27 East, Collier County,
Florida; providing for repeal of Ordinance Number 84 -26, for swamp buggy
Page 19
September 27, 2011
grounds; and by providing an effective date. (Companion to Petitions DRI-
2006-AR- 10 147 and CP- 2006 -11)
E. Recommendation to (1) adopt four ordinances which repeal or amend certain
Collier County ordinances relating to the regulation of firearms and
ammunition in order to comply with recent amendments to Section 790.33,
Florida Statutes, which preempts all such regulatory powers to the State of
Florida effective October 1, 2011, and (2) direct staff to refer two Special
Acts dealing with firearms to the Legislative Delegation, with a request that
the Legislature review them for possible repeal.
F. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating carry forward, transfers and supplement revenue) to the Fiscal
Year 2011 -12 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 20
September 27, 2011
September 27, 2011
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, the Board of
County Commission Meeting is now in session. Will you please stand
for the invocation by Pastor Sammy Mosquera of the United
Pentecostal Church.
PASTOR MOSQUERA: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning.
Item #1
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
PASTOR MOSQUERA: Almighty God, ruler of the universe,
you are the giver of all good things. By your power we move, we
have our being. We are gathered here today to serve you and to
conduct the affairs of Collier County. Give us knowledge and the
strength to do your will, with a proper balance of eternal values and
our present needs, that we might accept our responsibilities to act with
courage, considering the feelings of other people. Grant us a sense of
justice and of stewardship, both now and forever.
We might ask this through Christ Jesus, our Lord: Our Father
who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy
will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily
bread, and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass
against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory for now and
forever, Amen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Please remain standing for the Pledge of
Allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, County Manager, I presume you
have some changes to the agenda for us today?
Page 2
September 27, 2011
Item #2A
TODAY'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA AS
AMENDED — APPROVED AND /OR ADOPTED W /CHANGES
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, just a few. Good morning, Commissioners.
These are the agenda changes for the Board of County
Commissioner's Meeting of September 27th, 2011.
First change is related to Item 9B. It's a vacancy for District 2
Planning Commissioner, is requested to be re- advertised and
continued to a subsequent BCC Board Meeting. That request is made
by Commissioner Hiller.
Next change is to add Item 9D. It would be a recommendation to
appoint two commissioners as regular members, three commissioners
as alternate members to the Value Adjustment Board.
Commissioners, per Ordinance No. 2011 -17, a majority vote of
the Board is required to add this document to the agenda, since it was
submitted following the publication of the printed agenda. And this
item is requested by the Executive Manager of the Board Office.
Commissioner, I don't know if you want to take these as we go.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We should, if there's going to be a vote
concerning them.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've actually got two items that
require a vote, I would presume.
MR. OCHS: No, I think we -- we have at least four on this
change sheet.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. But you've only gone over two of
them so far.
MR. OCHS: Yes. Take them in order.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay We need to take them in order.
Page 3
September 27, 2011
Why don't we start with Item 9B.
MR. OCHS: 9B is not an add -on sir, I don't think you need to
vote on that. But Item 9D you would, to add it onto your agenda,
since you're actually adding material to the agenda.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve to add it onto
the agenda.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, motion to approve by
Commissioner Henning, seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it passes 4 -1, with Commissioner
Hiller dissenting.
MR. OCHS: Okay, next change is Item 10A, and that would be
to add Commissioner Hiller's evaluation of County Manager to this
agenda item.
Again, per Ordinance No. 2011 -17, a majority vote of the board
is required to add this item to the agenda, since it was submitted
following the publication of the printed agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know if we have a -- an
option here, because evaluation is supposed to be by the Board. The
Board is -- can't change the membership of the Board. So I make a
motion that we add it to the agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. But at least it should be
submitted on time, shouldn't it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That is something for discussion
September 27, 2011
under the item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, just as a matter of law, any
document produced by government is a public record. So, you know,
whether or not you decide to incorporate it as a part of the agenda, or
incorporate the document, if you will, as a part of the agenda, because
my evaluation stands, notwithstanding the document, it's a public
record. It's out there. And no one has to vote on it. And the minute
keepers will add it after this minute -- after the minutes of this meeting
as the next public record in line. And I'll submit it as such.
So quite frankly, you know, whether you vote to accept it or not
is irrelevant, because I will enter it as part of the record with the clerk.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, if you really don't want us to vote
on it, then I'll be happy to make you happy and vote against it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's not the point. The point is if
you as part of your vote decide not to accept the evaluation as a
document, I will still introduce it as part of the records, because it is a
public record, and I will give it to the clerk to enter as such.
So, in other words, however you vote, it will not block the
public's ability from viewing it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I just think that we
should, I hate to say it like this, but continue this till the next meeting.
Because it becomes a matter of public record certainly, and that's a
great idea, except none of the public has been able to see it because it
wasn't submitted until yesterday, and so it wasn't in print form so they
couldn't pull it up on their computers or anything. And it wasn't in our
printed form.
So I would suggest that if it -- I don't know if anybody likes this
or not, but maybe we should just put it off till the next meeting so
everybody can see it as a matter of public record. What do you think?
Page 5
September 27, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's okay with me. It just -- it is once
again something that delays the proceedings of this body
unnecessarily.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Ask Leo.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We were always all asked to submit this
before the agenda was finalized.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Leo, does it cause a problem for
you? Because we've got three of them here. Will it cause a problem
for you or the airport director or for the County Attorney if we
continue it til the next meeting so we have a full and complete record
for the public?
MR. OCHS: Well, I'll speak for myself, ma'am. I'd prefer not to
have to go through the evaluation process twice. I mean, if the
Board's willing to add this on, I'd just as soon include it in the
evaluation materials for today, if that meets with the Board's approval.
Again, I don't mean to complicate this, but the Board had a fairly
lengthy discussion back in May about, you know, submission of
documents before and after the printed agenda. You went so far as to
pass an ordinance. And I'm just trying to comply with my
understanding of the ordinance which says that if you add materials to
your agenda after the publication date or the print date, it requires a
majority vote of the Board to add that to the agenda. And you'll see
that on several add -ons here today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we have a motion by
Commissioner Henning to add it this morning. Is there a second?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, motion dies for lack of a second.
So the item will not be added --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Hiller now wants it
approved. So we have a motion by Commissioner Henning, seconded
by Commissioner Hiller.
am
September 27, 2011
All in favor, please --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Wait, what is the motion again,
please?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion is to include Commissioner
Hiller's evaluation of the County Manager and I presume the County
Attorney and the Airport --
MR. OCHS: The Airport Authority Director --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Although that isn't specified in this item.
MR. OCHS: Those are coming up on the change sheets, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And Leo, you would prefer this to
be on the agenda today for us to vote on; is that --
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- what you said? All right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all in favor, please signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
MR. OCHS: Okay, moving right along. Next item on your
change sheet is to continue item IOD to the October 11, 2011 Board of
County Commissioners meeting. This is a recommendation to
approve a zero dollar extension change order. This item is being
continued at the County Attorney's request, with staff concurrence.
Next item is to move item IOL to 16A16 on your consent agenda.
It's a recommendation to approve the ribbon - cutting ceremony for the
new transit route between Collier County and Lee County to be
known as the LinC, and to authorize the Chairman to sign all
Page 7
September 27, 2011
applicable agreements associated with the use of private property for
the event scheduled for October 6th, 2011. That change is made at
Commissioner Henning's request.
Next change is to add Item 11 A. It's to add Commissioner
Hiller's evaluation of the County Attorney to this agenda item. Per
Ordinance No. 2011 -17, a majority vote of the Board is required to
add this document to the agenda since it was submitted following the
publication of the printed agenda.
So a motion would be in order, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning makes a motion
to add Commissioner Hiller's evaluation of the County Attorney to
this agenda item.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I'll second it. But Leo, is there
a way that the public will actually get to see these things? Because it
wasn't published in our agenda packet. I would hate to see these
things go by the wayside.
MR. OCHS: Well, ma'am, they'll become part of the record of
the Board proceeding and the minutes, so you can access through that
through the Clerk's Website.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, there's a second, Commissioner
Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
September 27, 2011
It passes unanimously.
MR. OCHS: Thank you. Next change is Item 13A1, it's to add
Commissioner Hiller's evaluation of the Airport Authority Executive
Director to this agenda item. Same reference to the ordinance applies.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning makes a motion
to approve the addition of this item to our agenda.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
MR. OCHS: Next change is to withdraw Item 16A10 at staff
request. Recommendation to approve a request for reimbursement.
Staff needs more time to review some of the backup materials.
Next change is to move Item 16A5 from your consent agenda to
your regular agenda, becoming Item l OM. It's a recommendation to
direct County Manager to amend various sections of the Land
Development Code and the right -of -way ordinance. That's moved at
Commissioner Hiller's request.
Next change is to move Item 16B 1 to the regular agenda under
your CRA, becoming Item 13B 1. It's a recommendation that Collier
County Community Redevelopment Agency approves and executes an
amendment to the employment agreement for the Bayshore /Gateway
Triangle CRA executive director. That item is moved at
Commissioner Hiller's request.
Next change is to move Item 16D9 from your consent agenda to
become Item ION on your regular agenda. It's a recommendation to
September 27, 2011
approve a budget amendment recognizing revenue generated as
program income from property acquired through the Neighborhood
Stabilization Program. That item is moved at Commissioner Hiller's
request.
Next change is to continue Item 16E2 to the October 11, 2011
Board of County Commissioners meeting. Recommendation to
approve a revenue commitment contract with the Naples News Media
Group. That's moved at staff s request to clarify language in the
recommendation section of the summary.
Next change is move -- continue Item 16F5 to October 11, 2011
BCC Meeting. Recommendation to approve the fiscal year 2012
strategic plan for the Naples /Marco Island/ Everglades Convention
and Visitor's Bureau. That move is at staff s request.
Next change is to add Item 16H2. It's a proclamation recognizing
the heroic actions of Chokoloskee resident Dwain Daniels. This item
is being added to the agenda and sponsored by Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, motion to approve the agenda --
wait a minute.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's an add -on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's an add -on.
Motion to approve the add -on item by Commissioner Henning,
seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.,
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
MR. OCHS: You have one time certain --
Page 10
September 27, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimous.
MR. OCHS: I'm sorry, sir.
You have one time certain on your agenda this morning,
Commissioners. It's Item 10I. It will be heard at 11:00 a.m. That's
the item related to permit requirements for hot water heater
replacements.
And you have four agenda notes. Items 8B and 7A (sic) requires
that ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's 17A rather than 7A.
MR. OCHS: Excuse me, sir, 17A.
Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are
required to be sworn in.
Item 16133, the fiscal impact should read: of the $400,000 in the
2011 Budget, $384,965.94 has been awarded by the CRA Board and
the 15,034.06 remains. This change was made at Commissioner
Fiala's request. Thank you, ma'am.
Item 16C3, the work order made part of the agenda backup is
dated September 2nd, 2011. County Attorney's Office has requested
that this date be changed to the BCC approval date, today, September
27th5 if this item is approved by the Board.
Then finally, Item 16G2. The date referenced for the event is
incorrect. The first event for the 38th annual Sun -N -Fun fly -in - -fly
event in Lakeland, Florida, scheduled March 27th thru April 1, 2012.
Those are all the changes I have, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you very much.
County Attorney, do you have any changes?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we'll start with ex parte disclosure
and any other changes for commissioners and we'll start by
Commissioner Henning today.
Page 11
September 27, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No further changes.
Ex -parte communication on 17A. I received the Planning
Commission's staff report. That's it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, on the consent agenda,
16A19 I had meetings. 16A2, no disclosures. 16A3, no disclosures for
that item. And 16A13, had meetings and e- mails. And of course on all
these items, I discussed it with staff.
Oh, and summary agenda 17A, I reviewed the staff report on that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That concludes that and I have
no changes to the agenda, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
And with reference to Items 16A3, I have had meetings
concerning that item. And 16A 13 I have no disclosure.
And for the summary agenda I have 17A disclosure for the Ronto
Livingston DRI, a /k/a Tuscany Reserve. I reviewed the staff report.
I have no further changes to suggest for the agenda.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you.
On Item No. 16A1, Reflection Lakes, I've had correspondence
and e- mails.
Item 16A2, Verona Walk, I've had correspondence and e- mails.
And on 16A3, again, I've had correspondence and e- mails. That's
having to do with the Del Webb in Ave Maria.
On 16A 13, again, correspondence and e- mails. That's another
Reflection Lakes.
And finally, 17A, which is Tuscany Reserve, Ronto Livingston,
I've had correspondence and e- mails, I've met with staff on these
things, and the correspondence and e -mails are in here, along with
Item No. 8A and 8B. They're here on file in case anybody would like
to see them.
Page 12
September 27, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: With respect to disclosures, 17A,
the staff report, and otherwise no disclosures with respect to the
summary and consent agenda. No changes to the agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
Is there a motion to approve the agenda as --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- amended?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, motion by Commissioner Coletta,
seconded by Commissioner Fiala to approve the agenda as amended.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it passes 4 -1 with Commissioner
Henning dissenting.
Page 13
Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
September 27, 2011
Item 9B: Vacancy for District 2 Planning Commissioner to be re- advertised and continued to a
subsequent BCC Board Meeting. (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Add Item 9D: Recommendation to appoint 2 Commissioners as regular members, 3 Commissioners
as alternate members to the Value Adjustment Board. Per Ordinance Number 2011 -17 a majority
vote of the Board is required to add this document to the agenda since it was submitted following the
publication of the printed agenda. (Requested by the Executive Manager of the BCC)
Item 10A: Add Commissioner Hiller's evaluation of the County Manager to this agenda item. Per
Ordinance Number 2011 -17 a majority vote of the Board is required to add this document to the
agenda since it was submitted following the publication of the printed agenda.
Continue Item 10D to the October 11, 2011 BCC Meeting: Recommendation to approve and
ratify staffs unauthorized Zero Dollar Time Extension Change Order for Professional Engineering
Services with Atkins North America, Inc. (previously known as PBS &J) to Work Order No. 4500100227
in order to process final invoice for work completed for "Clam Pass /Bay Estuary," ratify staffs
unauthorized action of request for services, and then make a finding of quantum meruit based on the
value of the benefit received. (County Attorney's request)
Move Item 10L to 16A16: Recommendation to approve the Ribbon Cutting Ceremony for the
new Transit Route between Collier County and Lee County to be known as the "LinC" and to authorize
the Chairman to sign all applicable agreements associated with use of private property for the event
scheduled for October 6, 2011. (Commissioner Henning's request)
Item 11A: Add Commissioner Hiller's evaluation of the County Attorney to this agenda item. Per
Ordinance Number 2011 -17 a majority vote of the Board is required to add this document to the
agenda since it was submitted following the publication of the printed agenda.
Item 13A1: Add Commissioner Hiller's evaluation of the Airport Authority Executive Director to
this agenda item. Per Ordinance Number 2011 -17 a majority vote of the Board is required to add this
document to the agenda since it was submitted following the publication of the printed agenda.
Withdraw Item 16A10: Recommendation to approve Request for Reimbursement as an exception to
the County Manager Agency Organization Code ( "CMA ") # 5346, Reimbursement of Relocation
Expenses in the amount of $8,666.67, for Anthony Ithawaja, Engineer of Traffic Operations for the
Growth Management Division. (Staffs request. Need for additional review of back -up materials)
Move Item 16A15 to Item 10M: Recommendation to direct the County Manager or his designee to
amend the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) and Right -of -Way Ordinance in regards to
storage containers, Planned Unit Development (PUD) Annual Monitoring Reports, specific standards
for the location of accessory buildings and structure provisions to include Personal Storage
Containers (PODS), number of dogs allowed in residential districts, and exceptions to a Right -of -Way
(ROW) permit meeting specific criteria. (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Move Item 16131 to Item 13131: Recommendation that the Collier County Community Redevelopment
Agency (CRA) approves and executes an amendment to the employment agreement between the CRA
and David L. Jackson, the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Executive Director, extending the term of
employment four years and modifying severance terms, and authorize the CRA Chairman to sign.
(Commissioner Hiller's request)
Move Item 16D9 to Item 10N: Recommendation to approve a budget amendment recognizing
$284,110.45 in revenue generated as program income when conveying property acquired through the
Neighborhood Stabilization Program. (Fiscal impact $284,110.45) (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Continue Item 16E2 to the October 11, 2011 BCC Meeting: Recommendation to approve a Revenue
Commitment Contract with Naples News Media Group to receive discounted pricing on advertising.
(Staffs request to clarify the language in the recommendation section of the executive summary.)
Continue Item 16F5 to the October 11, 2011 BCC Meeting: Recommendation to approve the Fiscal
Year 2012 Strategic Plan for the Naples Marco Island, Everglades Convention & Visitors Bureau (CVB).
(Staffs request)
Add Item 16H2: Proclamation recognizing the heroic actions of Chokoloskee resident Dwain Daniels
when he rescued ninety-year old Margaret Webb who was being attacked by an alligator. The
Proclamation designates September 24, 2011 as "Dwain Daniels Day'. Per Ordinance Number 2011-
17 a majority vote of the Board is required to add this document to the agenda since it was submitted
following the publication of the printed agenda. Sponsored by Commissioner Henning.
Time Certain Items:
Item 10I to be heard at 11:00 a.m.
Note:
Items 8B and 17A requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a
hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in.
Item 16133 fiscal impact should read: Of the $400,00.00 $400,000.00 in the FY -2011 budget,
$384,965.94 has been awarded by the CRA Board and $15,034.06 remains. (Commissioner Fiala's
request)
Item 16C3: The work order made part of the agenda back -up is dated September 2, 2011. The County
Attorney's Office has requested that this date be changed to the BCC approval date, September 27,
2011, if this item is approved by the Board.
Item 16G2: The date referenced for the event is incorrect. The first event for the 38th Annual Sun -n-
Fly Event in Lakeland Florida is scheduled for March 27 through April 1, 2012.
9/27/20118:37 AM
September 27, 2011
Item #2B
MINUTES FROM THE SEPTEMBER 8, 2011 — BCC /BUDGET
HEARING — APPROVED AS PRESENTED
I will entertain a motion to approve the BCC Budget Hearing
Minutes of September 8th, 2011.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, motion to approve by
Commissioner Fiala, seconded by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
That brings us to service awards, County Manager.
Item #3A1
SERVICE AWARD — 20 YEAR ATTENDEE CARL GIBSON,
POLLUTION CONTROL — PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Will you join us in front of the dais this morning?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, if that's what you'd like us to do.
MR. OCHS: Yes, please.
Commissioners, we're recommending -- we're recognizing this
morning one employee with 20 years of service to the county. It's
Page 14
September 27, 2011
Carl Gibson from pollution control.
(Applause.)
Item #3A2
SERVICE AWARD — 25 YEAR ATTENDEE JACINTO
CERVANTES. PARKS AND RECREATION — PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Also this morning, Commissioners, celebrating 25
years of service to Collier County Government, Jacinto Cervantes
from Parks and Recreation.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: That concludes our service awards this morning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We can return to our seats now?
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION CONGRATULATING THE MARCO BEACH
OCEAN RESORT FOR ITS CONTINUED CONTRIBUTIONS AND
EFFORTS IN RECYCLING AND ITS "GOING GREEN" MISSION.
ACCEPTED BY DAN RODRIGUEZ, DIRECTOR, SOLID WASTE
MGT. STAFF AND JEFFREY BULLOCK, HOTEL MANAGER &
BRANKA GUBERINA, OPERATIONS MANAGER OF MARCO
BEACH OCEAN RESORT — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Single file, please.
Commissioners, that takes us to Item 4 on your agenda this
morning. You have one proclamation. Item 4A is a proclamation
congratulating Marco Beach Ocean Resort for continued contributions
and efforts in recycling and its' Going Green mission. To be accepted
by Dan Rodriguez, Director. Also, Solid Waste Management
Department staff and Jeffrey Bullock, Hotel Manager, and Branka
Page 15
September 27, 2011
Guberina, Operations Manager of Marco Beach Ocean Resort.
This item is sponsored by Commissioner Fiala.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would you like to say something?
MR. BULLOCK: I'd just like to thank the county, the Solid
Waste Management group, and Janet and her team for assisting us
with this great honor and recognition. And let everybody know the
Marco Beach Ocean Resort is continually committed to preservation,
conservation, recycling efforts to continue this mission of ours, so we
just appreciate everyone's assistance through this process. Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, if I could have a motion on the
proclamation?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning makes a motion
to approve the proclamations, seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #5A
RECOMMENDATION TO RECOGNIZE YANEISY CAMPS,
ADMINISTRATIVE CAPTAIN, EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES, EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR AUGUST 2011 —
PRESENTED
Page 16
September 27, 2011
MR. OCHS: Commissioners Item 5A is a presentation. It's a
recommendation to recognize Yaneisy Camps, Administrative
Captain, Emergency Medical Services, as the employee of the month
for August, 2011. Please come forward, Yaneisy.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, I'm going to read this and embarrass
Yaneisy as she gets her picture taken.
Yaneisy's been an employee of our EMS Department for over ten
years. As a member of the EMS training staff, she assists in
development and implementing training programs for the department.
In addition to her training duties, she's also volunteered to be a
part of a pilot program in conjunction with a local clinic. This
program provides weekly in -home checks for disadvantaged persons
who require advanced medical monitoring but are unable to get to
their appointments.
Yaneisy also serves as the EMS department's critical incident
stress debriefing officer and as such has to maintain a calm demeanor
while aiding staff in the aftermath of a tragedy. She still makes herself
available to meet with personnel after hours, on weekends and
holidays to help them cope with the emotional aspects of this difficult
challenge.
She is truly a valuable asset to our EMS department and our
county government and very deserving of this award. Commissioners,
it's my pleasure and honor to recommend Yaneisy Camps as your
Employee of the Month for August, 2011. Congratulations.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Maybe she could be assigned to provide
counseling to the Board of County Commissioners after our meetings.
MR. OCHS: She would -- yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It wouldn't do any good, right? That's
what you were going to say.
Page 17
September 27, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Make sure you bring a shotgun.
Item #9A
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ITEM #16A17 FROM
THE SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 BCC MEETING, TITLED
"RECOMMENDATION FOR BOARD APPROVAL OF HOLE
MONTES, INC., AS THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL SHORT -LIST
FOR RFP #11-5724 AND ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS
BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND HOLE MONTES INC. FOR
"CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER, LANDSCAPE INSPECTION AND
SITE RESTORATION SERVICES FOR THE VANDERBILT
BEACH MSTU FPL UNDERGROUND CONVERSION PROJECT
PHASE 1, 25 3" PURSUANT TO RFP #11-5724 — MOTION TO
RECONSIDER — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 9 on your
agenda this morning, Board of County Commissioners. 9A is a
request for reconsideration of Item 16A17 from the September 13,
2011 BCC Meeting. That item was titled the recommendation for
Board approval of Hole - Montes, Incorporated as the design
professional short list for RFP No. 11 -5724, and to enter into
negotiations between Collier County and Hole - Montes, Incorporated
for construction engineer, landscape inspection and site restoration
services for the Vanderbilt Beach MSTU related to the FPL
underground conversion project, Phase I, II and III pursuant to RFP
No. 11 -5724. This item was brought forward by Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
The reason I brought this item forward was actually I had hoped
it was going to be on the general agenda the last time, and somehow it
failed to be pulled. So it really isn't a request for reconsideration, but
we might consider it as such, you know, depending on what the
01-IM
September 27, 2011
outcome of the discussion is.
My concern with this item relates to the fact that we have
asbestos in our water pipes. And I spoke to Michelle about that and
she said she would discuss it with utilities and have utilities address
what's going on.
I want to know --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's -- I'll make a motion to
reconsider it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, great, thank you. Thank you.
Then I'm glad you see the importance of addressing this. Because I do
think it's a public health/safety issue that we need full vetting on.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the ordinance states that
any commissioner can reconsider any item on the agenda. There shall
be no discussion, there'll just be a vote. So I make that motion --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- out of respect to my
colleagues.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, motion by Commissioner
Henning for reconsideration. Seconded by --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second it. And Michelle, I
notice that you said that you hired a special asbestos person in this to
oversee all aspects of the asbestos removal. But possibly the public is
not aware of that, so I'll second this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Which we'll -- okay, we have a motion
and a second. All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
Page 19
September 27, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. It will go on the
next agenda, right, County Manager?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, we'll schedule for the next agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2011 -179: RE- APPOINTING MELISSA AHERN &
BARRY M. KLEIN AND APPOINTING PHILLIP E. BROUGHAM
AND TO RE- ADVERTISE THE DISTRICT 2 SEAT — ADOPTED
Next item is Item 9B. It's appointment of members to the Collier
County Planning Commission, the exception of the appointment for
District 2, which the Board will re- advertise as you discussed during
your change sheet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we have a motion to approve the
re- advertising for one position on the Collier County Planning
Commission.
And the public might be interested in understanding that issue.
The Planning Commission is set up so that each commissioner can
nominate someone from their district. And the rules require that the
commissioner from the district nominate the person to be considered.
So Commissioner Hiller wants to provide an opportunity to get
more applicants for that position, so we are going to honor that
request.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think the motion was to
approve a remaining member, Melissa Ahern, District 4 Planning
Commission member, Barry Klein, District 3 Planning Commissioner,
and Phil Brougham for District 1 Planning Commission member.
�.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
the --
September 27, 2011
And we already did that through
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Agenda.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- agenda item. We are re-
advertising the District 2 Seat. When we approved the agenda, as part
of the agenda changes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I got it, you're right.
So you're approving -- your motion is to approve all those people
who are listed, with the exception of the District 2 applicant --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- is that correct?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. All in favor --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: County Attorney, did we satisfy
our ordinance as far as nominating goes?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I presume by implication that the
commissioners of Districts 1, 3 and 4 find the appointments or re-
appointments acceptable.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In other -- if they waited to vote
against this, at that point in time it throws everything in disarray. I'm
just trying to make sure that we don't have somebody come back later
and question the validity of what we did. Because you're supposed to
nominate the person. I don't know how that nomination is. In other
words, if they vote for it, that satisfies it totally?
MR. KLATZKOW: That would satisfy it, yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, that's fine, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 21
September 27, 2011
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: There's my nominee sitting right
there, watching. Phil Brougham.
amlfflZf
DIRECT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO OBTAIN ALL
FINANCIAL RECORDS FROM COLLIER COUNTY' S
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL — COUNTY
ATTORNEY TO REQUEST ALL RECORDS FROM EDC
AND THE CLERK TO AUDIT THE RECORDS — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item 9C is to direct the County
Attorney to obtain all financial records for the Collier County
Economic Development Council. This item was brought forward by
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
The -- from my understanding, the EDC will officially dissolve
September 31 st.
Now, there should be some hard assets. There may be some soft
assets. And I think it's worthy under the contract that we have, their
agreement with the EDC, that the county obtain all the financial
records and have staff to go over those and see if there's any items or
monies owed to the county -- or due to the county. So I'll make that
motion.
Page 22
September 27, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, I have a question. Is this
supposed to replace or overlap the audits that are being performed by
the Clerk?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know what the Clerk is --
the Clerk is doing. I'm just going by the agreement that the Board has
with the EDC. I don't know if the Clerk has any agreement or obtains
the records.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, he says he does. But I don't know
if they're going as far as your intent.
What I'm really trying to decide is whether or not I should make
a friendly suggestion to the amendment to outline objectives so we can
determine if the Clerk is better qualified to do that than our staff.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What was your conversation
with the Clerk?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I had no conversation with the Clerk.
But he did state in a news article that he always receives these
documents and he audits them. And I just wouldn't want to duplicate
an effort here. That's the only thing I'm concerned about.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think Crystal can correct what
you read in a news article.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. What, the news article was not
correct?
MS. KINZEL: For the record, Crystal Kinzel. And I apologize, I
didn't remember the news article so it's not to correct that. But we
have received the audited financial statements from the EDC for the
years 2009 and 2010, but we are not in an active audit of the EDC at
this time. I just wanted to make that clear on the record.
It was part of their agreement that they provide their annual
financial information, but it would not be a detailed of records that we
have requested or received at this time. So there may be some
clarification. If Commissioner Henning is looking for more detailed
records of their actual expenditures, that's not something that we
Page 23
September 27, 2011
routinely receive.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. But the Clerk's Office has asked
us to make recommendations concerning audits for the upcoming
year.
MS. KINZEL: And that would be correct. Certainly if you
would ask us to do that, I would take it back to the Clerk and let him
know.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All I'm trying to do is prevent
duplication of effort here. You know, if you're going to do it, that's
fine. If you're not going to do it, we can try to do it. I don't know that
we're all that equipped to conduct those kinds of audits, but
nevertheless, that's all I'm concerned about. I'm not trying to keep the
records from being transferred at all. We should get the records.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't I amend my motion
for the County Attorney to obtain all the records, have staff review it,
along with the County Auditor. And that would cover it all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sounds okay with me. All right. Okay.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I thought we recognized
the Clerk as the auditor of the Commission. And it just seems only
normal and natural that he would take on this function if he sees it's
necessary. And I would like to leave it up to his discretion. He
doesn't need our permission to do the audit, he can do it as a request,
I'm sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's all wrong.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, he needs our permission?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The agreement is between the
EDC and the Board of Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct. But there's
$400,000 that we pay every year, and that brings the Clerk into play
on this. We're looking to recover a resource that may or may not be
out there. It seems to me it would be the Clerk of Courts that would
Page 24
September 27, 2011
be the one to do this audit.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He is the auditor for the Board of County
Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know if anybody read the
backup material. We have --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do you think some Commissioner
might not have read the backup material? Commissioner Henning, oh
my goodness.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just because of the discussion it
appears that, you know, there's an agreement between the Board. So
we have to request it. If you look at Article 16 -- or Article 6 of the
agreement, it clearly states how this is done. That's why I had this item
put on the agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning, nobody
is questioning the request for the records. My question was only to the
issue of who was going to conduct the audit, the Clerk or our staff.
And since the Clerk is the auditor for the Board of County
Commissioners, I think it more properly falls into his responsibility.
We can request the records; there is absolutely no problem concerning
that. And he in fact can request the records, because they have
received government funds. He doesn't need a contract with us.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you think my motion covers
all that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think your revised motion covers it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It does.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Your revised motion covers it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So Commissioner Hiller, do you have
anything more?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I just want to clarify. The
Clerk, as Commissioner Coletta said, doesn't need Board authorization
to audit anything related to County Government. And he can request
Page 25
September 27, 2011
documents independently; he can request the documents we have.
Independent of what the Clerk decides to do, we as a Board have
a duty to look at these documents ourselves, as Commissioner
Henning pointed out, pursuant to that contract. And we should review
it because we may have issues which may not necessarily be audit
type issues with respect to those expenditures that we want to address
or are concerned about.
So having a motion here whether or not the Clerk decides to audit
this or make his own request, is a completely separate matter. So I
support what Commissioner Henning is asking for.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all in favor of the motion, please
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do we have any speakers on
that?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have a public speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: On this item?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir.
Duane Billington.
MR. BILLINGTON: Waive.
MR. MITCHELL: He's waived.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then we are going on to the next item.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I make one comment with
respect to that before we move on? Because -- may I, Commissioner
Coyle?
Page 26
September 27, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
Because we are -- because they're closing their doors as quickly
as they are, my understanding, from having read some of the
agreements, is that they had also acquired some assets with county
funds in the past and we need to secure those assets, if there are any
still in existence. If they haven't, you know -- I don't know, if they
haven't -- if they're not obsolete or whatever the case may be, or if
they haven't wasted back into the county's custody.
And that is something that probably the Clerk and the County
Attorney might do together, you know, to secure whatever assets
belong to the county. Because they're closing on Friday, right?
MR. KLATZKOW: We'll start on this tomorrow. We can't do it
today.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, understood. But is that -- do
we need a motion on that or --
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- is that something done
automatically --
MR. KLATZKOW: By direction.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- to secure those assets?
Great. Thanks a lot.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Okay.
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2011 -180: APPOINTING COMMISSIONER
COLETTA AND COMMISSIONER HENNING, WITH THE
REMAINING COMMISSIONERS SERVING AS ALTERNATES,
TO THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item 9D is your add -on item. It's a
Page 27
September 27, 2011
recommendation to appoint two commissioners as regular members,
three commissioners as alternate members to the Value Adjustment
Board. This item was brought forth by the executive manager of the
BCC, Mr. Mitchell.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, for the VAB Board, currently the two
delegates are Commissioner Henning and Commissioner Coletta. But
as we go into the new year, we do need to again choose two delegates
to this board, and then the other three commissioners would be listed
as alternates.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, I would nominate Commissioner
Henning and Commissioner Coletta to continue as the primary and
appoint the remaining three commissioners as alternates.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I had my light on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can we do that?
Yeah, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I want to make a motion to
nominate Commissioner Hiller and Commissioner Coyle, since they
have not served on the VAB, and it's an experience that everybody
should enjoy.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that's not true, I've served on it for
several years, but that's okay.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't mind accepting this, but can
I do that after my term on the TDC expires? Because I have the TDC
that I have to Chair also.
Will this coincide with the expiration of my term on the TDC?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Not necessarily.
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know when they first meet, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So, I mean, like I said, I have no
problem doing it, you know, once the TDC term expires. So if
someone wants to be there temporarily til' then, I'd be more than
olml
September 27, 2011
willing to take that over.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, really, as regards to this list,
it's almost like a drop -down list. So if, you know, the delegates are
not available for a particular item -- there's only three meetings a year,
but if the delegates don't happen to be available, this gives me the
ability to ask of the commissioners to, you know, sit in on the Board.
And that's what we've been doing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And actually, I've been the one
who has been doing that. I did the last one where two commissioners
could not attend. And there's another one coming up and I've
volunteered to do that too. And I'm willing to help as much as I can.
But as a permanent position, you know, if I could wait, that
would be great.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Once again, I nominate
Commissioner Henning and Commissioner Coletta as the primaries,
with the rest of us being secondary. If they can't make it, then we'll
fill in. There is a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I seconded it before, but then
Commissioner Henning pointed out he had his light on all the time.
So, you know, is there an objection to my second? I mean, I
don't mind withdrawing, it's no big deal.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's immaterial, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. All right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all in favor of the motion, please
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
Page 29
September 27, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #I OA
RECOMMENDATION TO COMPLETE THE ANNUAL
PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL FOR THE COUNTY MANAGER —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 10, County
Manager's report.
First item is 10A. It's a recommendation to complete the annual
performance appraisal for the County Manager.
Commissioners, I've had an opportunity to receive each of your
individual evaluations and also the opportunity to sit with you and
discuss those individually. I certainly appreciate those areas where
you've recognized good performance over the past year, and just as
importantly appreciate the constructive criticism and the comments
related to areas that are in need of improvement. And I'm certainly
committed, along with the staff, to make sure that any of those areas
that need improvement, particularly in the areas of grant compliance
and some contract management issues, are addressed decisively and
quickly, and I think you've got some evidence that we're working on
that already.
I think overall the ratings, when we did the math, has come out at
the meets or exceeds expectations in most categories, and it's certainly
an honor and privilege to serve as your County Manager. I'm
available for any discussion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Henning was first.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just want to say, my
evaluations is -- I always do them middle of the road, unless I see
Page 30
September 27, 2011
some improvements that need to be made or items that have been
outstanding, I try to recognize those.
And I feel privileged to work with Leo Ochs. He's (sic) always
has addressed my concerns in a timely manner, and constituant
concerns. So I'm just -- I'd like to say I'm very pleased with the
leadership of the County Manager, knowing that there will be some
improvements, and we've had some discussions about that. And I look
forward to working with Leo in the upcoming year.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second all of that. Leo has been a
joy to work with this year. And I think most of the staff members feel
the same way. You're responsive to our needs and in a very timely
manner, and I so appreciate that.
I made a few suggestions, as you know. My biggest suggestion
was we need to do a better job on our public relations. I think that we
should take heed to how the Clerk handles his. He does an excellent
job. He puts out stories about all the positive things that he's doing.
We don't do that too much. In fact, we don't do that at all. And so I
think it would be better if we also told our story, and not only that, if
we fired up our public television to inform the public of things like
advances at the landfill. I bet a lot of people don't even realize we
have gas to energy anymore. And maybe they don't realize we have
reverse osmosis in our water treatment plants. There are so many
positive things we can talk about.
Maybe that doesn't sound exciting to people because we expect
that to be done, but I think we should do that. And so -- and Leo
agreed with me, and so I'm looking forward to doing whatever I can to
assist that. Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I also am very pleased with Leo,
Page 31
September 27, 2011
and I think my evaluation reflects it.
The one thing I have brought up many times in the past and I've
mentioned it on the report was my concern over business friendly as
far as records go and how to be able to reach out to our business
community as far as permits go.
I'll tell you what, after our meeting that we had regarding
business development and the plan that Leo's come forward and he's
answered all those questions and concerns, and I know we're going to
be heading in the right direction.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
And just to add on to Commissioner Fiala's remarks, the
television program -- or television station would be an -- provides an
excellent platform to publicize the technological advancements that
have been made within our library system, the Ebook capability. That
is a huge opportunity for people to access documents and books in our
libraries through things like Kindles or even Wads, if they understand
how to do it.
So those things are becoming increasingly popular. And the fact
that our county museum has already established that capability is in
my estimation remarkable. And I don't think many people even
understand that. And it would be a perfect opportunity for you to
advertise that.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's a great program. Thank you.
Okay, we need an approval of this evaluation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make a motion to approve the
evaluation and give him lots of gold stars.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Fiala.
Seconded—
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- by Commissioner Henning.
Page 32
September 27, 2011
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
How many gold stars are we going to give him?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Twelve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll go to the Dollar Store and
pick up a whole packet.
Item #1 OB
RECOMMENDATION TO REVIEW AND APPROVE THE PARKS
AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN PREPARED BY TINDALE-
OLIVER AND ASSOCIATES, INC. WITH THE ADDITION OF
CITIZEN INPUT MEETINGS HELD APRIL 6 & 7, 2011 —
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MASTER PLAN W /STAFF
CHANGES — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners. Item IOB was
continued from the September 13th, 2011 BCC meeting. It's a
recommendation to review and approve the Parks and Recreation
master plan prepared by Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Incorporated,
with the addition of citizen input meetings held April 6th and 7th,
2011. Ms. Marla Ramsey, Public Services Administrator, will begin
the presentation.
MS. RAMSEY: Just quickly, I'm going to introduce you to Steve
Page 33
September 27, 2011
Tindale, who's going to actually do the presentation. He's with
Tindale- Oliver. He's been working on our master plan and he has a
short presentation for you.
MR. TINDALE: Good morning. Steve Tindale, Tindale- Oliver.
I think maybe 10 minutes, if that's -- about the amount of time to
go through this. Usually my presentations are pretty brief.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Start the three - minute clock. I'm sorry,
I'm just kidding you.
MR. TINDALE: No, that's fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
MR. TINDALE: We want to review our project milestones and
just kind of go back over how we got here, go over the specific
recommendations and then talk about the next steps.
We started the project back in June of 2010 and a presentation to
you in February, 2011. And this just outlines the master plan sections.
I'd just like to briefly highlight, there's a tremendous amount of
data in terms of the current use, demographics, subjected demand, and
the focus group. We must have had 25 or 30 people there, broke out
in three groups. I've never seen any more active people. I don't think
I've ever been in a community that people are as proud as they are of
what they've got. They want to maintain it. They're all concerned
about revenues and what's going on. But it was really an interesting
focus group, and I was really pleased with the outcome and some of
the confirmations of our recommendations.
We made a presentation in February. It was a request for two
additional meetings. My memory of those meetings are very positive.
We had people show up, very energized group. Made comments, and
again really got some confirmation, some good insight to the master
plan on those two meetings. That was April the 6th and the 7th.
The conclusions in terms of the citizens, again, the same projects,
the main projects for community and fitness centers, the Eagle Lake,
Big Corkscrew.
Page 34
September 27, 2011
In the South Regional Library meeting, they -- there was some
discussion about not being that excited about an active facility and
amenity community park in terms of comments at those meetings.
All meetings are focus group and both those talked about the lack
of funding. Everybody knows what's going on with the shortfalls of
government revenue.
Interesting, I'm seeing this all over the state, there was some
discussion even at those meetings about potential MSTU's. I thought
three or four years ago that special assessment MSTU's would come to
the forefront. When they didn't, people were just burdened with taxes.
But I think they got to the point now to where they're seeing things
pulled down to where there is statewide more and more conversations
about the special assessments, MSBU's and MSTU's.
That actually occurred during some of the meetings in terms of
some of the citizens interested in terms of receiving services, even if
they had to have specialized areas of the MSTU's.
We summarized all that, folded that back into the master plan
when we produced the master plan document.
Briefly, the major recommendations is in developing the Big
Corkscrew Island Regional Park. There are six reasons up there. A lot
of information about use in the area, the population, the concentration
of the uses. And we got a confirmation from the focus groups and
confirmation of each one of our public meetings.
The Eagle Lakes Community Fitness Center, the same thing, a lot
of information about why it matched the public's perception and the
information of the focus groups, and we basically got again a
confirmation from the citizens' input meetings.
The athletic fields, we actually showed pictures of the activity
and the substantial use of it. I was amazed when I talked to the
president of the softball league and the soccer leagues, the knowledge
of which ones were being used, which fields were being over -used,
and there was a general confirmation that these athletic fields needed
Page 35
September 27, 2011
to be enhanced and added to.
The development of Manatee Community Park, same thing in
terms of confirmation of need. And again, we'll highlight that at the
citizens input there were some direct concerns about the -- having the
active facility there. And we talked about that and made sure we
documented that.
The development of Vanderbilt extension consistently was tied to
a road extension. Seemed like it was obvious that that wasn't going to
move forward until the road extension project was developed. But
still thought that as that occurred over some period of time that that
area was going to -- that it was going to have to have a priority.
It was consistently in almost every one of the meetings a
discussion about optimizing local agreements with the schools, and we
talked to the schools about which types of schools worked and which
types didn't work and continuing interlocal agreements in terms of the
parks and the schools program, which was really positive.
We presented the Boat and Beach Access Report and consistently
got -- and tried to show the relationship between the two at the focus
group and all the meetings, and consistently got a confirmation that
two were being coordinated. We pointed out that the actual revenues
for that program was separate revenue in terms of how they were
doing, but they needed to be coordinated and got agreement to that.
Again, both the citizens' input and the focus group gives
agreement between the two reports and the interest in that. And there
was keen interest in long -term continuing to get beach access and
water access in the community. There was concern about that over a
long period of time and wanting to be sure that was paid attention to
through either the projects or the Land Development Code.
And I guess at this time what we're doing is you've got the report.
I think it's really clear and concise with the specific items in it. And
staff s actually asking you to approve the Parks and Recreation master
plan today.
Page 36
September 27, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, Mr. Tindale.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you want to hear the speakers
first?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner -- yeah, how many
speakers do we have?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have three speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, let's call the speakers.
MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker is Duane Billington.
MR. BILLINGTON: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Duane Billington.
Back when Jackson Labs was an issue, we managed to turn a
round trip (sic), over $26 million or so, to sit in reserve in case that
would happen. We have two facilities out there: One, Big Corkscrew
Island, the other is Community Center for Eagle Lakes. I would
encourage you all to look around and see if there's another 26 million
lying about that we could use for our parks. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Billington, would you tell me about
this, what, $26 million you talked about? What is it you said?
MR. BILLINGTON: That had to do with Jackson lab where we
sat (sic) that in reserves, 26 or 32 million --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It was 28 million.
MR. BILLINGTON: 28 million.
MR. OCHS: Sir, if I may?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, go ahead.
MR. OCHS: Yeah, again, that 28 million was existing reserves
in your Public Utilities Department that we indicated if needed we
could access for a very short period of time, less than 12 months, that
would then need to be converted to permanent long -term financing. It
was only there in case you needed initial up -front cash, and it was
going to have to be repaid within 12 months to the utility reserves. So
I think that's the money that Mr. Billington is referring to.
MR. BILLINGTON: I'm just asking that maybe we can be a
Page 37
September 27, 2011
little bit more creative in how we fund our parks. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Ellie Krier.
MS. KRIER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
For the record, I'm Ellie Krier with the Southwest Florida Land
Preservation Trust, and I'm here to ask for your assistance.
In Section 3 of your Parks and Rec inventory, Gordon River
Greenway Park is not listed. It's a little bit like driving down the road
and you look ahead and there's nothing and you look behind and
there's nothing, but there's a huge pickup truck right on your bumper
and you can't see it in the mirror? We're owned but not built, designed
but not built. The money's there. And it's sort of a no -man's land.
And the reason I ask for your help in getting it listed is because
we're at a very exciting and critical point with the greenway. You're
at 60 percent design plans now. On the county's side, last week City
Council approved conceptually by a majority consensus to use their
land across the river to connect the center of the city to the greenway.
We're to a point now where we can take the city's conceptual
plan, your 60 percent, the land trust survey of their own land
easements on the airport and put it all together in a great big document
to go after all the missing pieces.
And this was going to be one of the reference documents I was
going to append, but there's a little problem there.
So what we're looking for to doing is putting together a massive
spreadsheet of the money that's already expended by this community.
The exciting thing is when you go for grants to big foundations, they
say well, where is the local match? You have millions and millions
and millions of dollars already on the ground. And all we're asking
for as we approach the finish line is these little in between pieces. But
I do need the document to reflect this master project, and that would
be most helpful. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Ellie.
September 27, 2011
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Kathy Worley.
MS. WORLEY: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning.
MS. WORLEY: I just have a question. Does the approval of this
plan make the recommendations of the Boat and Beach Access Report
set in stone, or does it give them more weight, or can these
recommendations that are in that report be vetted on an individual
basis? I specifically have concerns about the Clam Pass -- new beach
facility at Clam Pass and the Barefoot Beach kayak launch.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I actually would like the same
questions answered. I have the same concerns.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do we have any more speakers, Ian?
MR. MITCHELL: No, sir, we don't.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, staff, can you answer?
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, these are plans, they're master
plans. Each one of these projects will have to be budgeted, approved
by the appropriate advisory boards and the Board of County
Commissioners before they ever become real, real projects.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can you address the issue of why the
Gordon River Greenway was left out?
MS. RAMSEY: It was an oversight. We'll add it in. It was put
in the conservation side as preservation, but the park side was not
included in the recreation side. So we'll add that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Now, let's answer Commissioner Hiller's question with more
specificity. Are these projects locked in stone or will they be
individually considered at an appropriate time?
MS. RAMSEY: They're individually considered. And as you
know with the Clam Pass, we are currently in a design plan for that
and have been having conversations with Pelican Bay for approvals.
And as we go through the process, we'll continue to vet that with the
communities in the public meetings, et cetera.
Page 39
September 27, 2011
As far as the back bay pier, if you recall, that is a developer
contribution that came to us from Aqua. And when they get the
second tower built, there's $2 million coming our way. One of the
PUD documents says that there will be a back bay pier into the
preserve, which was to help us limit where boaters were accessing the
park. They're accessing it on the tip, which is a little bit dangerous,
and so we wanted to give them an access point to continue to use their
boats to get to the facilities but do it safely.
And of course that's probably a number of years out yet as we're
looking to have that new tower completed. So each and every one of
them will comeback forward when we get the green light for funding
purposes from the Board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much.
Yes, as I watch this I thought one thing was missing, possibly
nobody ever mentioned it. I think I'm the only one that's ever
mentioned it. I think we need a remote control park for remote control
planes, remote control boats, whether they be sailing or motor, and
remote control cars. And I wish we would expand our vision to being
a little more creative. That's something that a lot of people in our
community play with, use, enjoy.
Sometimes, like for instance with the remote controlled airplanes,
kids that are totally handicapped and can only sit in a wheelchair can
still use the remote control planes. I watched one kid do it. Totally
paralyzed except for this one finger and he could operate the planes
with it. They had to put the planes on the ground for him and they had
to help him. But I think a lot of fathers and sons or grandpas and sons
or even male role models and young boys could utilize a remote
control park. And I would hope that we could at least add the idea
into our park system.
The second thing I wanted to say is you talked about Manatee
September 27, 2011
Park and you talked about it under athletic fields. I realize this is
something Parks and Rec has been pushing. Not the community
surrounding it.
And I just want to make this very clear. Very clear. We had
community meetings with over 200 people in attendance. Manatee
Park is located right in the middle of retirement communities. That's
all there are there. I realize Parks and Rec wanted to add a soccer
complex in there. Can you imagine how that will destroy the
retirement communities that are surrounding that park? Because
soccer doesn't start until after 6:00 at night and it goes with the
loudspeakers and the lights. Those people will never get any rest.
And I just -- I worry for them.
So then Parks and Recs said they sent out a survey. I said I
wanted to see the survey. They showed me. I said, I want to see who
answered it. And it's interesting, there were just a smattering of people
that were on this survey that were around this park, but the rest of
them were in zip codes 34117, 34116, 34120, 34103, 34102. I mean,
they don't even live in the area. Yeah they wanted to see a soccer
park, I don't blame them. But the people that live there are saying
we'll never be able to live here if you do that to us. Please don't do
that.
And so I want to make note that I do not believe that athletic
fields and soccer fields are appropriate nestled amongst retirement
communities. There isn't even anything else but retirement
communities there. That's not fair to those people.
And I've said this before repeatedly, and I'm saying it again, I
want that removed from there. I want to at least put a park in there
that would not only appeal to the people in there but something we
don't again have in our park system. We don't even have a park for
retired people, a place where retired people could go to take their
grandkids and maybe -- there's a little lake there, they could have
remote controlled boats in the little lake. That would be appropriate
Page 41
September 27, 2011
for them. They could have walking paths, they could have biking
paths, which have become very popular with our residents.
And, in fact, some of the communities that are now being built --
eliminating the golf courses and putting in hiking and walking paths
and biking paths. I think this would be a perfect location for that.
Anyway, so I want to make that known. I do not want to include
that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would it be too much to ask
when you bring these capital improvements forward, also attach for
everybody to see the annual operating costs and where you propose to
get those?
MS. RAMSEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think that's very important for
not only the Board to consider that when it comes forward, but also
our advisory boards.
MR.00HS: Commissioner?
MS. RAMSEY: Commissioner, we did include that with our
recommendations in the executive summary.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I see that.
MS. RAMSEY: Okay. I just wanted you to know that we have
started to do that, as you guys had requested earlier.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, and that's -- I think that's
very good information.
MS. RAMSEY: I agree.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'll be asking you where
you're going to get the funds when it comes forward.
MS. RAMSEY: I understand.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you, sir.
I think you're doing an excellent job. If anything has ever been
Page 42
September 27, 2011
vetted in the public in a meaningful way, it's been this master plan. I
know there's been a lot of strife over it and a lot of input.
The direction you got here is not wrong, it's just lacking in
money to make it work. We know the realities of what the financial
situation is today.
However, with that said, I do think that we need to be creative to
reach our two top objectives, which is both the Big Island Corkscrew
Park and Eagle Lake Community Center. And we need to always be
looking forward. I know right at this point in time you're working on
a grant from the federal government to try to bring around Eagle
Lakes a little sooner than later. Can you give us a small progress
report on that?
MS. RAMSEY: Yes, sir.
We are right now putting together the document that we can
bring back to you for approval for that grant to give it to the Parks and
Recreation Department so that they can begin the construction.
There's just one holdup on that. It's a Section 3 area within that
document that we're trying to finalize county -wide. And as soon as
we have that finalized we'll bring it forward. The goal is probably the
end of October or our board meeting in November.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's wonderful. I support that
direction.
But I also want to make it plain and clear that the people of Big
Island Corkscrew are waiting very patiently, and we have to be
proactive in finding a solution for this to move it forward, at least to
the planning stage where we have something that's meaningful, a
shovel ready project at some point in time in the near future. But
thank you very much.
I make a motion for approval of this master plan.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Coletta.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
Page 43
September 27, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seconded by Commissioner Henning.
We have comments by Commissioners Hiller and then followed
by Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, Marla, I want to build on
the point that Commissioner Henning made. I'm very concerned about
the lack of funding available for the operations of the parks that have
been shortlisted. And you and I have spoken about the fact that there
have been so many projects that have been added to your department,
and you just don't have the operating funds to support these projects.
Now with the short list the annual operating cost for your
division would increase to the tune of 2.9 million, and we have no idea
where that money's coming from. I mean, it's just ridiculous.
Absolutely ridiculous.
You know, even our existing projects are having problems
supporting themselves. The Water Park, which should have been
self - funding last year, suffered a loss of 299,000. It didn't even cover
its cost.
I went through the plan and there were serious concerns
expressed by the public with respect to numerous elements in the plan.
One of them being beach and boat access. Specifically the
recommendation in the plan for beach parking fees. You've got a
proposal in here to charge all the residents and visitors alike, visitors
are currently being charged, which would approximately raise $1
million to $3 million. We have as a matter of policy advocated for
free beach parking for our residents. I can't support charging our
residents a fee to use these beaches.
So I'm left very concerned with the whole plan. I think there are
elements which are positive, but there are too many elements which I
think go against the public's interest and, quite frankly, based on our
financial future are completely unrealistic.
But thank you for your efforts, nonetheless.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner -- County Manager, does
September 27, 2011
staff want to respond to that?
MR. OCHS: Well, Commissioner, again, this is a master
planning document. It's a 20 -year plan or more. The 2.9 million in
operating would only occur under -- if I understood Commissioner
Hiller's comment, you know, that's if all those projects came on -line in
the same year, which is not going to happen. Many of the projects --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: At some point these all --
MR. OCHS: If I could, ma'am.
Many of these projects are still in the concept stage, not even the
design stage. I think you've heard Mr. Tindale say that some of them
are still dependent on road access, which the road hasn't even been
built. So I think that these projects will come on over a series of
years.
And again, just like every other capital project, will come to the
Board for funding authorization. It will be -- you know, the design
and the construction will be advertised and brought back to the Board
for consideration. You will have many opportunities to vet these
individual projects and determine whether or not you want to move
forward with them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I respond to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, Commissioner Fiala was next.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
I'm sorry I cannot vote for this because of the Manatee Park
portion of this. I just -- I think that that's going to destroy the lives of
people surrounding that area. And as long as you push for athletic
parks in there, I mean athletic fields, I can't support that. I do want to
add my support for Big Island -- what is it?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Big Corkscrew Island.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Big Corkscrew Island. I know that
that's desperately needed out there. And I certainly support that.
And I want to add also, when Commissioner Hiller was talking
Page 45
September 27, 2011
about costs, one of the good things is with the Eagle Lakes
Community Center, if we get that built, and I'm happy that we're
pushing forward with that.
Marco Island YMCA has volunteered to at their own expense
conduct the summer programs for the children and also the
after - school programs for the children. And that will relieve us of a
great deal of expense in that park. So I just wanted to add that you
might be able to figure that in with your figures. I noticed it was a
little bit high and I thought, well, possibly we hadn't reduced it by that
amount. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I think we should let
Marla respond to that. Would you, please?
MS. RAMSEY: Well, I put up on the visualizer the master plan
recommendation as it relates to the developing of the Manatee
Community Park.
And the reason that we receiv -- got to this particular point is that
there is a need for some athletic fields in the East Naples area. And
because we own some lands there it just -- as part of the
recommendation, you don't have to purchase additional lands. That's
why active parks were placed on top of that.
But Commissioners, you know that you have already approved
an agreement and a consultant is working on a design that does not
have an athletic complex at this park. We're working with the school
district, do share lakes, and we're getting ready to finalize that plan.
And then of course we'll have to let it sit for a while as we look for
funding.
But at this moment in time there are no plans. It was reiterated
from the community that they want that to be more of a passive
facility like it was at Sugden, and so then the challenge for us is to
look to see how we're going to address the athletic needs in that area.
And there are some additional maybe opportunities as larger
ff-IMA
September 27, 2011
developers come in who want to do something other than agriculture
in the future.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I understand that. And I've sat
in on those planning meetings. And the plans were -- they met with
the residents' approvals and they all had their input and it was
wonderful. And that's why I was surprised that all of a sudden
football and athletic soccer fields were added into it when that wasn't
in the plan at all.
I mean, if it isn't in the plan, why are they in the master plan then
for that particular park? I will definitely encourage you to find other
lands. And I bet as Six -L Farms comes on board and we negotiate
with them, that you'll be able to find a place for those athletic fields.
But why would you add it into the Manatee Park and then just
say standing there at the podium that that wasn't part of the plan?
Why would you add it in the master plan then?
MS. RAMSEY: It's an option for you, Commissioner, to look at.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, it isn't. It is not an option that
I'm going to look at.
MS. RAMSEY: Well, I understand that, ma'am. But it is an
option for the Board as a whole to look at to see which one makes
more sense. And you see the very last line, this is the kind of issue
we're close to with the neighbors to ensure that the least intrusive
method of developing the park, which is what we have currently done
and what we're in the process of doing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, if you can remove the athletic
fields and soccer fields from this, then my vote will side with you.
But otherwise, I cannot.
MS. RAMSEY: It's up to the will of the Commission.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, it isn't. You've put that in there
-- well, I realize we're all going to be voting on that. But, I mean, I
don't even know why you added it in the first place. Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
Page 47
September 27, 2011
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You passed me over.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, did I? Okay, all right, I'll turn your
light off.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much.
Listen, in the past, about four or five different times over the
years we had the issue of beach parking stickers being charged for.
There was suggestions all the way from $5.00 to 50 some dollars in
the past. Realizing that even $5.00 just opens the doors to something
that will never stop. And I realized in the master plan and other
master plans it will rear its ugly head again and I have opposed it
many times in the past.
Commissioner Hiller brought up a very good point. You know,
if it's in the master plan, it gives it a little bit of credibility.
I redo my motion to include the approval of the master plan but
to strike any reference to beach parking stickers charging for them.
MS. RAMSEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll accept that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Leo, one of the biggest problems
we as a county have had over the past years is we have approved the
construction of infrastructure without consideration of the carrying
cost. And a proper master plan should consider realistically whether
we will be able to carry the projects we're proposing. And I don't
think this one does. I don't want to be in the same situation with parks
that we're in currently with transportation.
We're facing a funding shortfall. At a minimum right now we
know from one study that there's at least $20 million in repaving costs
for these roads in basic maintenance that we have to look to fund in
the near future. And that doesn't contemplate the replacement of
bridges and the repair of bridges, among other transportation related
repair and maintenance costs.
The last thing I want to see is for us to contemplate parks where
September 27, 2011
we are going to have very high operating costs to maintain those parks
and not have the funds to cover those costs. I don't think our future
financially is that rosy that we can just sit there and say we don't have
to worry, when the park is built the money will be there. And a proper
developed plan would contemplate that now. This plan doesn't.
I spoke to Marla. In fact, I met with Marla, I met with Barry.
And I think you were in the meeting too, right, when we talked about
that, Gary?
And there is concern about that. Your staff is concerned about it.
I'm concerned about it. And the public is concerned about it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We've got two sets of obj ections to the
plan expressed by the Commissioners so far. One set consists of
concerns about the types of parks and the activities contemplated in
them. Commissioner Hiller's concerns are with the future carrying
costs of the plans. And I'll address those separately.
But it appears to me that if you have something in the plan that is
objectionable to the Commissioner in the district, we should do
something to accommodate that. Because you might not get approval
for the plan at all if there are three Commissioners who object to
elements contained in the plan.
So I would give -- I would give guidance to you that if you want
to see this plan approved, you're going to have to address the concerns
expressed by Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And Commissioner Hiller.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that's the second part.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no, with respect to projects in
my district.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, the cost of -- the carrying costs,
the operating costs of parks is of course a concern. But to expect that
you don't do a long -range plan now because you don't know what the
revenues are going to be in 10 years from now is foolish. We do
long -range planning all the time based upon those assumptions.
O i•
September 27, 2011
And the safeguard here is that in order to build anything, you
have to come back to us anyway. And before we approve anything,
we deal with the costs of operation. Contrary to what Commissioner
Hiller has said, that we ignore those things. We don't ignore them, we
consider them at the point in time when we're making a commitment
to build a capital project. And if we don't have revenues to operate the
facility, we don't approve the construction of the facility. That is just
common sense.
But to disapprove a long -range plan because you cannot today
identify the source of revenues 10 years from now essentially means
you don't do any long -range planning at all. And I think that's not a
good policy for us to pursue in the Board of County Commissioners.
So I am very sympathetic to the issues raised by Commissioner
Fiala and Commissioner Coletta, but we are pursuing these capital
projects in the proper manner. We're planning them out for a long
period of time. And we will address the carrying costs before we ever
commit to money to build them. It's that simple.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that being said, the staff would be
pleased to amend its recommendation to remove the reference to
active athletic and recreational fields at the future Manatee Park, and
also obviously to remove the beach parking sticker fee for residents
that the Board has consistently found objectionable.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I'm sure you will reiterate that
before we build any of these facilities you will have evaluated the
entire financial implications of doing so.
MS. RAMSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. As we always will, and you'll see that
shortly in your five -year capital improvement plan that's associated
with your AUIR process; you'll see that for every area of capital
expenditures.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Fiala, were you next?
Page 50
September 27, 2011
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I think it was Hiller, but could I
-- I want to comment on that. Thank you, Leo.
I would like to also make sure that we add the -- I know that you
said it was going to be added, but the Gordon River Greenway --
MR. OCHS: Oh, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- I would want to make sure to do
that.
I love the idea of the park fee eliminated. And also, yes, in the
Manatee Park, being that we already have a design in place that's not
even referenced on this thing, nobody could tell that there's really a
plan for that park because it states something totally the opposite, if
you would like to put in the plan that's in place as the Manatee
Community Park and eliminate that, then I say go for it.
And I appreciate you stepping in and saying that, thank you.
MR. OCHS: I'll be happy to do that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. As I said, my position with
respect to this plan, notwithstanding your comments, Commissioner
Coyle, stand. And I also agree with Kathy Worley and her concerns
about the beach and boat access. And I've expressed those repeatedly
to staff and have heard the concerns expressed in the community.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you very much for the
presentation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have a good news item that's on
this that we can -- and that's the kayak and canoe park that is going to
be opened in a couple of months that is at the entrance to Isles of
Capris. It isn't mentioned here, but that is another great asset that
we're working with the state on. And we should do something about
press release on that, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, do we have a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: By Commissioner Henning.
Page 51
September 27, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And seconded by Commissioner
Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may, the other way around.
Motion and seconded.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And it will incorporate the changes that
the staff has stated.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct. I believe I do
understand the fact that we're owning up to the fact that the greenway,
that has to be recognized. It doesn't mean that we're strewing the
order in any particular direction, but the fact that it does exist and at
some point in time it has to be dealt with. And the issue of manatee,
did we resolve that?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And remove the reference to?
MR. OCHS: Active recreation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Beach parking?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Beach parking? At Manatee?
MR. OCHS: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioners, okay, let's --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We already have that in there
about the beach parking stickers being removed from there as a
revenue source.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, we're going to remove the reference to
beach parking stickers, eliminating the active recreation uses at the
proposed future Manatee Park and also add in the Gordon River
Greenway into the recreation component of the plan.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Does this meet --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: --needs? Okay, fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
Page 52
September 27, 2011
aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, the motion passes 4 -1 with
Commissioner Hiller dissenting. We're going to take a 10- minute
break for the court reporter. We'll be back here at 10:40.
(Recess.)
MR. SHEFFIELD: Commissioner, you have a live hot mic.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Board of County Commission meeting
is back in session.
Where are we going now?
Item #1 OC
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE LOCAL COORDINATING
BOARD RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PROVISION OF
PARATRANSIT SERVICE IN FISCAL YEAR 2012, INCLUDING
COMPLETING A REQUIRED TITLE VI FARE EQUITY
ANALYSIS TO EVALUATE IMPACTS OF A POTENTIAL FARE
INCREASE TO THE RIDERS AND BUDGET FOR THE COLLIER
AREA PARATRANSIT SYSTEM; AND APPROVE A BUDGET
AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $2500 TO FUND THIS
ANALYSIS — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, you're on Item IOC. It's a
recommendation to approve the local coordinating board
recommendation for the provision of paratransit service in fiscal year
Page 53
September 27, 2011
2012, including completing a required Title VI Fare Equity Analysis
to evaluate impacts of a potential fare increase to the riders and budget
for the Collier Area Paratransit System; to approve a budget
amendment in the amount of $25,000 to fund this analysis.
Michelle Arnold, your Director of Alternative Transportation
Modes, will present.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Michelle, go ahead.
MS. ARNOLD: Good morning. For the record, Michelle
Arnold, Alternative Transportation Modes Director.
If you all recall, we were before you in June to discuss a
paratransit services, and at that time the Board approved a budget
amendment to allow us to continue services through the fiscal year --
or this current fiscal year, and that was in the amount of $1 37,000. At
the time the Board also requested that staff look at paratransit services
and come back to you to provide information for future years, future
fiscal years, for the continuation of that service.
We've done that, and we've also been with the public
presentations. We've also discussed the matter before the local
coordinating board. And what I have for you is a presentation that
was presented to the local coordination board, as well as their
recommendation. I'd like to go through that presentation now and also
then provide to you the recommendation for future service for
paratransit.
The presentation's up on the screen. What Collier Area
Paratransit consists of is a coordinated system reflecting TD,
transportation disadvantaged, services, Medicaid services, as well as
ADA services.
In 1999 the county became the coordinated transportation
coordinator -- community transportation coordinator. As such, we
offer paratransit services to the community of Collier County. At that
time the service was provided predominantly by a private provider.
And in 2006, at the demand of the public, the service was taken
Page 54
September 27, 2011
in by Collier County. The local provider was no longer able to
provide the service to the community, meeting its demands or could it
afford to continue that service.
The county took on the service in 2006 and we at that particular
time became a coordinated system providing both fixed route and
paratransit service.
Since the inception of Collier Paratransit, the demand for
paratransit service increased on an annual basis; fares have, however,
remained the same. We have not increased fares over the years.
Operating costs has increased, and the local government share as a
result has increased to bridge the difference between the increase in
trip demand and the decrease in grant funding that we've experienced
over the last few years.
Just to give you a perspective of how the system works, our
paratransit system, as I'd indicated, provides Americans for
Disadvantaged Act, ADA, service. And that is due to us providing
fixed route services.
That particular portion of our service represents 26 percent of our
trips currently. The fare that we charge to riders that are qualified
under that system is $2.00. The maximum fare that we can charge is
$3.00. And that particular system is based, as I said, on the fixed route
service, but it also has to do with those residents residing and going to
destinations within three - quarter of a mile of our fixed route service.
So only those people that are not able to take our fixed route and
reside and have an origin or destination within the three - quarter of a
mile would qualify under that particular system.
We also as a community transportation coordinator -- and that is
a designation that we receive through the Commission for
Transportation Disadvantaged, and we have a contract with them to
provide that service. We also under that designation provide Medicaid
service, and that's also done through contract. The Medicaid service is
provided to recipients that qualify for Medicaid. And trips that are
Page 55
September 27, 2011
provided for that are strictly medical trips, and they represent 22
percent of our system.
The current fare for that is $1.00. And the maximum fare, based
on our contract, can be $1.00. So regardless of, you know, what we do
within our system, we cannot increase that co -pay to the recipient.
The other portion of the Transportation Services --
Transportation Disadvantaged, and that is provided to those recipients
that don't have another means of transportation and live outside of an
area where we provide a fixed route.
So this is predominantly those areas where we don't have fixed
route services. The types of trips that are provided for that represent
49 percent of our service base. The fare charge for that ranges from
$0 per one -way trip to $6.00 per one -way trip. And that is based on
income level. So those recipients that are below the poverty level pay
$0 per trip, and, you know, at the highest income level they pay $6.00.
And that portion of the fare structure is unrestricted, so it can be
increased. There's no cap on it, but obviously we would have to do an
analysis to determine the equity of that fare.
We do have a small percentage of our transportation paratransit
system that is represented by the Children Medical Services and
Senior Services. They represent three percent of the trips that we
provide. And those are services that they pay for their own trips.
This next slide provides you some information on the growth of
the paratransit trips over the years. In 2006, as I noted, is when we
first -- the county first started providing those trips, and we started out
at about 94,000 trips. For the balance of the fiscal year, we are
estimating that we're going to be about 124,000 trips, and into next
year reaching almost 130,000 trips.
This gives you an idea based on the types of trips that we
provide. As I noted, ADA is in blue, Medicaid is in that brownish
orange color, TD is in green, and the other is a yellow mustard color.
And those just gives (sic) you a breakdown for the increasing trips.
Page 56
September 27, 2011
The types of trips that we provide have been increasing proportionally
over the years.
This gives you a monthly comparison to show the shift in the
trips. It does go in waves. And, you know, based on the two years of
comparison between fiscal year '10 and fiscal year '11, the trend is
similar. We're experiencing a similar influx and increases and
decreases as the year goes on.
The program -- obviously in order to make sure that we are
providing adequate services with the funding that is provided, there's
four different variables: Number of trips. And those have been, as I
noted, increasing over the years; the fare box recovery, which is a fare
that is taken in. It has been stable over the years. It's been increasing
obviously with the trips, but we have not increased the fare itself,
subsidies for the county and other county -- other funding sources,
such as Medicaid. We do receive some funding through that program
to supplement. We also receive funding through the TD. But those
funding sources have been decreasing, so we -- we've had to
supplement or make more -- put more local dollars into providing the
continued service of this program.
The next step that we would have to do is make sure that we --
we're complying with all the Title VI requirements if we were to do
anything with respect to changing fares to help compensate for the
subsidies or the shortfall on that local funding side.
We're recommending for FYI 2 that the coordinated system that
currently is in place be continued. In order for us to make any
changes for -- with respect to the fares, we would have to go through a
Title VI Fare Equity Analysis. We're estimating that that analysis will
be done within a six -month time period. Along with that analysis,
we're required to do several public hearings and conduct stakeholder
interviews and the like.
We, as I noted in the executive summary, are proposing to do
that. And the MPO is going to be assisting with the cost to do that
Page 57
September 27, 2011
evaluation.
The LCB supported this particular recommendation that we
continue with the existing coordinated system through FY12. And
upon the analysis, receipt of the analysis or the conclusions of the
analysis with their recommendations, fares could be increased
accordingly. And with an increase in fares, they would -- that would
reduce the shortfall that we estimate we would be projected for FY12.
I failed to note that at your budget hearing we did identify that
there was approximately about 219,000 shortfall that we were
estimating for 2012. When we complete the analysis, we would will
be able to assess the exact amount more definitively to determine how
a fare increase could offset that shortfall. And at the time that we are
presenting the analysis to the Board, we would identify the exact
shortfall and funding available that could make up the shortfall to
continue the service through FY12.
We're also recommending for the next fiscal year, FYI 3, we
looked at the possible elimination of Medicaid services. As I noted
before, we have a contract with the Commission for Transportation
Disadvantaged to provide Medicaid services. That contract expires
June 30th of 2012.
At the time that I presented this to the LCB, we advised that with
the Medicaid reforms in place, that the system would become a
competitive system. So it would go out to the public and of course if
the county wanted to compete to provide that service, they could.
I learned just last week, actually, from the Commission for
Transportation Disadvantaged that they would hope that the county
would continue to provide Medicaid services. And they will probably,
depending on what happens in the legislation in May, come to us with
either a request to amend our contract, to extend it or, you know, to
give us a new contract to continue providing services. So at that time
the Board would be making the determination whether or not to
continue Medicaid services.
September 27, 2011
This proposal is suggesting elimination of Medicaid after the
June 30th, 2012 text expiration date. We would then in 2012 utilize
whatever fare increase we implemented in FY 12 to offset any
shortfall. And as a part of our contract with the vendor providing
operation services, we would have to do some contract negotiations to
modify the number of trips. Because with the elimination of
Medicaid, the number of trips would go down slightly. But Medicaid
-- some of the Medicaid recipients wouldn't also qualify under our
other programs potentially, our ADA program or our TD program. So
it wouldn't necessarily be an overall reduction in trips.
Also, the dollars that we are currently receiving from Medicaid to
help with the cost for Medicaid would no longer obviously be coming
to the county if we're no longer providing those services.
The local dollars provided for Medicaid would help to offset the
increase in TD trips that we're speculating that we would get if we no
longer provide Medicaid services.
The final recommendation presented to the local coordinating
board was that in 2014 that we consider discontinuing our CTC
designation, our Community Transportation Coordinator Designation.
And what that would mean is we would only be providing ADA
services, along with our fixed route service.
That -- the TD services, as well as Medicaid services, would be
provided by someone else. The funding, local funding, it's being
recommended to put towards increasing our fixed route so that we
could reduce the demand for TD services and provide ADA services
to those recipients within a three - quarter of a mile corridor of the
affixed route.
This particular recommendation is not feasible until we do a
comprehensive operational analysis, which is planned for next fiscal
year. Hearing that, the local coordinating board thought that going
forward with this particular recommendation was premature, that we
should table this recommendation until the comprehensive operational
Page 59
September 27, 2011
analysis is completed, and then with the recommendations of that
analysis come back to the Board and determine whether or not the
CTC -- it would be viable to the county to have the CTC designation
remain or discontinued.
In summary, we have a recommendation to have the services for
the coordinated system continue in FY12. As a part of that
recommendation we would be conducting a Fare Equity Analysis to
determine what a reasonable fare would be to increase. And just
wanting to let the Board know, during our public meetings we heard
from the writers themselves, and they were very much in support of
continuing the services and also providing an increase in fare, because
they thought, you know, it's been several years since the fares have
been increased. They would rather that there was an increase in fare
rather than a reduction of service, that they were very much in favor of
or supportive of our service, because it provides them in a lot of cases
independence that they wouldn't necessarily have. It does provide --
takes some burden off of, you know, the working -- their daughters
and sons and the like. So they were in support of continuing the
service and as well as increasing the fares, in the recommendation for
FY 13 to eliminate Medicaid and continue TD and ADA would be
implemented with whatever fare increase that we noted.
And then the third recommendation would be tabled at this
particular point. We wouldn't recommend at this point to make a
decision on the CTC designation.
And if you all have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
I do have two comments that I received via e -mail from agencies
that weren't able to be here today because they had to be at other
locations. I could read those into the record or I could provide it to --
should I?
MR. OCHS: It's up to the Chair. We can either give them to the
court reporter or if the Board wants them read, read them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can you summarize them?
September 27, 2011
MS. ARNOLD: Yes, I can summarize them. One is request
Joyce Graham, who's with Sunrise, and she is in support of the
service, and basically is wanting us to keep Medicaid as a service,
because of some of the -- her clients are very dependent on that
service, and she supports the coordinated system.
The other is from Ellie VanderMeuse, who's also with Sunrise,
and she is, let's see here, again supporting the coordinated system and
supporting Medicaid. Those are the summaries.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, Michelle, just for the
benefit of the Board members, let's clarify exactly what you want us to
do.
The Fare Equity Analysis has to be completed before you make
any adjustments in the fare for these programs?
MS. ARNOLD: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That is really the first step, isn't it?
MS. ARNOLD: It is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the second step would be a decision
to maintain the coordinated system and increase fares, only if the Fare
Equity Analysis indicated that it was appropriate to do so.
MS. ARNOLD: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So -- and a decision to eliminate
Medicaid and continue the transportation disadvantaged and ADA
trips for FYI 3, I have to feel it's a little premature at this point in time,
I mean, today --
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- to make a decision to eliminate those
until you've done the fare increase analysis -- the equity analysis.
So if we were to boil your recommendations down, I believe that
it would turn out to be a recommendation to do the fund transfer to
fund the Fare Equity Analysis, and then based upon that we then could
make some of these other decisions, perhaps, and we'd be better
informed. Is --
Page 61
September 27, 2011
MS. ARNOLD: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- that an appropriate way to continue?
MS. ARNOLD: That's exactly what we'd like to see happen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then if we could make it clear that what
you're asking us to do is to approve I think it's $25,000 for the Fare
Equity Analysis; is that correct?
MS. ARNOLD: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then -- and we narrow it to that
only today, that would suit your needs; is that correct?
MS. ARNOLD: Absolutely. Yeah, that was staffs
recommendation. We just wanted to present to you all some of the
information that we shared with the LCB. And basically, as you
pointed out, the $25,000 would be what we would use as a first step
and then come back to the Board at a later date after the analysis is
completed.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, one point of clarification, real
quickly. I think we said that part of the recommendation was a budget
amendment of 25,000 to fund the equity analysis. And that's partly
true. Our estimate of the cost and analysis is about 50,000. Half of
that will come from the MPO. So what we need is a budget
amendment out of para- transit reserves into the operating line item to
allow us to match that 25 to do that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, so we're not making a decision to
eliminate Medicaid or eliminate anything else at that point in time.
MR. OCHS: No, sir. We just want to do the analysis on the fare.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So we have how many speakers?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have two speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So we have two speakers. And
the only thing we're considering today is the funding of a Fare Equity
Analysis to see if the increase in fares is justified. We're not
considering the elimination of any of these services today.
Page 62
September 27, 2011
MR.00HS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right, then let's call the first
speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker is Maria Segura.
MS. SEGURA: Good morning, Commissioners. I would only
like to ask a question, if maybe I could -- we could be helped. It's just
that when we come out of dialysis; let's say we were supposed to be
picked up at 3:00 in the afternoon. If we get out at 2:30 that's okay,
we can wait half an hour. But then we have to wait in the bus, riding
around because we have to wait for the people that work, you know,
so they can come out. And then we have to go leave them over here --
I live in Immokalee, and we have to go all through the Estates, around
Naples, Golden Gate, leave anybody else first, then to take us to
Immokalee. By that time we're exhausted, tired, hungry. You know,
we get out of dialysis sick.
And, you know, we feel -- is there any other way or something
that can be done where the transportation can take the ones that comes
out from dialysis to Immokalee and not go around all Naples, you
know? I think they will be sad, because sometimes I get home, I
barely can get down from the bus, you know, from driving (sic) the
bus three hours, two and a half, three hours of riding on the bus,
leaving the people that -- patients that live here in Naples.
So that was my question, is there any way that we can be helped,
you know, to take us directly to Immokalee, the ones who lives in
Immokalee?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, staff, would you like to address
that issue?
MS. ARNOLD: I think the question is about having them have a
direct trip as opposed to going with others?
We do try to accommodate that as much as possible. However,
the -- sometimes it's difficult just based on, you know, all the other
providers that are collected on the way to the final destination for
Page 63
September 27, 2011
medical or dialysis or something like that.
We do have a requirement that we should not have recipients on
the bus any longer than two hours, so we try to as best meet that
requirement. So, I mean, we can talk to this particular recipient and
find out whether or not there's an issue with hers.
But to make it as efficient as possible, we do have to group
riders. So we try to meet the two -hour window, as well as, you know,
getting people to their destination as quickly as possible.
MS. SEGURA: Yes, I understand that. Yes, ma'am. The only
reason I ask, because one of the patients that goes in the dialysis lives
almost close to 75, I -75. And his wife goes to the community, you
know, for the -- where they go. So sometimes we meet the other bus
leaving his wife, but we're going to come in to leave her husband at
the same address.
MS. ARNOLD: Well, I could talk to you off -line and make sure
that we can address your particular situation.
MS. SEGURA: Okay.
MS. ARNOLD: Okay? Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Jim Klug.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Jim, you can use that podium there, if
you'd like.
MR. KLUG: Thank you very much. For the record, my name is
Jim Klug and thank you very much for pronouncing my name
correctly.
I am here basically in support of the para- transit system. And I
don't have any problem with the request that is being made for the
analysis. I think that's fine.
What I am concerned about is the trend that was exhibited in this
presentation. And I just want to say that I think we're going in the
wrong direction. We ought to be expanding this service rather than
contracting it. And I think the presentation shows that we have a big
Page 64
September 27, 2011
problem in fiscal year '13 and in fiscal year '14. And the problem
should not be resolved by dismantling the service. And I think
somebody ought to be looking in the future as to what we're going to
do to resolve this problem. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. And I think that's exactly
what we're going to be doing.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, just a simple question and
that's a legal question. Being that I'm chairman of the local
coordinating board for the transportation disadvantaged, can I make
the motion? And usually the chairman doesn't make the motion. And
would it be like a hidden interest or something?
MR. KLATZKOW: You don't gain any financial -- no, you're
fine, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's like you guys also serve on the MPO
where you have similar issues. You're fine.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you very much.
And I would like to -- I know Commissioner Coletta's button is
on, but I would like to make a motion. Commissioner Coyle
summarized it beautifully.
And I'm glad you came here, Mr. Klug, and are promoting it.
These people are disadvantaged to a point where many of them have
no other way to get anyplace without the transportation dis -- or the
para- transit system. And I do want to support them in every way I
can, so I'd like to make a motion to approve.
Shall I go through the whole thing again or just --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think you can make a motion just to
approve the transfer --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just to approve the funding of the --
Page 65
September 27, 2011
well, the transfer of $25,000 from reserves to fund the Fare Equity
Analysis.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That includes it for me too.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I seconded the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you also wish to make a comment?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, just the fact that I --
Commissioner Fiala's been doing an admirable job on this group there
for many, many years, and I trust her judgment on it. And I know
she's not going to allow the program to fall off on the side of the road.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all in favor, please signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
I think we have a time certain at 11:00 and we're exactly on time.
Item # 101
PROVIDE TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INFORMATION REGARDING A REQUIREMENT TO OBTAIN A
BUILDING PERMIT WHEN REPLACING A WATER HEATER,
AS SPECIFIED IN THE 2007 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE AND
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE 2009 -59, AS DIRECTED, IN
FOLLOW -UP TO SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 PUBLIC PETITION
September 27, 2011
ITEM #6A — MOTION FOR A RETROACTIVE (AS OF TODAY)
ONE - PERMIT AND ONE -FEE PERMITTING PROCESS AND
STAFF TO WORK W /CBIA FOR CLARIFICATION — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. This is Item 10I on your agenda this
morning. It's to provide the Board of County Commissioners
information regarding the requirement to obtain a building permit
when replacing a water heater as specified within the 2007 Florida
Building Code, and Collier County Ordinance 2009 -59, as directed in
follow -up to the September 13th, 2011 public petition, Item 6.A.
Mr. James French will present.
MR. FRENCH: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
Jamie French. I'm the Director of Operations and Regulatory
Management with the Growth Management Division.
Just so you know, I'm purposely going to say State requirement
at least three times during my presentation. But this is in response to
public petition at your last meeting where you directed staff to come
back and provide you an analysis of why a permit was required.
With that said, if there's no questions -- I did submit quite a bit of
backup information with my executive summary. I'll be happy to go
forward with my presentation. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I've already seen it.
MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir.
So essentially the single- family detached home, no permit is
required for the allowable exemptions identified within the Florida
Building Code, Section 102.2.5.
And you'll see this caption was taken directly out of the State
Statute, out of the state code. And this was approved by the BCC
under Ordinance 2009 -59, which exempts the requirement of water
heaters to get a building permit on all single- family residences.
Multi - family dwellings and commercial structures, why we
consider them the same is primarily because State of Florida, again,
Page 67
September 27, 2011
state code, considers these to be individual dwelling units within a
commercially architected or engineered structure. A permit by the
code is required per the 2009 interpretation of the Florida Building
Code by our former building official.
That -- again, that interpretation was asked by this Board to take
back to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, which it was, for their
opinion. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals at the time found in
favor of the building officials' opinion.
It then went on to the Building Officials Associations of Florida,
which is a non - binding technical group that is identified by the
Department of Community Affairs and the Florida Building
Commission. Also found in favor of the building official's opinion at
the time. And then from there it went on to the Technical Advisory
Committee of the Florida Building Commission and then to the
Florida Building Commission where a declaratory statement was
handed down to Collier County from the state that said that there is a
requirement for a water heater to have a building permit, or at least an
inspection.
So in this particular case, what we're giving you is an example of
a typical condominium within Collier County. In this particular case
we use an example of a second floor electric water heater that's been
installed on a common wall of again a commercial structure with
single- family or with dwelling units in that commercial structure.
Potential risks that have been identified were for water damage.
If in fact the water heater was not connected properly or it began to
leak, you could have intrusion both to the neighbors beside you, as
well as those neighbors down below you, which would eventually
result in mold, structural damage or it could be personal property
damage.
Fire. Fire could be caused especially if penetrations were
compromised with the installation of this water heater and if in fact the
electrical connections were not made correctly. There is a firewall
September 27, 2011
that is actually identified within the barrier walls of each of these
individual units that encapsulates firewall ratings in between the units.
What is required by state code? Licensed professional
contractor. So you must be licensed, you must be properly insured,
you must maintain your CEU's in order to maintain that contractors
licensing. No impact to the firewall. Must have a hardwire electrical
connection. It cannot have a flex cord. Electrical lockout or breaker
box must be within plain sight of the water heater and the drain pan
must be properly installed and plumbed to the outside.
Again, the licensed contractor, as I said before, they are properly
licensed with Collier County. They are properly insured. They also
have their continuing education, their CEU's, and then there's
consumer production offered through the Collier County Contractor
Licensing Board as well as other state agency in the event that faulty
installation takes place. They also maintain a level of protection to the
consumer and other residents within the structure to ensure that the job
was done right.
This is an example of some firewall integrity. And again, this is
just an example picture, it's not an actual case. This is what an
inspector would look for.
Now grant it, this is on a new installation, but you can see where
these holes have been actually put into drywall and that the gaps in the
firewall penetration must be properly sealed using fire caulk.
Proper hardwire electrical connection with a lockout. And as you
see here, the example -- this is just an example of a water heater that's
been installed, pretty typical installation. We have flex pipe now
connecting the water outlets, but yet you notice your electrical
connection is in a conduit right next to a lockout.
Now, that lockout is not necessary if in fact the breaker to that
water heater is within plain sight of the water heater. If that were the
case, then you would just basically have that conduit going directly
into the wall.
September 27, 2011
There's a caption here that is from an actual owner's manual of a
water heater, just a typical electric water heater, which basically talks
about grounding, which talks -- and you see some good examples
there at the very top right where it actually shows a conduit being used
versus a flex pipe -- or, I'm sorry, a flex cord.
Drain pan installation. To your left is where a drain pan was
properly installed. Granted, of course that's a gas water heater, not an
electric water heater, but still it's not properly plumbed to the outside
of the structure. Whereas on the right you've got one that again is no
flex cord, it's conduit, but there's no drain pan installed. And then at
the bottom is a properly installed drain pan that is plumbed.
So in addition to the recommendation that we've made within our
executive summary, we did have an opportunity last Thursday to sit
down, like we normally do, about every six weeks, in an industry
forum, members of the CBIA, members of DSAC, there's a member of
the Planning Commission, that all sit down with executive or with
senior staff down at growth management, and essentially what we do
is we talk about how we could do better, where their business is going
and what we can do for them. So clearly this was going to be a topic
of conversation at this meeting, and it was.
And part of the issues that we run into is that the county did
receive a state mandated declaratory statement to state an inspection
shall be required. And that was issued to our building department,
issued to our building official.
So our current fee is $110. Now, that $110 is broke up into $50
for processing the fee and plan review, and then there's a $60
inspection. We recognize that that inspection is a fixed cost. As this
Board is aware, 113 receives no monies off the general fund for
building activities or for the enforcement of the Florida Building
Code, it's a pay -as- you -go building model enterprise fund.
So with that said, we know we have a fixed cost of $60 every
time we send an inspector out.
Page 70
September 27, 2011
The alternative fee that was discussed with the group was that on
consumer grade electric water heater replacements, one inspection
where we would have a qualified inspector go in and both look at the
electrical connection and at the water connection and to make sure the
pan was properly installed and that there was no firewall penetration.
There would be no plan review, because it is like kind. We recognize
that the inspection is still going to cost us $60 and then we would
charge a $5.00 processing fee.
Now, the mechanics behind that is more from the administrative
side. And we can do either that by having them call in, fax in, using
the Internet. We still offer a limited digital plan submittal right now
currently, we could roll it into that, and we'd have to identify that fee
code within our current application for land development software.
But it is an alternative.
And originally within the executive summary I had suggested we
go with a $75 fee, but in this particular case we've been able to
determine that there's -- again, there's no plan review, it's simply one
inspection.
Now, if in fact the inspection fails, there would be another
inspection fee. Because again, we are pay- as- we -go. So otherwise we
would have to push that burden or the cost of that inspection off to
either the permit payers or we would have to look for some sort of
other contribution to offset those costs for the employee, for the truck,
for the computer, for their time.
I'm happy to entertain any questions that you may have. Again, I
did identify within the executive summary as well and it's still out
there. It's one of staffs suggestions that we have an adoption of the
2010 Building Code that's scheduled to come out on March 15th of
next year, and we intend to work hand -in -hand with the industry to go
back to the commission, if it's this Board's will, that we go back and
we ask for another declaratory statement if it's not identified as to
water heater replacement in these commercial structures, whether or
Page 71
September 27, 2011
not they require a permit.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Jamie.
How many speakers do we have, Ian?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have six speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, you want to
wait, or you --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll wait.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have a quick question for Jamie
before the speakers --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- begin.
How many counties do this?
MR. FRENCH: I knew you were going to ask. We spoke about
this yesterday, Commissioner. And I don't want to put words in our
building official's mouth. But irrespective of what other counties do,
he's the official for this county, and so this is the interpretation that's
been handed down to him.
So you know, that Mr. Harrison did reach out through the
Building Officials Association, State of Florida, and he polled 78
different municipalities and counties, of which 56 of them all require,
including your Palm Beach counties and cities, water heater permits,
ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And can you clarify again, this
opinion that was handed down from the state to us, with respect to
those counties that don't do this, can you explain why the state hasn't
given opinions to them, telling them that they have to? I mean, it
seems a little unusual that there are counties out there and
municipalities that don't do it.
And of what you listed, I don't know how many are actually
counties and how many are cities. Could you break that down?
MR. FRENCH: Ma'am, just from high level here, I'd say it's
Page 72
September 27, 2011
about half and half.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Half and half?
MR. FRENCH: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So about 30 counties do it?
MR. FRENCH: This is almost like a message board, where it's --
whether or not you're a building official. And I can't access this. Only
a licensed official or licensed plan reviewer or inspector can access
this data.
But the thing about it is, let's say they didn't check their e -mail
that week. And this was pretty last minute, Gary put it out there --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure.
MR. FRENCH: -- and this is what came back.
But I would tell you that once the declaratory statement is issued,
that declaratory statement's for everybody. That declaratory
statement's not just for Collier County. And if you choose not to
follow the declaratory statement, then that licensed official -- and I
can have Mr. Harrison come up and talk a little bit more about that
with you -- I believe he puts his license and the license of all of his
inspectors and the license of all of his plan reviewers in jeopardy.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So for example, Lee, which
doesn't have this requirement, is in jeopardy? All their inspectors are
in j eopardy?
MR. FRENCH: Ma'am, what I would say is that the Florida
Building Commission is not an enforcement agency. So unless there's
harm that has been done to a homeowner or to a business as a result of
a building official or a licensed official not following the code, they
run the risk of penalties. But the Building Commission does not go
out and actively -- like we have code enforcement. They're not a code
enforcement agency. So that risk would be probably handled through
litigation.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Private litigation.
MR. FRENCH: It could be.
Page 73
September 27, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Because, I mean, it makes
it sound as if Lee is doing something terribly right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, it makes it sound like we're doing
something terribly right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, it makes it sound like --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Call the first speaker, please.
MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker is Allan Reeves.
MR. REEVES: Thank you, Board. I'd like to start out -- well,
first I'd like to thank Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Hiller
doing my job for me. You made very valid comments on how wrong
this is.
I'd like to start out with turning in a copy of my petition that we
sent around to different plumbing contractors. Right now it's 33 of my
competitors and 87 plumbers have all signed my petition against these
water heater permits. So whoever I turn that into.
The declaratory statement that Mr. French was talking about, in
that -- I've got to skip around in my speech here because now things
have changed a little bit.
The water heater permits, they started when that Florida Building
Code -- it did not say that replacing a water heater did not require a
permit. And I read that right, it's a double negative. They're saying that
since it did not say it didn't need one, then that must be interpreted as
yes, it does need one. And just because it's not in there doesn't mean
that that's a yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's definitely a correct
interpretation.
MR. REEVES: Yeah, if it's -- you know, if it was intended it
would most definitely have been in that code book. Everything is in
code books. They cover everything. Ask anybody sitting over there.
Now it comes that, you know, some of the presentation that Mr.
French made about what they're doing to inspect these water heaters,
you know, he's pointing out simple things like drain pans, penetrations
Page 74
September 27, 2011
in the firewall.
Where does all that end? If I go and change a water heater like
I'm going to do as soon as I leave here, going back to work to do water
heaters, if there's a little drywall missing from around the pipe coming
through the wall, now I have to tell my customer that on top of the
permit fee, the electrical upgrade, a possible reinspection, now I've got
to fire caulk all the penetrations coming through the water heater.
What's that cost? Now that we went from $500 up to 900, $1,000,
now fire caulk's in.
I don't know, where's it going to end? If somebody needs an
icemaker hooked up, a two - minute job, that's $110, but oh, the outlet
is from the Fifties when things weren't the greatest, if we're downtown
Naples. I guess that's going to be a little bit more.
So now a simple little job, like an icemaker -- I know I'm running
out of time. We're going on a real slippery slope here. And they say
that, you know, you guys can't make the decisions on whether or not
this is able to happen because of the state code, but that's your guys's
jobs. You get to decide.
It's just while the City of Naples being in Collier County, they
don't have permit regulations right now. So if Collier County is
requiring it but the city inside of them does not require it, you know, I
guess they're on the list of bad people too like Lee County and Marco
Island.
I'll stop a little soon and I'll let the other five people get up here
and see what they have to say. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Stephanie Reeves.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Followed by?
MS. REEVES: Good morning, Commissioners. Thank you. My
name is Stephanie Reeves, like he just announced.
And my main objective today is to demonstrate to you how these
water heater permits are a no -win situation for the licensed plumbing
Page 75
September 27, 2011
contractors, the citizens of Collier County and the county itself.
These permits are creating a no -win situation for the licensed
plumbing contractors for many reasons, but the main reason is because
of all the additional costs that are being imposed. Our price for water
heater installation, like he just said, is roughly $500. But with the cost
of the permit itself at 110, the electrical upgrade or the electrical
connection codes being brought up is over $200. We had several
estimates and the middle was $230 that a contractor would charge a
customer. And then the additional cost for the inspection, if that's
needed, is $60. That's over -- it's almost $900 just for a basic water
heater installation.
Well, today's economy, $900 is a lot of money for a lot of people.
As a matter of fact, $500 is a lot. I mean, it's really -- times are hard at
this particular moment.
And in Naples, Florida, you'd think this wouldn't be an issue, but
it certainly is. Several years ago we had a plumbing showroom with
high -end faucets and fixtures. The majority of our work at that time
was doing remodeling, high -end bathrooms, high -end kitchens. Today
people are no longer purchasing high items, you know, like they used
to. They're going with basics and they're going with necessities.
Even a few years ago water heater prices were higher than they
are today. But to keep up with the faltering economy, we've had to
change our business focus and we've had to regroup. And in doing so
we've had to drastically reduce prices just to stay in business.
Now we're suffering a huge loss of business in Collier County
specifically as a direct result of these permits, because people are not
wanting and they're unable to incur these additional costs for just a
basic water heater replacement. And like anything else, there's a
domino effect. When we don't have as much business, not enough
cash flow, unable to support the local businesses or unable to hire. In
fact, our current focus right now is retaining the employees we do
have, and we are trying to avoid lay -offs.
Page 76
September 27, 2011
For the citizens of Collier County, these permits are creating a
no -win situation, and they're suffering in the process as well. If they
decide to have their water heater replaced the legal way, they're forced
to pay a lot more money. In addition, they have to deal with
scheduling contractors, scheduling -- you know, having people in and
out of their homes, the inspectors. We've had at least four or five
people where the inspectors didn't even show up that day. It's creating
a big hassle for them. There's a loss of income for a lot of our
customers; they're having to miss work, things of that nature. And of
course that's an additional expense on top of just the overall cost of
getting it replaced.
Again, the local economy would suffer when they have less
money to spend. They're unable to go to restaurants, do shopping, go
to movies, things of that nature. We hear all the time how they're on
fixed budgets and their accounts are dwindling and things of that
nature.
Then if someone decides they will do this the illegal way, which
is often the case at this moment, they're using unlicensed individuals.
And this is putting the general public in harm's way and creating
issues for many when things go wrong from just one person using an
unlicensed individual. The only ones that are benefiting from this are
the unlicensed individuals. And I don't know if this Board really
wants to support the unlicensed, but I would definitely hope that that
answer is no.
The county too is in a no -win situation because of these permits.
The county says the main objective is to bring electrical connections
up to code. They have told us specifically they are not concerned with
the plumbing, it's the electrical portion.
The plumbing is as straightforward as it gets. As long as there's
no leaks at the connections, it's good to go. And they've said this
numerous times. Like - for -like water heater replacements are
self - explanatory, and there isn't a whole lot to inspect so it's the
Page 77
September 27, 2011
electrical portion that is the issue.
And with more and more people bypassing the permitting
process and going with the unlicensed individuals, the county isn't
accomplishing what they're even setting out to do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Your time has expired. We'll give you
the time your husband --
MS. REEVES: I have one paragraph and I'm finished.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead.
MS. REEVES: I just wanted to make a point that they're not
helping the contractors, they're not helping the citizens and they're not
helping themselves by accomplishing the task that they say that
they're supposed to do.
So right now what they are accomplishing or what they're
helping us to do is put local contractors out of business, they're
helping to put the general public at risk, and they're adding to the
decline of our local economy. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Ron Summers, and
he'll be followed by Kathy Curatolo.
MR. SUMMERS: Hello. My name is Ron Summers of
Summer's Plumbing. I've been licensed in the State of Florida since
'89. I'll be dittoing some of the things that the previous speaker had
mentioned, but I think first of all what I want to mention is oftentimes
people think that spending more money is a better thing. Our -- I
forget people's titles here, Growth Management James French had
mentioned that -- I don't know if he mentioned or not, but the plugs
that are installed for water heaters that were done way back when I
first started doing plumbing as a licensed plumber are big, fat,
heavy -duty designed for stoves. They handle 50 amps. Your typical
water heater deals with 18 amps at a time.
So back to my point. Spending more money is not necessarily a
better thing. What they have in there is ample enough. Oftentimes
Page 78
September 27, 2011
customers like the idea of when they want to disconnect their water
heater they can pull that plug out. It's handy for emergencies.
The problem that I have with this water heater issue is that I'm
not a licensed electrician. And many of the things that are -- that
James French had mentioned is that you need licensed contractors. So
I find that when I change out a water heater and I don't do anything
with the electrical but I'll wire it back up the way it is. Perfectly fine,
50 -amp plug, which is actually better than what they're making us put
in. It handles 50 amps. The wires that they're putting in with the
direct connect don't have to be the 50 -amp wires. But the county is
making me responsible for that electric.
And when I approach my customer and tell them, as our previous
speaker had said, your water heater is almost doubled because now we
have to get an inspection, that becomes a bit of a problem.
I have an idea for the county and that is for the county to inspect
my plumbing and then impose on the homeowner the rest of it, which
would be the electrical. And let the county take the responsibility of
going back there and re- inspecting a second time to have them change
out something that really doesn't need it, but let the county take the
burden off the plumber and not make the plumber responsible for the
electric. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Kathy Curatolo, and she'll be followed by
Fritz Sullivan.
MS. CURATOLO: Good morning, Commissioner Coyle,
Commissioners, county staff. Thank you for enabling me to speak on
behalf of our local construction industry, with the Collier Building
Industry Association. I'd like to read a quick statement to you.
CBIA takes the position that the declaratory statement request
was poorly worded and included dissimilar scopes of work under a
similar permit question. The question was too broad and not singular
in purpose with respect to the replacement of water heaters.
Page 79
September 27, 2011
Until such time as a more specific and targeted question can be
asked and a response provided, CBIA encourages Collier County to
stay or at least minimize the application process and associated costs.
In that vein, as an interim solution, CBIA has worked with
Growth Management staff, quite collaboratively, I might add, to
minimize the cost of this permit and provide on -line access to apply.
Again, this is an immediate solution, but not a long -term solution.
CBIA will work to prepare a targeted request to the Florida Building
Commission on this issue as quickly as possible.
Thank you very much, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Kathy.
MR. MITCHELL: Fritz Sullivan will be followed by Herminio
Ortega.
MR. SULLIVAN: Good morning. How are you folks today?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good.
MR. SULLIVAN: My name is Fritz Sullivan. I'm with
Sullivan - Tassin Construction here in town. We've been in town for
quite a while, a long history.
There's a couple of things regarding this that concern me as a
general contractor, certified state builder. Number one, code is code.
I have to abide by it, submit my permits according with them on a
regular basis. Yes, we have an over - burdened code book, yes, I agree.
However, on behalf of the building and planning department in
Collier County, in the years I've been doing business here regarding
any type of code, any type of plan review, any type of question of you
having construction whatsoever, that the permit has done a complete
180 - degree turn.
And if you haven't -- have any of you folks pulled permits
recently? I do it all the time. And I can tell you with heartfelt strength
that this thing has changed completely. The way you walk into that
office over there, the way those folks greet you, the way they treat you
is completely different than even three years ago.
September 27, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that good or bad?
MR. SULLIVAN: It's excellent. It's absolutely excellent.
Now, the knowledge and the depth regarding these water heaters,
Jamie made a picture of a penetration. It's a safety issue. Fire caulk
doesn't cost that much. You can do it on your own, you can buy it at
Home Depot, can buy it at Lowe's. Doesn't take you that long to do it.
In terms of electrical, I just want you to consider one thing:
Regarding all of the towers west of 41, as a former Pelican Bay
resident, I had a plug -in. Am I going to change it when I change my
water heater? No. But if the code tells me as a builder that it's my
responsibility to make sure it's done, yeah, I'm going to do it.
The code in 489 state statute indicates that I have to obey the law.
The law in this case is the code. I don't know what else you can do.
Sure, I was partaking with Kathy Curatolo in CBIA on the application
fee and there was talk of an on -line fee. But I think there's the
perception in the community that community development, the
building department is the evil empire, and they're not. What you've
got is you've got a situation where the perception of what is needed to
change a water heater out isn't getting out to the public. So maybe on
the recommendation of possibly through the utility bills or whatever
you can get something out to the public stating that you should have
your electrical upgraded because it is the code. Simple as that.
It's not a matter of trying to put plumbers out of business, it's not
a matter of trying to put me out of business. I as a licensed contractor
am required to hire mechanical contractors. It's all part of the game
plan. And if there is a consequential cost of putting a disconnect in
the scheme of things for public safety, I don't think it's a problem.
In terms of fire penetrations in a highrise, I don't think it's right
that it's not addressed in terms of wall penetrations that possibly exist.
Because I go through these inspections every day, and I've had
nothing but cooperation from the inspectors in the field. And you can
request timely application and timely permit inspections, so --
September 27, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I ask a quick question?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So do I understand that you
support the permitting and inspections of the installation of these
water heaters?
MR. SULLIVAN: Yeah, I do.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
MR. SULLIVAN: But I think the process needs to be changed. I
think you can change it with a different type of application. I think
you can change it with maybe going on an on -line system and then
just break it out.
But I think the most important thing as you as a Commission
need to notify utility or you notify the public that the current code
requires hardwired water heaters. Until that code's changed, I don't
see how you're going to get around it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, the next speaker will be Allan Reeves.
MR. REEVES: Good morning. My name is Allan Reeves. I'm
co -owner of Reeve's Plumbing.
Ten days ago the Board proclaimed September 12th through the
16th as Industry Appreciation Week. My industry, the plumbing
industry, is suffering the worst economic downturn in recent history.
Collier County has an unemployment rate of 11.9 percent. The
construction industry is even higher than that.
We plumbers would appreciate the Board reconsider this
regulation pertaining to water heater permits. The fees and permits
were established by the Board and only the Board can suspend them.
As licensed plumbing contractors, we pull permits for everything
from new construction to remodeling jobs. Now we need one just for
a water heater replacement.
The City of Naples is exempt from this regulation. The City of
Marco Island is exempt. Single- family homes in Collier County are
September 27, 2011
exempt. One -third of the counties in Florida do not have these water
heater permits.
I and the other plumbing contractors of Collier County would
also like to be exempt from this ridiculous regulation. Seriously, $110
fee to replace a water heater? What's next, a permit to hook up a
washer and dryer?
This is just another tax on the citizens of Collier County, but
that's only if you live in a condo. If you live in an $8 million home in
the City of Naples you don't need a permit. But if you own a duplex
off of Bayshore Drive, you'll need to cough up $110 for each unit, if
you're replacing both units, water heaters. That's $220 before I even
get my tools out of my truck.
All of you live in single- family homes, so you won't have to
worry about this permit and this $110 fee. But there are people in our
community that cannot afford this.
This water heater permit ordinance has only been on the books
for 16 months and now everyone is realizing how bad of an idea it is.
Permits were not required until April of last year. What changed?
Was it because that there was nothing on the books pertaining to water
heaters and the building officials decided to initiate this action for a
new source of revenue?
Remember, this is at the same time that the federal government
started the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. That's
that great stimulus plan that we've all heard about.
My business cannot flourish in Collier County and we cannot
grow with this regulation and these outrageous fees. This season will
begin again soon and I am hopeful to hire four employees. That's jobs
for Collier County. This regulation is a jobs killer. From the
manufacturers that make these water heaters to the suppliers who
stock them, to the truck drivers that deliver them, and finally to
plumbers like myself that install them, we're all feeling the effects of
this economy.
0_-
September 27, 2011
You need to suspend this regulation and step aside so that we can
get back to business, so that Collier County can get back to business.
If not, my business will continue to survive and grow, but it will be in
Lee and Charlotte counties. I will still do some work in Collier
County, but more than likely it will be in the City of Naples or Marco
Island.
With the Economic Development Council closing its doors this
Friday, businesses like mine need all the help we can get.
In closing, we are merely asking you to be able to remove a
leaking water heater and replace it with a new one, which only takes
about an hour, without having to go down to North Horseshoe Drive,
spending two hours to obtain a permit and forking over $110.
Please suspend this ordinance immediately, if only temporarily,
and agree to set up a time for a workshop for further discussion.
Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, your last speaker is Herminio Ortega.
MR. ORTEGA: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Herminio Ortega.
I guess the best way to say this is that Mr. Jamie French and Mr.
Sullivan took my umph. But I'm in agreement with the permitting and
inspection for the simple reason -- and we've had good arguments
today, by the way. But I've been, for lack of a better word, a victim in
multiple occasions where houses that we either rented, leased or even
owned didn't have hot water heaters properly installed. They didn't
have pans, they didn't have drain lines outside. I have physically seen
these situations, single - family homes and multi- family homes.
The important thing here is that for the licensed plumber like Mr.
Summers who I'm sure isn't -- his reputation's impeccable. It's the
public that I'm concerned about. It's the people that don't really know
what they need or what they're supposed to have. And all of a sudden
one day the hot water heater breaks and all that water goes in the
house. Why? Because some handyman or somebody called a
September 27, 2011
handyman to leave it and the handyman did it. That's my concern.
That's why I'm pro the permit inspection process. The only way
to preempt this thing from happening, of course provided they pull a
permit. You can use the enforcement tools out there. Yes, if they
catch a plumber not doing work in according (sic) to whatever they
have to do, yes, you can go after them. But by that time it's too late.
The damage is done.
So how do you preempt this? The only way is through an
inspection process, the only way. Why? Because a building permit
does serve the needs of the community, needs of the public interest.
A contractor, a business person -- and there's nothing wrong with that,
just the way it is -- they serve their own interest. And that's right,
there's nothing wrong with that. But I see the building department as a
means to regulate, enforce or protect the interest of the public. And I
think it's the only way, it's the only way to preempt anything from
going wrong.
Again, by the time they get the call, meaning the building
department, it's too late. Or the lawyer for that matter. Then you have
-- if it's a multi - family you may have one, two, three units been
damaged. It's a single- family residence; you might have your roof
cave in, your ceiling cave in. I have seen that. So these things are real.
The arguments placed today before you are very real as well.
They're very important. But we also have to look at it from the
interest of the public. How do we preempt these things from
happening? Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct me if I'm wrong, what I
heard from CBIA. and Kathy Curatolo is that they're going to write a
request for interpretation of the Florida Building Code on this issue. I
appreciate that, you know. And to me it just doesn't make sense that
we were required to have a water heater as far as a permitting process.
September 27, 2011
But that is the Florida law, and we need to abide by it. And until we
get that interpretation, and I'm sure Kathy would share it with us, I
think we need to enforce it.
The alternative that Mr. French or Kathy brought up I think is --
staff can initiate that without the Board direction.
Is that correct, County Manager?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Initiate what?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Initiate a one fee, one
inspection. Yeah.
MR. OCHS: I was just asking Mr. French if we needed to come
back with a resolution to revise our rate schedule to reflect a change.
MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir. Commissioners, again, for the record,
Jamie French.
What I can do, if it's the Board's will, at the next meeting I would
bring it back. If it's amenable to the Board, we would indicate that it's
$60 for the inspection, $5.00 for the administrative fee. And it would
point out that that would be inclusive of both one electrical inspection
and one plumbing inspection.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we retroactive it today?
MR. OCHS: I was just going to suggest that, sir, that we made it
effective retroactively from today's date, if that's the will of the Board.
That way we don't lose two weeks in applying this new fee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, my next question I heard,
I don't know if this is true, that the fire code officials have an interest
in inspection of water heaters; is that true?
MR. FRENCH: Well, Commissioner, and we did speak about
this yesterday. We have had correspondence with our manager
Tatiana Gust, with the Deputy Building Official Bob Salvaggio.
The fact of the matter is that this is a commercial building and
they are subject to fire plan review and inspections. They have come
back and said so long as we are looking at them from the building
department side, there's no level of interest at this point on their side to
-- i•
September 27, 2011
even get in there and look at these.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What about if we gave you
direction not to request a permit for water heaters, did you get an
indication from the fire department or fire --
MR. FRENCH: No, that's --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- plan review inspectors?
MR. FRENCH: That's not a conversation that they would enter
into, nor is a conversation that I had, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Jamie, I heard some comments from
people who thought that we did not properly ask the question. If the
CBIA is going to ask for an interpretation, would it be too much to ask
for the CBIA and the Collier County staff to coordinate the question
that is going to be asked for clarification so we won't have a
continuing argument about whether or not the question was asked
properly?
MR. FRENCH: And that was our intention, sir. Yes, sir. If that
wasn't made clear, I apologize. But that is our intention, to work in a
collaborative effort with our partners at CBIA.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So what we're going to do now is
you're going to take action to implement the reduced fee and provide
for only one inspection?
MR. FRENCH: For both trades.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, for both trades.
And you're going to make that new fee, which will be $65 total --
MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- retroactive to today's date, right?
MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And you'll bring that back to us
for approval at the next meeting.
MR. FRENCH: I'll bring the fees -- I'll bring just that section of
the fee schedule back, yes, sir.
Page 87
September 27, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And then you're going to work jointly
with CBIA to -- for CBIA to draft an appropriate question to ask for
clarification on this issue?
MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Jamie, did you talk to the City of
Marco, the City of Naples and to Lee County and ask them why they
weren't doing the same?
MR. FRENCH: No, ma'am, I did not. Mr. Harrison, our building
official, is here. I know Gary did have some correspondence with a
number of the building officials.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to know what the other
municipalities and counties are saying as to why they're not doing it.
MR. FRENCH: Sure.
MR. HARRISON: Good morning, Commissioners. Gary
Harrison, Collier County Building Official.
I did talk to the Lee County building official, and this was about
maybe two or three weeks ago, and his -- he didn't have any really
good reason. He said they were looking at the old ordinance that they
had drafted years ago, and he was still using the one where we use for
-- with the exempt for single- family. And I pointed out to him, I said,
well, you're not talking about single- family, you're talking about
condos. And he really didn't have much of a response.
So, you know, it's my job to enforce the Florida Building Code,
the declaratory statement that was issued. If I don't do it, I'm subject
to losing my licenses as far as -- along with the licenses of my
employees.
I did talk to Paul Bollenback from the City of Naples. They do
require certain aspects as far as electric, but he was going to take it to
their city council.
And you have to remember that a lot of these jurisdictions were
not doing anything until this declaratory statement was written. So
September 27, 2011
now that the declaratory statement is on record, I'm sure that a lot of
them are going to be looking at it and probably changing their idea of
what they want for permits.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So now in order to install a water
heater, if you live in a condo, you're going to have to hire an
electrician and a plumber?
MR. HARRISON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Even if you're replacing the unit
with an identical unit and you're not doing anything to change any of
the electrical outlets?
MR. HARRISON: Well, if it's hardwired, no, you don't need an
electrical. I mean, they're allowed to -- the plumber's allowed to make
that hookup. But if you're going from a plug -in to a hardwired, then
yes, you need an --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The transition.
MR. HARRISON: -- electrical contractor. Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thanks for the clarification.
MR. HARRISON: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, motion to direct staff to
retro- active a single inspection, single fee and bring back the amended
resolution to the Board of Commissioners for adoption.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And to work with the CBIA in getting an
interpretation, asking a question?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right, is there a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seconded by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
September 27, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Thank you, Jamie.
What can you do in four minutes, County Manager?
MR. OCHS: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we'll be back here after lunch at
1:00 P.M.
(Luncheon recess.)
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, Board of County
Commissioners meeting is back in session. We're going to go to our
1:00 time certain, which includes Item 8.
Item #8A
PUDZ- 2007 -AR- 12292: COPE RESERVE RPUD, AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004 -41, 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 ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE
HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM THE ESTATES
(E) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR A PROJECT
TO BE KNOWN AS COPE RESERVE RPUD. THE PROJECT
PROPOSES A TOTAL OF 43 SINGLE- FAMILY DETACHED
DWELLING UNITS IN SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING
September 27, 2011
OF 14.3± ACRES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE —
MOTION TO CONTINUE TO THE OCTOBER 11, 2011 BCC
MEETING — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 8 sir, are your advertised public hearings.
This item has been continued from June 14th, 2010 BCC
meeting. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in.
This is PUDZ- 2007 -AR- 12292, Cope Reserve RPUD, and
ordinance -- amending Ordinance No. 2004 -41 of the Collier County
Land Development Code, which includes 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 hearing described real property from
Estates zoning district to the residential planned unit development
zoning district for a project to be known as the Cope Reserve RPUD.
The project proposes a total of 43 single- family detached
dwelling units in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida, consisting of 14.3 plus or minus acres and by
providing an effective date.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we'll start with ex parte
disclosures by commissioners, with Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have no ex parte disclosures
other than having received the summary report from staff.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I've had -- I have a lot to
disclose. I've had meetings with staff members. I've had meetings
with the developer's representatives, Wayne Arnold and Rich
Yovanovich. And --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yovanovich. Like that famous
author Evanovich, just Yovanovich. And they're not related.
Page 91
September 27, 2011
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I thought Yovanovich sounded
really good.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It does, it does.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I also have quite a few pieces of
correspondence that I have in this book that anybody is welcome to
see. And those are e- mails, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, I have reviewed the staff report
4.7.11, and any other meetings and correspondence are contained in
my folder. If someone wishes to read it, I'll be happy to make it
available. So there it is.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir. The only thing I have
to disclose is that I talked to staff and I read the staff report 4.7.11.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I received the Planning
Commission's report.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then our next step is to swear in
the participants.
Would anyone who is going to give testimony on this petition,
please stand and raise your hand to be sworn in. That includes
members of the public who are going to be making comments.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
This item will require a minimum of four affirmative votes for
approval.
Mr. Arnold?
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. For the record, I'm Wayne Arnold
with Q. Grady Minor and Associates. With me this afternoon is Mr.
Yovanovich.
And this project was originally scheduled for your summary
agenda back in May. And the item was pulled at Commissioner
Fiala's request in order for us to answer a few of her questions and also
Page 92
September 27, 2011
have an opportunity to discuss with some of the neighbors some of
their concerns.
I just wanted to briefly point out that in this particular case the
project that's 14 acres, it's all single - family detached dwellings with a
maximum number of 43 units in them.
I've had a chance to speak with at least one of the neighbors, and
I think some of the concerns are based on past development on Cope
Lane, a project called Falling Waters. I'm not sure I can do much to
go back and revisit the history of that project, but I'm happy to discuss
what I think our real issue seems to center on, improvements to Cope
Lane.
The project, I'm showing it on your visualizer, it's obviously a
small project. But we have -- our access will be from Cope Lane. It
made sense from many perspectives to use the existing Cope Lane
right -of -way and easement that's there rather than create another
access point on County Barn Road.
With that, the county asked us to make improvements to the
Cope Lane intersection to county standards, including putting in
sidewalks, bike lanes, turn lanes, et cetera. And there are
cross - sections in your backup documentation that demonstrate what
we're required to do.
And I think in some cases that's helpful for the neighbors, but in
some cases I think that they're not so pleased with the level of
improvements to Cope Lane, because the middle of Cope Lane is not
being improved.
But as you know, Cope Lane does not connect to your new Santa
Barbara extension, it terminates at Santa Barbara, and I don't know
that there's any immediate plans to make that connection.
But with that, I'll answer any questions you may have, or if you
want me to put up the master plan, I'll be happy to do that.
I know we have one speaker from the public; might be helpful to
hear what his concerns are.
Page 93
September 27, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's call the first speaker, Ian.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, there is only one speaker and that is Skip
Riffle.
MR. RIFFLE: Good afternoon, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good afternoon.
MR. RIFFLE: Cope Lane has been a troubled spot for the last 15
years or longer. We've been promised a lot of things by developers.
Their CO's have reflected their -- shall we say their items. For the
check -off sheet they never reflected what -- they came in meetings
with the residents and told us. And then when it came time to get their
CO, they checked off everything on their sheet which started off once
upon a time as far as we're concerned. Because what they told us that
they would deliver and what they did deliver was two different things.
Consequently, we are worried about Cope Lane. One, it's
one -third of the length of approximately of Cope. You're going to
improve it, all the bike lanes are going to stop one -third of the way
down. Any improvements to the road, one -third of the way down. But
with 41 residents, these friends, neighbors, traffic of law enforcement,
emergency vehicles, people just wanting to look and have a look at the
apartments for sale and all that, they're going to think they can exit out
onto Santa Barbara, they're coming down the road. That road already
has sinkholes in it where it wasn't properly constructed in the
beginning, and it's going to affect that road.
It was not designed to have that kind of traffic. There were nine
residences on the road and that's all they really decided to build it up
to handle.
We were told in the very beginning that it would be brought up to
meet county standards. We deeded our property over to the county.
The residents even bought out other -- couple of the other residents
who were reluctant to deed their property so that you could bring it up
to county standard.
The deeds disappeared for 20 years. And I went into records
Page 94
September 27, 2011
here not long ago and bingo, there they were. But the county's never
accepted the road.
If all these improvements are done, will the county accept the
road for maintenance? If they do, we don't have a problem. If they
don't, we have a problem. Because the swales weren't improved, the
water runoff is bad. The county is a participant in this as they own the
first 660 feet of the road on the side of the lake. Are they going to
stand with the residents and say let's improve the whole thing? It's
beneficial to them too.
So that herein lies the problem. This time around, if what is
going to go down, we the residents would like the opportunity to sign
what is going to be needed for them to get their CO so that we're all on
the same page. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, Skip, don't leave yet.
So let me see if I understood what you just said. There were
promises by the developer to then finish the road after he used his
trucks and so forth to do Falling Waters. He was going to bring that
road back up to county standards once they were finished, but that was
never done. And they also promised to do the swales, but that was
never done, is that what you're just saying?
MR. RIFFLE: Yes. They told us that it would be -- it would not
be logical to go and finish the road up and then run heavy traffic, you
know, dump trucks full over it just to destroy it. But then once they
were done they would finish it up, put in the swales, recap the road
and fix any damage done by the trucks.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's what I had understood you to
say. And that's why I pulled this, because I felt if it's the same
developer, would that then happen again. They haven't even fixed the
first one and now they're going to do this again. And I fear for that.
MR. RIFFLE: And I also might add that we're fearful of losing
Page 95
September 27, 2011
our Estates status there. And we've been that way for the last 40, 50
years.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So we'll need to hear from Nick on
that.
Rich?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Do you want Nick or --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you can respond to the first.
Because I want to make sure that if we approve this thing we tie it up
so tightly that nobody gets any permission to do anything until they've
completed what they were supposed to do originally and until they've
completed what they have promised to do this time and we've signed
off on it to make sure that it's done.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, there -- for the record, Rich
Yovanovich. And I wish I was related to Janet Evanovich but I'm not.
In this particular PUD we have got to do the Cope Lane
improvements prior to obtaining any COs. So it's in the PUD
document that we can't go forward with any COs until the Cope Lane
improvements are completed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The entire Cope Lane or just --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Related to this project.
Now, the second portion, as you can see it, that's Falling Waters.
The developer of Falling Waters in 1998, while Falling Waters was
still under construction, sold the entirety of the project to
TransEastern. TransEastern became the developer of the project.
As far as the public records go, all requirements related to that
PUD have been satisfied, and there are no code cases related to the
Falling Waters PUD.
And that actually came up as part of the discussion during the
Planning Commission hearing, and your transportation staff went back
and looked at the required improvements for Cope Lane, and there are
no inconsistencies with the approved PUD.
TransEastern as the developer had all obligations and is the party
September 27, 2011
responsible for fulfilling all commitments related to that project. So
we're kind of stuck because we're not the developer of that project.
We went out of the development of that project in 1998.
You can't get into a situation here where commitments are at the
end of the deal where a developer could say I'm sorry, I'm done, I'm
not obligated to fulfill those obligations. Because these improvements
have to be in place at the front end of the project, bringing that road, at
least for our frontage on Cope Lane, to county standards before we
can get any CO's.
So you will not have that situation again where a developer can
wait till the end, because my understanding was it was always
intended at the end when Falling Waters was done, and I wasn't
around for that, but if there were commitments to bring that road up to
a certain level, they were at the end of the project. We're doing it up
front on this project.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They've had troubles with it ever
since, because they've called me many times when the flooding took
place, when the trucks got stuck, when the road is dipping and they
can't get through their road. And we've called transportation, and our
people have come out and tried to modify it to some degree to at least
make it passable for these people. And this is over the years.
MR. RIFFLE: On Page 14 of that document we sent you, I
believe it said that the improvements to Cope Lane, the swales and the
road, were supposed to be done by 1995.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know what document he's
referring to, because I haven't seen a copy of it.
MR. RIFFLE: That was the PUD on Falling Waters.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I know we're consistent with the Falling
Waters PUD. That I've been -- you know, your staff evaluated that as
part of this hearing. Although they're separate properties.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Shall be completed by June 16th,
Page 97
September 27, 2011
1995.
MR. RIFFLE: That's when you're still owning it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. As prepared by Q. Grady
Minor.
MR. ARNOLD: Commissioner Fiala, I wasn't with the firm at
the time, but yes, our firm had been involved with Falling Waters.
And as far as I know, all of the improvements that were contemplated
and required under that PUD were satisfied.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, see, and the residents are
saying they aren't. And I've been down that road and it certainly
doesn't look like it. And they didn't do the landscaping as they were
supposed to.
I think that there's more discovery needed on this before we can
move any farther. I just worry that the same thing is going to happen
to these people and they have nobody to protect them.
MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think there's a couple of distinctions.
One, what's in the PUD document doesn't mandate that it become a
county road and to county standard. I think that there is a discrepancy
there.
While I agree with Mr. Riffle that the deeds were turned over to
the county, the county's never accepted this as a county road, per se.
And I don't believe it was contemplated as part of your improvements
to Santa Barbara and County Barn Road that Cope Lane was going to
become a through road.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They're not asking for a through
road, they're just asking that Cope Lane be brought up to the standards
that the developer had told them it would be so that they could give it
to the county.
MR. ARNOLD: I don't think the county's going to accept the
road unless it meets --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, not the way it is.
MR. ARNOLD: -- county standards.
99 !M
September 27, 2011
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The county would never accept the
road the way it is because it's in such bad shape, right?
MR. ARNOLD: That's not exactly what I do for a living. I
mean, that would be one of our engineers. But I don't know,
Commissioner Fiala, what would be required to bring that up to a
county standard that would make it acceptable to the county.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you want to ask for a continuance?
MR. ARNOLD: Sure. I think that would be an appropriate
opportunity for us to maybe evaluate County Barn Road and what it's
going to take to bring it up to standard, sure. That's the request that's
being made.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You can meet with transportation
and you can meet with Nick Casalanguida. And Skip, maybe you can
get your people out as well. I realize they're mostly working people.
But still, I mean, if you can get together with everybody.
We had tried to get a meeting with the people before, and
apparently Skip has said and sent me an email to this regard, we
thought we had contacted them and he was going to contact
everybody, but he said nobody's gotten the message. So I don't know
where -- we have a copy of it so we know we sent it. I don't know
where it fell through the cracks. And that's why nobody showed at that
meeting that day.
And I understand that, you know, things happen, we certainly
know that, and we've had some computer problems here, so maybe
that was one of the days. But anyway, I would like that, if you
wouldn't mind continuing that.
MR. ARNOLD: I think at this point that's probably the most
prudent thing to do for all of us. Hopefully we'll get the right answers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a motion to approve the request
for a continuance?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll second it.
You made the motion?
September 27, 2011
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I did say the motion.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Can we continue it to a date certain,
which that way you won't have to re- advertise?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Next meeting would be fine.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Can we get together that quick?
MR. RIFFLE: When is that, please?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Two weeks.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Two weeks, right?
MR. OCHS: October 11th.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. RIFFLE: I'll knock on doors.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a motion --
MR. RIFFLE: When and where.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You guys meet in the hall and talk
about your meeting date with transportation --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a motion on the floor to
approve by Commissioner Fiala and seconded by Commissioner
Hiller.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
Thank you very much. And it was a time certain continuance.
Item #8B
RESOLUTION 2011 -181: APPROVING, WITH CONDITIONS,
Page 100
September 27, 2011
PETITION CSLV- PL2010- 00018129 REQUESTING A VARIANCE
FROM COASTAL CONSTRUCTION SETBACK LINE (CCSL)
AND PRESERVE TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW
RESTROOM AND CONCESSION FACILITY SEAWARD OF THE
COASTAL CONSTRUCTION SETBACK LINE (CCSL) TO
REPLACE AN EXISTING RESTROOM STRUCTURE, ALL OF
WHICH ARE LOCATED ON OR NEAR THE EXISTING
VANDERBILT BEACH RESTROOM WITH A STREET ADDRESS
OF 100 VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD, LOCATED IN SECTION
32, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, 8.B is a resolution approving with
conditions Petition CSLV- PL2010- +0001812, requesting a variance
from the coastal construction setback line and preserve to allow for
construction of a new restroom and concession facility seaward of the
coastal construction setback line to replace the existing restroom
structure, all of which are located on or near the existing Vanderbilt
Beach restroom with the street address of 100 Vanderbilt Beach Road,
located in Section 32, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier
County, Florida.
Commissioners, as noted on your change sheet this morning, this
item will require ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. And if the hearing is held, all participants are required to be
sworn in, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We'll start with ex parte
disclosure by commissioners with Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I received several
correspondences. Not this particular variance, but the whole
Vanderbilt Beach bathroom issue. I didn't receive the Planning
Commission's packet. As I understand, the Planning Commission
doesn't hear these types of variances.
Page 101
September 27, 2011
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what I have is old
correspondence from the general public.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir.
Of course I talked with staff. I got correspondence, e -mails and
phone calls, and everything's in my folder.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Likewise, I have a whole stack of
records of minutes of meetings, correspondence, e -mails and phone
calls for the entire life cycle of this particular project. And it's also
enclosed in my public file. So if anyone's interested in reviewing it,
it's there for you.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I also have had meetings,
correspondence, e -mails and calls. These are all the e- mails. If
anybody would like to spend a pleasant afternoon in my office and
read them, they're welcome to. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I received e- mails, had calls, I had
meetings with staff, had meetings with citizens, and have reviewed all
the information submitted by staff.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, how many public speakers do we
have, Ian?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we've got seven.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, staff, you have a -- I'm sorry,
County Manager?
MR. OCHS: Swear in.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, I'm sorry, yes.
Will everyone who's going to provide testimony in this petition,
please stand to be sworn in, including people from the public.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
MR. McALPIN: Thank you. Mr. Chair, for the record, Gary
Page 102
September 27, 2011
McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management.
The item before you is a continuation of our engineering and
permitting for the Vanderbilt Beach bathroom. We're here to request a
coastal construction setback line variance.
To refresh the Commission's memory, this item has come before
you a couple times. We received a conceptual design approval on
June 20th -- 22nd, excuse me, of 2010. We also received approval to
move forward, and you authorized $160,000 for the design,
engineering, the permitting and the bidding as late as June 14th of this
year. You directed us on Item 10.F to move forward with this project.
At all of our presentations, and we've had four presentations to
you on this, we've talked about permitting and variance.
Here to make the presentation on where we stand with the project
and request the variance for the CCSL line is Michael Poff, with
Coastal Engineering Consultants. Thank you.
MR. POFF: Good afternoon. For the record, Michael Poff, Vice
President of Coastal Engineering Consultants. It is my pleasure to
represent the consulting team on this project.
My degree is not in IT. There we go.
All right. My presentation will focus on the engineering design
aspects and the status of our environmental permits for the public
restroom and concession facility which has been designed to replace
the existing restroom and relocate the existing concession.
Due to the site characteristics of the property, including a frontal
dune, the preserve area and wetlands, a significant amount of site
design work went in from the initial project to the conceptual
approval. We did this through a collaborative effort with Q. Grady
Minor for site engineering, our firm for the environmental, Jeff Moore
for landscaping, and the county's architect Victor Latavish, as well as
the staff of Coastal Zone Management.
On behalf of the consulting team, I thank the staff of both
Community Development and Coastal Zone, the Water Management
Page 103
September 27, 2011
District and Department of Environmental Protection. We worked
very closely with these agencies to re- engineer several key features
which I will highlight throughout my slides.
I know that this graph is difficult to read so I've blown it up for
presentation purposes to help.
This is the detailed site plan. As far as the vehicular path, it will
be remaining the same. We've added a paver block design, the
flagpole. So vehicular traffic will continue to come in the turnaround.
The existing drop -off will remain, as will the existing dune walkover.
Some benches have been added. Pedestrian flow -ways will remain the
same. We've added stairs from the beach and from the sidewalk up to
the deck. And in the ADA accessible ramp, also to get to the deck.
I'll talk more about this, but we've added dune vegetation. There
is a gap in the existing frontal dune at this beach access location as
you move from north to south along Vanderbilt.
To offset impacts, the existing vegetation that were removed as
part of construction, that gap will be closed. I think it's currently 95
feet. We'll reduce it to 30 feet and we'll create new dunes with native
dune plants.
Further, we will offset impacts to existing dune vegetation by
removing exotic vegetation on the subject property and the adjacent
right -of -way as well as the dune to the south of the subject property,
and we will plant woody species in those areas that are low sparse
understory dune plants and/or in the areas where we will remove the
exotic vegetation.
Zooming into the deck level, this gives you the areas. The
restroom will be 760 square feet, the concession 400 square feet, the
deck 1,500 square feet, and so on.
We did four key redesigns from the initial design to conceptual.
First, we shifted the entire facility 10 feet landward. That eliminated
the buffer preserve of 10 feet. But by doing so, we were able to garner
the consensus among Community Development Services and the
Page 104
September 27, 2011
agency staff with the Department of Environmental Protection by
moving the structure off of the crest, the seaward side of the dune, the
crest line.
We further reduced the impact by reorienting the deck and
reducing it by four feet on the seaward extent.
We then added a foundation plan with a cantilevered deck which
places all the excavation and piling on the landward side of the dune
line.
And lastly, we relocated the beach tractor storage component to
the parking garage, which allowed us to reduce a significant amount
of excavation that would have occurred within the dune.
Again, we've worked very closely with the -- especially the
agency, Department of Environmental Protection, CCCL staff, to
institute these design changes to protect the frontal dune to avoid
and/or to minimize impacts.
On the ground floor we have the inclement weather protection
area, which is underneath the cantilevered deck. It's for people to seek
shelter during rain or to get shade for out of the sun.
A storage area is there for the restroom and concession supplies,
the sea turtle monitors, to store their equipment.
The dumpster will have a roll -out cart and Parks and Rec will
maintain the facility. And of course the water management area for
dry retention required for environmental resource permit at the state
level.
On the main floor plan, of course the concession as I mentioned
will be relocated off the beach area into the new facility. There are six
toilets for women, two toilets and two urinals for men.
This is a north elevation, so this is looking at it from the street.
This provides the elevation dimensions. The most important critical
one is for access underneath the building, you have to provide at least
eight feet of clearance per the Florida Building Code.
This is a west elevation, so this is looking at the facility from the
Page 105
September 27, 2011
beach side. We've kind of pointed to where the inclement weather
protection area would be to garner that shade from the sun or get out
of the rain.
Understand that there's been concerns about the size of the
proposed facility. So we went ahead and we measured the other beach
parks in the county and we find that this proposed facility is consistent
with the smaller beach parks.
I think the numbers speak for themselves in terms of this is not an
over - designed facility in terms of square footage.
This is an overlay of the existing facility and the proposed
facility. The 1974 coastal construction setback line is shown. I want
to remind everyone that the existing facility had to receive a CCSL
variance, and a coastal construction control line permit from the state.
If we were to do anything with the existing facility or try some
other type of concept, anything in this location will require both a
CCSL variance and a CCCL approval process through the state.
I've also plotted this exhibit on a large scale to help with the
information.
We conducted an erosion analysis to look at the stability of the
beach and dune on Vanderbilt, and looking at erosion rates and
profiles over time. We find that this beach area has been very stable.
That's also part of the county's beach management program, so it's
been restored and renourished and in the near future will be restored
and renourished again.
Looking at post -storm profiles, in the wake of say Hurricane
Wilma and Tropical Storm Faye, it shows that the dune system in this
southern end of Vanderbilt has also been very stable.
The existing structures along Vanderbilt establish what's known
as a uniform line of construction. It's a key design criteria and a key
element of both the local variance process under the LDC and the state
CCCL process.
You cannot be further seaward than your neighbors. In this
Page 106
September 27, 2011
graph the evidence is to show that there are properties that establish
this line. We are not further seaward than that line.
I also understand that there was a question raised, and I'm going
to flip to the next graph. And this was added based on a question
raised yesterday by I believe Commissioner Coyle as to where is the
state coastal construction control line. This is the exact same graph
that you have in your packet with the coastal construction control line
by the state added.
I feel like I need Vanna White here to help me.
The point of the state control line is the entire property is seaward
of that state line. So any activities, including the parking garage and
the existing facility, those developments on Vanderbilt all have to get
a CCCL approval from the state.
This table just takes the exact same information that's on the two
exhibits you just saw and puts it in a tabular form for ease of looking
at the distances and making comparisons.
In terms of our permit status, obviously we're here today seeking
approval for the variance and the reduction in the buffer from the
preserve. The Water Management District has issued a request for
additional information, and subsequent to your approval today we will
develop and execute a partial release of conservation easement for the
Chairman's signature, prepare and submit a monitoring plan for the
preserve area, and update the engineering technical notes. We are on
schedule to have the Water Management District approvals by
mid - December.
On Friday, the Department of Environmental Protection deemed
our CCCL variance petition complete. They did ask for some
technical clarification on the FEMA, ADA and conservation
easement, which we provided to them and I have an email from their
staff yesterday indicating that that information should be sufficient.
So we expect that subsequent to your action today, the DEP will
grant the CCCL variance on or before November 14th.
Page 107
September 27, 2011
Then we move forward with the CCCL permit. We do have an
RAI on that as well. They're looking for the variance from you,
they're looking for the variance from the state themselves, they're
looking for the ERP modification from the Water Management
District.
So this is the first step in what is a series of steps through the
state process to garner the rest of the approvals.
The Corps of Engineers has deemed this complete as the project
qualifies for a nationwide Permit No. 18. There are no outstanding
issues, and we are on track to have that issued on or before October
6th. The county has an RAI out on our SDPA. We need to update
some engineering technical notes for utilities and for fire. The
environmental and zoning are looking for the variance today. The
state variance and the Water Management District ERP permit mod.
We are scheduled to have those items completed and in hand by
December, as I mentioned, and we will submit those to the county and
anticipate getting county approval by the end of January, 2012.
And then the right -of -way for the county, there are no
outstanding issues. But they can't issue a right -of -way permit until the
SDPA has been issued. So again, each one of the permits in the
process is waiting for the prior one.
For brevity, I'm going to skip through the next two slides. These
are overlays for the proposed facility over top of some of the beach
parks to the south. I've already given you the areas of these parks and
how they compare. We can always go back to them, if you have
questions.
I also understand that Summer and Bill will give a small
presentation from staff.
And so in summary, the proposed project is to construct this new
facility to replace the existing facility which is outdated and
insufficient for future use, while improving the public access to the
beach. In cooperation with all the agencies staff, and we thank them
September 27, 2011
again for that, the facility was sited and resigned to address the unique
site characteristics.
This effort, along with the pile supported foundation design and
new frontal dune creation, provides assurance that the project will not
adversely affect the coastal system.
The facility size has been minimized to avoid or minimize
impacts and is consistent with the smaller beach parks around the
county.
The project includes a significant amount of dune vegetation to
address the dune impacts, and will establish a uniform crest line for
the frontal dune, continuous with the existing Vanderbilt Beach dune
system.
We've been deemed complete by the DEP for their variance
process, subject to your approval today. We're working closely with
the other agencies to obtain the other required permits and we're
presently on schedule to accomplish this.
I thank you for your time and will endeavor to answer any
questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any questions from Commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, let's bring the first speaker --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have some questions before we
start with speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead, Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Did you say your name was Mr.
Poff?
MR. POFF: Yes. P- 0-F -F.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you were the one who sent the
letter to the state on June 23rd, 2011, the petition for a variance form
for the Vanderbilt Beach restroom and concession. I assume this is --
you're the one who prepared this, right? I just want to make sure.
MR. POFF: Yes, ma'am.
Page 109
September 27, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Michael T. Poff? Okay, great.
MR. POFF: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
I reviewed what you submitted to the state and have listened
carefully to your presentation. And I'm very concerned.
To begin, in your representation to the state, you make it clear
that the state has objected to the design as proposed. And specifically
I'm going to read for the record: The department has taken the
position that the project is proposed to be constructed on a frontal
dune, as defined in 161.053(6)(Al), and such construction is
inconsistent with 62B- 33.005(8), which states major structures shall
be located a sufficient distance landward of the beach and frontal dune
to permit natural shoreline fluctuations to preserve and protect beach
and dune system stability, and to allow natural recovery to occur
following storm- induced erosion.
And you go on to say that the proposed project will not
jeopardize the stability of the beach dune system or accelerate erosion.
In fact, right now this beach is a critically eroded beach, and this
will affect the existing dune system and will make this beach more
vulnerable to accelerated erosion, which unfortunately it is already
underway.
You make statements like the proposed project will increase
pedestrian accessibility. I mean, this will absolutely not in any way
increase or decrease pedestrian accessibility. It really has nothing to
do with accessibility.
And you say that, you know, the denial of this would result in
substantial hardship. And quite frankly, that isn't the case at all,
because there is an alternative location where this project could be
situated further inland and thereby not affect the dune system at all.
You state that there would be a reduction of tax revenues via
access fees. That isn't the case.
You say that there will be a loss of Tourist Development Council
Page 110
September 27, 2011
funds for improvements to existing beach access. That isn't the case.
There would be a limitation of public access to a publicly owned
facility. That isn't the case either.
You say that there -- let's see. You know, continued degradation
of the dune via pedestrian impacts. The pedestrian impacts are not
going to change as a result of this. In fact, you know, if you want to
protect The Dunes and build a boardwalk over The Dunes going to the
beaches, this particular configuration will not solve that issue at all.
You go on to say that there would be a violation of the principles
of fairness, and that isn't the case either. You know, this project,
notwithstanding other structures and their relative location to the
subject property, is irrelevant to where we are today. When those
structures were built years ago, circumstances were different. We are
dealing with a very fragile environmentally sensitive beach which is
right now, as I say, and I'm going to repeat myself, critically eroded
and we can't do anything to impair The Dunes as they currently exist.
And as I said, very clearly there is an alternative location, as was
presented by staff, landward, which would not cause a problem with
respect to these dunes.
Some other statements you made, that this was reasonably sized
relative to the other parks. Quite frankly, it isn't. Because this is
actually a very small beach area, and this is a very over -sized project.
You correctly indicate that the size of the bathrooms are 760 square
feet. However, the concession and the deck total 1,900 square feet.
And obviously, you know, the deck is what is protruding very
significantly.
And so I really -- you know, when you talk about an amenity for
the public, the public does need increased bathroom facilities there,
but that is 760 square feet, not 3,400, which is, as I understand, the
total scale of the project.
So overall, you know, I find it very hard when government
creates a law that says we shouldn't do something, or I should say the
Page 111
September 27, 2011
public shouldn't do something, and then when the government wants
to build a structure, it carves out an exception for itself. It's just
incomprehensible to me and goes against public policy and really goes
against environmental protection and the sensitivity of this area, as
you've presented it.
So, I mean, I cannot support this at all. And I am the
commissioner for the districts. And by the way, who did you talk to at
the state? Who are you working with?
MR. POFF: On Friday I spoke to Acting Chief Gene Chalecky.
And the emails I received yesterday were from Valerie Jones, the staff
reviewer, and her boss Fritz Weinstein.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And if you could give me copies
of those communications, I would really appreciate it. As well all the
emails and numbers of the people you've been dealing with up there.
Thank you.
MR. POFF: Certainly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Hiller brought up
issues of representation to the State of Florida by you. Is that true?
MR. POFF: The letter she's referring to was developed for the
variance request. And based upon that submittal, the Department has
deemed our variance request complete.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, that wasn't my question.
MR. POFF: I apologize. Can you restate your question?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Hiller is making
representation that you wrote a letter to the State of Florida, making
certain representations such as loss of tourist tax dollars. Is that true?
MR. POFF: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wow. Can you repeat that, or
can you give it to me so I can --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure. I'll give you the copy I have.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't see -- if we don't receive
Page 112
September 27, 2011
the variance we're going to lose tourist tax dollars? Is that what you
said?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's what it says.
MR. POFF: The statement was developed in coordination with
Coastal Zone Management staff and --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, tell me how you come to
that conclusion that it's going to -- we're going to lose tourist
development tax.
MR. POFF: Two statements were made in terms of financial
matters. The first one, and I apologize, I don't have that letter in front
of me so I'm going by my memory.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well it says, a denial of this
variance would result in the following: Reduction of tax revenues via
access fees. And then it says --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wait a minute, stop there, stop
there. Access fees? Didn't we have this discussion just a few minutes
ago about access to the public?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For the public to access the
beaches? And now we're talking about a public access fee in an
application to the state? And in fact this board historically said,
historically said we're not charging the public to access the beach. But
yet we have the same division of county government representing to
the state that we're going to lose revenue for access to the beach.
What was the next one?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Loss of Tourist Development
Council funds for improvements to the existing beach access.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You mean if they don't approve
it we're not going to expend monies to improve this site; is that what
you represented to the state?
MR. POFF: The second point, yes. We already have TDC
approval of $160,000 that will revert back to the Category A funds.
Page 113
September 27, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That it reverts back to Category
A of the funds?
MR. POFF: I'm sorry, not category A. Let me rephrase that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, it is Category A.
MR. POFF: Is it? Okay. It reverts back is my understanding.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It doesn't revert back unless this
board takes action. It's still in that parks beach improvement area until
we take action.
MR. POFF: The point we made to the state on the first item is
it's the consulting team's belief that if you provide this amenity, you
will increase use of your parking garage, public access point, which
there are fees associated with that access.
So the belief is that by not providing facilities for future use of
the access, you would see a reduction in the fees collected at the
parking garage.
The state asked us to verify that and prove that, and we're not
able to do that, that is just a summary of our consulting team's opinion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we attracting more people
because we're enhancing the bathrooms and putting a restaurant down
there?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's not a restaurant.
MR. POFF: Well, it's a concession and bathrooms. And yes, it's
the consulting team's opinion that yes, you would attract more people
to your public access point.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, I just find these
representations to the State of Florida as far from even a stretch. And
those are just two of them. I would hope that we can correct those
misrepresentations to the state.
MR. McALPIN: Commissioner Henning, if I could, please.
I think the key point here is that anything we do with the coastal
construction setback line construction setback line, coastal
construction control line, which is the line in orange on the overhead
Page 114
September 27, 2011
here, will require a variance from the State of Florida.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, I know --
MR. McALPIN: Anything we do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know that.
MR. McALPIN: And so if we were to build it at the location
where it is specified right here, or if we were to build it further back in
any location back in through here, it would require a variance from the
state and we'd have to go through the same documentation process that
we have in the past.
So we would -- you know, and maybe the representation that has
made (sic) was not 100 percent correct, but we still have that position
that we need a variance from the state to build that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I realize that. We're
government, we're supposed to be honest and truthful.
MR. McALPIN: Well, I believe that we were honest and truthful
here.
The other point I would make, Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have another question.
You have moved the structure 10 feet landward, 10 feet east; is
that correct?
MR. POFF: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's your statement.
MR. POFF: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just wanted to make sure it
was factual.
How much further would you have to move it to lose the ramps,
in other words lower the structure down?
MR. POFF: I apologize, I do not have the distance --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Gary can answer that.
MR. POFF: -- to the VE zone.
MR. McALPIN: If we move it any further to the east,
Commissioner, we are in a preserve area.
Page 115
September 27, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That wasn't my question.
MR. McALPIN: Restate the question, if you would, please.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My question was you moved it
10 feet, and that was verified. So the question is how much further
would you have to move it to lose the ramps and the -- and lower it
down?
MR. McALPIN: To lower it down we would have to move it to
approximately the AE zone. And we went through this at the last
meeting.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just don't remember.
MR. McALPIN: The AE zone is at the intersection of Vanderbilt
Beach Road, which would be approximately at this location right here,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So that would be what, about 40
feet? Just guessing. I'm guessing.
MR. McALPIN: I believe it was greater than 40 feet.
Mike?
MR. POFF: Again, I apologize, I don't have the exact dimension,
but I think it's on the order of 100 to 120 feet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's call the speakers, please.
MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Call two at a time and we'll put one at
each podium.
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir. So we're going to use both podiums,
so I'll call two speakers.
The first speaker is Ted Raia, and he'll be followed by Tim
Nance.
MR. RAIA: Good afternoon. My name is Ted Raia. I'm from
Pelican Bay.
Page 116
September 27, 2011
I still object to this project, mainly because of its elevation and
necessity to use five handicapped ramps to reach this elevation. I
believe the five ramps meets the letter of the law, but definitely not the
intent of the law. Those five ramps are equal -- a little over 130 feet, I
believe.
Now, I ask you, is it better to have the walking and ambulatory
public walk an extra 100, 120 feet to a ground level facility, or to have
the elderly and handicapped go up an incline of 130 feet? Please, let's
have some common sense here.
The only reason why we're having this problem is this request to
have the concession there and a deck. But what about the other people
who use it? And especially the handicap and elderly people. I think
you're going to be hearing about this if this ever gets off the ground.
So please, let's give that some consideration. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The speaker after Mr. Nance will be Kathleen
Robbins.
MR. NANCE: Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Tim
Nance. Today I'm speaking for myself and others who could not
attend.
This item should rightfully have been heard when stakeholders
are local and in Naples.
New beach bathrooms are clearly needed. However, be assured,
there's substantial public objection to the construction of this bathroom
as currently proposed for several reasons. It is overdesigned and
excessively expensive. It's intrusive on adjacent residents, the
environment and the limited natural beaches that Collier County has
and owns.
The Board consistently tries to separate itself from activities on
the lower east coast of Florida. Construction of this kind is expressly
prohibited on public beaches in Broward County. I grew up there.
It also competes with small businesses. Despite assertions of
earlier today, there has never been to my knowledge any analysis
Page 117
September 27, 2011
presented to the public or this board on the perpetual cost of insurance,
operations, maintenance and security of this facility. This is quite
remarkable when in my district, District 5, we have streetlights that
are turned off and libraries that are closed and unavailable to our
students in the late afternoons, evenings and on weekends.
As proposed, this building is yet another gold - plated Collier
County project. It's a classic example of the inability or unwillingness
of certain members of this board to work for sensible and economical
solutions to the basic needs of Collier citizens. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Ms. Robbins will be followed by Emily
Maggio.
MS. ROBBINS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Kathleen Robbins and I'm the secretary of Vanderbilt Beach Residents
Association.
Our issue has never been with the improvement of the bathrooms,
but it's always been with the provision of concessions when there are
already concessions in the neighborhood and the deck.
Couple of points I'd like to reiterate, taking off from
Commissioner Hiller's comments, were that the coastal -- the CCSL,
that diagram right there, shows how many buildings are seaward of
the CCSL. And we're asking for a variance so that the bathroom
facility can be seaward of that.
If those condo buildings came before you today requesting for a
permit to build in their current locations, would you approve it? I
don't think so. Why would you approve a brand new building to be in
violation when you would not approve that same request for a condo?
The second point is that Mr. Poff referred to several times areas
of the parks, the relative areas of the parks. He wasn't really referring
to the areas of the parks, he was referring to the square footage of the
park facilities within the parks themselves. This is by far the smallest
of the parks.
The county has insisted on maintaining their standard design that
Page 118
September 27, 2011
is in use at many of their other county beach parks. And trust me, I've
visited most of them.
They've insisted on replicating this for this park. I would
challenge you to find out what percent percentage of square footage
this proposed facility is of the total acreage of the Vanderbilt Beach
park. I think it's probably in excess of 20, 30 percent. Especially
when you consider that the parking garage is also technically part of
the park, and also the fact that in between the parking garage and the
proposed facility is an unusable preserve. So basically you have a
building which is going to occupy most of the usable area of the park.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Emily Maggio will be followed by Noreen
Murray.
MS. MAGGIO: For the record, my name is Emily Maggio and I
live in Little Hickory Shore.
I can't believe we're discussing this matter again. Oh, my God.
I'd like to thank the Board for approving this facility. It will serve the
public well for years to come. The staff and everyone involved in the
design, including these adjustments they've made, all deserve credit.
It's a wonderful plan.
Approving this variance is the next logical step in the process of
making this facility a reality.
Normally I like to stick to the rules and regulations. However, in
this case all of the adjacent high -rises to the north and the Ritz - Carlton
to the south have all been granted the same variance. Yes,
government must be honest and truthful, but they must also be
even - handed. What you will build on the public property won't be
nearly the footprint that these existing buildings that surround it make.
The design -- the handicap -- the design meets the handicap law.
If you disagree with the law, then you petition the legislature to
change it. You must use the laws on the books to judge the projects
Page 119
September 27, 2011
before you today.
I respectfully request that you approve this variance and allow
this project to go forward. I may be the only one here today speaking
in favor of it, but I ask you to realize, people work, especially the
people who use public facilities the most. And we can't keep coming
back and back and back to discuss what has already been thoroughly
vetted and action has been taken. And I thank you very much.
MR. MITCHELL: Noreen Murray will be followed by Linda
Roth.
MS. MURRAY: Thank you. Noreen Murray from Pelican Bay.
And I'm speaking only for myself.
I guess I'm the second person to speak in favor of a public
amenity for both residents of the county, as well as tourists. My
understanding is it is primarily a tourist development project, but
would be enjoyed by both segments of our county, the visitors, as well
as residents.
Clearly there's a lot of opposition. And the opposition is based
on legitimate concerns about the environment. But some consensus or
compromise needs to be achieved to move this forward.
As long as I've been coming to commissioners' meetings for other
topics, this topic seems to have been in the background. And
everyone will agree that something needs to be done. So it's time to
try to agree on just what it is that should be done. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Linda Roth. She'll be followed by Marcia
Cravens.
MS. ROTH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record,
my name's Linda Roth and I live in Pelican Bay.
I took these pictures of Vanderbilt Beach yesterday afternoon.
The weather was overcast, but I didn't expect to find a parking area
completely empty. And there were only approximately 30 people
walking on the beach. No one used the restroom facility while I was
there for half an hour.
Page 120
September 27, 2011
I understand and support the need for additional restroom
facilities for visitors during the high season. What I don't understand
is the construction of a concession stand and a viewing deck. What is
there to see from the viewing deck that one cannot see from the
beach? In my opinion the efficient use of restroom facilities is to have
a quick turnover instead of having people hanging around it.
There are plenty of places to buy food in the vicinity of the
Vanderbilt Beach. I saw one right across from the existing restroom
facility. In this difficult economic climate, the county should not
subsidize a concession stand that competes with other businesses. In
fact, I think the county should not be involved with the food and
beverage business, just as the county should not be involved with the
housing renovation business. I believe it is not the county's role to be
sponsoring or supporting specific private enterprises.
My husband and I are tourists and beachgoers. We have visited
many, many beaches in this country and around the word. A good
beach experience for tourists includes enjoying lunches at various
restaurants along the beach. Trust me, the tourists do not wish to buy
food from a concession stand located next to heavily used public toilet
facilities.
I respectfully urge the Commissioners to reconsider the design of
this overly expanded restroom facility and continue this item for
further discussion.
Thank you for listening.
MR. MITCHELL: Marcia Cravens will be your last speaker, Mr.
Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. CRAVENS: Good afternoon, Commissioners, and thank
you for the opportunity to speak on this agenda item.
I am speaking for the Sierra Calusa Group. We have nearly
2,000 members in our organization. There are several hundred
thousand members to our Florida chapter, and there's over a million
Page 121
September 27, 2011
Sierra Club members Nationwide. Our motto is to enjoy, protect and
preserve.
One of the things that unites us all on this issue is that we want to
preserve and protect our natural resource areas, and that they benefit
not only our use but the use of future generations, and that we're all
able to enjoy them without degrading those natural resources.
The Calusa Group has had this Vanderbilt Beach Park restroom
issue on our agenda for almost two years now. We believe that this
project muddles and is not consistent with what constitutes good beach
access and beach access improvements.
We recommend against the variance to change the location of the
coastal construction control line or setback line if it is being done in
order to allow construction of a massive elevated structure on the
sandy beach at Vanderbilt Beach Park. Again, we do not believe this
is consistent with improving beach access or good planning practices
for coastal beach areas.
And giving you some background about this, one of the things
that planners generally agree upon is that good beach access is
predicated on two things: On parking and restrooms. And I ask that
you consider the improvements to beach access as a countywide
situation, and you're commended for your actions to do that.
When you look at the segments of beach areas and you look at
the Vanderbilt Beach segment, when you compare the facilities and
the beach access that occurs on the Vanderbilt Beach segment for
parking and restrooms, you'd have to acknowledge that there's not one
but three county parks on that segment, all with dedicated parking, all
with restrooms. And Vanderbilt Beach Park actually has the best
beach access in Collier County, when you look at exactly what
constitutes beach access.
I'd like to just digress a little bit about inconsistency with county
planning for beach access. And I'd like to commend the planning
that's occurring for a proposed project on Marco Island at Tigertail
Page 122
September 27, 2011
Beach. And I've given you a memo that describes it. There's a very
reasoned rational approach --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Marcia, your time is expired. Can you
sort of wrap up, please?
MS. CRAVENS: Yes, sir.
That facility at Tigertail Beach is recommended by coastal zone
management department staff to -- for it to be approved for a variance
for flood, that it be built at ground level. And it's a very modest size.
I don't understand why that can't be done here at Vanderbilt
Beach and save some dollars, you know, stay with the concept that
people come to the beach to enjoy the natural amenities there.
And I was a visitor and a tourist before I became a resident. I
never came back because of the bathroom facilities, I came back
because this is such an outstanding area to enjoy the natural resources.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Okay, I think Commissioner Henning was next.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I -- Mr. Raia I thought brought
up a good point, the ramps, it's true, total over 100 feet. Moving the
facility approximately 120 or 30 feet would less encumber some (sic)
to the user than having to go up a ramp. So I'm not going to support
the coastal variance.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Coletta, were you
next?
next.
next.
first.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, Commissioner Hiller is
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think Commissioner Coletta was
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead, Commissioner Hiller. Ladies
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, my.
Page 123
September 27, 2011
Okay, I listened very carefully to what the speakers said. And I'd
like to tie in. You know, we're here today discussing variances for this
project, specifically the coastal variance and the effect on the dunes.
And quite frankly, one of the reasons this project is so over -sized
is because of all these ramps, which obviously would not be
necessitated if this Board granted a variance for FEMA to reduce the
elevation, just like they did at Tigertail.
And just so you all know, this Tigertail variance, this memo that
Mrs. Cravens just handed out, is dated December 11th, 2009. So
basically this is, you know, a year and what, three quarters, a year and
a half old? So this is a very recent issue.
And just to you all know also, the existing bathroom, where it sits
right now is at its current elevation because of a FEMA variance
granted by this Board. And that hasn't changed the insurance ratings,
nor did this one. So, none of this makes any sense whatsoever.
The oversize nature of this project stems from the fact that they
need those ramps. And there's a way to get rid of those ramps, bring
that structure down, shift it back, make it smaller, protect the dunes
and provide the amenities that are improved over the current
bathroom.
There are other issues; there are other issues for sure. Number
one, going back to these applications, because all of these
applications, by the way, should have been part of our backup at all
the other public hearings. These applications go back to 2010, and
we've had hearing after hearing on this matter. None of this
information was in the packets. And all of this could have been
brought forward and we could have been discussing this when we
were addressing the conceptual designs. None of this was brought
forward.
I looked at the first page of the application for the permit, for the
coastal construction control line, and one of the first things that it says
on Page 1 is to list the adjacent properties so that basically the state
Page 124
September 27, 2011
can communicate with the adjacent properties to see whether or not
they would be adversary affected by the proposed design.
And guess what? They're not listed. I don't know who HHR
Naples, LLC at 6903 Rockledge Drive, Suite 1500 in Bethesda,
Maryland is. But I assure you, the people at Beachmoor that live right
beside this beach facility are not listed on here. Nor is Pelican Bay,
which has to give its approval to these plans as well.
When you go through this packet and you look at the design
that's being proposed and you're saying that this is going to promote
tourism? Really? We're going to have an elevated structure with
visible dumpsters underneath? And so basically the public that walks
towards the beach is going to see garbage dumpsters on the way to the
beautiful beaches that Mrs. Roth showed on these overheads.
And what about lighting? What are we going to do to reconcile
the interest of turtles and turtle nesting against the need for public
safety and security? We have problems, as identified by the sheriff, at
these public bathrooms. So what are we going to do, turn the lights
off and have crime to protect the turtles? Or are we going to leave the
lights on and compromise the circle -- the life cycle of the nesting
turtles? I mean, obviously it's incompatible.
There is an obvious solution to these problems, and the solution
is to not grant any sort of variance but redesign this bathroom so as to
situate it to have the least environmental impact that's adverse on our
critically eroding beaches. Anything to protect the dunes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Gary, if you would, please.
First, my first question, the funding for this, where is it coming from?
MR. McALPIN: It's coming from Tourist Development Fund
183.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, can we -- if we don't
spend it, can we use this money to relight the streetlights in Golden
Gate Estates?
Page 125
September 27, 2011
MR. McALPIN: No, we can't. It's --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Why not? That doesn't seem
fair, does it?
MR. McALPIN: It's designated for beach park facilities.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Exactly. And I think everybody
knows it. But still we're trying to push certain buttons to come up
with some sort of metaphor that does not apply here.
We're talking also about setting it back. Now, we've been through
this I don't know how many times now. And every time we get
through it we come up with a rational reason, there's a reason to
proceed with this. Now we're talking about the possibility of looking
to move it back to be able to do away with the stairs what, another
1001 120 feet?
MR. McALPIN: That was the number that was discussed, yes,
sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. At one point in time we
were trying -- there were certain elements out there were trying to
move this bathroom into the parking garage; is that correct?
MR. McALPIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Is this really something
that we want for the people that are using it? I know the people I
represent out in Golden Gate Estates and Immokalee. These people
here are looking for a facility that at least can accommodate them in a
meaningful way, not something where they're going to have to march
a long distance away from the beach to be able to use the restroom.
And it does not meet the needs.
This facility, the way it's designed and everything, it just meets
all the needs.
Isn't it true that up and down the whole of the road there that
most of these hotels and homes that have been built have been built
about the same distance towards the beach also, as far as dune lines go
and --
Page 126
September 27, 2011
MR. McALPIN: Commissioner, if you'd look at this graph here,
I mean, it clearly states that here's the construction control. The
setback line right here. And all these properties to the north have had
to have been granted variances. And all the properties with this
designation right here is the amount of feet, that it's --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, and I --
MR. McALPIN: -- excessive of that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- see that, and it should be
self - explanatory.
But of course if we add this little element to the whole thing,
that's going to cause the whole dune line to collapse, the whole beach
will go into disarray. Is that what we -- we're hearing that today. Is
that true?
MR. McALPIN: We've done extensive look at The Dunes and
we've done a Florida Department of Environmental Protection. And
that's not the case. We have a case of over 20 years with the properties
to the north and we have not had any excessive issues associated with
the dune or we have not had issues associated with the beach. This
beach is maintained, it's --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's why it's critically eroding.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have the floor right now,
Commissioner Hiller, and please do not interrupt again.
MR. McALPIN: The beach is maintained on an ongoing basis.
It will continue to be maintained as we know it at this point in time.
This facility would not negatively impact the amount of erosion
or the dunes moving forward as we see it at this point in time. And
we've reviewed that with the state and they're in concurrence with
that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, what about this dumpster
you have exposed to the public? From what I can see, it looked like it
was enclosed in some --
MR. McALPIN: The dumpster is not exposed. It's enclosed. It's
Page 127
September 27, 2011
pushed underneath the first story. So it's on the ground floor. And it's
enclosed and it's used for waste products from the canteen area.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And one other thing, are you
sure this isn't some sort of devious plot to try to do in the sea turtles by
casting light in such a way that it might be detrimental to their health?
MR. McALPIN: This project will be designed with sea turtle
friendly light. We've already worked through that design with our sea
turtle people, so that is not going to be an issue relative to the design
of this project.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, fellow Commissioners,
I've got to tell you, this is nothing more than an access issue that we've
heard many times before. I hope this Commission has the fortitude to
proceed. And with that, I'm going to make a motion to for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion for approval by Commissioner
Coletta, seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
We have Commissioner Hiller and Commissioner Henning
waiting to speak.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was next.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But that's all right, Commissioner
Hiller first. I'll wait. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
Commissioner Coletta, I really am concerned, you obviously
don't know your own constituents. I went to the Golden Gate Estates
Civic Association and there wasn't a single person out there that
supported it. In fact, they on their website have the greatest cartoon of
all that calls it the Tajma- toilet.
In fact, your comment that this is supposed to be an amenity to
service, you know, people out in the Estates or anywhere else in the
county is a real problem because, quite frankly, if that's the case, this
ought to be funded by the General Fund and not be TDC funds and
Page 128
September 27, 2011
really ought to be pulled out of the parks budget paid for with ad
valorem dollars, if that's the case.
And, you know, with respect to your comment about the
dumpsters, you know, you're absolutely right, it is going to be on the
ground floor. And remember that this monstrous structure is going to
be so elevated that you're just going to see these big pilings and this
basically dumpster -- I don't know what you want to call it; what do
you call those things that hide a dumpster?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Screening.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, a dumpster whatever. And
basically you're going to walk right by the dumpster, because that's
where the public is going to be, they're going to be on the ground
floor, they're not -- and they're going to be walking by the ground
floor of this facility. So I just have to correct that. I mean, that just
isn't the case.
So bottom line is what I see in what your statements are, is a big
problem with respect to using TDC dollars for this project.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was next.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry. Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just broke your button.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You just broke your button so there's no
way --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Again?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- you can't speak for the rest of the
meeting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: My notes were -- I'm sorry I didn't
say this sooner. But anyway, first thing is, I think it's a great asset for
our visitors and for our tourist. And that's why we're building it with
tourist dollars. You know, this is something -- they don't have a place
to go, unless they go here. There are many places along that area who
rent out their rooms or who -- you know, whether it be motels, hotels
Page 129
September 27, 2011
or places that people will want to rent that are close to the beach, if
they can't get to the beach. This is a perfect asset to me in my opinion
for visitors and tourists, and that's why it's being built with tourist tax
dollars. And we're not building it for our own residents, but our
residents can use it so that will be another asset.
And just tell you a little experience of my own personal thing.
We were talking about this decking. I used to work for the Marriott
on Marco Island. And we had some people working in our kitchen
and they went to the beach this particular day, no sign of a storm or
anything. They were laying on the beach. The lightning -- and they
all worked in our kitchen. And the lightning hit the one guy, jumped
over the middle person and hit the other one, killed them both.
And I'm thinking, you know, if they had a place that they could
have sought shelter underneath when you have a fast storm that comes
up, those people would have been alive today. And that's the truth,
that did happen.
And I think that people need a place of shelter to go. Even if you
just have a baby with you or a little child and they've been exposed to
too much sun, at least you can take them under the decking for awhile
and give them shelter.
So I agree with this and I have seconded the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, you bring
up some good points. And I appreciate you being civil. And I could
count the votes and I don't want to delay it, but I know it's political
season. There's going to be some comments that are made that are
taken out of content, so I just want to clarify a statement that was
made by Mr. Nance.
The funding to construct the project, he wasn't referring to that.
The funding to -- for the maintenance and operation which comes out
of the General Fund, that's what you're referring to?
MR. NANCE: Yes.
Page 130
September 27, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you realize that we can't
use TDC funds to put lighting in that. So, you know, it's just political
season and we have to get through this. But I -- hopefully we'll -- we
can understand that and not use this dais for political reasons. So
that's at all I have to say. And whatever the vote is, it is, it's not going
to hurt my feelings.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Did you want to speak again,
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, I really don't think
it's necessary. Commissioner Henning's right about the political part
of it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all in favor of the motion, please
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let me retract that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes 4 -1, with Commissioner
Henning dissenting.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Hiller also.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all opposed, please signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it passes 3 -2 with Commissioner
Hiller and Commissioner Henning dissenting.
Page 131
September 27, 2011
Okay, where do we go from here? We're 10 minutes away from
the required break.
MR. OCHS: Well, you want to try one more before your break?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
Item #IOG
RECOMMENDATION THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS APPROVE A SHORT SALE POLICY AND
PROCEDURE FOR THE STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES
PARTNERSHIP (SHIP) PROGRAM — DISCUSSED
MR. OCHS: I would suggest perhaps Item IOG, Commissioners.
It's a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
approve a short sale policy and procedure for the State Housing
Initiative Partnership Program. Kim Grant, your Interim Director of
Housing and Human and Veteran Services will present.
Commissioners, this is an item that the Board directed come back
for discussion pursuant to a public petition that you heard at your last
meeting.
Ms. Grant?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. GRANT: May I have a moment to bring up the
presentation?
MR. OCHS: Sure.
MS. GRANT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Kim Grant,
Interim Director, Housing, Human and Veteran Services.
And I'm here to speak to you about the potential to enact a short
sale policy for the State Housing Initiatives Partnership Program.
Just briefly, background: The reason that we're here is on
September 13th, a recipient of SHIP funds, down payment assistance
funds had come before you on public petition and requested the
Page 132
September 27, 2011
approval for a short sale.
At that time we confirmed and we have confirmed since then that
in fact we do not have a short sale policy in existence. There's not one
at the local level and there's not one at the state level.
Since the meeting two weeks ago we've made sure that we
received appropriate guidance to bring forth a policy for your
consideration. And part of that has been speaking with the state and
they have indicated to us that the SHIP program at the state level does
not regulate what the local government chooses to do on forgiving or
settling loans to facilitate short sales. They also do not require that we
have a short sale policy.
However, as the lender, the county does have the right to approve
a policy for forgiveness for short sale, should they choose to do so. So
we do have the right to create a policy if we'd like to.
And again, the Board asked us to come back with a proposal, so
we're bringing back a proposal that we believe is very simple to
administer and we, in order to do this, took a look at several other
counties' policies. We also received some guidance from a technical
adviser on this program.
And what we're proposing to you is really kind of a two - legged
short sale policy.
First major component is that we would not suggest that you
entertain a short sale where the recipient walks away from the sale
with any funds.
The second major component is the amount to consider for
forgiveness. And we're recommending that Collier County would
require the following repayment: Either 25 percent of the amount
owed or 2,500, whichever is greater. So, for example, a loan amount
of $20,000 would require repayment of $5,000.
Just as a reminder in the executive summary, we indicated to you
that over the course of 15, 16 years of this program, we have had loans
ranging from 2,500 up to 45,000, I think it was.
Page 133
September 27, 2011
Now, on the next slide the reason again that we brought this to
you was because we had a petitioner. We've spoken with the
petitioner today and also a title agent. And this item is set for sale
tomorrow. And we've been notified that the individual will not be
able to take advantage of the policy, should you approve one today.
It's basically too late. The bank is not interested in entertaining it. So
I will pass by this slide. This was just an example of what the
circumstances would be for that petitioner.
So in conclusion, we have a recommendation for you to consider,
a short sale policy. Reminder that you have full latitude to create such
a policy, you are not required to create one. And we had just a few
days to pull this together, so we're very comfortable with the policy
we're providing for you today, but we'll probably have to work a little
bit on the procedural details of how we implement this.
And while I have here the second part of the recommendations,
for this to apply to Mr. Roman's circumstance that is no longer
applicable.
And that is my presentation. I'd be happy to take any questions
that you might have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning? This was from
before.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah -- no, this is from now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- we have a group of
residents, mainly attorneys, that created a task force, foreclosure task
force. And I've been in communications with him. They want to put
together a little group and make a recommendation of a policy. And it
may be the same.
And I would encourage you to -- I'm in favor of doing something.
Because of this instance there's going to be a sale tomorrow.
MS. GRANT: That's our understanding, correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And those monies, those down
Page 134
September 27, 2011
payment assistance monies that the gentleman was asking us to waive,
that goes away. So I think it's in our best interest and the residents'
interest to try to resolve this ahead of time.
I'm in favor of your policy that you presented, but I would ask,
with the Board's guidance of course, involve the foreclosure task force
folks and see if that meets their concerns or whatever. They might
have even some more suggestions of alternatives.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, we'd be more than happy to do that.
Thanks for that suggestion. We came back quickly because we
thought Mr. Roman's circumstances -- the Board did. But now that
that is overcome by events, so to speak, we have some more time, and
I think that's a great suggestion to work with the foreclosure team.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, and I would agree. I think we
should give that direction.
Just one observation based upon what you've presented to us
today, Kim. It doesn't provide much flexibility. And I would like to
have the Board have some flexibility to maximize our return on
circumstances such as this.
If a person, using your calculation, is obligated to pay $5,000,
what happens if they can't pay $5,000 but could perhaps pay 2,000?
Are we just going to throw it all away and say no, you don't qualify
and it will go into bankruptcy and we won't get anything under those
circumstances?
So I understand we have flexibility under our own ordinances,
but it might be good if we were to clarify that in the ordinance itself so
that we have the flexibility to consider individual circumstances and
maximize the recovery to the government of the extent -- to the extent
possible.
So if you could keep that in mind as you go through the --
MS. GRANT: Certainly will.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- process of developing something like
that.
Page 135
September 27, 2011
MS. GRANT: Certainly will.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I agree with you. The
only thing we got to be careful about is we don't make it so easy --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- so that people will pick this
particular direction to go. Somewheres along the line personal
responsibility has to set in. I mean, there's got to be a certain amount
of forgiveness. People are without jobs now, there's all sorts of
circumstances out there that vary greatly from one situation to the
next.
But there's also people out there that are taking advantage of the
present economic situation and going into foreclosure proceedings that
drag out for over a year and doing nothing but bankrolling that money.
Now, I'm not saying this is the case here, but we need to keep all these
things in mind, because somewheres along the line not only do we
have to be forgiving and understanding of the circumstances, we have
to also have to be good stewards of the people's money.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I also hope that we take a good
look at the circumstances under which we're granting down payment
assistance. Just because the money is coming from the federal
government doesn't mean that we shouldn't make some judgments
about whether or not we should make those loans. Just as there are
people who are purchasing homes who should not be purchasing
homes, there are people who are getting down payment assistance
from the government who possibly should not be getting down
payment assistance from the government, because they don't have
much of a chance of paying it back ever.
So I'm concerned about these programs where the federal
government just shovels money out the door and we facilitate it by
handing it out to people who drop by and make an application. It's not
a good thing for the people or the taxpayers.
Page 136
September 27, 2011
But nevertheless, it will be good to see whatever you bring back
to us.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, Leo, I was wondering if you
could ask staff to provide us with the list of all the properties where
this type of down payment assistance has been provided.
MR. OCHS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to know the total dollar, I'd
like to know the houses, I'd like to know, you know, how we have
secured those interests. I'd like to see every -- I'd like to see that it's
all, you know, tick, tied and traced.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Obviously I have concerns in light
of the history with the division -- or department, I should say.
The other thing I'd like is when you bring this back, provide
examples. Because I want to see, you know, how this is going to be
practically applied. Because I'm not sure it makes sense to have a
policy. I can see very good reason not to have one at all.
But, you know, if there is one, I want to see examples for every,
you know, scenario that's contemplated by the policy that's being
proposed.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, you made
a very good point is don't know if people can afford, you know, like
2,000 or 5,000 or something like that. From what I'm told and
understanding from the people dealing with this from the foreclosure
task force, on a short sale the banks are authorized -- the first is
authorized a small amount, like two to $5,000 to satisfy the second.
But again, we're -- tomorrow we're going to be -- I don't know,
how much is this, 23,000?
Page 137
September 27, 2011
MS. GRANT: 24,000 --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 24,000.
MS. GRANT: -- 727.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know, we've never seen
any of those on the agenda, but we have to write these off. You know,
we haven't seen any. So I'm not sure who's keeping track of any
particular cases where they go back to the first and we lose the second.
So it's a bookkeeping issue.
MS. GRANT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I wonder if we might also
be able to find out when you're doing your research if this is possibly a
function that could be better taken on by a nonprofit or something like
the university extension or something of that nature that might be able
to do this without us being personally involved.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's Arlene.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I understand that, I'm
talking about future loans and taking money to do it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, the point that Commissioner
Henning makes is a good one. I'd like to see how much has been lost
also.
And in fact Marla and I have been reviewing some transactions
that you're going to be presenting shortly where it shows that in fact
the down payment assistance was not recovered on the -- I don't know,
how many of your transactions was it that we were looking at in your
executive summary?
MS. GRANT: In the executive summary for this item --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Not on this item.
MS. GRANT: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: On Marla's item. I think there was
-- I forget the total dollar amount.
Page 138
September 27, 2011
MR. OCHS: It was five or six homes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. And it was something like
MS. GRANT: Four homes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- 200 -- no, was it 160,000 or
something like that in down payment assistance that was not
recovered?
MR. OCHS: We'll cover that --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, but that's an example. All
of that needs to be reconciled.
I think the point I'm making is that we do need an analysis to
support the questions that Commissioner Henning is raising. And it
ties into in part what Marla is going to present shortly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You know what the guidance you have
now?
MR. OCHS: Yes, we do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No questions?
MR. OCHS: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then we're going to take a
10- minute break and we'll be back here at 2:45.
(Recess.)
MR. SHEFFIELD: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, ladies and gentlemen, Board of
County Commissioners meeting is back in session.
Where are we going to go now, County Manager?
Item #1 OE
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS
DESIGNEE BE DIRECTED TO (1) DEVELOP AN AMENDMENT
TO ORDINANCE NUMBER 98 -37; (2) REVISE THE IRRIGATION
QUALITY WATER POLICY; (3) DEVELOP A STANDARDIZED
Page 139
September 27, 2011
AGREEMENT FOR DELIVERY AND REUSE OF RECLAIMED
WATER (MAJOR USER AGREEMENT) FOR CUSTOMERS
THAT USE OR REQUEST AN ALLOTMENT AMOUNT EQUAL
TO OR GREATER THAN 100,000 GALLONS PER DAY OF
RECLAIMED WATER; AND, (4) DEVELOP A STANDARDIZED
CUSTOMER AGREEMENT FOR DELIVERY AND REUSE OF
RECLAIMED WATER FOR CUSTOMERS THAT USE LESS
THAN 100,000 GALLONS PER DAY OF RECLAIMED WATER,
ALL FOR FUTURE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CONSIDERATION AT A PUBLIC HEARING — MOTION TO
APPROVE AND BRING BACK AN AMENDED ORDINANCE AT
A FUTURE BCC MEETING — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we're going to Item IOE on your
agenda. It's a recommendation to move forward with a series of
amendments to your County Ordinance No. 98 -37, regulating the use
of irrigation quality water.
And Mr. Yilmaz will begin the presentation.
MR. YILMAZ: Thank you, County Manager.
Good afternoon, Commissioners. And for the record, George
Yilmaz, Public Utilities.
Commissioners, as you know, in October, 2007 our board
approved first reuse IQ water policy laying on the groundwork and
foundation for IQ water master planning process and rate study to
follow.
I'm pleased to report to you that we have completed our first
reuse master plan, and we've also followed it by, as IQ water policy
indicated, approved by the Board, first IQ reuse rate study that was
approved by the Board for current and next fiscal year in February of
2011 for this year and next year.
When the IQ water policy presented in 2007, it was recognized
that staff would come back to the Board to synchronize following
Page 140
September 27, 2011
items: One, the IQ reuse policy.
Two, the IQ reuse ordinance. Since 1998 we have not brought
this to your attention and brought it up to our current standards all the
way from regulatory to contractual to permit conditions that has
changed since then.
And lastly, standardized reuse agreements to be aligned with our
current rate study, as well as to be in compliance with Florida
administrative codes and current wastewater FDEP permit conditions
and requirements relating to the distribution of compliant reclaimed
water.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: George, you're really asking us now just
to authorize you to go develop a revised ordinance and bring it back to
us; is that correct?
MR. YILMAZ: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: For review and approval at another
meeting.
MR. YILMAZ: Yes, sir. This is simply -- that's exactly right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: A preliminary step, you want approval to
go and develop some changes to the ordinance and bring them back
for our consideration, right?
MR. YILMAZ: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's really all we're talking about.
MR. YILMAZ: We're simply asking authorization to work on
multiple working pieces, bring it back to you in synchronized fashion,
including stakeholders, delivery team, County Attorney's feedback
and input, bring back to you a working draft so that you'll -- you'll see
this, it lists more than once. But this is simply what you just stated,
requesting approval for us to work --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I'd be happy for you -- to give you
authorization to do that and we'll see what the other commissioners
have to say.
Commissioner Henning?
Page 141
September 27, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Usually just bring an ordinance
with a strike - through underline. I don't understand why we're asking
to ask to bring a draft.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, I'm the guilty party on this one.
This was a consent agenda item. I moved it to regular, just because I
wanted awareness from the Board that we were going to go out to the
stakeholders. Some of these stakeholders have had long- standing
contracts that now we're going to ask them to be modified to make it
into a standardized format.
I don't know what the implications of that ultimately are going to
be for the stakeholders, but in the event that there was feedback to the
Board during this process, I didn't want you caught cold. So I just
wanted to make you all situationally aware that we're working towards
this standardization, and that's why it's on your regular agenda.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: When you go out to the
residents and say we're going to do this and that, make sure you tell
them you don't have any authorization from the Board to do this and
that, okay? We haven't approved it or we haven't even approved you
doing it or even asking, because there's no information here. I don't
want to get a whole bunch of fire saying it was approved by the Board
of Commissioners to go out there and create a bunch of chaos in the
community.
MR. OCHS: Well, that's why we're having this discussion.
We're not looking to create chaos, but we are going to look to
standardize the major user agreement.
How many do we have, George?
MR. YILMAZ: We have 22 major users. And that all those
contracts -- if I might, County Manager -- all those contracts, some 10,
151 20, goes back over 25 years old. And we need to standardize those
contracts.
And also for us to go and make changes to ordinances. In this
case there's a reuse ordinance change that we need to make. We need
Page 142
September 27, 2011
to come before the Board to inform that we will make such a change,
get authorization. However we will not get ahead of our Board, nor
our County Manager.
Your points are well taken. This is simply authorization to look
into synchronized well - organized package where we can bring back to
you that is in synch with policy you have approved, ordinances
updated to reflect our new terms and conditions for the permits we
have, and furthermore, in synch with --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The administration code.
MR. YILMAZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I understand better now, you
want to have a standard contract for all the users.
MR. YILMAZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you need to do that through
the ordinance.
MR. OCHS: I wanted to try to be proactive to let you know that
this is going on out there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And my request to staff in preparation
for this item was that you make sure that you vet it properly.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Particularly through all the users, okay?
That's my only concern.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I think this is actually a
great idea. And this ties directly in with hopefully the idea of
developing those ASR wells that we started to develop so that we have
more water, more reclaimed water, or all sources of water, as the case
may be.
So do we need a motion on this? Because I'll make a motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, we'll need a motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll make the motion to direct the
Page 143
September 27, 2011
County Manager or his designee to develop an amendment to the
Ordinance No. 98 -37; to secondly revise the irrigation quality water
policy; three, develop a standardized agreement for delivery and reuse
of reclaimed water for customers whose allotment is equal to or
greater than 100 gallons (sic) per day of reclaimed water. And also
for a separate standardized customer agreement for those who use less
than 100 gallons (sic) per day.
MR. OCHS: 100,000 gallons per day.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: 100,000 gallons per day, yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we have a motion by
Commissioner Hiller, seconded by Commissioner Henning.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I would just hope that maybe
we don't increase the rates any. I know sometimes when we
standardize things and we go back and check it through, the rates go
up. And I don't think right now is a good time to be doing that. So I'm
just hoping that you can do something about when you're
standardizing them all sort of try to keep the rates where they are.
Because we've upgraded them a number of times in the last few years.
MR. OCHS: Yeah, I think you just adopted recently your utility
rate package, correct, George?
MR. YILMAZ: Yes, sir.
MR. OCHS: Including your irrigation quality water --
MR. YILMAZ: This fiscal year and next fiscal year.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, good.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 144
September 27, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion pass unanimously.
Thank you, George.
MR. YILMAZ: Thank you, sir.
Item #1 OF
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE CATEGORY "A" TOURIST
DEVELOPMENT FUND 183 GRANT APPLICATIONS FOR
BEACH PARK FACILITIES FOR FY 2011 -12 IN THE AMOUNT
$1,025,000, MAKE A FINDING THAT THE EXPENDITURE WILL
PROMOTE TOURISM, AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO
SIGN NECESSARY AGREEMENTS FOLLOWING COUNTY
ATTORNEY APPROVAL — MOTION TO APPROVE THE REPAIR
BUDGETS FOR THE TIKI ROOF AT BAREFOOT BEACH AND
ADA RAMP REWORK FINDING THOSE ITEMS PROMOTE
TOURISM AND DIRECT STAFF TO BRING BACK THE OTHER
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION AFTER A COST REVIEW —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, IOF is a recommendation to
approve the Category A Tourist Development Fund 183 grant
applications for beach park facilities for fiscal year 2011 -12 in the
amount of $1,025,000, make a finding that the expenditure will
promote tourism and authorize the Chairman to sign the necessary
agreements following the County Attorney approval. And Mr.
McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management Director, will present.
MR. McALPIN: Thank you, County Manager.
For the record, Gary McAlpin.
As County Manager said at the last meeting, you directed staff to
bring back for reconsideration the Category A 183 grant applications.
Page 145
September 27, 2011
Since that time we have worked with our staff to review these.
We've looked at history on what we have spent for like -- similar like
jobs in the past and comparing them to what we have in the budget
application. We've gone -- when we've had enough information, we
have given it to engineers, third -party engineers and have engineers'
opinion on it.
We've worked with the community groups. Barefoot Beach,
we've been working with for two and a half years, and we went back
with them and talked pricing and scope with them.
And at this point in time our recommendation is that -- not to
change, and there's no changes in the budgeted items for these items.
We've reviewed the cost. We believe that the costs are appropriate. I
recognize that these are budget items that we -- anything we will
spend we'll bring back to you.
After we do the detailed definition and develop the scope of the
job, you'll have a chance to review the scope of the job and approve it
at that point in time. This is only for budgeting purposes.
And I'll answer any questions that you have at this point in time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And these are grant applications; they're
not authorizations for expenditures.
MR. McALPIN: That is correct, these are grant applications.
We go through this process once a year, we solicit projects, we work
with the community, we prioritize them, we try to estimate them as
best we can based on that to move forward to develop these projects.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning was first.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Somehow I missed -- it says
here that we need to make a finding that the expenditures will promote
tourism. We have to make those findings?
MR. McALPIN: I have been recommended by the County
Attorney that we should -- in all of these TDC grant applications that
we should make that recommendation, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Was this on the last -- that
September 27, 2011
particular language on the last agenda item?
MR. McALPIN: I can't remember if it was.
I don't know, Colleen, if you want to comment on this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, no, I'm just trying to
figure out, am I losing something that a -- we need to make a funding
that -- finding that it promotes tourism. And one of the items is a
chemical toilet in a tollbooth.
MR. McALPIN: I think what we're looking at there,
Commissioner, is that it's not the chemical toilet by itself but we're
looking at an entrance improvement to the Barefoot Beach where we
do something with the entrance sign, we do something with the
existing tollbooth for the tollbooth attendant. It's been there for quite a
while. We have a Porta -Let out to the side.
We know we have to do something with that access area. Part of
this investigation that yet has to happen when it is funded is what do
we do with the variances that -- it's in a VE zone, so if it's a small
enough structure, can we get a variance for it or can we incorporate
something into the tollbooth where we have facilities for the tollbooth
taker.
So we don't know yet. We won't know until we do our
investigation and do our definition.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm just trying to figure out how
I'm going to tell the public that we made a finding to promote tourism
by replacing a tollbooth, installing a chemical toilet --
MR. OCHS: Commissioner --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, there are people who are likely to
come to Collier County just to see a toilet in a tollbooth. I mean, that
could be a tourist attraction.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I had one of those for sale at one
time. I could have delivered it to your house.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm not trying to increase tourism at my
house.
Page 147
September 27, 2011
MR. OCHS: Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
MR. OCHS: If I might, just brief history. This item was on your
last agenda as a reconsideration item, requested by Commissioner
Hiller. It was originally approved by the Board as Item 16D.4 on July
26th of this year and the title for the item at the time you approved it
in July was identical to the language you have in front of you here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, and I was going to go
back to the meetings. But what I'm saying is did I miss it or is this
something new? And you just explained it's the same item, and I
missed it, that I found it -- a toilet is -- in a tollbooth is going to
increase tourism, will promote tourism.
So I think I made a mistake then and I'm just trying to figure out
how I'm going to justify increasing tourism for a toilet in a tollbooth.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, ultimately, you know, if the Board
decides when we bring these projects back for authorization that you
don't want to move forward, then simply --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, it's this item that we need to
make findings. And I'm just -- is that right, Jeff, we need to make
findings under this item? That's what the executive summary -- not to
actually expend the money but actually say yeah, it's going to promote
tourism. We'll put a sign out here we have an environmental friendly -
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Toilet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- toilet in a tollbooth and
advertise that on our promotions that we're trying to be environmental
friendly. I don't know. I don't know, how am I go to go make that
finding? Maybe somebody else could help me.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I could.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, great.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You want me to at this time, sir?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: By all means, if you could explain that,
I'd love to hear it.
September 27, 2011
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, Barefoot Beach has been
a special place for me for years. I've been going down there. And,
you know, as Commissioner, when I'm there I always look around to
see what's taking place.
You wouldn't believe the situation you have at that booth now
that sits in the middle. Small little thing. In order for a person to use
the restroom, and usually it's one person in the booth, they have to
find somebody that can come from some other area of the park or the
system to be able to supplement them so they can go across the street
behind this barricade where they have a Porta John.
Meanwhile, this booth, they have a sliding door that they can use
to reach the customers, but it doesn't slide. You can get it open and
you can get it closed but it takes quite a bit of effort. So what you're
forced to do is leave the door open all day long with the air
conditioning running to try to keep reasonably cool.
The conditions are really terrible. The sign that's down there --
and I know a little bit about signs because I got involved in them in
my own community putting up the signs in Golden Gate Estates --
have deteriorated to the point where you can take your finger and poke
it right in there. But if you find any holes in it, I didn't put it in there.
The posts that are holding them, if you take a look at them,
they're all dry rotted out. What they're looking to do is replace this
with a material that's going to be more of a -- not of a wood
construction but I guess it's going to be something like a concrete or
something that's going to be lasting for a long time to come. I thought
it was very excessive until I assessed where they were. Replace it
with another wooden sign you might save a little bit of money but
you're going to pay for it in the long run.
The tollbooth itself is totally unfunctional (sic). Can you picture
pulling up to Barefoot Beach Park and seeing a sign in the window,
please wait, I'll be right back, and the cars lining up behind it?
I mean, if we were really going to do this right, we would hook
Page 149
September 27, 2011
them up to the sanitary sewer that runs out in front of there just about
eight, 10 feet, I estimate. I'm sure they didn't put it in the preserve
area, so I estimate it's probably under the highway. But that's not
going to be practical. I mean, that would be quite expensive and it
would require refiguring this whole thing past the point of being
economically feasible.
Now, how does it relate to tourism? Everything has to do with
the appearance that you offer to what you bring people forward. To
sign off or something, the booth itself in the dilapidated condition that
it's in is a detriment to people coming in there. The facility they have,
the learning center there, the educational center with the thatched roof,
it's been there I guess since day one. I don't think it's ever been
replaced. The thatching there is deteriorated to the point that it leaks
like a sieve. There's all sorts of educational material in there that's
susceptible to the rain that comes in. It's hard to take people
underneath there if it's going to rain. There's numerous things.
So, l mean, my own personal observation, being right there, I can
very much see where we're going with this and that the price would be
justified.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, if you --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you answer my question?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- would take a minute.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure. Say it again.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute. Take a minute to explain
to us why a chemical toilet costs $40,000. 1 can pick one up for 150
bucks down at the marine store.
MR. McALPIN: Well, the one you would pick up for 150 bucks
at the marine store is probably not the one we would want to put in
this facility. Chemical toilet would cost around 15, $16,000, and then
we'd have to integrate it into this tollbooth. We've added additional
funds to integrate that in there.
Commissioner, this is a budget. We know we're going to have to
Page 150
September 27, 2011
do something to make that work in this facility, and so we've
identified $40,000 to integrate that toilet into the tollbooth.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did Commissioner Coletta
answer my question about promoting tourism with these expenditures,
or should we hire him as a staff member?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, I think he did a pretty good job.
He's obviously very familiar with the area. It aids in the
administration of tourism and gets tourists in the park in an
expeditious manner. One could make the argument that yes, it
promotes tourism by keeping people from having to wait in line to get
into the park.
MR. McALPIN: It supports our beach park facilities. Our beach
park facilities are --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, it's a real stretch, $40,000 for a
chemical toilet.
MR. McALPIN: Again, Commissioner, these are estimates in
our budget that we've established. And once we do the definition, we'll
come back to you with an actual cost.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right, are both Commissioner
Henning and Coletta finished with their --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I am.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, then I'll go on.
I guess Commissioner Hiller was next.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think so too.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
Gary, how many square feet is that toilet going to be -- that
tollbooth? I'm sorry.
MR. McALPIN: The whole facility we're looking to be
relatively small. We hope it's going to be less than 50 square feet. We
want to keep it as small as possible to make it functional.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Fifty square feet?
Page 151
September 27, 2011
MR. McALPIN: Uh -huh.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Including the toilet?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 3,000 bucks a square foot.
MR. McALPIN: That would -- obviously, Commissioner, we
haven't worked out all of it yet, but I would anticipate that that would
include the toilet facility that's incorporated into there.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's $4,200 a square foot?
MR. McALPIN: If your math is right, Commissioner. I haven't
checked it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Close enough.
MR. McALPIN: When you look at the small facilities like that --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's a premium I find
unbelievable.
MR. McALPIN: -- it gets very expensive.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, but that's -- 4,200 bucks a
square foot for a tollbooth and a chemical toilet, including the
engineering and permit?
MR. McALPIN: Commissioner, we paid in --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I find that hard -- I know what you
paid then. And prices have come down. And I can't compare what
you're building there to here, but I will tell you, you know, a price of
over $4,000 a square foot for a tollbooth and chemical toilet makes no
sense.
Repairing that tiki roof makes sense, and that needs to happen
right away. In fact, that's long overdue.
This grant application makes no sense either, because this is
really not a grant application. We have those monies sitting there in
Category A and when the time comes and you present these projects,
we'll decide if we want to allocate those monies to those projects
based on, you know, justification.
But this isn't -- you know, to approve these projects, like 50,000
to contemplate a bathroom at Conner Park and at Sea Gate? When I
Page 152
September 27, 2011
spoke to, I think it was Marla, we were talking about there wouldn't be
a bathroom at Sea Gate. So why are we even contemplating 50,000
for that?
You know, the new turnaround and parking lot rework, 500,000
(sic) to, you know, re- stripe the parking lot and improve the
turnaround? That is just unbelievable.
Now, I know you've asked an engineer to look at that and come
up with a price, but you also told him, or it was publicly known that
500,000 you know is what is the amount requested. And, you know,
you're basically setting the bar high.
I can't support these numbers that make no sense at all. I
certainly support the immediate repair, the tiki roof. And if the ADA
ramp needs to be repaired, that needs to be done right away. But quite
frankly, all these other things, I think you need to first of all find out if
it's even realistic to propose them. Because no one, you know, in
Pelican Bay has been consulted about the work that you're proposing
on this new Clam Bay facility turnaround and parking lot rework.
And I think they're probably going to have to give approval on that.
And I don't even know if the community even wants that. You know,
maybe they want a parking garage, for all I know.
But again, I think we're just --
MR. McALPIN: Commissioner, we have been working with the
Friends of Barefoot for two and a half years.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand that.
MR. McALPIN: We have worked these --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I met with -- I met with you with a
representative of the Friends. That's not the issue. I told you that the
roof repair makes sense, the ramp rework makes sense, but quite
frankly the pricing on these other items make no sense at all. If any
Commissioner here approves a budget that is over $4,000 a square
foot for a tollbooth for a 50 -- did you say 50 square foot tollbooth?
MR. McALPIN: Fifty square foot is what we're targeting.
Page 153
September 27, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Holy Moly.
MR. McALPIN: Commissioner, we have --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Fiala, off the record
-- on the record, we want to make sure everyone hears what you said.
You can get one cheaper at Ted's Sheds, you know.
And Commissioner Coyle made a really good point. Where did
you say you could get your chemical toilet? For how much?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: At the marine store.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: At the marine store.
So, you know, maybe all of these projects are warranted, but the
issue is at what price. And we have to be prudent and we have to be
careful. And, you know, when I sat down with you, you said you
could come back with better prices, you've come back and you said
you can't. Obviously that doesn't make sense, because these prices are
just out of line with reality.
So if you want to try again, I would support you reworking this
as much as necessary to bring the prices down to reality as much as
possible. And that's really what we need to do.
And some of these projects seem to be reasonably priced and
those need to be approved and go forward. But the others either aren't
warranted at all or are unrealistic.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think we need to make the -- have the
realization that this is not an authorization to spend any money; is that
right?
MR. McALPIN: That is correct.
MR.00HS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Before you spend a penny you've got to
come back to us and say, I've got this really great chemical toilet and
it's going to cost me $40,000, and you're going to have to justify that
to us, right?
MR. McALPIN: That's right. We're going to have to have a plan
that we bring back to you with a price associated with that plan that
Page 154
September 27, 2011
has a lot more definition in it, Commissioner. That's typically what
we -- how we have been managing these projects --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I understand, I understand.
But you understand how it appears to the public.
MR. McALPIN: Absolutely. And we want to make sure that
whatever we do, we do it correctly.
And on the tollbooths, we took -- we had history. In 2002 we did
Tigertail and that booth cost 120,000. And when we did the tollbooth
at Vanderbilt Beach garage, that was 150,000.
So we didn't pull those numbers out of the air. We had some
basis on which -- we had history on which we used those numbers for
this budgeting process. So I just want to add that.
However the board would direct us to proceed, that's fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I think it's safe to assume that if
you get approval to at least consider these projects, when you come
back for spending authorization you're going to get a lot of tough
questions, okay?
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you, sir.
Yeah, Gary, I didn't get a chance to get in my questions. When I
had, I jumped in there with my observations.
The cost is always a concern. And, you know, you did come up
with justification. Although I now begin to wonder if those other
tollbooths might have been a little more extravagant than need be.
I think with the way the Commission's going is that the motion's
going to be to bring this back to us a little more specificity and
justification to be able to reach some sort of decision we make.
There's one thing that since we're going to bring it back and I
haven't got the answers to yet would be what would be the cost and
what would be the involvement to be able to tap into the sanitary
sewer line to be able to make something there that would be a little
more permanent as far as a toilet with a wash sink, you know, to be
Page 155
September 27, 2011
able to use to be able to fit into what's more the norm rather than a
chemical toilet. I'm a little bit concerned about a chemical toilet in
that confined space. Although I'm sure Commissioner Coyle with his
boat and everything could attest to the fact that it's no problem.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's no problem.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There you got it on the record.
MR. McALPIN: I understand. And we would bring that back to
you, we would bring the options back to you when we brought the
items.
If you would want to move forward with the engineering,
authorize the engineering, we're asking for $25,000. That would give
us enough money at this point in time to continue to develop these
items and then bring with more definition back to you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, $25,000 to be able
to design everything from the parking lot, the tollbooth to the tiki hut,
covering the tiki hut, this would cover it all, it would --
MR. OCHS: You're not designing --
MR. McALPIN: It would not be designing, it would be doing a
conceptual engineering due definition engineering to define the scope
so that we could come back to you --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Forgive me, and I don't want to
indicate that -- I just don't understand exactly what --
MR. McALPIN: It would be enough monies that we could go
through and do the investigation so we could firm up the pricing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, well haven't we built
tollbooths in the past that we could use as some sort of example?
MR. McALPIN: You have, and we've cited them here. And
obviously the prices are too high.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Well, let me ask you
this, Gary, just to be able to get this thing back on scope: If we
authorize you to go forward and get pricing on what you have here
today, would you need $25,000 still?
Page 156
September 27, 2011
MR. McALPIN: We would need -- we would need some amount
of engineering that would be required to identify the permitting, help
us to look at options, identify where the sanitary sewer was. If you
have to put in a lift station, what size lift station you would have to put
in for that. We would need some money to flush out these items so
they could price them, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Flush out is -- that's a pun,
right?
MR. McALPIN: That is a pun.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's in conjunction with my chemical
toilet.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, could I -- one thing for clarification.
This is a budget. This is dedicated funding. If you don't want to do
any projects in this budget, say so. All the money goes down to the
reserves in the project fund, it doesn't go anywhere else. It can't be
used for anything else but 183 beach park facility projects. So it's a
budget.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: He's being --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, please. And I know what you're
doing, okay? It's -- you're not spending any money on these things.
You're going to come back to us and ask us for authority to spend it
once you've defined a lot of this stuff. But all I think we're asking you
to do is be sensitive to the impression that it creates when we talk
about buying a $40,000 chemical toilet.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Or renovating a 50 square foot tollbooth.
We've got to be reasonable in these things. And maybe rather than
just trying to break these things out into lots of little tiny components
and assigning guesstimates to it, the best thing might be to do is just
say renovations for the Barefoot Beach parking entrance and parking
and that sort of stuff. And then come back to us with the details as
you've pulled them together.
Page 157
September 27, 2011
But you can understand what some people are going to do with
those figures and those descriptions.
MR. McALPIN: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay? So --
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have a public speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we have a public speaker.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I wanted to make a motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, you can't make any motions.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I make a motion?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. I'd like to make a motion
that we approve the budget for the Barefoot tiki roof repair and the
Barefoot ADA ramp rework and defer any of the other budgetary
approvals and have staff come back to us with revised numbers.
And as far as hiring an engineer for 25,000 to do conceptual work
on this, I mean, this budget here contemplates that all the engineering
and permitting work would be done for 25,000. So to approve the
25,000 for engineering to bring back estimates based on concepts is
just very inflated. We've got great staff, we have, you know, our own
staff that can help with, you know, engineering and permitting and
conceptual designs, and we should use in -house as much as we can
and not contract from the outside. I mean, we've got people who can
help develop these concepts.
So my motion, as I said, to simplify is again approve the tiki roof
repair, approve the ADA ramp rework, and have staff bring everything
else back, you know, based on realistic budgetary numbers so that
whatever isn't budgeted for stays in reserves and can be used towards
whatever other project needs to be done.
Because having these inflated budgets puts us in a position that
we think money isn't available for other projects, and then we
Page 158
September 27, 2011
shortchange the public. And that's not the way to do business. For
example, the Seagate access bathroom could be dropped entirely.
Clam Bay should be deferred. Connor Park may or may not be on
there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that part of your motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I'm just --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- clarifying. I'm rambling.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, so I'll second the motion --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's getting late in the day.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- without the ramble.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No rambling motions.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: He rambled.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: And is that with a finding that these
expenditures will promote tourism?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, we don't know yet, because I
think he needs to come back and tell us --
MR. KLATZKOW: No, I'm talking about the ones you're
approving.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, yeah, the tiki but does
promote tourism. The tiki but is actually used as the information
center for tourists, and it has all the display information about the
park, so it definitely is an informational booth for tourists. And the
ADA ramp, you know, obviously that is a beach that is frequented by
tourists and disabled tourists would not be able to visit but for a
properly developed ramp. If that is a permissible use of tourist
development dollars, and I defer to you to tell me that it is.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's your findings.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I'm not sure. I'm not -- can
we go that far to define --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You just did.
Page 159
September 27, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I know, but I don't know if I'm
right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You are. I agree with it, so you
must be right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you get two more votes, you're going
to be right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER:
tell me --
No, I want the County Attorney to
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you don't get two more votes, you're
going to be wrong.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: --I'm correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I just need to ask a question about that. I
have absolutely no problem with the intent of the motion. But once
again, we're not at the point where we're approving expenditures.
We're only approving budgeted numbers, even though we're talking
about the tiki roof repair and the things that most of us think are
appropriate to proceed with.
But in order to proceed with it, what you're going to do is you're
going to go out and get a bid on these things, and then you're going to
come back to us, aren't you, to get our approval to award that bid?
MR. McALPIN: Virtually we would go back to the Parks and
Rec advisory board first, then to the TDC and then to the Board of
County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So I'm reluctant to give you the
impression that we're approving the expenditure of this money. If we
change the wording to we will approve the budget for these things
contingent upon you presenting to us an appropriate contract that does
not exceed the budget and justify that contract, then I'd be real happy
with it. Okay?
Is somebody going to second --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- Commissioner Hiller's -- that's
Page 160
September 27, 2011
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, I think
when you hit the light that you gave me permission to speak.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, I did.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
You're right. We're bringing this back, so I'm not too sure where
we are with this, unless the motion is not to consider these other items
any further.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, the motion is to direct staff to
review the costs and come back with a realistic budget. Because the
fact is --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That I can go with.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let me explain why. The problem
is, I will say right now, I would not support funding -- I mean, actually
expending money to build a tollbooth that costs over $4,000 a square
foot.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, I understand.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, if that's -- the reality, if we
don't have any other choice, then we have to come up with some
alternative to a tollbooth.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I put it -- the trouble with
your motion is the fact that the way you broke it up. If you just -- you
raise those concerns, you put it in there and you put this forward with
the idea we're going to review the whole thing when it comes back.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, no, what I -- no, what I'm
saying is we're going to -- the budget should reflect two new items, the
ADA ramp and the tiki roof.
With respect to the other items, staff needs to go back and come
back with a realistic budget. And it may turn out that the budget is
reduced from, you know, a million, 25 minus the 480, so it could be
reduced from the balance remaining of what, 900,000 down to
500,000, and we get to leave 400,000 in reserves.
Page 161
September 27, 2011
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand exactly where
you're coming from. But the other way, like Commissioner Coyle was
talking, still gets you there. But here's the thing: You left out the
sign. The sign is not going to last much longer, it's going to be
coming down in short order. If we don't have the funds, we put them
in reserves, we have to go through this whole process again.
So if we left this thing open, staff understands that the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I spoke to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let me just finish; I'll just be
one second.
Staff understands that we all have concerns over the cost of the
tollbooth, much less the chemical toilet. But, you know, and they're
going to have to address them when they come back. So if they come
back and we can go ahead and take a look at this here, maybe they can
drop the cost on this by half. Who knows? But I think we need to
also take a look and give concern about the cost of the tiki hut. How
do you know that's a fair price for that?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do you know that the ramp is a
fair price? That's why we need to get it out on bid, have it come back
and get open discussion on it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The Barefoot sign, the staff -- we
actually met with one of the representatives of the Friends of Barefoot,
and her representation was that the sign was the least of her concerns
and that the roof repair and the ramp were at the top of their list of
their needs. And based on -- you said that -- what evidence did you
produce again for the ramp and the roof repair? I don't remember the
details now. But you had presented information to me and I thought
that was reasonable back then.
MR. McALPIN: The ramp that's existing there needs to be
modified, it's not ADA compliant. We need to make sure that it's
ADA compliant.
Page 162
September 27, 2011
The roof is -- needs to be repaired. It's leaking. And they do not
have a facility where they can conduct any of their learning centers,
and we need to repair that facility before it degrades any longer.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I did have my light on and
I haven't finished yet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I call the motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The sign -- I have to bring up to
you about the sign.
When you go to Barefoot Beach, in order to find the place, you
got one sign or two signs out on the main highway that are just so big.
You drive through a community that has a large edifice out front, their
guardhouse. You have to drive all the way back to about, I don't
know, feels like it's a mile and a half. It might not be quite that far,
but you have to drive all the way back before you get there.
And the first thing to greet you is a sign that's in very much
disrepair. You can stick your hand right into it, it's that soft. So I
mean, to say that wouldn't have something to do with tourism, it
would be a deterrent not to have the sign for tourists to ever find the
place. It's difficult enough now.
And that's my concern. And so I -- the way you have the motion
worded, I'm having difficulty with it and I really couldn't vote for it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So if she added the sign to her
motion, would that be acceptable to you?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that would get me a lot
closer, but, you know, it's -- it would.
What other items were in there, Gary?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The bottom line is it's not what
Commissioner Coletta thinks is important, it's what that community
thinks. And that community did not see the sign as a priority. Again,
it goes to the issue of the cost. And we had discussed that the cost for
the replacement of the sign could readily be less.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I met with --
Page 163
September 27, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't think it's going to take Gary
a whole lot of time to come up with new numbers. I also think he can
also come back piecemeal and he can put it on the consent agenda
where the items are lesser. I mean, if he can reduce the cost of the
sign by 10,000, put it on consent, we can get that approved.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Hiller, I also
spoke to her, and she didn't give me that impression that she was
opposed to the sign. She was focusing on the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Tiki hut.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- educational center, because
that's where her group works.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that's what --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: She had no objection to the
sign, she had no objection to the -- so be honest about it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's what I am.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You make it sound like she was
opposed to the money being spent on the sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, what I said --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: She was --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- it was not a priority.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Stop, stop.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're right.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, your speaker is Ted Raia.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Call the motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Wait, you've got a speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ted Raia is not here.
MR. MITCHELL: He's not here, so that was your only public
speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, if I knew exactly what the motion
was, I would be happy to call it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Would you like me to repeat it?
Page 164
September 27, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The problem was, as it was originally
phrased, it was an approval to spend money on two specific items, the
tiki roof repair and the ADA ramp.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: To approve the budget for the tiki
roof repair and the ADA ramp rework.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that we find that those
budgetary allocations support tourism.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Promotes tourism.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Promotes tourism. Sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And that was seconded by
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And then the other part --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do I detect reluctance?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- of the motion was to let --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, okay, it's still -- we still got a
motion and a second.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can we call it, please?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We can. All in favor, please signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed by like sign.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it passes 3 -2 with Commissioner
Coyle and Coletta dissenting.
Page 165
September 27, 2011
Item #I OH
RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD A CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACT TO OLDCASTLE SOUTHERN GROUP, INC. D /B /A
APAC SOUTHEAST, INC. FOR BID NO. 11 -57575 OIL WELL
ROAD SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS FROM 1/4 MILE WEST OF
THE FAKA -UNION CANAL TO 1/2 MILE WEST OF OIL WELL
GRADE ROAD IN THE AMOUNT $1,698,855.46 — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item IOH is a recommendation to
award a construction contract to Oldcastle Southern Group,
Incorporated, doing business as APAC Southeast, Inc. for bid No.
11 -5757. It's Oil Well Road safety improvements, Project No. 60016,
in the amount of $1,698,855.46.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know if we need a
presentation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, if you don't
mind?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead, please.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to make a motion to
approve on this item. I met with staff and they assured me that they
don't have the money to widen Oil Well Road, and it is a safety issue,
Sheriffs Department recognizes it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the landowners in
particular, Ave Maria, and somebody needs to state this on the record,
is in agreement that the impact fees are not coming in from that
development. That was a part of the agreement to expand this section
of road. And they agree with widening the road until impact fees
come in.
MR. AHMAD: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Jay Ahmad,
Page 166
September 27, 2011
your Director of Transportation Engineering, for the record.
I have not been in contact with Ave Maria. Nick Casalanguida of
my office, our Deputy Administrator, has. So I may let him answer
that question, if he would.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Great.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good afternoon. For the record, Nick
Casalanguida.
Commissioner, you know, I just want to make sure I understand
the question. So I've spoken to Mr. Blake Gable and David Gensen
representing Ave Maria and Barron Collier Companies. They've said
to me that they'd like to see the safety improvement coming in,
recognizing there's no impact fees coming in right now for the
expansion. But they've also said they'd like to talk and consider about
bringing in the project before the AUIR Golden Gate /Wilson
intersection, recognizing those impact fees would be different from the
agreement that's set right now with them, that that's a recognized
county need project.
But they haven't put that in the form of an actual agreement or
email yet. But they said as the AUIR comes forward in front of this
board, they'll work with me on doing that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And the AUIR is coming
up, has gone through the Planning Commission --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: This week.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- this week. And the AUIR is
coming back to the Board of Commissioners --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't have the date. I believe it's in
late October, early November.
MR. OCHS: It's 15 November.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: 15 November.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, so if we don't get that
correspondence from Ave Maria, we can also reconsider this contract?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, I don't think that's the case --
Page 167
September 27, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, I don't want to do that,
but I don't want to get in a situation where we had an understanding --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and then all of a sudden their
understanding is different than our understanding.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Let me assure you, I have it, because I
think we're on the same page. You'd hate to see us put $1.7 million
into a pavement widening program, only to be asked three to five
years to do the road expansion if things picked up a lot. So you'd like
to -- not that we expect that money to come in that fast.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. That's absolutely right.
That -- this improvement should last 10 years. And we hope the
money comes in less than 10 years to make those capacity
improvements.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But I still would like something
in writing from the developer out there, because we do have an
agreement with them --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- to expand Ave Maria. And I
don't want to get in a situation where I understand it takes three votes
-- or four votes, and they understand it takes three votes.
MR. FEDER: If I could, for the record, Norman Feder,
Administrator, Growth Management Division.
These are two separate issues. And while there's a relationship,
Commissioner, if you bear with me for a second -- while there's a
relationship, I want to make sure that you understand that right now
the impact fees being collected within that district and the adjacent
district, which is part of our developer contribution agreement, aren't
meeting within the five years. Quite a long past that, the collections
necessary for about 33 million to widen this middle section of Oil
Well Road.
0-1-mob
September 27, 2011
Unless things change around very, very rapidly, you're well over
five years.
What we've got as a situation where we've gotten foot lanes with
no paved shoulders opening up with multi lanes on both sides of it,
and a lot of freight movement between the two. It is not a safe
situation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. FEDER: So I can tell you that we probably won't be there
for five years, which is basically our rule of thumb, that we don't
resurface if I'm going to be doing something within five years, unless
my conditions are really bad, and I got safety issues here. And more
likely it will be longer.
Now, as a separate issue, we noted that we're doing this and we
had the issue come up of trying to move on Wilson, because it's a big
priority for us, it got pushed out. We said if we can get the
intersection, we'll do ourselves well.
And then of course development came forward. That was where
that discussion went is would we be able to ,do that intersection
improvement without committing those impact fees from that district
and the adjacent district on that section of Oil Well. That won't get
them the multi - laning that quickly, because there's not that many
dollars.
And it appears that they're agreeable for us to move on the
intersection improvement on Wilson -- at Wilson on Golden Gate
Boulevard. But that is not why we're doing this job of widening to
normal 12 -foot lanes and putting in paved shoulders. So that's why I
said there's relationship, but not one for one. Even if they don't agree
to that, I need to address the safety issue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, Commissioner
Henning, your motion wasn't for just approval, it was for approval
with a condition that Ave Maria agree with you about the vote being
Page 169
September 27, 2011
required for any kind of variances or anything to be four rather than
three?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, I'm sorry, please state the
motion and I'd be happy to second it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, but there was no side
conditions to it? If there wasn't, I apologize for interrupting.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Per the contract?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you seconded it, right?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, no, I mean, I have a -- the
ability to reconsider it. The only issue that I have is we're being told,
just like we were previous with takes a super majority versus a super
majority (sic) and other people had different ideas. So if we have it in
writing, because we do have that contract with Ave Maria to widen
Oil Well Road and this section also, we have something from the
development that agrees from, you know, what we're being told is
yeah, the monies are not there, Wilson and Golden Gate needs to be
improved, then I'm fine with that. I just don't want to make an
improvement where we're going to have to be forced to widen it
prematurely, that's all.
And that's not in the motion, it was a discussion. The motion is
to approve this item.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And my second remains.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: In the motion?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right, all -- yes, Commissioner
Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Shouldn't it be in the motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, I think you're making
some very valid points. And, you know, to the extent that these
Page 170
September 27, 2011
arrangements can be properly memorialized so, you know --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How long will it take you to get
the project started?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think we're ready to go, but I think
maybe we need some clarification. We do a five -year CIE. I think we
can get easily clarification from them that they're not going to ask us
within this five -year CIE to widen the middle section if by some
miraculous reason we get money and so we get value out of this
pavement resurfacing, I don't think they'd have a problem telling us
that. Because we don't foresee the revenue coming in. And, you
know, we plan on that pavement resurfacing to last beyond that. But I
think I can get that commitment on the record.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's a widening because of
safety reasons.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. But we wouldn't be doing
anything else to do anything to that road within a five -year period. I
think that's a reasonable request. I think they would be happy to
provide that to us.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I could support it if you made that
a condition of your motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, you know, and I think
that's reasonable, but I didn't want to slow it down either, is that we
get something in writing from the parties in agreement on Oil Well
Road stating that they're not going to force us to make any widening
in this section for --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Five years.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Five years?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yep. I think we can get that, sir. I
don't think that would be a problem.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we have a motion and a second.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Did you modify your motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Shakes head negatively.)
Page 171
aye.
September 27, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE:
Item #1 OJ
It passes unanimously.
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF
LIABILITY, AUTOMOBILE, WORKER'S COMPENSATION,
FLOOD, AIRCRAFT, AIRPORT AND OTHER INSURANCE AND
RELATED SERVICES FOR FYI IN AN ANNUAL AMOUNT OF
$1,443,951, A REDUCTION OF $147,390 — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes you to Item IOJ on your
agenda. It's a recommendation to approve the purchase of liability,
automobile, Workers' Compensation, flood, aircraft, airport and other
insurance and related services for fiscal year 2012 in the amount of
$1,443,951, a reduction of $147,390.
Mr. Walker is available to answer questions, or make a
presentation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just have one question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Henning, go
ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In the authorization, are we
Page 172
September 27, 2011
delegating to staff to enter into any agreements on behalf of the board?
MR. WALKER: For the record, Jeff Walker, Risk Management
Director.
What we're asking you to do here is to permit the County
Manager or his designee to sign things like applications that have to be
turned in to the underwriters, those types of things, so that we can
actually complete the application process and get coverage bound.
But, you know, the Board's approval is because this is an
insurance contract, it's a contract of adhesion, meaning it's a one -sided
agreement, there really is no signature on an insurance contract to be
executed by the chairman of the commission.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: County Manager -- or County
Attorney, are you okay with this not a delegation of staff to enter into
a contract through an application?
MR. KLATZKOW: The insurance will be for different
buildings, I take it? Jeff?
MR. WALKER: Well, it's for various lines. For example, we
buy helicopter insurance.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay, and the Board's approved --
MR. WALKER: And the Board's approving the purchase of that.
And essentially for each of these lines of coverage there is an
application that has to be completed.
MR. KLATZKOW: But the Board's approved each and every --
MR. WALKER: That's right. It's listed by line in the attached.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, thank you.
I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, motion by me and second by
Commissioner Henning to approve.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Page 173
September 27, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Okay, let's go to K, County Manager.
Item # 1 OK
RECOMMENDATION TO OBTAIN DIRECTION FROM THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON HOW TO
PROCEED WITH AN EASEMENT AGREEMENT FOR USE
BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND BEACHFRONT
PROPERTY OWNERS REQUIRING PROPERTY OWNERS TO
PROVIDE PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS IN EXCHANGE FOR
PUBLICALLY FUNDED MAJOR BEACH RENOURISHMENT,
VEGETATION PLANTING AND DUNE RESTORATION TO
SUBJECT PROPERTY — MOTION TO DISCONTINUE ANY
FURTHER ACTION ON THIS ITEM — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Okay. IOK is a recommendation to obtain direction
from the Board of County Commissioners on how to proceed with an
easement agreement for use between Collier County and beachfront
property owners requiring the property owners to provide public beach
access in exchange for publicly funded major beach renourishment,
vegetation and dune restoration to the subject property.
Mr. McAlpin will answer questions or present.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to drop the idea.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, go ahead, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The County Attorney forwarded
Page 174
September 27, 2011
me a ruling, court ruling that addresses this issue.
And Jeff, if you can touch on that?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, the City of Destin and the sheriff of
Volusia County developed a policy that would allow their people to
use their beaches based on the customary use. Same sort of issue we
have with Moraya Bay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, not at all.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, if I may, all right?
And the policy was that people could use the beach 20 feet into
the dry sand area, because they've always used it that way.
The -- there was a condo association that brought suit against the
sheriff because the sheriff simply wasn't citing people for trespassing,
and the court ruled that whether or not a sheriff brings suit or brings an
action for trespassing is a matter for discretion for the sheriff. So that
down the road should there be a problem again like Moraya Bay, you
do have this tool in the toolbox that we could bring back. It's not the
issue for today. You've got a different executive summary before you.
I'm just noting that you do have this ability on the customary use
working with the sheriff to keep the beaches open, should the Board at
a later date make that determination.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You mean if the Board should
choose to adopt a policy?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, down the road.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Down the road.
Part of the motion, can we give that direction, is for the staff to
develop a policy for the Board to consider in the future?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What kind of policy?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think it's excessive. I don't think we've
got a problem right now. And if we do, we'll take the same action we
took before to resolve it. Or we'll take whatever action we need to
resolve it. But as long as we don't have a problem, I think this process
of asking for easement agreement is going to get us into more trouble
Page 175
September 27, 2011
than it's worth.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, well, let me just ask the
County Attorney --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: --one thing.
Should we adopt a policy prior to having an issue, or can we
adopt a policy when we have the issue?
MR. KLATZKOW: You can adopt the policy when you have
the issue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I'm fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: First of all, the state provides
means for the county to have access over private beaches in order to
renourish the state beaches. And no easement is required, as described
here, to do that.
Secondly, with respect to such an easement, makes very clear
that the county's position is that, as is the state's position, as has the
Court's positions been, that everything with respect to dry sand is
private property and with respect to wet sand is public property, and
that public property is state lands.
I don't -- I think we only have one county beach, if I'm not
mistaken.
With respect to the case that Jeff cited, the issue in that case was
whether or not the sheriff can be forced to basically go after someone
that's trespassing. And no, I mean, he has the discretion to decide
whether or not he's going to go after someone for trespass, be it on,
you know, private beach property or anybody else's private property.
So I don't think, you know, that sets any sort of precedent at all for
anything.
I mean, the case law with respect to customary use is pretty clear,
and the Supreme Court has ruled on this recently with respect to
another matter. And I really don't know why we keep bringing this
Page 176
September 27, 2011
back over and over again.
I asked Leo why this was back on the agenda, and he said
because we had to bring back information as to what the position of
the cities were. I haven't heard a word about that. And so I don't even
know why this was brought forward again. I mean, it sounds to me
like someone just wants to stir the pot.
MR. OCHS: No, ma'am, the Commissioners --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, then if there's a report to --
MR. OCHS: -- directed us to go to the cities and get feedback --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And what did the city say?
MR. OCHS: -- and bring it back to the Board --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And they said no.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I know. So my point is if the
answer is no, then --
MR. OCHS: Then the Board needs to tell us no.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, so can we call the vote --
MR. OCHS: That's why we're here.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- then? And thank you for calling
lt.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Please. That's a good idea, thank you.
All in favor of the motion to discontinue the effort to get
easements for beach access --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Beach renourishment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Beach renourishment, please signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
Page 177
September 27, 2011
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COCLE: It passes unanimously. So this effort is
terminated permanently.
Item # 1 OM
RECOMMENDATION TO DIRECT THE COUNTY MANAGER
OR HIS DESIGNEE TO AMEND THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC) AND RIGHT -OF -WAY
ORDINANCE IN REGARDS TO STORAGE CONTAINERS,
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) ANNUAL
MONITORING REPORTS, SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR THE
LOCATION OF ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURE
PROVISIONS TO INCLUDE PERSONAL STORAGE
CONTAINERS (PODS), NUMBER OF DOGS ALLOWED IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, AND EXCEPTIONS TO A RIGHT -
OF -WAY (ROW) PERMIT MEETING SPECIFIC CRITERIA —
MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON ALL
ITEMS EXCLUDING PERSONAL STORAGE CONTAINERS ON
WHICH CODE ENFORCEMENT WILL PLACE A "STAY" ON
ENFORCING VIOLATIONS FOR PROPERTIES THAT MEET
CURRENT ZONING PROVISIONS AND FOR STAFF TO BRING
BACK REVISIONS AND CLARIFICATION THROUGH THE
NORMAL LDC CYCLE PROCESS — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item IOM is a recommendation to
direct County Manager or his designee to amend the Collier County
Land Development Code and right -of -way ordinance in regards to
storage containers, planned unit development annual monitoring
reports, specific standards for the location of accessory buildings and
structure provisions to include personal storage containers, number of
dogs allowed in residential districts, and exceptions to a right -of -way
Page 178
September 27, 2011
permit meeting specific criteria.
This item was moved onto the regular agenda at Commissioner
Hiller's request.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, my concern was with
respect to these accessory buildings and structures to include these
personal storage containers. And I'm very concerned about these
personal storage containers being allowed as, you know, permanent
structures out there, in light of the fact that, you know, obviously
they're, you know, not hurricane standard buildings. So from the
standpoint that they could possibly be lifted or somehow affected
adversely with respect to surrounding buildings because of hurricane
winds, I really am very concerned about that. I don't have as much of
a problem with any of the other issues, and I expressed my concerns to
staff. So I would approve -- I'd make a motion to approve everything
that's being proposed except for the storage containers, the pods.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, these -- this is applicable only to
the Estates --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- zoned property?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. But it doesn't matter. I
mean, the risk is the same for someone in the Estates as it is for
someone outside of the Estates. I mean, we haven't --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I guess I'd like to hear from
somebody who has the Estates and has talked with some of the people
there.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If I could add, sir -- Nick
Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator, Growth Management.
I spoke to Gary Harrison, our building official. His quote to me
this morning, some of these things weigh two to six tons. If this thing
blows away, you're going to have bigger problems than -- but
clarification on what's in the executive summary. Commissioner
Page 179
September 27, 2011
Hiller brought up, I think we made a mistake calling them pods. I
think if it's a container that meets the setbacks and has a building
permit, because it should have a building permit so we can verify the
structure of it, these pods are kind of a brand name, like Nikes, and
some of these things are made out of Tyvek and wood and dropped in
your front yard. So I would call them just storage containers and
eliminate the word pods in this reference to them.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I ask for clarification?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So this is basically allowing this in
the Estates but not anywhere else?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, right now pods are allowed
throughout the county on a temporary basis, that --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: On a temporary basis.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Three to five days.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Now, are we going to -- and I
guess that's my question again, you want to allow these in the Estates
on a permanent basis?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But nowhere else in the county.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. Because they're not -- it's not
considered a residential district. The Estates is underlying ag., and it's
that, that whole exemption we allow for the Estates for many things.
So right now if you want to put a storage container and it's tied down
or an engineer says it weighs two or three tons and you want to put it
in the back of your yard and you want to put farm equipment in it --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But as of right now no one can
have a pod out there for temporary purposes or permanent reasons.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You can. And we've issued building
permits to some of these. And I want to stop using the word pods.
That is a business brand, pods.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Pursuant to what law?
sl • l
September 27, 2011
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm sorry, ma'am?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How could you have -- I mean, I
thought we were modifying the Land Development Code to allow this,
so how have we been permitting these if they weren't otherwise
allowed?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Because our building officials issued
permits in the past. Susan Istenes at the time made a definition
clarification. I mean, even in her definition she called them
containers. And Gary's quote to me was if they come through and
show structurally they're sound, they're no different than a shed.
They're not sightly like a shed. I mean, it might look a little bit more
like a steel container, which they are.
But Gary's point to me was if they prove that they're structurally
sound and if they're light and they're tied down like a shed, he said, as
a building official, I wouldn't have a problem approving that.
So it's a definition conflict that we have between zoning and
building.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And it would be considered a
second structure on the property?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: An accessory structure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: An accessory structure.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right, an accessory structure.
So I think that's the clarification. Because there's hundreds of
these in the Estates. So I think as long as they're not in the front yard,
as long as they get a building permit and meet the setbacks, I think,
you know, it's good to clarify that and make sure the code's there.
Otherwise I'm having Diane knock on a lot of doors and say these
thing's got to go.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is that what she's been doing now?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, she's getting calls on them. And
I'll let Diane talk about the history of them, if --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, you and I discussed it, but
Page 181
September 27, 2011
I never discussed it with Diane, so I'd love her perspective on it.
MS. FLAGG: Currently we have two open cases. Now, those
two cases would not meet these parameters, because they actually
don't meet setbacks or in the front yard, but if we put a stay of
enforcement and allow the containers that meet the parameters that the
Zoning Department has put forth, then there are storage containers out
there that can remain.
And as Nick referenced, we do have storage containers where the
Building Department did issue a permit, because they believed they
were structurally sound, but the Zoning Department had determined
that they were not allowed.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what you're going to do now, if
this is enacted, you're going to basically send out some sort of notice
to everyone in the Estates that they need to get permits to allow these
containers to stay where they are, or how are you going to handle
that?
MS. FLAGG: As the complaints come in, what we do is we go
and we would look at the storage container, verify that it meets these
parameters, and then close the case because it would be no violation.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you're only going to deal with
complaints coming in, you're not going to deal with all the ones that
are out there that don't have building permits to support their
existence?
MS. FLAGG: If we come across through the various foreclosed
homes, vacant home sweeps, neighborhood sweeps and we see one,
then we could verify it at that time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you're going to allow all these
out --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Henning, you were
next, I think.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let me try to shed some
light on this.
Page 182
September 27, 2011
Diane, per our conversation, the ones out there that have a
building permit, if we approve this, they are valid, they're not unvalid
(sic) like the conversation we had.
MS. FLAGG: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, good.
What happened was I was watching the Code Enforcement Board
meeting, and Code Enforcement Board members, some of them even
had a problem with staffs interpretation of this, allowing those
containers in Golden Gate Estates.
And I agree, I totally agree with some of the advisory board
members, this is a structure, a storage structure that is no different than
a metal building. And I think it -- the issue is these pods are industrial
pods. Is that fair to say, that's where staff is coming, because they're
an industrial use?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: (Nods head affirmatively.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Here's where I disagree with
staff. We have many metal buildings in Golden Gate Estates. They're
industrial, metal buildings. And I bet you you can find an industrial
lawnmower out there. So you have industrial uses. And furthermore,
so you already have an industrial structure allowed. And this is an
industrial structure.
The second point is the latest memo points to a section of the
code which identifies setbacks. And in the header of those setbacks it
states not applicable to Estates zoning, okay. A setback is not a use, a
setback is where that particular structure is. So in my opinion, going
out there and even telling the residents they need to put it in the
backyard before the Board adopts this is wrong. I think the Board
should set some criteria for those particular uses and where they
should be for the character of the community. But in my opinion,
they're allowed now.
And Diane and I had this conversation, and I told her that a
Commissioner has one in Golden Gate Estates. In fact, he mentioned
Page 183
September 27, 2011
that at the dais here back in 2003.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Who was that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He said he had a permit for it.
He had to get a permit. And somebody was complaining because they
had to get a permit for something and he, staying on the topic,
naturally, had to explain how he had to get a permit for his storage
unit.
And that's when she called me back in two days and verified and
said we're going to come back with an LDC amendment to make them
allowable.
But again, do whatever you want, I'm going to argue that they're
allowable today.
MS. FLAGG: Commissioner --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, can we -- Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. And it's nice to be referred
to many times. I'm the Commissioner that owns one of these steel
shipping pods, whatever you want to call it in the back, and I duly
permitted it back in 2002 and complied with everything that I had to
do to make it legal.
So here's the thing: Now, at this point in time because of the fact
that I am directly impacted by this, I don't know if I can participate in
the vote. Is this something that would --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, you can do it.
MR. KLATZKOW: You're fine. You're already permitted.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I did. I did it by permit.
And everything was legal then and it's still legal today, as far as I'm
concerned. So that's where we are. I just wanted to share that with
everybody.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a motion from somebody?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm kind of reluctant to make a
motion right now.
Now, Diane told me even though that Commissioner Coletta has
September 27, 2011
a permit and she just said it and confirmed it now, that permit is not
valid unless the Board takes action on making a stay.
MS. FLAGG: Let me clarify: The Building Department issued a
permit, the Zoning Department determined that they weren't allowed.
So what we're doing is we're getting the Building Department and
Zoning Department on the same page.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. But you told me even
though -- you're saying the Zoning Department determined it wasn't
an allowable use --
MS. FLAGG: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- therefore, the permit is null
and void.
MS. FLAGG: Haven't taken that position -- we know this is
what we have. We have permitted --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I have an interpretation on
some of those official interpretations, like the one that Susan Murray
says, that when a permit is issued by mistake, that that permit is null
and void. It happened in the Grieder case. And by the way, I bet you
could find a -- in fact, I know there are permits in a trailer park in
Immokalee, okay? But there was an interpretation by some that those
mobile homes are not allowed in that zoning district. Just like you're
saying with the pods, they're not allowed in the Estates zoning district,
according to this.
And I disagree with it, just like I disagree with the interpretation
of having a mobile home park in certain classifications in Immokalee
but you're saying those permits are not any good unless they come in
and rezone the property.
MS. FLAGG: Commissioner, I will say that we have an issue
where one department has issued a permit, another department has
said they're not allowed. And what we're trying to do is seek a
resolution. Because we don't want to take action until we make sure
everyone's on the same page.
Page 185
September 27, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Absolutely. We're just
trying to get clarification about -- because if we're changing our mind
on interpretation about issuing permits is okay, even though it was
issued by mistake, it's not allowed, according to Susan Istenes's memo
in 2003, you need to put that in writing so we can take it out to
Immokalee and say those structures are legal.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If I could add some, Commissioner, to
Susan Istenes's memo. This is why it gets a little confusing and I think
we brought this to the Board.
She put in the last paragraph, containers used in conjunction with
a bona fide agricultural use. And the agricultural zoning district may
be located on property consisting of at least five acres. So long as
these containers meet the required setbacks for permanent structures
and do not encroach in any road right -of -way or easement. Containers
will not be placed on the property in any residential district -- which
the Estates is not -- in the Estates district, unless they are to be used in
construction sites as described above.
So it was kind of all over the place, and I think that's why we
said, you know, this is one of those that through the LDC amendment
cycle process because we have hundreds of these throughout the
Estates, we wanted to bring it to the Board and say look, let's not bring
anybody to the Code Enforcement Board until we vet this thing
through the LDC cycle with the public involved and everything else.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, here's another problem
that I have with that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This interpretation.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This is a planning manager that
made this interpretation.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Per our code, it states that the
September 27, 2011
planning director shall interpret the code, okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, look, folks, all they're asking us to
do is to stay the enforcement until you can get an ordinance to us.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're not trying to design --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I apologize, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We don't want to spend all day
on this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, we know.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta, let's bring it to a
close and let's get a --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- motion about staying the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's been a very interesting
conversation. And it's kind of unique how it comes up at this point in
time, but that's okay.
2002 when I got that permit they were being issued for this as a
normal course of events. It wasn't a special privilege. I had to go
through the whole thing. An architect was involved. Mario
Lamendola was the architect. It was quite a process, and it was quite
an eye opener too, what was involved to be able to get a permit. So
everything has been done with the greatest of intentions in place.
Now also, too, I want to share with you that I speak for the
people out in Golden Gate Estates. There has never been an issue from
anyone come into my office or any of the meetings I ever attended as
far as storage containers in the back part of the property away from the
front. Had never been an issue. I never heard anything even with
ones that may be at the wrong area of the lot, maybe close to the front
next to the property line. Never heard a complaint.
However, with that said, in about another year we're going to be
talking about putting together a new master plan for Golden Gate
Page 187
September 27, 2011
Estates. At that point in time I'd like to have that as a real issue for
them to be able to discuss and see what the will is. Remember,
Golden Gate Estates is a different animal. People moved out there
because they liked the large expanse, they liked their wooded areas,
they liked -- they're not required to even maintain their yards if they
don't want, but most people do. There's a certain amount of freedom
that went with it.
So here we are today. I think I understand where Commissioner
Henning's going. He said he doesn't have an issue, but he did bring up
some points that were of concern to him.
So just to be able to bring this to a conclusion, there hasn't been a
motion made, I make a motion to move this forward.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, moving it forward means a stay of
enforcement for the properties that meet these provisions and guidance
to the staff to bring revisions through the scheduled land development
cycle and ordinance amendment process for final adoption.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that's seconded by Commissioner
Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For County Attorney.
So this makes a stay on the present permitted storage structure,
storage pods, storage containers, whatever you want to call it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Accessory structures.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Accessory structures. Those
permitted structures will not be looked at -- since we gave that
direction, will not be looked at as that permit is voided; is that correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: My understanding is that we're keeping
status quo until this issue gets back to the Board. There will be no
code enforcement on this issue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, now, code enforcement. It says
September 27, 2011
stay of enforcement is the key, key provision?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Whether it be permitted or
unpermitted.
MR. KLATZKOW: Whether it be permitted or unpermitted.
You may decide to grandfather everybody. I have no idea how many
of these things are out there. If you've got 500,000 out there, I mean,
you know.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think there may be some
wishes to set some standards for setbacks or location of it. Even
though that you've put a metal building, industrial metal building in
your front yard, maybe there's some wishes out there to put them in
the backyard or the side yard or --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, they'll surface during the LDC
process and the hearings that we have.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. As long as these permits
are valid until we take action at the LDC. Because if it doesn't pass
then you have to enforce the unpermitted and permitted. Is that right?
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't necessarily agree with that. I think
the permanent ones are fine. But without having to get into that
discussion, this issue's going to come back to the Board. At that point
in time there'll be a decision made.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. And hopefully staff will have
held the public hearings, gotten the information from the public, come
back and present it to us and we'll make a more informed decision
about what ordinance we want to create to deal with the problem.
Right? Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Nick, help me again. My concern
is the safety issue of some of these containers potentially not being
strong enough to be wind resistant or alternatively not being properly
strapped or, you know, whatever other issues may arise because of the
UUMM
September 27, 2011
risk in the face of high winds.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The building official has the same
concern, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So we've got a bunch of
these trailers in the Estates.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And they're being used for storage. I'm
sure you know a lot of gardeners have trailers on their properties to
store their equipment or their waste, as it case may be.
How are you going to get the word out and then how are you
going to enforce the necessary safety standards? Just to sit here, and
what I'm hearing -- and maybe I'm not hearing this correctly, is
everyone saying, well, we'll just sort of grandfather everything in, and
even if it's not strapped down, it's okay. I mean, is that what we're
saying?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think our intention was --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's what I'm trying -- I'm trying
to -- I mean, there's been so much conversation back and forth and I'm
so familiar with this. And you and I spoke about it and you tried to
educate me, and I read the material, but, you know, I'm not a container
expert. So help me out, just tell me what you're going to do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, you don't know what you're going
to do, okay? You haven't gone through the hearing process. You're
going to go through the Land Development Code process, you're
going to go through all the advisory boards that are necessary. You're
going to solicit information from the public and then you're going to
come up with some recommendations about number one, how do you
make sure these things are safe; number two, whether or not they're
going to be setbacks and a whole host of considerations we haven't
even talked about today.
And then you come back to us and we will probably have some
changes we want you to put in there, and then we'll debate those. And
Page 190
September 27, 2011
then we will finally get a new ordinance or Land Development Code
established and it will describe how we do all this stuff, okay. We
can't do it now. We cannot create this document today.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand that. I just want to
have some idea -- if I'm going to approve that it be amended, I want to
have some idea of what staff is recommending as to what they think is
the best proposed amendment. I just want -- with respect simply to the
safety issue, that's all I want to know. Forget about all this other stuff.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, for clarification, if Diane
comes across one of these in a backyard and she feels that she needs
clarification of one of our building officials whether it's a safe
structure or not -- because some of these things are pretty dilapidated.
So if we go out, we find one that's not in good condition or looks like
it could be a hazard, I would think she'll ask one of our building
officials to check it out. If it's not permitted, we can ask them to strap
it down until this is done to make it safe.
So if we do find one of these that's in bad shape, could be a
hazard. We'll work with the property owner to make sure in the
meantime as we're going through this process that it does not become
more of a hazard to the people around them.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And your goal prospectively is
that there would be an amendment that would ensure that all of these
meet building code standards and that they would be permitted by
you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Got it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Give me a break. All right, we're --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My turn.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, it's not your turn. It's a turn for the
court reporter to have a break. It's been an hour and a half now, and
we're going to take a break. And when we come back here we're
going to vote on this issue and get rid of it.
Page 191
September 27, 2011
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Call the question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm not going to call the question. We're
taking a break.
(Recess.)
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, we need to have one more person
on the dais.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Ian's here.
MR. MITCHELL: I'll sit down.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm coming.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Henning, go ahead
and tell us.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, staff s recommendation is
outlined in the executive summary, and they're saying they want these
industrial storage containers in the rear, but that's a future amendment.
I'm saying, and, they agree, just don't do any enforcement. That's the
amendment to the motion. And I hope that Commissioner Coletta
comes back. When he comes back he'll agree with. Don't do any
enforcement until the committees and the staff adopt policy for these
storage containers, okay?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
slightly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
maker comes back.
Then let's modify the motion
You have to wait till the motion
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Not necessarily.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We should dock his pay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I seconded it, didn't I? If it's not -- okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You have to amend your
motion, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Why is that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You explain it to him, Commissioner
Henning.
Page 192
September 27, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I will.
Staff s outline that the storage pods are to be in the rear, the
Board hasn't made that policy. First of all, we need to make sure it is
okay in the Estates district with location criteria. There are some in
Golden Gate Estates that are in the front yard.
Now, what staff is going do, they're going to go out there and say
move them out in the back, the Board is going to pass a policy making
them legal in the rear. But we haven't made that policy yet.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct. So how can you
give directions to move them?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, then what we need to do
is amend your motion to say don't enforce pods in Golden Gate
Estates, period.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Diane, you got something you
want to add to that? Sounds realistic to me.
MS. FLAGG: Yeah, it is very realistic. We're just suggesting
that the recommendation -- your motion stays the same with the
exception of the storage containers. So all other aspects of this
recommendation in regard to the economic development section with
the retail that we implement now as proposed with the exception of
the storage containers where we just put a stay on enforcement with
no parameters, and then let it go through the LDC process.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. But also with the
understanding that there's no guarantees that this is going to happen.
MS. FLAGG: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, I amend my motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, let's make sure we understand
what it is. Now, your recommendation was that the Board approves a
stay of enforcement for properties that meet these provisions. And by
that I understand it says for properties that are zoned Estates, okay?
Because there are no provisions concerning the storage facilities yet,
because you haven't come back with an ordinance to do that. And
Page 193
September 27, 2011
we've told you to stay enforcement, period. End of story. Whether in
the front, the side or on top of the house, we've told you to stay
enforcement until you come back with procedures.
MS. FLAGG: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Right?
MS. FLAGG: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now how is it we have to change this?
MS. FLAGG: The other four aspects, which is the one where it's
a vacant retail center, what we would like to do is to be able, with your
approval, to have the permitting department start filling some of these
vacant retail centers now, if it's been vacant up to a year, rather than
right now if it's been vacant for 90 days, they cannot issue a permit
until the center's brought up to current code.
What we're asking the Board's approval to do is to allow the
permitting department to allow it to be vacant up to a year that they
can still issue a permit to occupy without bringing it up to current
code.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Then that's a part of the
recommendations, and that's a part of the motion is to accept staff s
recommendations. So if that just clarifies.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, the motion doesn't really accomplish
that. So okay, so let me propose some wording to the motion, okay?
That we will accept the staff s recommendations with respect to
everything except storage structures. And with respect to storage
structures, we will approve a stay of enforcement for the properties
that meet these provisions, which are Estates zoned properties. And
the proposed revisions for the storage structures will proceed through
the scheduled Land Development Code cycle and ordinance
amendment process for final adoption.
Now, does that very specifically address the issue?
MS. FLAGG: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, now, that's Commissioner
Page 194
September 27, 2011
Coletta's motion and Commissioner Henning's second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I didn't second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right, then I'm going to second it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think I did.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Halas -- Fiala.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Halas, oh, my --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just call me Frank.
But I have a question. Just a quick one. You just said Estates.
Does that refer to all Estates lots?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All Estates zoned property.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, good, thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One last comment. And I
appreciate you helping me with the wording of the motion. I realize
that this is going to go through a process. And whatever the outcome
of it is, I will comply with whatever that outcome in, just like I expect
every citizen in Collier County to comply with code enforcement
directives.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor of the motion, please signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Anybody have a patience pill here?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I ran out of patience about two hours
MR. OCHS: Commissioners —
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, let's go to 1ON.
Page 195
September 27, 2011
Item #ION
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT
RECOGNIZING $284,110.45 IN REVENUE GENERATED AS
PROGRAM INCOME WHEN CONVEYING PROPERTY
ACQUIRED THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD
STABILIZATION PROGRAM — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: It's a recommendation to approve a budget
amendment recognizing $284,110.45 in revenue generated as program
income when conveying property acquired through the Neighborhood
Stabilization Program. This item was brought forth by Commissioner
Hiller from the consent agenda to the regular agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, let me remind everybody,
this is a recommendation to accept the money we got from selling
these properties. It is not a time to regurgitate all of the things that are
wrong with this particular program. We're being asked to merely
approve the acceptance of the money that we got from selling certain
houses. If we want to talk about how much money we've lost, which
is a lot, then let's do that some other time. Okay?
Commissioner Hiller, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let's talk about the money we've
lost. Can you go ahead and put the schedule -- yeah, there you go.
Can you -- not the timeline but the other one that's in the front of the
agenda, the part of the executive summary.
MS. RAMSEY: I don't know if I have that in there.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's the one right here. Can we
borrow this one? Thank you. We've got it here. Marla, it's right here.
MR. OCHS: You're referring to this, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The reason I wanted you to
basically explain what happened and how we sold these homes and
Page 196
September 27, 2011
then also address how the down payment assistance, you know, as we
talked about earlier, and that I had made reference when you presented
this you would have the opportunity to explain that essentially those
down payment assistance funds are not being recovered.
The net proceeds revenue column doesn't represent any monies
that we have made. In fact, overall with respect to the sale of these
homes there has been a loss.
But when you look at this schedule, it doesn't make clear that
that's what's happened. And while I understand that with respect to
subsidizing affordable homes, there is potentially a loss when you
engage in this, I think it needs to be made clear for the benefit of the
board and the public exactly what we are losing and how much.
So can you go through this chart and explain it for the benefit of
everybody? Especially in light of all the concerns with what's going
on with housing and how Commissioner Coyle thinks it's not a good
idea to be a part of the programs and we should be out of it and, you
know, this may be one of the reasons why.
MS. RAMSEY: Well, first of all -- I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is definitely one of the reasons why.
But isn't it obvious that we got -- we spent $505,000 --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you let the staff explain?
That was my direction. I pulled the item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. And --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Marla did a wonderful job
reviewing this with me and I think the public should have an
opportunity to hear her explanation and make clear what, you know,
this chart doesn't make clear.
Go ahead.
MS. RAMSEY: Okay. For the record, Marla Ramsey.
The first column that you have that says expenditures, that is the
total amount of dollars that we have put into the piece of property,
whether it be the purchase of it or the rehabilitation of it.
Page 197
September 27, 2011
The second column is the appraised value as it relates to the
house. And you cannot -- for our mortgage companies, they will not
sell or purchase the house if it doesn't meet the appraised value. The --
a column that talks about unrecoverable funds are things that we're
unable to be put up against the grants, mowing the grass or
maintaining the property in a static position.
The one that talks about the down payment assistance, the reason
you don't see like a loss column somewhere is because there is a
potential that the down payment assistance could come back to us in
out years. For example, if the homeowner sells the house and they
would have to pay off this portion -- in the first one it's $38,000. If
they rented the house out they would lose that opportunity as well and
would have to pay it back. Or if they refinance the house, they would
need to pay that back. So there are some situations where that funding
could come back to the county. So it's not a total write -off.
Then the last column that we have, that's the check that we
actually receive from the mortgage company. And that's what we're
asking you to recognize today and allow us to put it into the revenue
fund.
So there is a loss on every property. It is designed to be that way.
That is the way the program is. We cannot, by the grant requirements,
make a profit off the houses.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So as it stands right now, on the
$505,000 invested, the loss is $220,000. And that's with an assumption
we may not collect down payments. That's the worst case scenario.
MS. RAMSEY: That would be a worst case scenario.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you just clarify one thing?
You say there's a -- the appraised value is $90,000 less than the 505,
notwithstanding our improvements to that property. That's attributable
strictly to the continued decline in the market. Even though we bought
these properties, improved them, they still have been depreciating, is it
because you bought them a while ago or is it because it's indicative of,
Page 198
September 27, 2011
you know, the market, you know, taking a turn for the worst now?
Can you give me some indication of that?
MS. RAMSEY: I think there's a number of different reasons why
it could be that way. But part of it is is that we might have bought a
really, I use the word, dog that we had to put a lot of money in, but it's
in a neighborhood where maybe the house isn't worth as much as we
had to put into it in order to bring it up to code and make it a sellable
piece of property.
So just, you know, prior to getting your mortgage you always go
out and get an appraisal on a property to find out what it's worth and
then we have to reduce the sales price for that much to start with.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And you're going to -- with the
down payment assistance that you have here, that will be part of the
accounting that you're going to give us to address the questions raised
by Commissioner Henning, right?
MS. RAMSEY: We can. I was going to do SHIP, but if you
want this one -- these are two separate funding sources.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think it should be done for all of
them. I don't think it matters whether it's the neighborhood
stabilization or SHIP. I mean -- and if I wasn't clear on that, I
apologize. But what I wanted to know is, you know, how much we're
putting forward with respect to down payment assistance using both
federal and state funds, not just state.
MS. RAMSEY: Very good, we'll do that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you so much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, I'll make a motion to approve the
recognition of the $284,110.45.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And a side note is this is a really dumb
program. And if it were up to me, I wouldn't ask for anymore federal
grants to do this thing. I wouldn't do it at all. It is absolutely crazy to
spend this kind of money for this kind of return.
Page 199
September 27, 2011
So in any event, I got a second from Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, you do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor -- Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: While we're off the topic, can I
bring up something?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You are so feisty this afternoon,
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wasn't it the direction of the
Board in July to bring back at the next meeting how to dispose of
these, the homes that we have in inventory?
MS. RAMSEY: We are bringing back what we're going to do
with the various properties that we have. We just couldn't possibly
make that at the next meeting. We're actually running it through our
advisory board, taking some of the plans that the staff has, running it
through the advisory board so we can vet it. They've had one meeting.
They're having a sub - committee meeting I think again on Friday of
this week. And so we wanted some public vetting as well.
And then we're also talking with some various non - profits to find
out what the capacities are that they have so that we bring back a nice
package for you at the -- later this fall. But, you know, a couple more
meetings.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm just trying to -- I recall us in
July saying bring it at the next meeting to dispose of them. If that is
wrong, I apologize. I just was assuming when we come back from
break that we'd have an agenda item. So obviously I was wrong on
that motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Probably not wrong, but I'll tell you
what I think happened is we said come back to us with a plan to
extricate ourselves from this program, which required a lot of
considerations, because some of them were in the process of being
Page 200
September 27, 2011
sold, others were still in the process of being rehabilitated. There were
a whole lot of different circumstances involving different properties.
So it probably just took staff a longer period of time to come up with a
good effective plan to extricate us from this program in the best, most
efficient manner. We don't want to do something stupid.
MS. RAMSEY: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We don't want to do anything else
stupid. So that's where I am.
MS. RAMSEY: Couple things that we really -- we have not
purchased more. That was a very clear option. We have not started
construction on another rehab. But there was some houses, these are
some, that we were almost done that there was direction to go ahead
and finish those off and get them off our books. Whatever the process
was, to do it as quickly as possible.
And we are working through that. There are some nuances that
we find as we dig a little deeper of things we have to think of and to
take into consideration to make sure at the end of the day that we're as
clean as we can be when we bring you the process.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, do you have
anything else on this issue?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want to understand one
thing. And correct me if I'm mistaken with respect to this, but the
amount that we provide as down payment assistance is whatever the
difference is between the amount the bank will lend and the -- I
assume the appraised value of the property?
MS. RAMSEY: Minus the unrecovered funds, yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we actually -- when we get the
down payment assistance, it's not based on any sort of qualifier of the
purchaser but rather just the difference between these numbers.
MS. RAMSEY: Well, they do have to be eligible for the
program to begin with. But then the dollar amount is really based
upon what the mortgage company feels is the number that they're
Page 201
September 27, 2011
willing to loan. And this is conventional mortgages we're going with.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. And I understand. And this
basically is what is driving the laws, if you will.
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So let me also ask one more
question. And again, this is just for my education, and I think for the
public's benefit.
How are you advertising these homes for sale and how are you
qualifying potential buyers? Because there are people out there who
need homes and, you know, I think it would be beneficial right now to
describe, because we do have a large inventory of homes for sale, you
know, where can people learn about them and, like I said, how do you
qualify.
MS. RAMSEY: Well, all the qualification is done through our
office. As a matter of fact, maybe I can have Megan just give a real
quick synopsis of what she does, if you want to hear it real fast.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: For the benefit of the public.
Because, you know, people might be listening or the paper might be
writing and they could add a little bleep that would be something to
the effect of, you know, we've got so many houses four sale, this is
what you need to do to qualify, this is who you should speak to, and it
could help accelerate the disposition of the properties and put some
people into an affordable home.
MS. RAMSEY: Well, one of the things that we're also doing as
we come through the plan is the marketing plan, so we have a
marketing element we're doing too. But Megan in our office is the
person that they would contact if they're interested in seeing one of
these homes. We have gone to a number of job fares, we went to the
schools --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are they listed with brokers?
MS. RAMSEY: They are not listed with brokers. We have not
been able to get that one solidified yet. But I think we're close to
Page 202
September 27, 2011
being able to do that. It has something to do with broker fees and
some other things we're trying to work out.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So right now the only advertising
is through our website?
MS. RAMSEY: Websites, word of mouth, sending out to various
employers. We think that our -- bringing on job fairs, that kind of
stuff.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the qualifications as a
purchaser are?
MS. RAMSEY: Well, they slide. It depends on your income and
the number of people in your household.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Too difficult to explain in brief?
MS. RAMSEY: Well, it starts with a median income and then,
for example, 71,000 something, and, you know, if you have four
people in your house then your income needs to be "X ", and that
would allow you then to be eligible for it.
We do up to 120,000 minimum of the median income and so a lot
of our teachers and firemen, et cetera, are eligible for these. So we
keep seeking that level of community person to come and to seek
them out.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So are you targeting gap?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's not on the agenda.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I know. I just want to make sure,
because, I mean, if we're trying to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why don't you get off -line with Marla
and she'll explain it to you.
Commissioner Fiala --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Don't explain it to me, explain it to
the Naples Daily News and get them, if you can, to write an article so
that we can get these houses sold, because I think it would be a great
opportunity to promote it.
And you're right, it's not on the agenda. Thank you for pointing
Page 203
September 27, 2011
that out. But I think it's --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- important to get it sold.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, we mentioned down payment
assistance. Where does that many come from?
MS. RAMSEY: The down payment assistance is left in the
house. To build the house you did it with federal funding and then we
left the money in the house. And then we got --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I mean where does it come -- do
we give them down payment assistance to buy this? And if we do, is
that SHIP funds or home funds or --
MS. RAMSEY: No, it's NSP funds.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: NSP funds. So we have different
funding pots for down payment assistance for different types of
homes; is that it?
MS. RAMSEY: It's not a cash element. If you look at the first
line item, we have a $130,000 home in there. We can't recover $2,000
of it. You take that off. We left $38,000 in the house. We did not
recover it, we just left it in the house. That's the purchase price, that's
the rehab price, $38,000 we left it in the house and we sold it for 90.
So a house worth $130 we sold for $90,000. And that's what that
means when we left it in the house as a down payment assistance.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor of the motion, please signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Page 204
September 27, 2011
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item 1 I is the annual
performance appraisal for the County Attorney.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Did we skip O? 100, did we skip 100?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 15A10.
MR. OCHS: No, that was moved back to your consent agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
MR. OCHS: I'm sorry. No, that was withdrawn. That was
withdrawn this morning as part of your change sheet.
Item #1 I A
THE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL FOR COUNTY
ATTORNEY — APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. 1 IA, is that where we are
now?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll make that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But I have something. Actually,
we almost addressed that at the beginning of the meeting.
Was it two years ago, Commissioner Coyle, his evaluations were
never on the agenda, and we accused him of looking at ours and
making --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think that's where I got the idea.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: --his determination.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I'm just kidding.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So anyways, we made a
commitment that all those appraisals will be in before going on the
agenda.
And in other words, and I told this to Leo, I really want to know
Page 205
September 27, 2011
through those appraisals how my colleagues are thinking. Because,
you know, I might have missed something. I kind of doubt it, but I
might have missed something that one of my colleagues picked up.
So it's very important that these appraisals be on the agenda prior to
going on the agenda.
So with that said, can we have a commitment of all the ones that
have an appraisal, that they don't go on the agenda until we have all
the appraisals in? And then if they're past due, we'll just let the
commissioner -- we'll allow you to flog the commissioner with a wet
noodle until you get those appraisals in? Or something like that.
No. I mean, can we delay those getting on the agenda till we have
all the appraisals in?
MR. OCHS: If you're willing to wait for your printed agendas to
come later than you normally get them.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He means just continue it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, just continue it. Continue it
until --
MR. OCHS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And beat up the
commissioner in the meantime.
MR. OCHS: That's fine. We have some contractual dates. But,
I mean, the Board's certainly willing to I'm sure under that
circumstance allow us to slide off of that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you put an item on the
agenda continue -- continue the appraisal until commissioner whoever
hands in their appraisal. Is that fair?
MR. OCHS: If that's the will of the board.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In the future, not now though.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In the future.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think that's very fair. And just --
can I speak?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
Page 206
September 27, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I please?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I wasn't waiting to see what the
other commissioners did. I really -- because this is the first time I've
had the opportunity to evaluate Leo and Jeff, it was very difficult for
me, and I really struggled as to what I was going to say. And I wrote
and I rewrote. And then ultimately I wrote a lot and deleted everything
and changed everything.
So I do have to apologize for being delayed in it. And it was
quite frankly not something I wanted to do. And I would have been
just as happy not to have evaluated you and just kept going, waiting
for next year.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why don't we ask --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I just want to say that. So I do
apologize for keeping you waiting. And you're both gentlemen and I
appreciate your efforts and I look forward to next year being a whole
lot better than this past year. So I have faith that both of you can only
eventually shine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I was just going to suggest we have
Commissioner Hiller do hers a year in advance. That way we make
sure that we got them on time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I don't think I'm going to
have --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: With her pledge to do better --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I promise next year won't be an
issue because I'm more comfortable with it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What do we need to do with I IA?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We have a motion and second right?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we have a motion by
Commissioner Henning, and I think a second by Commissioner
Coletta to accept the evaluation. That's all we need to do here?
MR. KLATZKOW: That's all you need to do.
Page 207
September 27, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks, Jeff.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's been done.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good job.
Item # 13 A 1
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL FOR THE AIRPORT
AUTHORITY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR — APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's to go to 13AL We do the same
thing with Chris Curry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve. And I have
an explanation.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have a public speaker.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And second.
MR. COURTRIGHT: I'll waive. I waive.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The X's in my evaluation
represents the even number. Whether it be two or three or something.
I apologize, Mr. Curry, for submitting something not according to the
instructions. The "X" in my evaluation means a column, whether it be
two or three.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You mean you didn't write two?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
September 27, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, County Manager, we have a
problem. Do not accept those evaluations with anything less than
what you prescribe as the standard. Wet noodle, please.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we have a motion to approve. All
in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
So you have gotten his explanation. So any "X's" pick an even
number, like 2.8, and that will do it, okay?
MR. CURRY: Yeah, there was no confusion on my part. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That brings us to 13B --
MR. OCHS: 13B.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You have a speaker on that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, I'm sorry, we had a speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He waived.
MR. MITCHELL: -- no, he waived.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Which one?
MR. OCHS: He waived, sir.
MR. MITCHELL: He waived.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right.
Item # 13 B 1
RECOMMENDATION THAT COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY
Page 209
September 27, 2011
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) APPROVES AND
EXECUTES AN AMENDMENT TO THE EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CRA AND DAVID L. JACKSON,
THE BAYSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE CRA EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, EXTENDING THE TERM OF EMPLOYMENT FOUR
YEARS AND MODIFYING SEVERANCE TERMS, AND
AUTHORIZE CRA CHAIRMAN TO SIGN — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Next item is Item 13B 1. It was previously 16B 1.
It's recommendation that the CRA approve and execute an amendment
to the employment agreement between the CRA and Mr. Jackson,
extending the term of the employment.
And Commissioner Hiller moved this to the regular agenda.
And Jeff, do they need to go into session as the CRA for this or --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who's the Chair, Coletta?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Commissioner Coletta is Chair.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: All right, CRA is now ready to
go.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Drag it out just a little bit. I've
got a question.
Go ahead, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, the reason I brought this
forward is because I really can't accept a four -year contract for David
Jackson. I also can't -- and I don't have the numbers in front of me,
but I believe -- how much was the pay that they were deciding to give
you, $125,000 a year? Could you please answer?
MR. JACKSON: It's in the executive summary.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand, I read it. I don't have
it in front of me. Could you tell us what the number is?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: $124,927.
Page 210
September 27, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, I said 125.
So basically $125,000 is an awful lot of money to -- for this
position. The operating budget was, or is, I should say, a million -five.
You know, the program funding sources for fiscal year ' 12 are going
to be three million.
You've got a very large staff. I'm very concerned about what's
going on with the CRA. And quite frankly, I mean, I think to give you
a four -year contract at $125,000 is a very high pay to administer what
is really a very small fund. I mean, you know, we have people here in
the county who are administering a lot more making less. So I just
think it's out of line. And that's why I can't support it.
I mean, if, you know, the CRA wants to come back -- I mean, it's
just a very, very excessively high salary relative to what's being done.
So I make the motion to deny.
MR. JACKSON: There's a motion on the floor.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I didn't realize.
Did you actually make a motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There is a motion on the floor
by Commissioner Coyle, seconded by Commissioner Fiala to accept.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's really out of line with the rest
of the county's salaries.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, Commissioner Coyle?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You don't -- you measure compensation
for the job in reference to the importance and complexity of the job
itself. And David Jackson is probably the -- one of the -- well, he is
the best of anyone who has administered the Bayshore Redevelopment
Agency for a long, long time. I don't know that we've ever had
anybody better than David who has his experience and insight and
who works as hard at doing a job as David does.
So I'm very happy with his performance, and I have absolutely
no problem voting for his four -year contract, or for voting for his
salary.
Page 211
September 27, 2011
So I think you're doing a great job, David. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, now that you're chair, I
want to go off of the topic.
Now, we gave direction to authorize the County Manager to
create an economic department within Collier County. Now, how
would that work if Mr. Jackson applies for a position in there in this
contract? Would we have to amend this contract or --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. His contract is specific at this point in
time. In fact, he's taking out his roll as an economic developer.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Say that one more time? I'm sorry.
MR. KLATZKOW: You would have to amend the contract if he
took on additional duties.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let's say that he is just the
economic director for Collier County under the County Manager,
because that's what we said we wanted to be not under anybody else
but the County Manager. What happens to this contract?
Let's say that he's not the CRA Director anymore because he's
applied for a new position within the county. That is not a contract
employee. What do we do with that contract, ask him to come back
and -- it burn up?
MR. KLATZKOW: It's a contract.
MR. JACKSON: I can answer that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. JACKSON: David Jackson, Executive Director of the
Bayshore /Gateway Triangle CRA.
This contract if approved will stand as -is. If I were to apply for a
position that's in the County Manager's agency, as a full -time
employee I would have to resign from this position once being
accepted into a full -time employee, not a contract employee. So that's
what would happen.
Then you would advertise this position in CRA to whoever
Page 212
September 27, 2011
would be willing to apply for it, select a new director for the
Bayshore /Gateway Triangle CRA.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Does the CRA need to
recognize that you're stepping -- you want out of the contract at that
time and agree to it?
MR. JACKSON: The advisory board would make some kind of
recommendation at one of their meetings and it would come to the
CRA board you are sitting as right now, and it would be up to you to
accept the resignation pending fulfilling the FTE within the County
Manager's agency, if that was what was going to happen.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Essentially with the contract, I'd have to resign
from it in order to become a county employee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What are the terms of not
extending the contract by the executive director?
MR. JACKSON: What are the terms of not extending this
contract?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Let's say you want out of
the contract.
MR. JACKSON: Oh, if I want out of it, I must give 60 days
written notice. And that was a provision put in by Bill Neal and
negotiated with the --
MR. KLATZKOW: You're the same board with different hats.
If you think it's a good idea for David Jackson to take a direct role
with the county, you could just terminate the contract with without
any notice provisions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, no, you have to go by the
contract. Unless both parties agree.
MR. KLATZKOW: Both parties agree, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thanks for clarification.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, Commissioner
Henning, another question?
Page 213
September 27, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. Thanks for the clarification.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
Leo, that new position for the -- you know, as head of the EDC
for the county was -- you had mentioned the pay for that position was
going to be what, $125,000?
MR. OCHS: Well, we hadn't set that level yet, Commissioner.
Frankly --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I thought on that schedule you
presented, you know, you had highlighted dollar amounts --
MR. OCHS: Okay, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- I remember. I just don't
remember --
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am, that --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- off the top. It was about
$125,000. Was the salary scale for the executive director for the
whole county?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And in that umbrella you were
going to incorporate the CRA's, the TDC and a whole bunch of other
basically economic development silos that exist within the county?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So they were going to be --
whoever that director is would administer, you know, a huge budget
which would incorporate the CRA.
MR. OCHS: Well, I don't know that they would -- many of those
would be --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, they would oversee it.
MR. OCHS: -- dotted line reports that have their --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. But, I mean, still, top level
positions --
MR. OCHS: Yes. Much, much broader responsibility.
Page 214
September 27, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, which would include for
example, the Bayshore CRA at $125,000.
Nick, how much do you make? It's public record. Just -- you
don't have to be exact. Give me a ballpark.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: $119, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. And how big is your
budget?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: $156 Million.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: $156 Million, and basically
$120,000. It doesn't make any sense at all.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If you're going to engage
anyone in the room, please ask them to come up to the mic.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Well, I'll just repeat it.
$120,000, okay, to administer $156 Million; is that right? That's huge.
And we're paying $125,000 to administer five million? Wow. I mean,
if anyone on this Board supports that, that is just, I mean,
irresponsible.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, this was something that the
CRA Board, CRA Advisory Board, had decided upon. This was the
rate they decided upon. I think that they would prefer to have David
working strictly for them rather than have him split between the two,
because they would love all of his efforts devoted just to that effort.
It is a high wage, but it was what the board felt that they wanted
to pay out of the funds that they were collecting.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, we're the Board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, it was advisory board that
advised that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We're the Board, we're spending
the public funds.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And if I may, I'm going
to -- I believe everybody is through?
Page 215
September 27, 2011
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Jackson, before you speak,
if I may. I'll tell you something, if you want quality in what you're
looking for, it was a very difficult situation down there trying to bring
that whole block together to be able to negotiate it. You need a person
that could do it. Now, sure, you could have hired somebody for I'm
sure half the salary and we'd probably still be in negotiations down
there and we'd still have the in- fighting that we were experiencing.
So I think you've done an excellent job and I think you deserve
every penny of your salary, my own opinion.
Now, lights aren't going off because I don't have control from
here. But I did see you move to reach for the light, Commissioner
Hiller, so I'm going to recognize you again.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think Commissioner Henning
wanted to speak.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't know if he wants to
speak again or not.
Did you, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll let you know, right. Not at
this time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Hiller?
MR. JACKSON: Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: May I defend myself?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You certainly can, but it might
not work as well as you think, but give it a try.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think it will.
MR. JACKSON: I mean, I refuse to stand here to be slapped and
turn my cheek. I'm not that kind of a person. I must defend myself.
On your visualizer, I came on board -- and it's in part of your
backup package. I came on board at $110,000. That was ratified and
Page 216
September 27, 2011
approved by this board. Not once, but twice. My salary of $124,000
and change was not by direction of me, the advisory board or you. It
was based on a COLA, cost of living allowance. Look at the numbers.
Cost of living allowances took me from 110 to 124 -9. That's what all
employees in the county got. Everybody. All of them, Commissioner
Hiller, everybody. Not just me, not just the contract employees,
everybody. This was not by design. This happened as a course of due
business in Collier County.
Now, you may take great umbrance in how much I make. That is
your prerogative. But it stands. If you do not want me to be the
executive director of this CIA, make your motion as so. If you do not
want me to be in the CRA directing what goes on there, I will fill this
room in the next meeting with people who really love what we're
doing. They want me on that job, they need me on this job. They've
got to have somebody taking care of them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Isn't there a motion on the floor?
MR. JACKSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There is, Commissioner
Henning, and --
MR. JACKSON: I'm just defending myself, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Jackson, I think --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't think you need to.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- we appreciate your efforts in
what you're doing. You deserve your salary. And by the way, I
compliment you for standing up when most other people would just
have gone off into the background.
With that, I've got a motion. All those in favor, indicate by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 217
September 27, 2011
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The motion agreed that -- it was
approved 4 -1, with Commissioner Hiller being in the negative.
I turn --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You have to close the CRA meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Close the CRA.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: With the powers invested in me,
I close the CRA meeting. How's that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And with the powers vested in me, I turn
off Commissioner Henning's light. And we go on to —
MR. OCHS: Item 14, sir, public comments on general topics.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do we have any public comments?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we don't have anybody for public
comments.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
CHAIRMAN COYLE: General topics. County Attorney?
MR. OCHS: County Manager.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Whatever you are.
MR. OCHS: Yeah, whatever I am.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's getting late.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
Very quickly, this one housekeeping item. And I wanted to
touch base with the Board on your Board Meeting Schedule for
November and December.
Last year the Board met once in November and once in
December, and I wanted to get some feedback from the Board on
Page 218
September 27, 2011
whether you intend to conduct a similar meeting schedule this
November and December or whether you wanted to hold two
meetings as you normally have done, but --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It worked pretty well last year. I just --
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- don't understand the logic of
scheduling a meeting during Thanksgiving week and during Christmas
week.
MR. OCHS: Well, that's been the problem. You can see here
that if you were to meet twice you'd have to meet on the 22nd of
November, and that's difficult for many of the public and the staff
because there's so many people out of town at that time.
So last year the Board met once. If you choose to meet once
again in November, I would recommend we maintain your November
8th meeting and obviously plan, perhaps go --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Or Wednesday.
MR. OCHS: Go to the next day, Wednesday.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Have a two -day meeting.
MR. OCHS: And then December again, your regular scheduled
meeting is on the 13th, and if you were to meet again on the second
Tuesday, it would be the day after your Christmas holiday that you're
closed on the 26th. Again, that creates quite a few logistical problems
and some staff shortages.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Once again, if you want to make it a
heavier agenda at that time, we just schedule two full days --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- the 13th and 14th.
MR. OCHS: And I think --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And if we go light, you might even want
to put an AUIR in the afternoon of the 14th.
MR. OCHS: Well, you have the 15th you're scheduled for your
AUIR/CIE hearing. If you'd like us to try to combine that with
Page 219
September 27, 2011
something on the 9th, we --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's 15th of November?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute, hold on. Yeah. Yeah, if
you could do it 8th and 9th and we just have a two full -day meeting.
AUIR should be real simple this year.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. There's --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Real simple. I'd be surprised if you'd
have to go over an hour or two with AUIR that day. I would just
combine it with our November the 8th BCC meeting, carry it over into
the 9th as long as possible -- or as much as possible and kill them both
in two days.
MR. OCHS: Okay. I'm looking at Nick to see if there's any
procedural issue.
No. Okay, we'll try to do that, if that's the will of the Board.
Yes, sir.
That's all I had, Commissioners, so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we stay on this topic?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a conflict on the 14th and
December 9th. I have to leave the Board Meeting at 9:30. Those
Wednesdays I have to leave at the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is it all day or just part of the day?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, 9:30 -- I'm sorry, 2:30 in
the afternoon.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's November?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The 14th.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: On those Wednesdays I have to
leave at 2:30.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just asked, because he changed the
calendar to December.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He keeps switching back and forth on us.
Page 220
September 27, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, the 14th of November
and then the 9th of --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: November or December?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 14th of November is a Monday.
MR. MITCHELL: The 9th of November and the 14th of
December.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That calendar, that should be
December's calendar.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You want to go to December?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no, no, it says November,
but that is December holiday counter.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are you sure?
MR. OCHS: No, sir, I think those are November dates for
Thanksgiving.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. OCHS: And then December is this month, Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the 14th of December I have
a conflict at 2:30. And same thing in November on that Wednesday, I
have to leave at 2:30 in the afternoon. So --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let me ask you a question. Then do you
want to start on the Monday and have a Monday and Tuesday meeting
rather than a Tuesday /Wednesday meeting?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine with me. I mean, I'm
okay if we allow the County Manager some leeway. If we're going to
have a two -day meeting, it's going to be a day and a half meeting and
not a full two -day meeting.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, I would rather do that and maybe
even start a little early on Tuesday. But yeah, I would like to stay
away from Mondays and still try to do one -on -ones as we typically --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So Commissioner Henning will not be
Page 221
September 27, 2011
able after 2:00 or 2:30, is it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 2:30.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 2:30 on Wednesday.
MR. OCHS: On the Wednesday --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So let's do --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: In November or December?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Both.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Both days. Both times.
Then why don't we arrange our schedule on Tuesday, starting as
early as we need, to get the agenda done before 2:30 on Wednesday.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Actually, if we just stay on the
topic, it would be --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We can do it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- it would be easy.
But as long as we're still deviating, can we talk about July's
meetings?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: July.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, July. Can we have those
earlier in the month instead of the third weekend of the month?
MR. OCHS: You're talking about the budget workshop?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah -- no, not the budget
workshop, the July BCC meeting where we set the tentative millage
rate.
Well, we can talk about this off -line.
MR. KLATZKOW: You've got deadlines there based on when
the TRIM notices go out.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. That's a state requirement, right?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: At least look at it, then we'll see what we
can do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe meet on a Monday
instead of a Tuesday.
Page 222
September 27, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, is that all you have to have now?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. But, you know, given what Commissioner
Henning just said, we may want to stick with our separate AUIR
Meeting in November. Because we were going to try to combine that.
I don't know if we could do the agenda and --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why don't you --
MR. OCHS: -- get that done by 2:00.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why don't you take look at what the
AUIR is going to require and then make a decision.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Maj -- Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Were you about to call me major?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I was.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I love it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I used to know a Major Hiller. He
didn't look like you, by the way.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank God, for him and me.
This is actually very interesting. And I want to bring this to the
County Attorney's attention, and I think it will benefit the Board as
well.
About five days ago, a precedent - setting personal injury case was
filed. And it was a fluoride case. And essentially the complaint is
actually against Nestle U.S.A. And Nestle Waters North America,
and Gerber Products Company on behalf of a teenage girl with
multiple permanent teeth disfigured by dental fluorosis.
And this article -- and there are numerous articles on -line and I'm
happy to give you a copy of what I have and you can Google, you
know, the rest of the articles that address this -- basically see this as
the beginning of the opening of the floodgates with respect to lawsuits
Page 223
September 27, 2011
about fluoridated water.
And this comes a year after the admission by federal officials that
fluorides are causing increasing amounts of fluorosis. And so I think
we have to be extremely careful.
This suit was filed in the Federal District Court in Maryland.
This article goes on to talk about how the dental industry
representatives have, you know, long been concerned in their
professional journals that fluoride providers would one day face legal
actions for harm caused by ingested fluoride, and that obviously is all
coming to bear.
Apparently there have also been warnings in other -- in both
dental and other publications with respect to the potential cause for the
bone disorders, kidney harm and thyroid impairment. So in addition
to the fluorosis, it's anticipated that we will quickly see lawsuits that
will go beyond that.
So I'm going to quote right here: It says, we're at the beginning
of what looks to be an absolutely enormous wave of new fluoride
litigation. There are so many harmed teenagers with fluorosis. We
have government's own data to prove it, et cetera.
And they also make reference to a 2006 fluorosis -- fluoride
report, you know, which talks about the harms that go beyond dental
fluorosis.
So I want to let you take a look at this. I mean, I think we need
to be careful as government as to, you know, what we are including in
our drinking water.
And interestingly also, one of the other things that was discussed
in this particular claim was that the people most adversely affected by
the fluoride in drinking water are the low income, because they don't
have the option to choose non - fluoridated water. It would be costly
for them to, you know, opt out of free drinking water.
And I know there was a concern among this Board that, you
know, the poor would be benefited by fluoridated drinking water when
Page 224
September 27, 2011
it appears to be the exact opposite, they stand to be the most harmed.
So I wanted to bring this to your attention and in light of this, I
think this matter needs to come back and we need to reevaluate to
what extent we want to assume the risk for including fluoride.
And it is not the natural fluoride. And by the way, this is not,
you know, speaking against topically applied fluoride, because that's a
completely different issue. And as to whether or not we should
continue to fluoridate our water.
By the way, also very interesting, Charlotte County does not
fluoridate, only half of Lee County is fluoridated.
There's a great -- on the State of Florida's website there's actually
a map that breaks out all the counties that are -- that do and do not
fluoridate water. And it by no means suggests that all the counties do.
In fact, a lot of them don't. And their kids all seem to be doing just
great.
So I'm going to go ahead and give this to you with what I've
highlighted, and if you could let me know what you think we need to
do to protect ourselves? Because the last thing I think Collier County
would like to see is a bunch of lawsuits related to fluoridated water.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have nothing.
It's nice have our meeting ending a little early.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Nothing for me either.
How about you, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. I don't have anything.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How about you, Commissioner
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, just a couple of things.
Commissioner Hiller sent that to me as a one -way
communication, one of the websites. I copied some information, sent
it to the County Manager. He's going to have his staff take a look at it.
Page 225
September 27, 2011
Also in there provided the website.
So would it be appropriate to send it to all the Commissioners, on
the response, the question and the response?
MR. KLATZKOW: All you could send it as a one -way
communication. If you're going to respond to each other, it has to be
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no, no, the County Manager
send it. Yeah, that's fine. I don't even know why I'm asking that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And if I may suggest, maybe this
is an item we have to bring back and have a legal risk assessment
done, you know, the FDA has deemed the fluoride that we're putting
in our waters as a toxic substance, not a, you know, a medically
approved --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We've had this debate and we --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, and I think it's a very
important debate to have. And I think, you know, in light of what
seems to be the opening of the litigation floodgates, I'm sure a lot will
come out in discovery to answer the questions that some of you all
had. I think we should be proactive.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, is there a motion to adjourn?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I'm not done yet. I said I
have two items. The next item --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, then please go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, on the
request to Commissioner Hiller, said that he was going to do a
presentation before the Board on the I -75 Interchange prior to going to
the City of Naples, City of Marco --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And in the minutes it stated that
he's not going to Fish & Wildlife because they're dealing with a
different issue and not the I -75 Interchange.
So there's so much misinformation out there, I think it would be
Page 226
September 27, 2011
appropriate not only to have -- get Commissioner Coletta's
presentation that he promised before going out there, to the Board, but
also there's some environmental concerns, and I think it's appropriate
for the environmental community to let the Board know.
This is all being played out in the newspaper.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And this is one of our top
priorities and I don't -- and I see it being a political priority instead of
a needs priority. And I want to get it all straight.
Can you do that, Commissioner Coletta, do that presentation?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, let's talk about that for a
minute. I was talking about using staff time. Since then I refigured
what I was doing. I realized that when it came to the presentation, as
far as history goes and where it's taken place, that I know as much as
staff does on it. So rather than involve staff time, I took it on as my
own personal mission.
As far as the City of Marco Island, City of Naples, I have not
approached them in any shape or form to get it on their agenda. And I
don't know where the rumor come (sic) up a week or so ago that
Commissioner Coletta was taking it to Marco Island. At that point in
time, very much, I'll come back to the Commission and I'll ask if I can
have staff time to be able to go with me when I go there. If you don't
grant me the staff time, I'll do it on my own.
And it's not a political issue, Commissioner Henning, it's
something I've been working on for more years than I've been a
Commissioner. I'm very, very passionate about the Everglades
interchange. I appreciate the support of this Commission in the past, I
appreciate the support of staff, appreciate the support of all our
legislators in that direction. I will keep that thing going.
Meanwhile, I've been on my own. I've been out there, I've talked
to the fire departments about it, I got the endorsement from three of
them. Since then I've turned it over to a grassroots movement that I
Page 227
September 27, 2011
started where they're going to be doing this effort for part of the effort
too. And you'll be meeting some of these people as we go forward.
One of the problems I'm running into is the fact that trying to run
a grassroots movement from where I am as a Commissioner, I'm at a
terrible disadvantage in the fact that the grassroots movement, if it's
worked through me, everything is public records, when the opposition
to what's coming up can operate without that hanging over them. So
what's being happening is this is being turned over to the grassroots
movement who will be bringing this thing forward.
Now, one of the first examples you're going to see is going to be
taking place out in Golden Gate Estates, and hope everybody can
make it, be it pro or con. HOAGGE, the Homeowners Association of
Golden Gate Estates, is going to be handling a -- I wouldn't call it a
debate so far (sic) as an informational session. It's going to take place
between the pros and the cons of the issue.
At that point I'm going to have representatives from the
grassroots group there and they're going to be making a presentation
based on all the facts that are at hand, and we're going to go forward.
But I appreciate very much you bringing that up. And staff time
has not been anything. I haven't taken any staff members with me to
any of these places that I've gone. It's been --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What you're saying is not
reflected in the minutes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, it was all based upon the
premise that I was going to be using staff time. And since I was using
staff time, then I was obligated to come before the Commission --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no, no, no.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- and do a presentation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, that isn't what is reflected in
the minutes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well it wasn't my -- my
Page 228
September 27, 2011
understanding of the way it came together, we all tied around staff
time and using it. And being a private citizen and capable of acting on
my own, that's what I've been doing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you said that you were not
going to use --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- staff -- may I finish?
-- use staff time, and then Commissioner Hiller, wanting more
information about the Interchange, wanted you to do a presentation to
the Board and you agreed to it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that was because I was
looking for staff time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you were --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In any case --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- in the beginning.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, let's be
totally honest about where there this is going.
Ladies and gentlemen, this has nothing to do about the I -75
Interchange and what or what not Commissioner Coletta's been doing.
It has everything to do about an election primary coming up in August
of this year. Certain commissioners support other candidates and
they've use this dais -- and I'm sure other commissioners will agree
with me -- very openly to try to promote that cause. They try to throw
disparancy (sic) upon me, you've seen it a number of times today and
a number of times in the immediate past. And regrettably this will
continue. There is absolutely nothing to prevent a Commissioner
supporting another candidate or a sitting Commissioner. Where the
problem comes is when they do it from the dais.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I take offense to that.
First of all --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, I'm
sure you'd take offense at --
Page 229
September 27, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to finish.
I was referring to the minutes and what you -- and I would be
glad to provide them to the whole board, okay? This is a county
project, and you have taken it, because it's in your district, on as a
personal issue. You said you were very passionate about that. That
means feelings. And all I'm saying is live up to your commitment.
I will provide you the minutes that you stated to Commissioner Hiller,
before going out there to the community that you would do a
presentation before the Board of Commissioners. This has nothing to
do with politics.
Furthermore, your campaign re- election does not belong on this
dais. That is in my opinion a violation of Florida Statutes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I beg your pardon,
Commissioner Henning. I was making an observation that I think
many people would agree with me out there --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That is like - - -a lot of politicians
like to throw something out there to deviate the real issue here. This is
not a political issue, this is a capital improvement of the Board of
Commissioners. And if you don't want to do the presentation before
the Board, fine. I just hope that you get support for this project in the
future, because I'm looking at it as a political issue. I was hoping that
you would do a presentation and show it's not a political issue.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, Commissioner Henning,
I'll tell you what I will do. We have coming before the regional
planning -- excuse me, joint MPO meetings on the 21 st of October.
After that I will definitely make a presentation here. I would be happy
to. And the presentation will involve everything that's available at this
point in time, and I want the right to be able to bring in the grassroots
group that has taken this to a new level. And we'll see where you go
with it. I think it would be a wonderful way for me to get in front of
the public. But I won't be available to do it until after the meeting of
Page 230
September 27, 2011
the 21st. Excuse me, October 21st is when the joint MPO's meet.
After that I'll be happy to bring the show in here.
But you have to accept the fact that it's not just going to be me,
it's going to be members of this work group that are putting the
information together.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's different from what
the minutes say. But otherwise -- anyway, motion to adjourn.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You know, I've got to say something and
I'd like to bring this thing to a close.
I was at that same meeting, and there was absolutely no doubt in
anybody's mind that Commissioner Coletta was asking to have Nick
Casalanguida to go with him to make a presentation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And there is no obligation for any
Commissioner to come to this Commission to rehearse his
presentation that he wants to make to his constituents. Nobody else
does that.
And it was clear in my mind that the only reason Commissioner
Coletta brought it up to the Board was because he was asking for
permission to use staff time. If he hadn't been doing that, he wouldn't
have had to bring it to the Board at all. Because any of you can and do
go out and say anything you want to say, true or false, on numerous
occasions, and you don't tell us about it. And we don't ask you to tell
us about it.
And I heard that there was a reference that this was playing out in
the Naples Daily News. Well, the Naples Daily News editorial got it
completely wrong. Those guys are out in the left field on this issue.
There is nothing that requires any of us to be neutral on any subject.
Constituents expect leadership. And every Commissioner here has led
the fight on something that is important to their constituents. And if
Commissioner Coletta wants to lead something that is important to his
constituents that's not just his right, it's his obligation. A
Page 231
September 27, 2011
Commissioner is not supposed to stand around and be neutral when
his constituents want him or her to do something to help them.
And this is a ridiculous debate. And I have to agree with
Commissioner Coletta, it is politically motivated.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, you're wrong. You're
absolutely wrong. It was a commitment, and I'll provide the minutes
where Commissioner Coletta made that commitment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I would like to read all the minutes in
their entirety to make sure that you're not taking something from the
end of the meeting --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It is at the end of the meeting
where he made that commitment to Commissioner Hiller.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I believe that that commitment was
made with the expectation that he was going to use a member of the
staff to help him with the presentation. And once he decided he didn't
-- he wasn't gone to go use the staff, then I think he decided that he
didn't need to come to the Board.
But nevertheless, that's Commissioner Coletta's --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: A side note to that, I will come
to the Board after the October 21st. I'll be more than happy to. I'm
going to need about 20 minutes. Well, 20 minutes for presentation,
about two and a half hours for questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, look, I'd like to dissuade you from
doing that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Why is that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, because if something's going to
come before the Board, it should be on the Board of County
Commissioners' agenda. And if it's on the County Commission
agenda, it means we've got to make some sort of a decision -- usually
it would mean we'd make some sort of decision about it. Otherwise
what you're going to do is come before this board with your supporters
and then there's going to be a bunch of the opposition here and there's
Page 232
September 27, 2011
going to be a big argument and exchange back and forth, back and
forth for hours and it will accomplish nothing for you or the Board of
County Commissioners. So I would to avoid that, if at all possible.
If any Commissioner wants to hear what you have to say about
that interchange, they can go to any one of those public meetings that
you're conducting and hear it. That's not the issue. They know as
much about that as you or I know. So that's not the issue.
But once again, you do whatever you think you need to do. But I
would like to discourage the Board of County Commissioners from
getting involved in that kind of a debate until it comes time for us to
make a decision. I just think it's a bad precedent to establish.
But in any event, I think everybody's expressed their views on
the thing and I don't think we've changed any minds. But I would -- I
don't need to get the minutes from you, Commissioner Henning. I'll
get the minutes and I'll read them.
But I very clearly remember that Commissioner Coletta was
asking to use Nick Casalanguida. And I do remember that he made a
commitment to make the presentation. But I believe it was contingent
upon being able to use Nick Casalanguida.
But in any event, I think everybody's said whatever they need to
do, and Commissioner Henning made a motion to adjourn.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I believe my light is on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, I'll turn it off.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So let me make my comment.
You know, this business, every time someone disagrees with you,
Commissioners Coletta and Coyle, you make claim it's political is
absolutely ridiculous. And it really needs to stop. You all need to stop
playing the victim. Grow some legs and just accept what's said on this
Board for what it's intended to be and that it's us as Commissioners
doing our job on behalf of the public. And stop turning everything on
Page 233
September 27, 2011
this dais into an election issue for you, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry you feel that way but -
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's inappropriate.
And Commissioner Henning is absolutely correct --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I would expect you two
would agree --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- it is inappropriate.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're inappropriate.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we're adjourned. That's it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Nothing productive.
* * * * Commissioner Coletta moved, seconded by Commissioner
Fiala and carried 4/1 (Commissioner Henning opposed) that the
following items under the Consent and Summary Agendas be
approved and /or adopted * * * *
Item # 16A 1
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF REFLECTION LAKES AT
NAPLES, PHASE 3D — THE DEVELOPER MUST RECEIVE A
CERTIFICATE OF ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES PRIOR TO
ISSUANCE OF A CONSTRUCTION PLAN FINAL APPROVAL
LETTER
Item #I 6A2
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF VERONAWALK PHASE 4C,
Page 234
September 27, 2011
BENELLI AND KARINA COURT REPLAT, APPROVAL OF THE
STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE
PERFORMANCE SECURITY — W /STIPULATIONS
Item #I 6A3
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF AVE MARIA UNIT 11,
DEL WEBB AT AVE MARIA PARCELS 106 & 112, APPROVAL
OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY —
W /STIPULATIONS
Item #I 6A4
INVITATION TO BID (ITB) #1 1-5629RR "BACKGROUND
CHECK SERVICES" TO GLOBAL HR RESEARCH AND AZURA
INVESTIGATIONS, AND TERMINATE THE INTERIM
CONTRACT WITH GLOBAL HR RESEARCH (ANNUAL EST.
EXPENDITURE: $60,000) — FOR VEHICLE FOR HIRE
OWNERS /DRIVERS AND NEW HIRES FOR COLLIER COUNTY
WITH SERVICES THAT INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO
MOTOR VEHICLE, COUNTY & STATE CRIMINAL AND
EDUCATIONAL & PROFESSIONAL LICENSE VERIFICATION
Item #I 6A5
WAIVE COMPETITION & APPROVE AGREEMENT #10 -5553,
SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT AND PREMIERPRO
SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH
SELECTRON TECHNOLOGIES, INC. FOR THE INTERACTIVE
Page 235
September 27, 2011
VOICE RESPONSE SYSTEM — CURRENTLY USED BY THE
PUBLIC TO SCHEDULE, RESCHEDULE OR CANCEL
BUILDING, RIGHT -OF -WAY AND CERTAIN LAND USE
INSPECTIONS AND ALSO ALLOWS APPLICANTS TO HEAR
INSPECTION RESULTS, PLAN REVIEW STATUS AND TO
RECEIVE OR LEAVE MESSAGES FOR INSPECTORS
Item # 16A6
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN A RELEASE OF LIEN FOR BRITTANY
BAY APARTMENTS, PHASE I, DUE TO FULL PAYMENT OF
IMPACT FEES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AGREEMENT
FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT
FEES FOR MULTI - FAMILY AFFORDABLE HOUSING — AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #I 6A7
CONTRACT #11 -5759 WITH BETTER ROADS, INC. FOR OLD
U.S. 41 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT RAIL HEAD
ROAD IN THE AMOUNT OF $179,424.35 (PROJECT NO. 60016)
— BECAUSE A HIGH NUMBER OF REAREND CRASHES HAVE
OCCURED AT THIS INTERSECTION, A SOUTHBOUND LEFT -
TURN LANE IS BEING ADDED TO IMPROVE SAFETY
Item #16A8
INVITATION TO BID (ITB) 11 -5760, "TRAFFIC SIGNS AND
RELATED MATERIALS" TO VARIOUS VENDORS IN AN
ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $759000 — VENDORS
INCLUDE: NEW DIRECTION MANUFACTURING, INC.;
AWESOME SIGNS OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC.;
Page 236
September 27, 2011
UNIVERSAL SIGNS AND ACCESSORIES; VULCAN, INC.
D /B /A VULCAN SIGNS; MUNICIPAL SUPPLY & SIGN CO.;
ALLIED TUBE AND CONDUIT CORPORATION; SWARCO
INDUSTRIES, INC.; AND CUSTOM PRODUCTS CORP.
Item #I 6A9
CHANGE ORDER #1 TO CONTRACT #11-5602 WITH ITRAN
PARTNERS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT $65,254 AND EXTENDING
THE COMPLETION DATE 60 DAYS — FOR UNFORESEEN
UNDERGROUND PROJECT CONDITIONS THAT INVOLVE
REPLACING EXISTING SPAN WIRE TRAFFIC SIGNALS TO
STEEL MAST ARMS AT THE AIRPORT - PULLING /PINE RIDGE
ROAD INTERSECTION
Item #I 6A 10 — Withdrawn (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
REQUESTING REIMBURSEMENT AS AN EXCEPTION TO
COUNTY MANAGER AGENCY ( "CMA ") ORGANIZATION
CODE #5346, REIMBURSEMENT OF RELOCATION EXPENSES
IN THE AMOUNT $8,666.67 FOR ANTHONY KHAWAJA,
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ENGINEER FOR GMD
Item # 16A 11
RESOLUTION 2011 -168: AMENDING RESOLUTION 2011 -71,
THAT AUTHORIZED CONDEMNATION OF EASEMENTS
NECESSARY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A REPLACEMENT
BRIDGE ON WHITE BOULEVARD AND A NEW BRIDGE ON
23RD STREET SW, BOTH OVER THE GOLDEN GATE MAIN
CANAL AND WITH REALIGNMENT OF THE INTERSECTION
OF WHITE BOULEVARD AND 23RD STREET SW. THIS
Page 237
September 27, 2011
RESOLUTION CORRECTS A SCRIVENER' S ERROR IN THE
LOCATION OF TRACT CORNERS DEPICTED IN THE LEGAL
DESCRIPTIONS AND SKETCHES (PROJECT NO. 66066) — AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16Al2
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF REFLECTION LAKES AT
NAPLES PHASE 2A, 2B, 3E AND 3I — DEVELOPER MUST
RECEIVE A CERTIFICATE OF ADEQUATE PUBLIC
FACILITIES PRIOR TO RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT
Item # 16A 13
CONTINUED FROM THE SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 MEETING.
RESOLUTION 2011 -169: FINAL APPROVAL OF ROADWAY
(PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE
FINAL PLAT OF CALDECOTT WITH THE ROADWAY AND
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS BEING PRIVATELY
MAINTAINED AND AUTHORIZING RELEASE OF THE
MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A14
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR $402,000 ADDING GAS TAX
FUNDS TO PROJECT NO. 601169 US 41 /CR 951 INTERSECTION
CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS TO ADDRESS RESURFACING,
RESTORATION AND REHABILITATION IMPROVEMENTS
THAT CANNOT BE FUNDED WITH IMPACT FEES — AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item # 16A 15 — Moved to Item # l OM (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Page 238
September 27, 2011
Item # 16A 16 — Moved from Item # l OL (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
A RIBBON CUTTING CEREMONY FOR THE NEW TRANSIT
ROUTE BETWEEN COLLIER & LEE COUNTY THAT WILL BE
KNOWN AS THE "LILAC" AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN
TO SIGN ALL APPLICABLE AGREEMENTS ASSOCIATED
WITH THE USE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR AN EVENT
SCHEDULED FOR OCTOBER 612011 — THE CEREMONY IS
BEING HELD AT 1171 CREEKSIDE PARKWAY
Item #16B 1— Moved to Item #13B 1 (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16132
BAYSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE CRA MEMBERSHIP AND
PARTICIPATION IN THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL
PLANNING COUNCIL'S BROWNFIELD COALITION,
AUTHORIZE THE CRA CHAIRMAN TO SIGN A LETTER OF
INTENT AND DECLARE PARTICIPATION AS SERVING A
PUBLIC PURPOSE (FISCAL IMPACT: $0)
Item #16133
A SWEAT EQUITY GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CRA AND AN APPLICANT IN THE BAYSHORE GATEWAY
TRIANGLE AREA — FOR EXTERIOR RESIDENTIAL
UPGRADES AT 3179 FRANCIS AVENUE THAT INCLUDES
PAINTING, PRESSURE WASHING AND NEW FACIA AND
SOFFIT (FISCAL IMPACT: $965.28)
Item #16134
Page 239
September 27, 2011
A CRA STAFF MEMBER TO ATTEND FLORIDA DIVISION OF
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT'S WORKSHOP ON COST
BENEFIT ANALYSIS: ENTRY LEVEL TRAINING; AUTHORIZE
PAYMENT OF ATTENDEE'S LODGING, TRAVEL & PER DIEM
FROM THE BAYSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE TRUST FUND
(FUND 187) TRAVEL BUDGET; AND DECLARE TRAINING
RECEIVED AS SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE — HELD
IN PLANTATION, FLORIDA OCTOBER 4-5,2011 WITH THE
MAXIMUM APPROXIMATE COST OF $292.00 FOR LODGING,
MEALS AND $10.00 FOR TRANSPORTATION ($302.00 TOTAL)
Item #16135
ADVERTISE AND BRING BACK FOR CONSIDERATION AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2002 -52, WHICH
ESTABLISHED THE IMMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION
ADVISORY COMMITTEE, ALLOWING THE IMMOKALEE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY THROUGH THEIR
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TO ASSUME ADMINISTRATIVE
AND MANAGEMENT DUTIES OF THE IMMOKALEE
BEAUTIFICATION MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT
SUCH AS EMPLOYING STAFF TO ASSIST THE COMMITTEE
Item #16B6
CRA RESOLUTION 2011 -170: AMENDS FYI 1-12 BAYSHORE
GATEWAY TRIANGLE CRA COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND
IMPACT FEE ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAMS AND
APPROVING AN AMENDED FORM FOR CRA GRANT
AGREEMENTS — CHANGES INCLUDE IMPACT FEE
ASSISTANCE FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL
Page 240
September 27, 2011
DETACHED SINGLE- FAMILY HOMES & THE COMMERCIAL
BUILDING IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM HAS ADDED
ALLOCATIONS FOR PROPERTY CONFORMITY ISSUES
Item #16137
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) APPROVE
AMENDING THE BAYSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE EVENT
POLICY AND PROCEDURE MANUAL THAT GOVERNS
CRA SPONSORED OR COORDINATED EVENT ACTIVITES
(COMPANION TO ITEM #16138) (FISCAL IMPACT: $0) — AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16138
ADVERTISE AND BRING BACK FOR CONSIDERATION AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2002-389 AS
AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT
GRANT PROGRAM ORDINANCE TO CREATE A NEW CRA
COMMUNITY EVENT GRANT PROGRAM FOR BAYSHORE
GATEWAY TRIANGLE CRA (COMPANION TO ITEM #1
Item #16C 1
RESOLUTION 2011 -171: SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR 1996
SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS WHERE THE COUNTY HAS
RECEIVED PAYMENT IN FULL SATISFACTION OF THE LIEN.
(FISCAL IMPACT: $28.50 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTION
OF LIEN) — ACCOUNT NO. 24138 (FOLIO #62098000005)
Item #16C2
Page 241
September 27, 2011
CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 3 EXHIBIT A -1 FOR THE
MASTER AGREEMENT FOR DEMAND SIDE MANAGEMENT
AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY TO CHANGE THE
SCOPE OF AN ENERGY CONSERVATION OPTION AND
DECREASE THE CONTRACT AMOUNT BY $1489820.02 — AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16C3
WORK ORDER UNDER CONTRACT #08 -5011 FOR $2479077.50
WITH MITCHELL & STARK CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.,
FOR CLEARWELL CONCENTRATE PUMP STATION REHAB
PROJECT NO. 71002 — REHAB ON THIS EQUIPMENT IS
PHASE 2 OF THE 3 PHASE PROGRAM "NCRWTP HIGH TDS
RO DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION & SUPPLY" FOR THE STATION
LOCATED OFF THE VANDERBILT BEACH RD. EXTENSION
Item #I 6C4
COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO DEVELOP AN
AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NUMBER 2001 -73, AS
AMENDED, COLLIER COUNTY'S WATER -SEWER DISTRICT
UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING, AND REGULATORY
STANDARDS ORDINANCE, TO PROVIDE CLARIFICATION
AND REVISE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES - REMOVING
AMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE TO BETTER SERVE CCWSD
CUSTOMERS & CLEARLY IDENTIFY THE RESPONSIBILITIES
OF THE DISTRICT AND PROPERTY OWNER'S RECEIVING
POTABLE WATER, SEWER & RECLAIMED WATER SERVICE
Page 242
September 27, 2011
Item #16C5
RESOLUTION 2011 -172: ADOPTING FEES, RATES AND
CHARGES TO USE COLLIER COUNTY'S SOLID WASTE
FACILITIES, INCLUDING LANDFILL TIPPING FEES,
RECYCLING CENTER FEES & RESIDENTIAL MULTI - FAMILY
& COMMERCIAL WASTE COLLECTION FEES TO FUND THE
FY12 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION & DISPOSAL BUDGET —
AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item # 16D 1
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE FY 2011 -2012 STATE AID TO
LIBRARIES GRANT AGREEMENT, LONG RANGE PLAN,
TECHNOLOGY PLAN AND CURRENT YEAR ACTION PLAN,
PERMITTING THE COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY TO
APPLY FOR THE STATE AID (FISCAL IMPACT: $187,400) -
REQUIRED TO RECEIVE STATE FUNDING
Item #I 6D2
REJECT SOLICITATION (ITB) #11 -5622 AND AN ASSOCIATED
PROPOSAL FOR A BOAT TRAILER PARKING LOT ADDITION
AND BOAT RAMP REPLACEMENT AT PORT OF THE
ISLANDS — STAFF DETERMINED BIDS WERE TOO HIGH.
FUNDS WILL REMAIN WITH THE PROJECT AND USED FOR
MISCELLANEOUS REPAIRS
Item #I 6D3
RELEASE OF LIEN FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER
COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER OCCUPIED
Page 243
September 27, 2011
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DWELLING UNIT THAT HAS BEEN
REPAID IN FULL — FUNDS OF $8,946.77 HAVE BEEN REPAID
FOR UNIT 205, BUILDING 6, BOTANICAL PLACE
Item #I 6D4
SOVEREIGNTY SUBMERGED LANDS EASEMENT RENEWAL
BETWEEN THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND OF
THE STATE OF FLORIDA & COLLIER COUNTY GRANTING
A NON - EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT ON, UNDER AND ACROSS
SOVEREIGN LANDS — EFFECTIVE THROUGH JANUARY 23,
2060 FOR SUBMERGED LAND IN THE GULF OF MEXICO,
BIG MARCO PASS AND CAXAMBAS PASS AND IS USED
SOLELY FOR 3 BREAKWATERS AND 2 TERMINAL GROINS
Item #16D5
AGREEMENTS WITH THE STATE OF FLORIDA'S AGENCY
FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION AND PHYSICIAN'S
REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER TO PARTICIPATE IN
ALTERNATIVE INTERGOVERMENTAL TRANSFER
PROGRAMS AND USE THE CURRENTLY BUDGETED $2.2M
IN FUNDS FOR A FINANCIAL COMMITMENT — PHYSICIAN'S
REGIONAL WILL SERVE AS THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
PROGRAM THAT PROVIDES OVER - RETURN OF FEDERAL
FUNDS USED TO TREAT LOW INCOME RESIDENTS
Item #16D6
AN AGREEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $237,523 WITH THE
AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION AND AN
AGREEMENT WITH COLLIER HEALTH SERVICES (CHS) TO
Page 244
September 27, 2011
PARTICIPATE IN THE MEDICAID LOW INCOME POOL
PROGRAM GENERATING $301,566 IN FEDERAL MATCHING
FUNDS USED TO PROVIDE HEALTH SERVICES FOR LOW
INCOME INDIVIDUALS IN COLLIER COUNTY
Item #I 6D7
A SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$528322.54 WITH HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF COLLIER
COUNTY USING HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP
PROGRAM (HOME) GRANT FUNDS FOR A SINGLE - FAMILY
REHABILITATION PROJECTS TO REPLACE AND INSTALL
NEW ROOFS FOR ELIGIBLE LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS IN
COLLIER COUNTY AT OR BELOW 80% OF THE MEDIAN
FAMILY INCOME UNDER HUD INCOME GUIDELINES —
HABITAT WILL PROVIDE THE 25% MATCH IN FUNDS
REQUIRED BRINGING PROJECT FUNDING TO $660,153.17
Item #16D8
AWARD INVITATION TO BID #11 -5770 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$1085900 TO PINNACLE POOL CONSTRUCTION, INC., FOR
THREE COLLECTION TANK REPLACEMENTS AT NORTH
COLLIER REGIONAL PARK AT SUN -N -FUN LAGOON AND
AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT
Item # 16D9 — Moved to Item # 1 ON (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item # 16E 1
WAIVING FORMAL COMPETITION TO APPROVE AND
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE RENEWAL OF A
Page 245
September 27, 2011
LEASE AGREEMENT FOR THE COUNTY' S CONFINED SPACE
GAS MONITOR SYSTEM WITH INDUSTRIAL SCIENTIFIC,
INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $27,044.64 PER YEAR — TO ALERT
EMPLOYEES OF EXPOSURE TO HAZARDOUS ATMOSPHERE
AND INCLUDES SOFTWARE UPGRADES & MAINTENANCE
ON UNITS FOR A TERM THAT EXPIRES DECEMBER 31, 2015
Item #16E2 — Continued to the October 11, 2011 BCC Meeting
(Per Agenda Change Sheet)
A REVENUE COMMITMENT CONTRACT WITH NAPLES
NEWS MEDIA GROUP TO RECEIVE DISCOUNTED PRICES
ON ADVERTISING
Item #I 6E3
RESOLUTION 2011 -173: APPROVING THE FY2012 PAY
AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN INCLUSIVE OF ADDITIONS,
DELETIONS OR MODIFICATIONS FROM JULY 19 2011
FORWARD, AND TO CONTINUE AUTHORIZING CREATION
OF NEW CLASSIFICATIONS, MODIFICATION AND /OR
DELETION OF CLASSIFICATIONS AND ASSIGNMENT OF
PAY RANGES FROM THE PROPOSED 2012 FISCAL YEAR
PAY AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN, USING THE EXISTING
"ARCHER" POINT- FACTOR JOB EVALUATION SYSTEM,
SUBJECT TO A QUARTERLY REPORT TO THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS — AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16E4
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN AN ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT FROM
Page 246
September 27, 2011
MACTEC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING, INC. TO AMEC
E &I, INC. FOR COUNTY WIDE ENGINEERING SERVICES —
MACTEC WAS ACQUIRED BY AMEC AND NOW OPERATES
UNDER THE NAME AMEC E &I, INC. FOR SERVICES UNDER
CONTRACT #09 -5262
Item #16F1
SUBGRANT AGREEMENT # 12 -CP -03 - 09 -21 -01 -185 BETWEEN
THE STATE OF FLORIDA'S DIVISION OF EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AND COLLIER COUNTY ACCEPTING $9,038
FOR THE PREPARATION OF HAZARDS ANALYSIS REPORTS
ON FACILITIES THAT STORE EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS
SUBSTANCES IN COLLIER COUNTY AND APPROVE THE
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT — PER AGREEMENT
TERMS 100% OF THE COUNTY'S FORTY -ONE (41) EHS SITES
WILL BE VISITED & REPORTED ON BY FEBRUARY 1, 2012
Item #16F2
AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND
DR. MARTA U. COBURN, M.D., FLORIDA DISTRICT TWENTY
MEDICAL EXAMINER D /B /A DISTRICT TWENTY MEDICAL
EXAMINER, INC. TO PROVIDE SERVICES FOR FY12 WITH A
FISCAL IMPACT OF $15063,200 — FOR THE ANNUAL
AGREEMENT THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2012
Item #16F3
AFTER - THE -FACT APPROVAL FOR AN ASSISTANCE TO
FIREFIGHTER'S GRANT APPLICATION SUBMITTED TO THE
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY TO
Page 247
September 27, 2011
PURCHASE TWO (2) CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTORS FOR
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT $9,800 —
REQUIRES A 20% COUNTY MATCH ($1,960) AND WILL BE
PLACED IN THE NORTH & SOUTH AREA OF THE COUNTY
Item #16174
AFTER - THE -FACT APPROVAL FOR AN ASSISTANCE TO
FIREFIGHTER'S GRANT APPLICATION SUBMITTED TO THE
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY TO
PURCHASE THREE (3) REPLACEMENT AMBULANCES FOR
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF
$560,514 REQUIRES A 20% COUNTY MATCH ($112,102)
Item #16175 — Continued to the October 11, 2011 BCC Meeting
(Per Agenda Change Sheet)
THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 STRATEGIC PLAN FOR THE
NAPLES, MARCO ISLAND, EVERGLADES CONVENTION &
VISITOR'S BUREAU (CVB)
Item #16176
AFTER - THE -FACT APPROVAL FOR AN ASSISTANCE TO
FIREFIGHTER'S GRANT APPLICATION IN THE AMOUNT OF
$200,928 SUBMITTED TO THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY TO PURCHASE SELF - CONTAINED
BREATHING APPARATUS AND PORTABLE RADIOS FOR
THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT — REQUIRES A 5%
DISTRICT MATCH ($10,046) WITH FEMA PROVIDING THE
REMAINING $190,882 IN FUNDS TO REPLACE CURRENT
APPARATUS AND RADIOS THAT NO LONGER MEET
September 27, 2011
COMPLIANCE AND /OR FCC REGULATI
Item #16F7
FY12 TOURISM CATEGORY B GRANT AGREEMENTS
TOTALING $65,000; CATEGORY C -2 GRANT AGREEMENTS
TOTALING $240,000; AND A TOURISM DEPARTMENT
PRINTING PROJECT FOR $24,000 AND WAIVING GRANT
APPLICATION MULTI -YEAR FUNDING GUIDELINES WHERE
APPROPRIATE — AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16F8
CARRY FORWARD OF UP TO $3735500 IN TOURIST TAX
EMERGENCY ADVERTISING FUNDS FOR CONTINUED
PROMOTION OF THE GROUP MEETING MARKET IN FYI 2
AND AUTHORIZE ALL NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENTS — TO INCREASE GROUP BOOKINGS AND
ATTRACT NEW AND REPEAT VISITORS TO THE AREA
Item #16179
RESOLUTION 2011 -174: APPROVING AMENDMENTS
(APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS
OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO FYI 0 -11 ADOPTED BUDGET
Item #161710
BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO CARRY FORWARD
APPROXIMATELY $277,5569493.57 IN UN -SPENT FYI
GRANT FUNDS INTO VARIOUS CAPITAL PROJECTS,
Page 249
September 27, 2011
GRANTS AND FY 2012 GRANT DONOR MATCHING FUNDS
Item # 16G 1
PROPOSED FY 2011 -12 ACTION PLAN FOR CHRIS CURRY,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIRPORT AUTHORITY
Item #I 6G2
AIRPORT AUTHORITY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO ENTER
INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE SEMINOLE CASINO IN
IMMOKALEE TO CREATE A COOPERATIVE PARTNERSHIP
AIMED AT ENHANCING GENERAL AVIATION AND
PROMOTING THE CASINO THROUGH JOINT ATTENDANCE
AT AIR SHOWS THROUGHOUT FLORIDA — AS DETAILED IN
THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item # 16H 1
A PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 8, 2011
JAMES GARVIN DAY AND TO PRESENT TO MR. GARVIN
AT AN EVENT ON OCTOBER 8, 2011. SPONSORED BY
COMMISSIONER COLETTA — ADOPTED
Item #I 6H2 — Added (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
A PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE HEROIC ACTIONS
OF CHOKOLOSKEE RESIDENT DWAIN DANIELS WHEN HE
RESCUED NINETY -YEAR OLD MARGARET WEBB WHO WAS
BEING ATTACKED BY AN ALLIGATOR. PROCLAMATION
DESIGNATES SEPTEMBER 24, 2011
PER ORDINANCE NUMBER 2011 -17
Page 250
" DWAIN DANIELS DAY"
A MAJORITY VOTE OF
September 27, 2011
THE BOARD IS REQUIRED TO ADD THIS TO THE AGENDA
SINCE IT WAS SUBMITTED FOLLOWING PUBLICATION OF
THE PRINTED AGENDA. SPONSORED BY COMMISSIONER
HENNING — ADOPTED
Item # 1611
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH
ACTION AS DIRECTED
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 251
September 27, 2011
Item # 16J 1
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF AUGUST 27, 2011
THROUGH SEPTEMBER 2, 2011 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #I 6J2
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF SEPTEMBER 3, 2011
THROUGH SEPTEMBER 9, 2011 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #I 6J3
RESOLUTION 2011 -175: CHANGING THE BOUNDARIES AND
NUMERIC DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN VOTING PRECINCTS
Item # 16K 1
RESOLUTION 2011 -176: APPROVING THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FY 2012 PAY AND CLASSIFICATION
PLAN IDENTICAL TO THE CURRENT APPROVED PLAN
Item #I 6K2
MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND STIPULATED
FINAL JUDGMENT DRAFTED TO INCORPORATE THE SAME
TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS A MEDIATED SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,000 PLUS $12,000 IN
COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES FOR ACQUISITION OF
PARCELS 108FEE AND 108TCE IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA V. LAMARTINE PETIT
Page 252
September 27, 2011
MONSIEUR, ET AL., CASE NO. 10- 2681 -CA (COLLIER BLVD.
PROJECT NO. 68056) (FISCAL IMPACT: $37,600).
Item #I 6K3
MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND STIPULATED
FINAL JUDGMENT DRAFTED TO INCORPORATE THE SAME
TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS THE MEDIATED
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN THE AMOUNT $60,000 FOR
ACQUISITION OF PARCELS 157FEE AND 157TCE IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA V.
KATHERYN MORENO, ET AL., CASE NO. 10- 2741 -CA (COLLIER
BOULEVARD PROJECT #68056) (FISCAL IMPACT: $49,700).
Item #I 6K4
ADVERTISE AND BRING BACK FOR CONSIDERATION AN
AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 04 -125 AS AMENDED,
RELATING TO AMBULANCE & ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT
SERVICES, TO CLARIFY /UPDATE CERTAIN PROVISIONS
AND ADD A NEW CLASSIFICATION OF CERTIFICATE OF
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE & NECESSITY (COPCN) TO ALLOW
NON - TRANSPORT ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT SERVICES
Item #I 6K5
THE PROPOSED FY 2011 -2012 ACTION PLAN FOR COUNTY
ATTORNEY JEFFREY A. KLATZKOW
Item #I 7A
RESOLUTION 2011- 177/D.O. 2011 -04: PETITION: DOA- PL2011-
Page 253
September 27, 2011
03545 RONTO LIVINGSTON DRI (AKA TUSCANY RESERVE)
A RESOLUTION AMENDING DEVELOPMENT ORDER 2000-
01, THE RONTO LIVINGSTON DRI, A DEVELOPMENT OF
REGIONAL IMPACT, PROVIDING FOR SECTION ONE:
ADDITION OF EXPIRATION DATE AND EXTENSION OF
BUILDOUT DATE; RENAMING DRI TO TUSCANY RESERVE
DRI, AND CHANGING THE REPORT TO BIENNIALLY;
SECTION TWO: FINDINGS OF FACT; SECTION THREE:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; SECTION FOUR: EFFECT OF
PREVIOUSLY ISSUED DEVELOPMENT ORDER,
TRANSMITTAL TO DCA; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN SECTIONS 7 AND 12,
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGES 25 AND 26 EAST, IN
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
Item #17B
THIS IS BEING CONTINUED FROM THE SEPTEMBER 27, 2011
BCC MEETING TO THE OCTOBER 11, 2011 BCC MEETING.
RECOMMEND TO APPROVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
AMENDMENT PETITION CP- 2006 -11, DAVID TORRES, FOR
HACIENDA LAKES OF NAPLES, LLC
Item #17C
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE SEPTEMBER 13,
2011 MEETING TO THE SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 BCC MEETING,
AND IS FURTHER CONTINUED TO THE OCTOBER 11, 2011
BCC MEETING. PETITION: DRI- 2006 -AR- 10147, HACIENDA
LAKES DRI -- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT ORDER FOR HACIENDA
Page 254
September 27, 2011
LAKES, A DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT LOCATED
IN SECTIONS 11 THROUGH 14 AND 23 THROUGH 25,
TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, AND SECTIONS 19
AND 30, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA WHICH WILL ALLOW UP TO 1,760
RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS INCLUDING CONVERSION
TO RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARK AND SENIOR HOUSING
FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING, ASSISTED LIVING AND
NURSING CARE, 3279500 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL USE,
705000 SQUARE FEET OF PROFESSIONAL AND MEDICAL
OFFICE INCLUDING CONVERSION OF RETAIL USE TO
PROFESSIONAL AND MEDICAL OFFICE, A 135 -ROOM
HOTEL INCLUDING A CONVERSION TO BUSINESS PARK,
1409000 SQUARE FT. OF BUSINESS PARK OR EDUCATIONAL
FACILITY, A PUBLIC SCHOOL, AND CONTINUATION OF
EXISTING "JUNIOR DEPUTY" PASSIVE RECREATION AND
EXISTING "SWAMP BUGGY" ATTRACTION; PROVIDING
FOR FINDINGS OF FACT; PROVIDING FOR CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
Item #I 7D
THIS ITEM IS BEING CONTINUED TO THE OCTOBER 11,
2011 BCC MEETING: PUDZ- 2006 -AR- 10146, HACIENDA
LAKES MPUD -- AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004 -41,
AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE
ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL
PROPERTY FROM AGRICULTURAL (A), AGRICULTURAL-
Page 255
September 27, 2011
SPECIAL TREATMENT OVERLAY (A -ST) AND PUD ZONING
DISTRICT (SWAMP BUGGY DAYS PUD) TO THE MIXED USE
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD) ZONING DISTRICT
FOR A PROJECT KNOWN AS THE HACIENDA LAKES MPUD
THAT WILL ALLOW A MAXIMUM OF 3271500 SQUARE FEET
OF GROSS RETAIL COMMERCIAL FLOOR AREA; 70,000
GROSS SQUARE FEET OF PROFESSIONAL AND MEDICAL
OFFICE SPACE INCLUDING A CONVERSION OF RETAIL USE
TO PROFESSIONAL AND MEDICAL OFFICE; 135 HOTEL
ROOMS INCLUDING A CONVERSION TO BUSINESS PARK;
140,000 GROSS SQUARE FEET OF BUSINESS PARK OR
EDUCATION FACILITY; A PUBLIC SCHOOL;
CONTINUATION OF EXISTING "SWAMP BUGGY"
ATTRACTION AND "JUNIOR DEPUTY" PASSIVE
RECREATION; AND A MAXIMUM 1,760 RESIDENTIAL
DWELLING UNITS INCLUDING CONVERSION TO
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARK AND SENIOR HOUSING
FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING, ASSISTED LIVING AND
NURSING CARE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF
2,262 +/- ACRES IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF
COLLIER BOULEVARD (C.R. 95 1) AT THE INTERSECTION OF
COLLIER BOULEVARD AND RATTLESNAKE- HAMMOCK
ROAD AND NORTH AND SOUTH OF SABAL PALM ROAD IN
SECTIONS 11, 12, 13, 145 239 24 AND 25, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, AND SECTIONS 19 AND 30, TOWNSHIP 50
SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA;
PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 84 -26,
FOR SWAMP BUGGY GROUNDS; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE
Item #I 7E
Page 256
September 27, 2011
ORDINANCE 2011 -31: AN ORDINANCE THAT REPEALS
OR AMENDS CERTAIN COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCES
RELATING TO THE REGULATION OF FIREARMS AND
AMMUNITION, SPECIFICALLY IN REGARDS TO
POSSESSION AND /OR DISCHARGE OF A FIREARM, IN
ORDER TO COMPLY WITH RECENT AMENDMENTS TO
SECTION 790.33, FLORIDA STATUTES, WHICH PREEMPTS
ALL SUCH REGULATORY POWERS TO THE STATE OF
FLORIDA EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 2011;
ORDINANCE 2011 -32: AN ORDINANCE THAT REPEAL
OR AMEND CERTAIN COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCES
RELATING TO THE REGULATION OF FIREARMS AND
AMMUNITION, SPECIFICALLY IN REGARDS TO
CONCEALED WEAPONS /CONCEALED FIREARMS, IN
ORDER TO COMPLY WITH RECENT AMENDMENTS TO
SECTION 790.33, FLORIDA STATUTES, WHICH PREEMPTS
ALL SUCH REGULATORY POWERS TO THE STATE OF
FLORIDA EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 2011;
ORDINANCE 2011 -33: AN ORDINANCE THAT REPEALS
OR AMENDS CERTAIN COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCES
RELATING TO THE REGULATION OF FIREARMS AND
AMMUNITION, SPECIFICALLY IN REGARDS TO NOISE
CONTROL ASSOCIATED WITH THE DISCHARGE OF A
FIREARM, IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH RECENT
AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 790.33, FLORIDA STATUTES,
WHICH PREEMPTS ALL SUCH REGULATORY POWERS TO
THE STATE OF FLORIDA EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 2011;
ORDINANCE 2011 -34: AN ORDINANCE THAT REPEALS
OR AMENDS CERTAIN COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCES
RELATING TO THE REGULATION OF FIREARMS AND
AMMUNITION, SPECIFICALLY DELETING ANY LOCAL
RIGHTS TO SUSPEND /LIMIT THE SALE OF FIRE ARMS
Page 257
September 27, 2011
DURING A STATE OF EMERGENCY, IN ORDER TO COMPLY
WITH RECENT AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 790.33, FLORIDA
STATUTES, WHICH PREEMPTS ALL SUCH REGULATORY
POWERS TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA EFFECTIVE OCTOBER
13 2011; AND DIRECTING STAFF TO REFER TWO SPECIAL
ACTS DEALING WITH FIREARMS TO THE LEGISLATIVE
DELEGATION, WITH A REQUEST THAT THE LEGISLATURE
REVIEW THEM FOR POSSIBLE REPEAL
Item #I 7F
RESOLUTION 2011 -178: APPROVING AMENDMENTS
(APPROPRIATING CARRY FORWARD, TRANSFERS AND
SUPPLEMENTAL REVENUE) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2011 -12
ADOPTED BUDGET
Page 258
September 27, 2011
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:36 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
FRED W. COYLE, Ch -,i2ja n
DWIOHTE:ff,fftTCK, CLERK
test as to., a trait 4
4*444541t4
These minutes appro ed by the Board on 1 is b sz/ 43) 20 ,( ,
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM.
Page 259