The URL can be used to link to this page

BCC Minutes 11/08/2011 R[To K�i REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 2011 November 8, 2011 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida November 8, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Chairman: Fred Coyle Jim Coletta Donna Fiala Tom Henning Georgia Hiller ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Leo E. Ochs, Jr., County Manager Ian Mitchell, BCC Executive Manager Crystal Kinzel, Finance Director — Clerk of Courts Mike Sheffield, Business Operations Manager — CMO Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB) Airport Authority i AGENDA Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3`d Floor Naples FL 34112 November 08, 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 COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE Page 1 November 8, 2011 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. Dr. William Lone - Methodist Fellowship Church 2. AGENDA AND MINUTES A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended (Ex Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for consent and summary agenda.) B. September 27, 2011 - BCC/Regular Meeting Page 2 November 8, 2011 C. October 11, 2011 - BCC/Regular Meeting 3. SERVICE AWARDS A. EMPLOYEE 1) 25 Year Attendees a) Linda Swisher, Ochopee Fire Control District 4. PROCLAMATIONS A. Proclamation designating November 2011 as Lacrosse Month in Collier County. To be accepted by Tom White, President of the Sports Council of Collier County. Sponsored by Commissioner Hiller. B. Proclamation recognizing the 55th Anniversary of the Hungarian Revolt. To be accepted by Frank Dobos, Reverend Steve Nagy and Andrew Evva. Sponsored by Commissioner Fiala. C. Proclamation recognizing 25 consecutive years of financial excellence by the Clerk's Office for the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting program. To be accepted by Crystal Kinzel, Director of the Clerk's Financial and Accounting Department and members of the Clerk's Finance staff. Sponsored by Commissioner Fiala. D. Proclamation designating November 20 -26, 2011 as National Farm City Week. To be accepted by Cyndee Woolley, Farm City BBQ Chair and the Farm City BBQ Executive Committee and Members. Sponsored by Commissioner Coletta. E. Proclamation recognizing November 11, 2011 as a day of remembrance for Veteran's Day and showing appreciation to Dale Mullin for his continued community support. To be accepted by Dale Mullin. Sponsored by Commissioner Coletta. 5. PRESENTATIONS Page 3 November 8, 2011 A. Presentation of Distinguished Budget Presentation Award for Fiscal Year 2011 from the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) presented to the Office of Management and Budget. To be accepted by Mark Isackson, Director, Corporate Financial and Management Services. B. Recommendation to recognize Michael Levy, Operations Coordinator, Operations and Regulatory Management Department, as the Employee of the Month for October 2011. C. Presentation of the Collier County Business of the Month for November 2011 to The Inn on Fifth. Accepting the award are Mr. Phil McCabe and Ms. Cathy Christopher. 6. PUBLIC PETITIONS A. Public Petition request from Richard Yovanovich representing CNL Bank, requesting that the Joint Settlement Agreement regarding the Sandalwood PUD be amended to eliminate the affordable housing payment. B. Public Petition request from Colleen J. MacAlister regarding Domestic Animal Services. Items 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 um unless otherwise noted 7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. This item is to be heard last on the BCC azenda, consistent with the Previously published AUIR/CIE meeting notice. Presentation to Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) of the 2011 combined Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) on Public Facilities and Capital Improvements Element (CIE) Amendment as provided for in Chapter 6.02.02 of the Collier County Land Development Code and Section 163.3177(3)(b), Florida Statutes. 9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Page 4 November 8, 2011 A. Appointment of member to the Immokalee Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee B. Appointment of member to the Collier County Planning Commission. C. Appointment of members to the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee. D. Recommendation to approve a Resolution acknowledging the Board of County Commissioners' support of Senate Bill 192 pertaining to amending the procedures for merger and dissolution of two or more Independent Special Districts. (Commissioner Henning) E. This item to be heard at 11:30 a.m. To direct the County Attorney to research the constitutionality of the provisions provided in the County's Solicitation Ordinances, and, Commissioner Coyle's desire to enact a Solicitation Moratorium, so as to ensure that the existing provisions and any possible future solicitation moratorium proposal shall not constitute a prior restraint under the First Amendment, nor any other constitutional violation. 10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT A. Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners (Board) to direct the County Manager or his designee to implement a public information plan for the adoption of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) and to advertise an ordinance amending the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (FDPO) for future Board consideration. (Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator, Growth Management) B. This item continued from the October 25, 2011 BCC Meetin . Recommendation to approve an Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement with Florida Power & Light Company (FP &L) for "Phase One" of the Vanderbilt Beach Municipal Service Taxing Unit (the 'MSTU') Utility Conversion Project as stipulated by Florida Public Service Commission Tariff Section 6 and to approve payment to FP &L in the amount of $1,806,091 to cover the construction cost for FP &L underground utility conversion. (Michelle Arnold, Director, Alternative Transportation Modes) Page 5 November 8, 2011 C. Recommendation to accept 60% design plans of the Gordon River Greenway Park by Kimley -Horn Associates, Inc. (Marla Ramsey, Public Services Administrator) D. Recommendation to accept a report on Collier County's wetland mitigation options. (Len Price, Administrative Services Administrator) 11. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT 12. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS 13. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND /OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY A. AIRPORT AUTHORITY B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1) Recommendation to the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) to complete the 2011 Annual Performance Evaluation for the Immokalee CRA Executive Director. 2) This item to be heard at 11:00 a.m. Recommend the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) and Board of County Commissioners (BCC) receives a CRA/MSTU staff presentation on projects, programs, and activities in the CRA and Bayshore Beautification MSTU areas. (David Jackson, Executive Director Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA) 14. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS 15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately. Page 6 November 8, 2011 A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION 1) Recommendation to accept a wildlife crossing constructed within County Road 846 ( Immokalee Road) right -of -way east of Immokalee and the conveyance of additional lands required for the crossing. 2) Recommendation to approve the partial release of lien in the Code Enforcement Action entitled Board of County Commissioners vs. Joseph H. Deroma Living Trust Ltd., Code Enforcement Special Magistrate Case No. CEPM- 2009 - 0008163, relating to property located at 824 96th Avenue N., Collier County, Florida. 3) Recommendation to authorize the Clerk of Courts to release a security that was posted as a Development Guaranty by CNM Enterprises, LLC for work associated with an Early Work Authorization. 4) Recommendation to accept an All -Way Stop Analysis Study and approve the installation and operation of an All -Way Stop control at the intersection of Pelican Bay Boulevard at Ridgewood Drive, at an installation cost of approximately $1,500 funded by Pelican Bay Services Division with an annual maintenance cost of approximately $100. 5) Recommendation to authorize a budget amendment to recognize carry forward for projects within the Transportation Supported Gas Tax Fund (313) in the amount of $120,627. 6) Recommendation to approve the release of lien in the Code Enforcement Action entitled Board of County Commissioners vs. Gomaa Elsaid and Karen Amal Elsherbeini, Code Enforcement Board Case No. CEPM- 2010 - 0009420, relating to property located at 11334 Longshore Way West, Collier County, Florida. 7) Recommendation to approve a Settlement Agreement and Release with CH2MHILL ( "CH2 ") to settle all outstanding claims related to consulting services rendered under Contract No. 01 -3195, in connection with the construction of road and utility improvements to Page 7 November 8, 2011 Vanderbilt Beach Road, and for expert services provided in the defense of the County in KER Enterprises, Inc. d/b /a Armadillo Underground v. APAC- Southeast, Inc. v. Collier County, Case No. 08- 3496 -CA ( "APAC ") and to authorize payment. 8) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to waive competition and approve the Support and Maintenance Agreement with N. Harris Computer Corporation for the CityView software application. 9) Recommendation to approve Amendment No. 1 to Funding Agreement No. 4600002213 with the South Florida Water Management District to provide additional funding in the amount of $542,500 for the next construction phase of the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project, extend the current agreement, including its scope and terms, through January 4, 2013 and approve a budget amendment to recognize the grant revenue. 10) Recommendation to approve Change Order No. 3 to Contract #08- 5130 in the amount of $33,000 with CME Associates, Inc., for Design & Related Services for Development of Accelerated Bridge Construction Standards and Pilot Bridge Construction; Project #66066. 11) Recommendation to recognize FY 2011/2012 State Public Transit Block Grant additional revenue in the amount of $838,072 to Collier Area Transit Fund (426) and authorize all necessary budget amendments. 12) Recommendation to recognize FY 2011/2012 Federal Transit Administration Section 5311 additional revenue in the amount of $256,334 to Collier Area Transit Fund (426) and authorize all necessary budget amendments. 13) Recommendation to accept a Speed Limit Study Report and adopt a Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, authorizing a speed limit decrease from forty -five miles per hour (45 mph) to forty miles per hour (40 mph) on Vanderbilt Drive (CR 90 1) from 9th Street to Bonita Beach Road at a cost of Page 8 November 8, 2011 approximately $500. 14) Recommendation to approve the Second Amendment to the Mirasol Developer Agreement for the purpose of extending the three year Certificate of Public Facility Adequacy (COA) in perpetuity. 15) Recommendation to enter into a Landscape Maintenance Agreement with Royal Wood Single Family Homes Association, Inc., for work performed along the Rattlesnake Hammock County Right -of -Way. 16) Recommendation to approve a resolution authorizing the refund of tax payments paid into the Rock Road Improvement Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) by a property owner whose parcel was incorrectly included in the MSTU Boundary. 17) Recommendation to direct the County Manager, or his designee, to waive the fee for processing a small scale amendment for the Orange Blossom/Airport Crossroads Commercial Sub District as presented during Item #6A of the BCC October 25, 2011 Public Hearing by Mr. Michael Corradi, with the applicant paying only those costs actually incurred, including application and advertising costs. 18) Recommendation to approve an agreement providing for the donation to Collier County of a Right of Entry required for the removal and relocation of a fence for a wildlife crossing under Immokalee Road approximately 2.5 miles east of Oil Well Grade Road. Estimated Fiscal Impact: None. 19) Recommendation to waive formal competition and approve a sole - source purchase of "Cartegraph" work management system software licenses, implementation services and annual maintenance for the Growth Management Division. Estimated Fiscal Impact: $195,000. 20) Recommendation to approve a request for an extension of time, not to exceed thirty eight calendar days, and increase in sizing, not to exceed one thousand two hundred square feet, for a fabric banner that will be displayed at the Philharmonic Center, advertising a community event in dedication to Myra Janco Daniels. Page 9 November 8, 2011 21) Recommendation to award Bid # 11 -5700 for "Devonshire Boulevard Landscape & Irrigation Refurbishment Project" to Hannula Landscaping & Irrigation, Inc. in the amount of $278,818.46; and reject the bid from Ameri- Pride, Inc. Improvements will be funded by residents of the Radio Road Beautification MSTU. B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1) Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) approve the CRA staff's submission of amendments to the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Overlay to County staff for incorporation into the BCC - approved Land Development Code Amendment Cycle. If this request is approved, the specific amendment language will be reviewed by County staff and incorporated into their submission to be brought forth to the BCC for review in 2012. (Fiscal Impact $3,000) (Jean Jourdan, Project Manager, BGT -CRA) 2) Recommendation to provide after the fact approval for the submittal of an Enterprise Investment Fund grant application to Fifth Third Bank for $25,000 in additional funding toward the CRA FY -2012 TIF Grant program. 3) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) to approve and execute a Site Improvement Grant Agreement between the CRA and a Grant Applicant within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle area. (2705 Shoreview Drive - Fiscal Impact: $2,607). 4) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) to approve a zero dollar change and modification to a Commercial Building Improvement Grant Application between the CRA and a Grant Applicant within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle area. (3639 Bayshore Drive - Fiscal Impact: none.) 5) Recommendation for the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) to approve a CRA Resolution to amend the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Site Improvement Grant program and approve the amended form of the CRA Grant Agreement (Fiscal Impact — Page 10 November 8, 2011 None) C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION 1) Recommendation to approve, execute, and accept an Utility Easement to the Collier County Water -Sewer District for The Golisano Children's Museum of Naples, Inc.'s water utility facilities located at North Collier Regional Park, at no cost to the County. D. PUBLIC SERVICES DIVISION 1) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign two (2) satisfactions of mortgage for owner - occupied affordable housing units that have satisfied the terms of assistance or repayment in full has been provided to Collier County. 2) Recommendation to approve a Donation Agreement with, and accept a Warranty Deed from, Lake Trafford Marina, Inc. for a parcel of land adjacent to Ann Olesky Park, at a cost not to exceed $18.50. 3) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a modification to Disaster Recovery Initiative Agreement #I ODB-D4- 09-2 1 -0 1 -K09 between the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and Collier County to extend the period of the grant and update project work plans. 4) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign the amended agreement and the attestation statement between Collier County Board of County Commissioners and Area Agency on Aging for Southwest Florida, Inc. dba Senior Choices of Southwest Florida and approve budget amendments to reflect an overall decrease of $15,162 in the Older Americans Act program, and a correcting increase to the required local match in the amount of $8,695. Funding will come from carry forward in Services for Seniors Grant Fund #123. 5) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign the contract amendment and Attestation Statement between the Area Agency on Aging for Southwest Florida, Inc. dba Senior Choices of Page 11 November 8, 2011 Southwest Florida and Collier County to extend the grant period by ninety days, approve budget amendments to reflect estimated funding for the FYI Older Americans Act Program in the amount of $919,000, local match funding from carry forward in Services for Seniors Fund # 123 in the amount of $102,111.11 and authorize the continued payment of grant expenditures. 6) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign the agreement, Verification of Emergency Preparedness Plan, and Attestation Statement between the Collier County Board of County Commissioners and the Area Agency on Aging of Southwest Florida dba Senior Choices of Southwest Florida and approve a budget amendment to accept the grant award of $43,602 for the Nutrition Services Incentive Program (NSIP). 7) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment in the amount of $49,642.98 and recognize revenue and its appropriate expenditures generated from case management and case aid from the Medicaid Waiver program. 8) Recommendation to approve the submittal of the attached Collier County 4 -H Foundation Inc. Grant Application requesting $68,000 for the 4 -H Outreach Coordinators and the enhancement of outreach activities managed by the Collier County University of Florida /IFAS Extension Department. 9) Recommendation to award RFP # 11 -5666 Barefoot Beach Concession and authorize the Chairman to sign a contract with Day -Star Unlimited, Inc. d/b /a Cabana Dan's and to approve termination at vendor request of Contract #00 -3168 "Barefoot Beach Concession Agreement." 10) Recommendation to approve the submittal of the Florida Sea Turtle License Plate Grant's Program grant application in the amount of $14,794 administered by the non - profit Sea Turtle Conservancy for the Collier County Sea Turtle Protection Public Education Program. Page 12 November 8, 2011 11) Recommendation to adopt the Parks and Recreation Department Standard Operating Policy "AT0012 Reserving Ballfields." 12) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a release of lien to satisfy an Affordable Housing Density Bonus lien instrument recorded against a unit which is no longer subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement. 13) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a Letter of Understanding with Larry Ray, Collier County Tax Collector, outlining Tax Collector and Library joint use facility in Everglades City, Florida. 14) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a Department of Environmental Protection, Coastal Partnership Initiative (CPI) Grant Agreement and authorize all necessary budget amendments to recognize grant revenue in the amount of $53,000 for a Dune Restoration Project in the Clam Bay Park area. 15) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute Permit No. SAJ -1987 -1080 (IP -SJF) for the Interim Maintenance Dredging of the Wiggins Pass Channel. 16) This item continued from the September 27, 2011 BCC Meeting 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. 17) Recommendation to accept an update on assessment of and improvements to Domestic Animal Services Enforcement Operations. 18) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign an updated U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Standard Form (SF) 424 for the HUD Collier County Entitlement grants for Action Plan (AP) Year 2011 -2012 and to authorize the Page 13 November 8, 2011 Chairman to sign the HUD grant agreements upon their arrival. 19) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign an agreement between Collier County Board of County Commissioners and the Physician Led Access Network (PLAN) in the amount of $50,000 to provide medical referral services for low - income residents in Collier County. E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION 1) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment recognizing carryforward from FY 2011 for the Freedom Memorial Fund (620) in the amount of $133,800. 2) Recommendation to approve a one -year renewal of the Lease Agreement with Lake Trafford Ranch, LLLP, for cattle ranching at Pepper Ranch Preserve for an annual revenue of $2,113. 3) Recommendation to ratify Property, Casualty, Automobile, Workers' Compensation and Subrogation Claims settled and/or closed by the Risk Management Director pursuant to Resolution 2004 -15 for the fourth quarter of FY 11. 4) Recommendation to approve and execute an Amendment to Agreement providing a time extension to allow for the completion of construction of the Community Center expansion at the Max Hasse Community Park and to re- allocate funds previously approved in Fiscal Year 2011. 5) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute Amendment #3 to Collier County's contract with Meritain, Inc. for Group Health Third Party Administration Run -out Services in the estimated amount of $88,425. 6) Recommendation to accept reports and ratify staff - approved change orders and changes to work orders. F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS Page 14 November 8, 2011 1) Recommendation to authorize the County Manager or his designee to prepare and submit applications to renew service marks with the State of Florida Division of Corporations to preserve the County's advertising, logos, phrases and slogans. 2) Recommendation to approve the recognition of Carry Forward in Tourism Promotion Fund 184 for a Fall and enhanced Winter Marketing Plan and authorize the Chairman to sign Change Order #2 to Contract #10-5541 with Paradise Advertising and Marketing, Inc. in the amount of $350,000 for this purpose and authorize all necessary budget amendments. 3) Recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners in response to a Board request to research funding or other regulatory concerns regarding the potential for County funding or engagement in Wildfire Mitigation. 4) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments (appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds) to the Fiscal Year 2011 -12 Adopted Budget. 5) Recommendation to waive formal competition and approve Change Order #4 Statements of Work with Method Factory, Inc. under Contract #11 -5616 for Enhancements and Maintenance Services to GovMax budgeting software, for the cost of $80,750. 6) Authorize staff to advertise an ordinance for future consideration that amends Ordinance No. 04 -12, as amended, for the purpose of revising the Class 2 Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Post - Hospital Interfacility Transport Services. G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY 1) Recommendation to approve and ratify Staffs authorization of Change Order #I for a Time Extension to Q. Grady Minor and Associates, PA for Work Order #4500116917 in order to process invoices for Phase 2 permitting work at the Immokalee Regional Airport. Page 15 November 8, 2011 2) Recommendation to approve and ratify Staff s authorization of Change Order #2 to Passarella and Associates, Inc. Work Order #4500116918 for a time extension in order to process invoices for Phase II Environmental Permitting work at the Immokalee Regional Airport. 3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, acting as the Airport Authority, approve and authorize the Chairman to execute attached Contract #11 -5642 for purchase and delivery of aviation fuel to the Marco Island Executive Airport, Immokalee Regional Airport, and Everglades Airpark with The Hiller Group, Inc. H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1) Proclamation designating November 2011 as Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month. Sponsored by Commissioner Coyle. Proclamation being mailed to the requester. 2) Commissioner Hiller requests Board approval for reimbursement regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose. Attended a meeting of the Naples Visitors' Bureau on October 14, 2011 at the Bay Colony Golf Club, Naples, FL. $13.95 to be paid from Commissioner Hiller's travel Budget. 3) Commissioner Hiller requests Board approval for reimbursement regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose. Attending the 2011 Citizens of the Year Banquet on November 10, 2011 at the Vanderbilt Country Club, Naples, FL. $35 to be paid from Commissioner Hiller's travel Budget. 4) Commissioner Hiller requests Board approval for reimbursement regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose. Attended the Campaign for Leadership held at the Botanical Gardens Naples, FL. $75 to be paid from Commissioner Hiller's travel Budget. I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS Page 16 November 8, 2011 1) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of October 8, 2011 through October 14, 2011 and for submission into the official records of the Board. 2) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of October 15, 2011 through October 21, 2011 and for submission into the official records of the Board. 3) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of October 22, 2011 through October 28, 2011 and for submission into the official records of the Board. 4) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment recognizing Federal HHS Vote Program Grant Award 2007 Funds for Voting Accessibility for Individuals with Disabilities. 5) Recommendation to endorse the United States Department of Justice and United States Department of Treasury combined Equitable Sharing Agreement and Certification through September 2012. 6) Recommendation to approve use of Confiscated Trust Funds and a budget amendment in the amount of $30,000 for support of our community to victims and survivors of crime through all phases of traumatic crime or sudden loss. 7) Letter appointing Southwest Florida Crime Stoppers, Inc., as the Collier County non - profit agency to receive monies from the Crime Stoppers Trust Fund. K. COUNTY ATTORNEY 1) Recommendation to authorize application for tax deeds for fifty -four (54) County -held tax certificates and the forwarding of a written notice to proceed with tax deed applications to the Tax Collector. 2) Recommendation to appoint Commissioner Coyle to serve on the Collier County Canvassing Board. Page 17 November 8, 2011 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. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearinLy be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve Petition VAC - PL2011 -1271, to disclaim, renounce and vacate the County and the Public interest in that roadway easement as originally recorded in Official Record Book 1089, pages 1257 -1263 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, and an easement for ingress /egress as originally recorded in Plat Book 14, pages 33 through 38 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, also being located in part of Section 26, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County Florida being more specifically shown in Exhibit «A„ B. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments (appropriating carry forward, transfers and supplemental 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 18 November 8, 2011 November 8, 2011 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, the Board of County Commission meeting is in session now. Will you please stand and Reverend William Lone of the Methodist Fellowship Church will provide the invocation. Item #1A INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE REVEREND LONE: Will you bow your heads with me, please. Almighty God, our heavenly Father, we come to you at this time seeking your guidance, your direction and your blessings. Father, we thank you so much that we are given the privilege to communicate with you and to come directly to you, our heavenly Father. God, we ask you now to bless these people here, and bless this Board. We pray you'll give them the wisdom and the guidance that comes from you. We pray that you will bless them and their families. And we pray, Lord God, for our country, for our entire staff of the United States of America. And we thank you Lord, that we have the privilege of living in a country that believes in God almighty. We ask this now, Lord, in the name of Jesus Christ, the living Savior. Amen. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Please join us in the Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Manager, tell us about all the changes to the agenda today. Item #2A APPROVAL OF TODAY'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA AS AMENDED — APPROVED AND OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES — APPROVED Page 2 November 8, 2011 MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. These are your proposed agenda changes for the Board of County Commissioners meeting of November 8th, 2011. The first request is to continue Item 9.1) to the December 13th, 2011 BCC meeting. That request is made by Commissioner Henning. The next request is to continue Item 16.A.13 to the January 24th, 2012 BCC meeting. That is proposed at staff s request, due to a -- some new information in a recent speed limit study report. Next change proposed is to withdraw Item 16.A.21, due to a bid protest filed. That item will be heard by your purchasing director and then brought back to the Board with recommendations. The next change proposed is to move Item 16.B.1 from your consent agenda to become Item 13.B.3 under your CRA. That item is being moved at Commissioner Hiller's request. Next proposed move is to move Item 16.13.3 from your consent agenda to become Item 13.13.6 under your CRA regular agenda. That item is being requested to be moved at Commissioner Hiller's request. The next change proposed is to move Item 16.13.4 to become Item 13.13 -- excuse me, to move Item 16.B.4 from your consent agenda to become Item 13.13.4 under your regular CRA agenda. That is at Commissioner Hiller's request. The next proposed change is to move Item 16.13.5 from the consent agenda to become Item 13.13.5 under your CRA regular agenda. That item is being moved at Commissioner Hiller's request. The next proposed change is to move Item 16.D.9, become Item 10.1-1 on your regular agenda. That item is being moved at Commissioner Hiller's request. The next change is the proposed move of Item 16.1). 11 to become Item 10.I on your regular agenda. That is being requested at Commissioner Hiller's request. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Leo, it says 10.G on my form. You Page 3 November 8, 2011 said 10.I? MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. The change sheet, you may be looking at one from last night. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN COYLE: It changes hourly. MR. OCHS: The next one is to propose to move Item 16.1). 17 from the consent agenda to become Item 10.E on your regular agenda. That move is at Commissioner Hiller's request. The next change is to move Item 16.1). 18 from your consent agenda to become Item 10.17 on your regular agenda. That item is requested by Commissioner Hiller. The next change proposed is to move Item 16.1). 19 to become Item 10.J on your regular agenda, that item being moved at Commissioner Hiller's request. The next proposed change is to move Item 16.E.2 to become Item 10.G on your regular agenda. That item is being moved at Commissioner Hiller's request. Next recommended change is to continue Item 16.E.5 to the December 13th, 2011 BCC meeting. That move is at the staffs request to clean up some contract language. Next proposed change is to continue Item 16.17.5 to the December 13th5 2011 meeting. That move is also at staffs request due to a revision in the change order. Next proposed change is to continue Item 16.G.1 to the December 13th, 2011 meeting. And that is being done at the Airport Authority director's request. The next proposed change is to continue Item 16.G.2 to the December 13, 2011 BCC meeting. That is also requested at the Airport Authority director's request. Next proposed change is to move Item 16.x.2 to Item I LA on your agenda under county attorney. That is recommended -- excuse me, requested by Commissioner Hiller. Commissioners, you have two time certains on your agenda November 8, 2011 today, the first to be heard at 11:00 a.m. That's Item 13.13.2. And the second time certain is to be heard at 11:30 a.m., and that is on Item 9.E on your agenda. I have one agenda note, Commissioners. That's Item 16.1).19. The address referenced in the first paragraph of the extension agreement should read 2500 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 212, Naples, Florida, 34103. Those are all the changes I have, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, County Manager. County Attorney, do you have anything? MR. KLATZKOW: No changes, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we'll begin with Commissioner Henning this morning for ex parte disclosure for the consent agenda and the summary agenda. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And changes to the agenda? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, of course. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have no further changes. I also have no ex parte communication on today's summary agenda or consent agenda. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, good morning, sir. I have no changes to the agenda, and nothing to declare, as far as ex parte. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And I have no further changes to the agenda. And I have no ex parte disclosure for either the consent or the summary agenda this morning. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was wondering if you could give me an update. Both of mine do not say the same thing as yours said. I was trying to follow it but they didn't come through. So if you wouldn't mind just, you know if you have a moment while we're doing proclamations and so forth, if you could get me an updated copy, I'd really appreciate it. Thank you very much. Page 5 November 8, 2011 And I have nothing to declare on the summary or consent agenda. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. I have nothing to declare for the summary agenda. And with respect to the regular agenda, the published copy has an item which was moved from consent to the general, which is 16.17.6, which was moved to, I believe, its 10.K -- or -- yeah, 10.K. However, that was not reflected on the change sheet. And that is a change that I requested. So your agenda reflects it, but your change sheet does not. And the County Manager did not articulate it in the changes. MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am, the change sheet was already published at the time you called this morning. But I would be happy to move that at the Board's pleasure. That would be a move of 16.17.6 from your consent agenda; it would become Item 10.K on your regular agenda. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And what is that item, County Manager? MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, that is the -- that is authorize staff to advertise an ordinance for future consideration that amends Ordinance number 04 -12, as amended, for the purpose of revising the Class 2 Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for post- hospital interfacility transport services. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And that goes to 10.K? MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that already is on the published agenda? MR. OCHS: No, ma'am, it's on the sheet that Mr. Mitchell prepared for you, but that's not my change sheet. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, got it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve today's regular consent and summary agenda. MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we do have a public speaker. Page 6 November 8, 2011 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's call the public speaker. MR. MITCHELL: It's Donna Sadler. And she wants to speak to Item 16.A.10. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, why is that now if we've got it on the agenda? Has it been pulled from the agenda, is that -- MR. OCHS: Well, it's on the consent agenda -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: On the consent agenda. Okay, very well. Ms. Sadler? You can wait till the end of the meeting today, but I don't think you want to do that. MS. SADLER: No, I don't have enough time to go over everything. I have been pleading with you to please meet with me and go over this subject about spending $7 million to replace a White Boulevard bridge and to build a 23rd Street bridge. I don't have time to go over everything. And this is not about Donna Sadler not wanting a bridge over 23rd Street Southwest. This is about 61 people just on this petition, and everybody on the south side of the canal. It's not needed. It's going to cause more problems than it's worth. I have -- I have so much information. It was not studied like I have been told that it's been studied. You have not given me proof that people want this bridge. We are ranked number -- down at bottom on the school memorandum, that we are not that important. The Horizon Bridge Study, we were ranked last, number 12 out of 12 bridges. I have a map here that when I did my petition last year that shows how ridiculous it is to be spending that much money on a bridge that's right next to four other streets. I worked up a copy of how much it's going to cost just for this. I also have the bridge inspection report that if you read it over and over and over again, White Boulevard bridge does not have to be replaced right now, but if it is financially feasible, do it. You can use Page 7 November 8, 2011 a temporary bridge over 23rd Street Southwest. I have this report. I was told it was going to take 18 months. I was told they were not using the accelerated bridge process, that they were going to do a conventional, yet here I have the report. Ninety days. Last 32 days of it is miscellaneous work and approaches. We don't have the budget to be doing this. Naples home prices are going to go down again. Unemployment benefits, most of the unemployed no longer even receiving benefits. This is from the website, Collier County website last year. High unemployment, permanent job losses, recorded number of foreclosures, local bank failures, declining property values, increased number of business failures. This does not have Commissioner Hiller on it, it still has Commissioner Halas. Elected officials and employees understand our obligation to spend taxpayer money wisely, while maintaining the level of services demanded by our constituents. We are all working hard to ease the burden of our taxpayers. Collier County Board of County Commissioners and county employees guiding principles. It's not being followed. Letter to the editor from my Commissioner, my district Commissioner, we're not going to go there. Budget for last year, how you're going to try to make our lives easier to live, work and play. You drive home to and from work on a four to six -lane highway. You come home. I turn down my street, its paradise. By opening up my street, what kind of life is that? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Your time has expired. Thank you. MS. SADLER: Okay, thank you. I would like to be -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: You can take a short few seconds to wrap you, if you wish. MS. SADLER: No, that's all right. I have more and more and more. I want to be heard and I want this to be postponed. They're asking for 33,000 more dollars on top of all the other money that they have asked for. I would like it to please be postponed. November 8, 2011 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you. County Manager, you want to have staff quickly address anything? MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, I'll ask Mr. Feder to address this item. MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, Administrator, Growth Management Division. Very quickly Commissioners, we've addressed this in great detail with the community and particular with Ms. Sadler. A lot of different meetings in staff, out on the field, a lot of correspondence. We have made modification to the design based on input that we received from her in particular in how White and 23rd basically will join, and it required some additional expenditures, but we think there's an improvement to the project and to the 23rd community itself. We are talking about additional cost to come back. And as in correspondence, we said that if we -- the quote was if we're not successful in stopping it or moving it to another street, we at least want the sidewalks and other issues, and that's in the project, and that's what we're doing. So we're trying to be responsive to the community. It's one of 10 bridges, and yes, it was identified as not necessarily at the top, but is an alternate rather than putting people all the way over to 13th Street as you develop the White bridge. It is in your Growth Management Plan, it's been in there. It was established in there as part of the study from the Estates. It is also one of many that we are now trying to find funding and now I believe have full support from the community to utilize the two -lane grid out in the Estates as opposed to multi - laning. So it's one that needs to go forward. It is a good expenditure of the dollars at this time. We appreciate Ms. Sadler's concerns, and we feel we've been responsive on some of the issues, not necessarily on moving the project. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you very much. November 8, 2011 Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Norm, you made a statement which concerns me, and that is -- and actually it was going to be my question, and that is where this ranks in the priority of importance with respect to these bridge repairs, replacements. And you said it is not among the top. So, you know, given that we have -- MR. FEDER: It is a priority. It's not one of the highest, though, but what we're pointing out is that if we do White -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Which is the highest? MR. FEDER: Probably 8th and 16th, if I had my druthers right now. But the fact of the matter is, when I go to do White, I have no maintenance of traffic without putting this one in now, so it brought it up a little bit faster than schedule. Ideally I need all 10 in, and if I could do it all at once that would be the best approach. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm still concerned, because if you're saying this is not a -- you know, if it's not our top priority, given our limited resources, then I'm not sure why we're doing this now. MR. FEDER: In and of itself it is not. But when you look at what you're trying to do in your accomplishment of White, and giving a maintenance of traffic, that brought its priority higher. And so I think it's being done appropriately. But yes, what we said was we have 10 bridges, it wouldn't necessarily have been the top of the bridges to move on in and of itself, but as a maintenance of traffic it moved up higher. And all 10 are needed. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you have another question? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I'm just concerned, Page 10 November 8, 2011 especially in light of the fact that there apparently is -- this is not the highest priority and there are so many citizens that are opposed to it. I want to make sure there's proper public vetting. At the end of the day after discussion it may turn out that we all vote to support Norm's recommendation, but I think in fairness to the concerns of the citizens it would be best to bring it forward onto the general agenda. MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, if I could, with all due respect, this has been brought to the Board many times. I can show you extensive efforts to work with the community and with Ms. Sadler. And the other thing to your question, Commissioner, I need to point out, as we mentioned to you yesterday in discussions, 8th and 16th, which are probably the highest priority, are funded now in DOT's new work program. They brought in monies to fund those two bridges. Again, I'd like -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Could you just repeat that? I missed -- which two bridges? MR. FEDER: Eighth and 16th. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. Okay, is there a motion to approve the agenda as amended? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve the agenda as amended. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve the agenda as amended by Commissioner Coletta, seconded by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. Any opposed by like sign? Page 11 November 8, 2011 COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it passes 4 -1, with Commissioner Hiller dissenting. And I would like to just take a moment to recognize State Representative Kathleen Passidomo. She's with us here. And Matt Hudson is here. Welcome to both of you. Thank you very much. Page 12 Agenda Changes Board of County Commissioners Meeting November 8, 2011 Continue Item 9D to the December 13.2011 BCC Meeting_ Recommendation to approve a Resolution acknowledging the Board of County Commissioners' support of Senate Bill 192 pertaining to amending the procedures for merger and dissolution of two or more independent special districts. (Commissioner Henning's request) Continue Item 16A13 to the January 24.2012 BCC Meeting: Recommendation to accept a Speed Limit Study Report and adopt a Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, authorizing a speed limit decrease from forty-five miles per hour (45 mph) to forty miles per hour (40 mph) on Vanderbilt Drive (CR 901) from 9th Street to Bonita Beach Road at a cost of approximately $500. (Staffs request due to speed limit study report) Withdraw Item 16A21: Recommendation to award Bid #11 -5700 for "Devonshire Boulevard Landscape & Irrigation Refurbishment Project" to Hannula Landscaping & Irrigation, Inc. in the amount of $278,818.46; and reject the bid from Ameri- Pride, Inc. Improvements will be funded by residents of the Radio Road Beautification MSTU. (Staffs request due to formal notice of intent to protest award) Move Item 16B1 to Item 13133 Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) approve the CRA staffs submission of amendments to the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Overlay to County staff for incorporation into the BCC - approved Land Development Code Amendment Cycle. If this request is approved, the specific amendment language will be reviewed by County staff and incorporated into their submission to be brought forth to the BCC for review in 2012. (Fiscal Impact $3,000) (Commissioner Hiller's request) Move Item 16133 to Item 13136: Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) to approve and execute a Site Improvement Grant Agreement between the CRA and a Grant Applicant within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle area. (2705 Shoreview Drive - Fiscal Impact: $2,607). (Commissioner Hiller's request) Move Item 16134 to Item 13134: Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) to approve a zero dollar change and modification to a Commercial Building Improvement Grant Application between the CRA and a Grant Applicant within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle area. (3639 Bayshore Drive) Fiscal Impact: none. (Commissioner Hiller's request) Move Item 16BS to Item 13135: Recommendation for the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) to approve a CRA Resolution to amend the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Site Improvement Grant program and approve the amended form of the CRA Grant Agreement (Fiscal Impact - None) (Commissioner Hiller's request) November 8, 2011 BCC Agenda Changes Page 2 Move Item 16D9 to Item 10H: Recommendation to award RFP #11 -5666 Barefoot Beach Concession and authorize the Chairman to sign a contract with Day -Star Unlimited, Inc. d /b /a Cabana Dan's and to approve termination at vendor request of Contract #00 -3168 "Barefoot Beach Concession Agreement." (Commissioner Hiller's request) Move Item 16D11 to Item 101: Recommendation to adopt the Parks and Recreation Department Standard Operating Policy "AT0012 Reserving Ballfields." (Commissioner Hiller's request) Move Item 16D17 to Item 10E: Recommendation to accept an update on assessment of and improvements to Domestic Animal Services enforcement operations. (Commissioner Hiller's request) Move Item 16D18 to Item 10F: Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign an updated U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Standard Form (SF) 424 for the HUD Collier County Entitlement grants for Action Plan (AP) Year 2011 -2012 and to authorize the Chairman to sign the HUD grant agreements upon their arrival. (Commissioner Hiller's request) Move Item 16D19 to Item 101 Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign an agreement between Collier County Board of County Commissioners and the Physician Led Access Network (PLAN) in the amount of $50,000 to provide medical referral services for low- income residents in Collier County. (Commissioner Hiller's request) Move Item 16E2 to Item 10G: Recommendation to approve a one -year renewal of the Lease Agreement with Lake Trafford Ranch, LLLP, for cattle ranching at Pepper Ranch Preserve for an annual revenue of $2,113. (Commissioner Hiller's request) Continue Item 16E5 to the December 13.2011 BCC Meetine: Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute Amendment #3 to Collier County's contract with Meritain, Inc. for Group Health Third Party Administration Run -out Services in the estimated amount of $88,425. (Staffs request regarding contract amendment) Continue Item 16F5 to the December 13.2011 BCC Meetine: Recommendation to waive formal competition and approve Change Order #4 Statements of Work with Method Factory, Inc. under Contract #11 -5616 for Enhancements and Maintenance Services to GovMax budgeting software, for the cost of $80,750. (Staffs request due to revisions in change order) November 8, 2011 BCC Agenda Changes Page 3 Continue Item 16G1 to the December 13.2011 BCC Meetine: Recommendation to approve and ratify Staffs authorization of Change Order #1 for a time extension to Q. Grady Minor and Associates, PA Work Order #4500116917 in order to process invoices for Phase 2 permitting work at the Immokalee Regional Airport. (Staffs request) Continue Item 16G2 to the December 13.2011 BCC Meetine: Recommendation to approve and ratify Staffs authorization of Change Order #2 to Passarella and Associates, Inc. Work Order #4500116918 for a time extension in order to process invoices for Phase II environmental permitting work at the Immokalee Regional Airport. (Staffs request) Move Item 16K2 to Item 11A: Recommendation to appoint Commissioner Coyle to serve on the Collier County Canvassing Board. (Commissioner Hiller's request) Time Certain Items: Item 13132 to be heard at 11:00 a.m. Item 9E to be heard at 11:30 a.m. Note: Item 16D19: Address referenced in first paragraph of the Extension Agreement should read: 2500 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 212, Naples FL 34103. 1118/2011 8:43 AM November 8, 2011 Item #2B SEPTEMBER 27, 20115 BCC REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APPROVED AS PRESENTED CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now we're going to take the minutes separately today. We're going to take the September 27th, 2011 BCC regular meeting minutes. Does anyone have any changes to those minutes? If not, is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. Any opposed by like sign? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think Mike back there with Kathleen and Matt represents Marco Rubio. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. We have three representatives represented here today. Item #2C OCTOBER 11, 2011, BCC REGULAR MEETING MINUTES — CONTINUED TO THE DECEMBER 13, 2011 BCC MEETING (AFTER FURTHER REVIEW OF THE AUDIO BY Page 13 November 8, 2011 COMMISSIONER HENNING) — CONSENSUS CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now we'll go to the October the 1 Ith, 2011 BCC regular meeting minutes. There is a. I hate to say this, an error in the minutes. I don't know who was taking them at the time, but it's very minor. It attributes a statement by Commissioner Henning to me. And I know it's easy to confuse us, we're both about the same height. And -- but it's on Page 145, and if I could read it, and if Commissioner Henning would agree that this is his statement, not mine. Talking about wetland credits, Commissioner Henning said, okay, it was pointed out to me. I met with somebody at lunch and somebody I really respect. This is no different than Oil Well Road where we have a reservation for lands that the Colliers own. It wasn't a mitigation bank. The word continued based upon that reservation, right, Melissa? And I think that is Commissioner Henning's statement. Would you agree with that, Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would have to go back to the audio, which I could do. We can continue this one and if you'd provide me the reference. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, I'll provide the reference in -- on the record now. It's on Page 145 of the October 11th, 2011 transcript. It's about two - thirds of the way down the page and it's a comment attributed to me, but it was actually made by Commissioner Henning. So if we could ask that the audio be verified and that Commissioner Henning be given a chance to see that, then perhaps we can direct the change to the next meeting. So we'll continue this until the next meeting. MR. OCHS: Very good. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, that brings us to service awards, County Manager. Page 14 November 8, 2011 Item #3A SERVICE AWARDS — 25 YEAR ATTENDEES — LINDA SWISHER — PRESENTED MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we have one service award this morning, for 25 years of service. If you'd join us in front of the dais, please. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ian, do we have the award down there? MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir. MR. OCHS: Commissioners, celebrating 25 years of service this morning with Collier County government with the Ochopee Fire Control District is Linda Swisher. Linda? (Applause.) MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that concludes our service awards this morning, thank you. Item #4 PROCLAMATION - ONE MOTION TAKEN TO ADOPT ALL PROCLAMATIONS — APPROVED Item #4A PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 2011 AS LACROSSE MONTH IN COLLIER COUNTY, ACCEPTED BY TOM WHITE, PRESIDENT OF THE SPORTS COUNCIL OF COLLIER COUNTY — ADOPTED MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that takes us to Item 4 on your Page 15 November 8, 2011 agenda this morning. It's a proclamation. Its Item 4.A, is a proclamation designating November, 2011 as LaCrosse Month in Collier County. To be accepted by Tom White, president of the Sports Council of Collier County. And this item is sponsored by Commissioner Hiller. Mr. White? (Applause.) Item #4B PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE 55TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE HUNGARIAN REVOLT, ACCEPTED BY FRANK DOBOS, REVEREND STEVE NAGY AND ANDREW EVVA — ADOPTED MR. OCHS: Item 4.B is a proclamation recognizing the 55th anniversary of the Hungarian Revolt, to be accepted by Frank Dobos and Andrew Ewa. This item is sponsored by Commissioner Fiala. Gentlemen? (Applause.) MR. EVVA: I also will have something to present to the Board of Commissioners. Some people might wonder what a Hungarian statue is doing in front of the Sub Shop. And I will be brief. Phyllis, my wife, said Andy, you tend to overshare, please don't embarrass me. So I will try to be quick. The statue is there to commemorate freedom in general. It was put in in 2006 to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Hungarian fight for freedom in 1956. We wanted to do a couple of things. We, meaning the American- Hungarian community here in Collier County. One is we wanted to commemorate that 50th anniversary. We wanted to make sure that everybody remembers 9/11, which was the fifth anniversary, and then the great fight for freedom of the U.S. for 1776. Page 16 November 8, 2011 So those were the reasons that we wanted to put the statue up. And if you have not seen it, this is what it looks like, and it's right in front of the Sub Shop. When we requested this of the Board of Commissioners then, they outlined what it would require for someone to put a statue in Freedom Park. And if you remember, Collier County Government Complex was to be Freedom Park originally. And these were the criteria that were outlined for us and then accepted based on the fact that we met these. It has to be that statue has to represent an internationally recognized historic event in the struggle for freedom. It has to be aesthetically acceptable. It has to be non - confrontational. It has to demonstrate U.S. assimilation. And it has to be self - liquidating, or, we'd have to pay for it. Let me cover these quickly. First of all, every newspaper back then urged that particular country, other for the ones in the Soviet Union, to come and help Hungary, and no one showed up. So it was a recognized international event. Even President Kennedy recognized it. And here are his words out of Time Magazine of 1957 which declared the Hungarian freedom fighter to be Man of the Year for 1956. And here are his words: October 23rd, 1956 is a day that will live forever in the annals of free men and nations. It was a day of courage, conscience and triumph. No other day since history began has shown more clearly the eternal unquestionability of man's desire to be free, whatever the odds against success, whatever the sacrifice required. President John F. Kennedy. Now, meeting the acceptability as far as aesthetically acceptable, the sculptor was Harrison Covington, actually Lieutenant Colonel Harrison Covington, out of Tampa. He has about 150 statues in front of the Shrine organizations. He has a Guggenheim Fellowship painting recognized in 1964, the 1964 Sloan Foundation Grant. Many Page 17 November 8, 2011 honors in competitive exhibitions. More than 40 one -man exhibits. And I won't go through all of it, but he's a phenomenal sculptor, which can be seen in him capturing the agony and ecstasy in that figure that you can see downstairs. As far as real proof of what a sculptor he is, he asked me to give a concept. I sent him a number of Hungarian videos of '56, and he says, Andy, I want a concept. I said, well, I can't even draw a straight line. He said, try to do something with a stick figure. And Phyllis keeps saying, don't show this, but here is what -- here is what the -- my painting of what I showed him. Phyllis says it looks like a little boy relieving himself off a rock. Now then, as far as assimilation is concerned, we have on the American side of the statue a rising patriot, 1776, with the American flag and statue -- and George Washington in laser inscribed on it: All gave some, some gave all, freedom is not free. Colonel /Manager Jim Mudd did the presentation -- I should back up. Commissioner Fred Coyle did the introduction. Colonel Mudd gave a very stirring speech for freedom. And we had the honor guards that he recommended that we would have. And we had a good outpouring of folks. We paid for the statute. The bronze cost $30,000. The granite frame below was given to us by Atilla Acs, who is the president of Signature Surfaces. And he donated it. It's estimated to be somewhere around $25,000. So we met all of the requirements. Before -- I should say that I represent also really three organizations here. One is Mr. Dobos is the president of the American Hungarian Club of Southwest Florida, so I represent them. I represent our foundation, which is the American Foundation for Hungarian Youth and Culture. And then I also formed another one for this side of the ocean, which is Patriots for Freedom Foundation. I won't go into what all we have accomplished financially. We represent the Hungarian Language Museum also in the U.S., which November 8, 2011 was built with a two and a half million dollar grant from the European Union. And now I would like to -- with that review, I would like to make a presentation to the Commissioners. The Hungarian government at various levels, city, county and nation, recognizes what Collier County has done and the Board of Commissioners. We have had a number of different recognitions. And Commissioner Fiala showed you a Cross of Merit that she received. And all of us leaders in the organization and our board of directors received one. Well, I asked the organization, which is sponsored by the government, it's a veteran's organization in Hungary, and it's sponsored by the Hungarian government, to do something for the organizations because really that's whom we represent. Well, you folks won't get a medal, but here is -- and this has to be translated back and forth, you know, not all government work is as swift as you folks here, so somewhere else it takes some time, but I finally got it. The top is a ribbon, which in Hungarian it says Remember and Remind. And it says, Commemorative, the presidium of the certified International Hungarian Freedom Fighters Federation and its organizations operating abroad witnessed since the regime change your demonstrated moral decency, resultant honorable conduct, and proven deeds of exemplary dedication to freedom. The consideration of which the following organizations, American Foundation of Hungarian Youth and Culture, Hungarian- American Club of Southwest Florida, Collier County Board of Commissioners are partners, the Cross of Merit dedication is granted. Moving toward the twilight of our lives, we freedom fighters would like to thank you for your demonstrated commitment, which will also encourage and embolden our successors and future generations to defend their freedom. Page 19 November 8, 2011 And it's signed by the president, the chairman and the Bishop of Nagyvl3rad County, who is the honorary president. I'd like to hand this over. But before I do, in these days of demonstrations and lack of civility, I would like to first of all, seeing how I was born in S13toralja•jhely, Hungary, immigrated in 1950, became a citizen in 1956, I would like to thank the citizens of this wonderful United States, possibly the greatest country ever in the history of man, for accepting me and my family, and then also Collier County for allowing me to reside here and pay back as much as I possibly can. Thank you. (Applause.) Item #4C PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING 25 CONSECUTIVE YEARS OF FINANCIAL EXCELLENCE BY THE CLERK'S OFFICE FOR THE CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENT FOR EXCELLENCE IN FINANCIAL REPORTING PROGRAM, ACCEPTED BY CRYSTAL KINZEL, DIRECTOR OF THE CLERK'S FINANCIAL AND ACCOUNTING DEPARTMENT AND MEMBERS OF THE CLERK'S FINANCE STAFF — ADOPTED MR. OCHS: Item 4.0 is a proclamation recognizing 25 consecutive years of financial excellence by the Clerk's Office for the certificate of achievement for excellence in financial reporting program. To be accepted by Crystal Kinzel, director of the Clerk's Financial and Accounting Department, and members of the Clerk's finance staff. This item is sponsored by Commissioner Fiala. (Applause.) MS. KINZEL: Commissioner Fiala, thank you for sponsoring this. And Commissioners, thank you for recognizing us. Obviously 25 years is quite an accomplishment by the team you Page 20 November 8, 2011 see before you, and our predecessors, of course. But also, we'd like to thank and recognize a few other people that make this possible. First of all, the Constitutional officers and their finance departments who also produce financial statements that go into the consolidated CFAR. The County Manager's Office, the administrators, the directors, the finance staff in all the county departments, the Office of Management and Budget all support our efforts to bring together the financial information in the county and produce the CFAR annually. We refer to it as CFAR. It is the Comprehensive Financial Annual Report, for the public that's listening. And we would also like to let them know that the copies of the financial report are available for the last 10 years on the Clerk's website at collierclerk.com. And it's under Clerk to the Board, the Finance Department. So they can look at the product for which we received this award. And again, thank you for sponsoring it, and thank you for recognizing us. (Applause.) WINE 11 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 20-26,2011 AS NATIONAL FARM CITY WEEK. ACCEPTED BY CYNDEE WOOLLEY, FARM CITY BBQ CHAIR AND THE FARM CITY BBQ EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND MEMBERS — ADOPTED MR. OCHS: Item 4.1) is a proclamation designating November 20th through November 26th, 2011 as National Farm City Week. To be accepted by Cyndee Woolley, Farm City BBQ Chair, and the Farm City BBQ executive committee and members. And this item is sponsored by Commissioner Coletta. (Applause.) Page 21 November 8, 2011 MS. WOOLLEY: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Cyndee Woolley. I'm the owner of C -2 Communications, and I'm the 2011 chair of the Farm City BBQ. In 1955 the national Farm City initiative was founded with the hopes of bringing the business and agricultural community together to show how we play a part in feeding the nation. Over the years the faces and the processes have changed, but the heart of the initiative remains strong. It's about bringing a community together to promote understanding and to keep our relationships strong. The economic realities of the past few years have hit all of our sponsors and volunteers hard. But they believe in the Farm City BBQ because they believe in the value of building relationships and working together for a greater good. As a locally run committee, the Farm City BBQ has adjusted to fit the times as well. We've established an executive committee comprised of the chair elect, Blake Gable, of Barron Collier Companies, Sheriff Kevin J. Rambosk, Larry Berg and Russell Budd. With their input and guidance, we've built a strategic plan to bring on additional community partners to ensure that this Collier County tradition continues to grow, serve our community and our future leaders through the 4 -H Foundation, Youth Leadership Collier and the Junior Deputies. Today I brought with me a host of Farm City BBQ sponsors and committee members who represent the various industries from the farming community to the business community to the health care community, as well as Collier County representatives and law enforcement. They also represent the amount of coordination and time that it takes to pull off this kind of event. A special thanks to Scott Campbell from Physicians Regional for hosting us this year; Waste Management of Collier County, who's been our cattle baron sponsor for three years running; Barron Collier Companies, who has supported the BBQ from the very beginning; and Page 22 November 8, 2011 PBS Construction, who's been with the BBQ for 10 years; and to the rest of the sponsors listed on the flier that Stephanie passed out to you. I also wish to extend a special thank you to you, our elected officials, for coming out and serving us, not only at the BBQ but each day of the year. Our vision for the future of the Farm City BBQ is to continue to work together to build the relationships that make our community stronger. Thank you so much for your time. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. (Applause.) Item #4E PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING NOVEMBER 11, 2011 AS A DAY OF REMEMBRANCE FOR VETERAN'S DAY AND SHOWING APPRECIATION TO DALE MULLIN FOR HIS CONTINUED COMMUNITY SUPPORT, ACCEPTED BY DALE MULLIN — ADOPTED MR. OCHS: Item 4.E is a proclamation recognizing November 11, 2011 as a day of remembrance for Veteran's Day and showing appreciation to Dale Mullin for his continued community support. To be accepted by Dale Mullin. This item is sponsored by Commissioner Coletta. Mr. Mullin. (Applause.) MR. MULLIN: First, let me -- excuse me, I have a cold. First, let me say thanks on behalf of the wounded warriors, who have returned from the battlefields around the world today in service to our country and in defense of our freedom. Being a Vietnam veteran, I got involved in the Wounded Warrior Project. And if you look at my shirt here, you can see -- you probably see these from time to time where one soldier's carrying another Page 23 November 8, 2011 wounded warrior, that's a symbol. It's a nonprofit charitable organization, which is a legitimate organization dedicated to providing financial aid and numerous services to our wounded warriors returning from current wars today. The purpose is to raise public awareness like today and to enlist the public's aid because the need is very great. In past wars, many of these soldiers would have never survived, but with improved field support and medical advancements, many of these soldiers are returning today with severe limb and brain injuries, not to mention posttraumatic stress disorders that have become a major issue as a result of the multiple tours of duty required by today's military. VA just has really limited resources in how they can help these veterans returning today. Two weeks ago we raised $34,000 at our charity golf tournament, which was the first one we've had for wounded warriors, at the LaPlaya Golf Club here in Naples. We exceeded our goal of $30,000. The support we've received from local businesses and citizens has been terrific. It was so great that the decision was made to do another one next year, and our goal is to raise $50,000. Again, thanks to the Board of Collier County for making me a part of this proclamation. And we honor all veterans -- as we honor all veterans this week who have served their nation, and especially to those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice. Thank you. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve today's proclamation. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve the acceptance of the proclamations by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. Page 24 November 8, 2011 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. Any opposed by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: They are accepted unanimously. Item #5A PRESENTATION OF DISTINGUISHED BUDGET PRESENTATION AWARD FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 FROM THE GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION (GFOA) PRESENTED TO THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET. ACCEPTED BY MARK ISACKSON, DIRECTOR, CORPORATE FINANCIAL AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES — PRESENTED MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item five on your agenda this morning. 5.A is a presentation of the Distinguished Budget Presentation award for fiscal year 2011, from the Government Finance Officers Association presented to the Office of Management and Budget. To be accepted by Mark Isackson, Director of Corporate Financial Planning and Management Services, and the staff of Budget and Management Department. If you'd please come forward. (Applause.) MR. ISACKSON: Commissioners, if I may, just a couple of comments. The budget process really is an ongoing annual event. The Board should be commended, County Manager should be commended for their leadership, especially as it relates to budget guidance, which is Page 25 November 8, 2011 one of the most important matters that you'll take up. That occurs in February. And our office is truly appreciative of the leadership that's provided by this Board in that process and by the County Manager. There are other acknowledgements that I'd like to mention. First, our division partners. Their financial staff and the division administrators do yeoman's work throughout the course of the year as we go through the process of preparing a budget and through its ultimate approval in September. OMB works hand in hand, hand in glove with the Clerk of Courts' finance section on all financial matters, and the Clerk of Courts' financial section needs to be recognized in this process. Finally, there's the staff of the Office of Management and Budget. They work tirelessly through the course of the year preparing schedules, meeting my requests, which oftentimes can be exhausting. But Susan Usher in our office, Ed Finn, Therese Stanley, Sherry Kimball, Randy Greenwall, and Barbetta Hutchinson all deserve a round of applause in this recognition. Thanks very much. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, go ahead. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mark, I just want to say, I recognize your leadership, and I'm glad you're here in Collier County. I'm glad you recognize the importance of servicing and paying our debt as one of your top priorities. And I hear nothing but great things from the county staff on what a great job that you do for their particular departments. So thank you for your service. MR. ISACKSON: Thank you, Commissioner, appreciate it. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mark, could you just briefly, you know, minute or two, kind of gloss over where we are financially, what our credit status is. And I had seen some -- somebody holding a Page 26 November 8, 2011 sign in the parade the other day who said we're broke. Could you please address that quickly. MR. ISACKSON: Well, I hope we're not broke under my watch, Commissioner. But the county has adequate reserves. Our general fund reserves are strong and solid. We have very good investment quality credit ratings. We're going to continue to do that. We have some challenges ahead obviously with taxable values declining. I suspect they're going to decline again in '13. We're going to have some difficulties going forward. But we'll get through it. I mean, it's what we do. And with the Board's leadership, we'll certainly prevail. So. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. Item #5B RECOMMENDATION TO RECOGNIZE MICHAEL LEVY, OPERATIONS COORDINATOR, OPERATIONS AND REGULATORY MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, AS THE EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR OCTOBER 2011 — PRESENTED MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 5.13 on your agenda. It's a recommendation to recognize Mike Levy, operations coordinator, Operations and Regulatory Management Department as the Employee of the Month for October, 2011. Mike? (Applause.) MR. OCHS: Commissioners, I'm going to read a little something to embarrass Mike here. Mike's been with the county for 12 years working now in our Operations and Regulatory Management Department. He excels in his position. And he performs a variety of administrative and technical duties, and is the key point of contact for Page 27 November 8, 2011 our client services section. That's our intake section that welcomes all of the people that come in and need assistance with building permitting and land use review. Mike's positive attitude, enthusiasm and systematic approach to dealing with inquiries and issues allow him to handle a vast array of tasks and challenges, and he makes sure that permits get through the system without an issue. And we appreciate that. He's always eager to take on any task and ready to assist his customers and his coworkers. He's very dedicated to his work. He's improved in many ways our intake customer service procedures. Certainly a valued member of our team and truly deserving of this award. And it's my pleasure, Commissioners, to recommend and recognize Mike Levy as our Employee of the Month for October 2011. Thanks, Mike. (Applause.) Item #5C PRESENTATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BUSINESS OF THE MONTH FOR NOVEMBER 2011 TO THE INN ON FIFTH, ACCEPTING THE AWARD ARE MR. PHIL MCCABE AND MS. CATHY CHRISTOPHER — PRESENTED MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item 5.0 is a presentation of the Collier County Business of the Month for November, 2011 to the Inn on Fifth. Accepting the award are Mr. Phil McCabe and Ms. Cathy Christopher. Please come forward. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: pick either podium. Phil, if you want to say a few words, MR. MCCABE: Thank you, Commissioners. I know you have a Page 28 November 8, 2011 long day so I'm going to be very quick. I just want to -- I'm humbled and privileged by the Chamber of Commerce to honor me as the first one on the list this month. And there are others equally as qualified than I am out there, or more qualified than I am. But I do want to tell you that in spirit of optimism of this economy I am expanding my hotel on Fifth Avenue. You're not permitting it, Leo. And it is a -- it gives us a good optimism for the future because our business is so good downtown at the Inn on Fifth and on Fifth Avenue. But I thank the Commissioners and I wish you all good luck today. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We thank you. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, you have to stay until the end of the meeting. You have to give the plaque back if you don't stay. MR. McCABE: I've got to get my car. CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's been towed by that time. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Leo, did you notice he didn't say thank God after he said that you weren't permitting him? MR. OCHS: Yes, I did. I noticed that -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: That was positive -- MR. OCHS: -- yes. Item #6A PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST FROM RICHARD YOVANOVICH REPRESENTING CNL BANK, REQUESTING THAT THE JOINT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT REGARDING THE SANDALWOOD PUD BE AMENDED TO ELIMINATE THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PAYMENT - MOTION TO BRING BACK AT FUTURE BCC MEETING - APPROVED November 8, 2011 MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that moves us to Item 6 on your agenda this morning. Its public petitions. 6.A is a public petition request from Richard Yovanovich, representing CNL Bank requesting that the joint settlement agreement regarding the Sandalwood PUD to be amended to eliminate the affordable housing payment. MR. YOVANOVICH: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Rich Yovanovich, on behalf of CNL Bank. With me today is Keith Gelder with Stock Development. This project was approved on September 26th, 2006. At the time the county was experiencing very high residential prices, and the shortage of affordable housing and gap housing was a very serious issue and on the Commission's mind, as well as the community's mind at the time. The county was considering different options to address the affordable housing issue, as well as the gap housing issues. And one of the options that was being discussed at the time was inclusionary zoning. That option was quickly dismissed by various constituencies, including the Board of County Commission. The second option that was being discussed was the adoption of a fee similar to an impact fee to address affordable housing. It was intended that a fee would be applied to all new building, not only projects that were going through the process at the time. It became customary at the time to include in PUD's this affordable housing fee, basically $1,000 per unit, that would be paid to the county to address affordable housing. The fee was intended to be a credit against the soon to be or anticipated to be adopted affordable housing fee. I think all new projects that were going through the rezoning process at that time included a similar type of fee, not only just this particular project. Since that process was enacted and included in many if not all the PUD's, the economy went the wrong way, prices came down through Page 30 November 8, 2011 the market process. I don't believe the Commission is pursuing any type of affordable housing fee. And I think the Commission has recognized with the correction in prices that affordable housing is not the issue it was at the time this project was going through the process. Our request today is for you to place on your agenda a proposed amendment to the zoning document for this particular project to remove the $1,000 per unit payment to the affordable housing fund. About a year or so ago the Sonoma Oaks PUD was going through the process, it had a similar condition. That condition was removed from that PUD. So we're not the first project to come through and ask for this removal of the fee. I think it's a fair and right thing to do. In this particular case the project is up and running, all the infrastructure is in place. You could see that the housing prices have in fact come down dramatically from what was contemplated in 2006. The development community at the time was willing to step up to the plate and pay into the county coffers this fee, based upon the prices at the time. We're asking that on this particular case the county recognize that conditions have changed and eliminate the fee for this particular project and place it on a future agenda for formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, Mr. Yovanovich is correct, times have changed. The issue when this was put into place, the housing market was totally different than it is today. And I'd like to make a motion that we move this forward to the regular agenda at a future meeting. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Coletta, seconded by Commissioner Fiala to bring this back for an advertised public hearing. Commissioner Fiala? Page 31 November 8, 2011 COMMISSIONER FIALA: At the same time, County Manager, I would -- maybe on this same item we ought to address the other ones that are still on the records that really would fall into the same category. Rather than continue to bring each one back as they come to the podium, maybe we ought to eliminate that all together, and we can do it in the same agenda item as this one. And then I'd like to mention a third thing that I think we ought to be addressing on a separate agenda item, if the other Commissioners agree with me, and that is we had a requirement to build 1,000 affordable housing units a year. I believe that we've reduced that to 750. But right now I don't think that that's necessary either. I think that maybe we ought to readdress the number of housing units we're required to do or eliminate that part all together until such time as we see our economy recovering and our affordable housing stock dwindling. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Jeff, can we bring all these back at our future date? I mean, it's a joint agreement. I'm sure that -- MR. KLATZKOW: We have a -- typically the way we did these were through developer agreements. We have a number of those agreements out there. They're all recorded. I think one thing we can do to the Board is bring back an item identifying all those agreements, and if it's the Board's wish to eliminate that provision, you can give the Chairman the discretion simply to sign off on the termination on each one as they come in. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And I believe recently we recognized the housing, market rate housing, Commissioner Fiala, through -- actually, that was in December of last year, I believe it was that we recognized all that that you're speaking about. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And what did -- I cannot then remember what the words were that you might be addressing. Page 32 November 8, 2011 You mean eliminating that requirement all together, is that what you're saying? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, recognizing the market rate housing. In other words, affordable housing, recognizing that just because it's not subsidized by government that it's recognize the value and the price of the market. So the need for building more affordable housing is there is no need. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But does it still say on our -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Our GMP states and recognizes affordable housing, but the details of it you'll find in the December of 2010 agenda. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I might be able to help you out. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida. We had done that annual study that we said we'll come back to you every 12 to 14 months. Your GMP gives you a guide, and that's all it is for your Board when you review a zoning application. So if a large development comes in and our study annually shows that you have an abundance of affordable housing, the Board can just say, you know, approve the development as is and recommend no additional affordable housing included. And I think you do that annually. Because if you were here in 2000, you wouldn't have expected 2005, and 2006 you wouldn't have expected today. So we give you that study every year, use that as a basis for your zoning analysis and your recommendations. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, so there's no requirement anymore? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not -- and it's a case by case basis. If it's existing it's not a requirement for you to include it in a zoning development. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome. Page 33 November 8, 2011 COMMISSIONER FIALA: And thank you, Commissioner Henning. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And just to be complete in the explanation, the Board was told on numerous occasions that we had to include only affordable housing that was controlled by the government. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I understand they told you that. And we took over a new role in community development. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, and I applaud you for that, okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Very good, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: But Commissioner Fiala brought this up year after year after year, and the response was well, we've got to do it that way. We didn't really have to do it that way. And thank you for correcting that issue. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I agree this is obviously a problem that needs to be remedied and should be brought back. I have a list here of the developments that were charged this fee. And I'm happy to give it to you, Jeff. And the total potential contributors was about eight million dollars. The concern I have is we've got some developers that have already paid. In fact, some developers have paid -- the total so far is $585,000 that has been paid to date. So I think we need to consider what we should do with respect to those that have paid as well. I'm not sure if this whole fee process was even legal in the first place. That's another issue. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, it was lawful, ma'am. Whether or not you wish to give back the money is not required but could be a Board policy. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's why we bring it back for public Page 34 November 8, 2011 hearing where we'll evaluate all of the aspects of a potential decision. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll go ahead and we'll introduce it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. Any opposed by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, the motion passes unanimously to bring it back for a full public hearing. Thank you. Item #6B PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST FROM COLLEEN J. MACALISTER REGARDING DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES — MOTION TO BRING BACK FOR A FULL HEARING — APPROVED MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item 6.13 is a public petition request from Colleen J. MacAlister regarding domestic animal services. MS. MACALISTER: Good morning -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning, Ms. MacAlister -- MS. MACALISTER: -- my name is Colleen MacAlister. CHAIRMAN COYLE: If I could, you have seen the memorandum from the County Attorney? MS. MACALISTER: I have. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And is it true that you have filed what, four or five lawsuits against the county on issues relating to Page 35 November 8, 2011 Department of Animal Services? MS. MACALISTER: No, sir, it is not. It is true that I have over the course of time appealed four administrative decisions, which of course would be my clients' right to appeal an administrative decision. The only lawsuit I filed was one challenging the constitutionality of the dangerous dog section of the ordinance. And I had to file a lawsuit because of course we refer to the appeals to the county court and to challenge the constitutionality of an ordinance or a statute, and both are challenged, by the way, you have to do that in circuit court, which necessitated my clients' filing in circuit court. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You understand the County Manager has advised us that we should, of course, listen to your petition, and there's no reason you shouldn't be able to make it today, but we should not engage in discussion. MR. KLATZKOW: And if I may, because this one is very curious. We have six public speakers that have signed up for this issue. And the Board's policy is not to take public speakers. But Commissioner Hiller did take it off the consent, and I'm dealing with the DAS ordinance that is now 10.E. And we could hear all of this, including the public speakers and this speaker at that time as well. In other words, you don't have to hear this twice. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're not going to hear it twice, we'll hear it one time. It will either be now or it will be later, but we're not going to do this twice. MS. MACALISTER: With respect to your statement, Mr. Chairman, I have represented in two cases in the county court and the circuit court the allegations of my pro bono clients. Those are not my personal litigation. I am here today as a private citizen seeking a petition before this Board and discussion on the issue of animal abuse. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I understand. And you're going to get a chance to do that. All I'm saying to you is the County Attorney has Page 36 November 8, 2011 opined that this is an item under litigation, and one of the questions that we ask on the registration is whether or not this item is a subject of litigation. MS. MACALISTER: I understand -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you have answered no. MS. MACALISTER: And I'll tell you why I answered no. CHAIRMAN COYLE: But it's not going to affect your presentation, you'll get a chance to speak -- MS. MACALISTER: I understand that, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I just want you to understand that the County Attorney has told us we should not engage in conversation with you about this issue. So we'll hear your presentation, if you wish, now, and then we'll take the public speakers for the item that Commissioner Hiller has pulled. COMMISSIONER HILLER: That would be inappropriate. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, it would be inappropriate to do it twice. COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, they are different issues. CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Attorney, what do you think? MR. KLATZKOW: We don't take public speakers during public petitions. The purpose of public petitions is to see whether or not there is enough interest to bring this back. All I'm saying is that we have an item on today's agenda that we can discuss this very issue. So we don't need to do this now. Ms. MacAlister can come back during the item and do it then. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, she has a right to make a public petition. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, she does. CHAIRMAN COYLE: But there is no opportunity for speakers to be heard at this point in time. So go ahead and make your presentation. MS. MACALISTER: Let me just address your last point first, Page 37 November 8, 2011 sir. Even if the court had granted yesterday everything I have asked for in the county court and the circuit court, I would still as Colleen MacAlister be here today, because nothing we are asking for in the courts is what we are asking for here or what I'm asking for here. And quite honestly, what I asked for here is in opposition to what is being asked for in court. So I would hope that this Board would exercise a little bit of independent leadership and engage in a discussion on an issue here that has galvanized the public. We have public speakers here, public people here that are prepared to hear some discussion about this topic. And paying lip service to me does not really satisfy that requirement. However, I will start. I am here because I am Pepper MacAlister's mom. Pepper MacAlister is the poster child for the cruelty of Arthur Perkins' enterprise. And I think we are all aware of who Arthur Perkins is. Pepper was one of the breeding females that was relinquished by Mr. Perkins to DAS. She came from a brutal and cruel breeding and kenneling operation that despite years of the complaints going all the way back to 2002 DAS tolerated. When Pepper -- when I adopted Pepper, she was unhealthy, terrified and cowering, a true victim of animal abuse. She had been chained for years to a tree in the weeds. She didn't understand a single word because she had never been spoken to by a human. She had never been in a house, she'd never seen a car, she'd never seen a road. We are here because we want to be certain that that type of animal abuse never happens again and there are no more Pepper MacAlisters that live the life she was living in Collier County. I'm here today to ask you as Commissioners to pass clear and actionable resolutions that you and indeed quite frankly all of you and all of Collier County can agree need to be implemented in light of the Perkins incident. Olm November 8, 2011 Number one, and I'll read for specificity. I request that a firm and unequivocal resolution from the Board of County Commissioners that the policy of Collier County beginning today with respect to state and local animal control laws and ordinances as currently adopted will be one of enforcement as distinct from voluntary compliance or voluntary education. It is imperative that this be done. Despite all of the controversy over this, DAS is still pursuing a policy of voluntary compliance. Number two, understanding that there are issues with the current ordinance, and I understand that DAS even has an item on this agenda. And understanding that both DAS and the advisory board are considering other revisions and additions to current DAS practices and procedures, we are asking the Board of County Commissioners to establish a firm deadline of no later than February 1 st, 2012 for any amendments to existing ordinances that DAS thinks are necessary. And again, on February 1 st, 2012 there should again be a clear directive from this Board that even with respect to those amended policies and procedures, the policy will be one of enforcement. Number three, recognizing that the ultimately a comprehensive rewrite and review of the animal control ordinance is needed, we request a vote by the Board of County Commissioners to establish an ad hoc commission that includes all the stakeholders on these issues and is shared by a qualified non - governmental person to accomplish the task of rewriting our animal control ordinance. We request that the Board establish a first draft deadline for the rewrite of the ordinance of June 1, 2012. Stakeholders in this process would include qualified members of the community. That includes people that own pets, people that are concerned with animal abuse, and quite frankly, people that don't own pets, all should have a voice. It includes Naples and Collier County law enforcement, Collier County Code Enforcement, the office of the County Attorney, of course Domestic Animal Services, and most Page 39 November 8, 2011 importantly, the Domestic Animal Services advisory board, who has truthfully been a voice in the dark for a long time, and Collier County veterinarians. Essential to that process would be an independent non - governmental chair that would ensure against agency bias and ensure that all policies, procedures and budgetary allocations were on the table for review. The commission would be charged by you with drafting a comprehensive animal control ordinance that was acceptable to the community, enforceable by DAS and other participating agencies in all respects, and constitutionally compliant. I recognize that I have very little time, but I would like to make a few additional comments about those three items that we specifically ask for action from this Board on. It seems clear in going back through minutes of this Board for a number of years, and I think Commissioner Henning would agree, that there has never been any intent by this Board to not have a policy of enforcement of our animal control ordinances. Beyond what we found, which was a temporary kindness directive, and I think it was raised by Commissioner Coletta, when we passed the anti - tethering amendment last year to pursue on a temporary basis a policy of education about the anti - tethering amendment before they started issuing citations. Somehow DAS, in justifying why Mr. Perkins was allowed to function for years and years and years, DAS said it was directed to pursue, and I quote, a policy of education over enforcement and pursue a policy of voluntary compliance over enforcement. I sat and listened to it. And that was the reason why Mr. Perkins was allowed to function. There is nothing in anything we can find that shows that all DAS did was take a temporary directive from one year ago and retroactively apply it for years to justify what had happened. Page 40 November 8, 2011 The Board's position on enforcement must be clearly articulated to avoid continuation of this confusion. As I said, they're still pursuing that policy. DAS has shown no inclination, even since this incident occurred, of coming before this Board for clarification of that policy, despite, and I might add, despite pressure for years from its own advisory board asking why the ordinance wasn't enforced. Deadline for new DAS policies. I understand that there's an item on this agenda today. And I noticed in the paperwork that well, it's going to the advisory board on November I st. You know, this is window dressing. Unless there is a clearly established deadline for doing something, all of this policy manipulation is window dressing. We would ask that this Board stick to, you want to change the ordinance, you want to amend the ordinance, you want to try to make it more workable for you, fine, you're going to do it and we're going to adopt it by February 1 st, 2012. In addition, I have yet to hear, and anyone has yet to hear from DAS about some of the things that plagued the Perkins property. I don't think truthfully that DAS supports the idea of animal cruelty, but they have avoided the tougher issues that were present in the Arthur Perkins incident. For example, there are no policies, we've heard of no policies regarding kennels and notice versus no notice inspections. Mr. Perkins was always called in advance. There's nothing in there about compliance with local laws, including zoning laws, which could have shut his operation down immediately. There's nothing about how DAS is going to work hand in hand with code enforcement regarding zoning laws. There's nothing about sales of animals. And there's nothing about breeder rules and regulations. I understand these are tough issues, and that is why we need an independent commission with an independent chair to tackle these issues. DAS's answer here, as you can see from this agenda, is to cut and paste. And what we need is a wholesale rewrite of our ordinance. Page 41 November 8, 2011 Everything should be on the table. The beautiful golden retriever Willy was rescued only to die because he was given to a family that was on a do not adopt list. And there has been, as far as I know, no action taken by DAS because of that incident. My Pepper, an incredibly traumatized dog, was forced to spend weeks at DAS to participate in a lottery. Of course no one wanted her because they deemed her too pathetic to adopt. Instead of putting her in a loving and safe foster home with Lab Rescue, who by the way with Golden Rescue had offered to take all of these dogs and adopt them into appropriate homes, she was forced to sit at DAS. There's a policy in DAS that has been articulated that says they want to try and adopt purebred dogs out for $85 apiece. There has never been an accounting for what that cost the taxpayers. Because when those dogs are adopted out, they're adopted out for $85 after having spent several weeks there and getting shots and neutering and everything else that goes along with it. There are 68 million dogs and 73 million cats in the United States today. There are millions with birds, there are millions with horses, there are millions with other pets. Let me tell this Board, this is a potent political force. And the voices of that force in Collier County need to be heard. The cruelty of the Arthur Perkins operation galvanized this community. And we have an opportunity to take that interest now and turn it into enlightened policies for both animal control and animal safety. This Board has over the years voted to spend thousands and thousands of dollars putting trees and roads, beautifying the beaches, making Collier County a place where we can be proud to live, and indeed, I think everyone here would say we're proud to live in this county. But it shouldn't hide dirty little secrets like Arthur Perkins underneath all that beauty. It's time to publicly and politically -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Your time has expired. MS. MACALISTER: -- commit to the pursuit of what we have Page 42 November 8, 2011 asked. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want to mention, Commissioner Coyle, first I want to address the issue of the public speakers. If Jeff says we can't have public speakers at this time, then those same speakers can sign up for the agenda item that's coming up. So you're not barred from, you know, addressing these issues, you just do it at the next item. I don't want you to think that because you're not speaking now you're not going to be able to speak to this issue later. Secondly, with respect to your litigation and whether or not we can discuss this. Having listened to what you said and having gotten an understanding from you as to what your litigation relates to, I don't see how any of this has anything to do with the case where you are representing some other individual. So I don't see why we can't discuss it, quite frankly. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER HILLER: And with -- and with that in mind, I will say that I think the recommendations that you're making are very reasonable and I don't see any reason why this isn't brought back. Because, you know, your comment that we should have enlightened policy and look to enforcement as opposed to, quote, you know, education and voluntary compliance where animals are at risk and are in harm's way definitely makes sense. Our current ordinance does have a shall provision. It doesn't provide for voluntary compliance, it doesn't provide for education. I mean, it says you shall, you know, comply. You shall do this, you shall not do that. So I'm not really sure why that hasn't been happening. Requiring deadlines to, you know, get this on the books also makes perfect sense. I can't see any reason why we wouldn't consider Page 43 November 8, 2011 doing that. Your suggestion with respect to consideration of issues like notice, that we should have no notice inspections is absolutely right. I mean, when we do audits, we want to do surprise audits. Obviously if we tell someone we're about to do a cash count, they're going to put the money back in the drawer. Same thing with animals. Zoning compliance, very much an issue. I think we have zoning issues going on right now of stables and what's going on with the safety of horses and whether they're being given enough land to pasture and so forth. The sale of animals, obviously another major issues, as well as breeding rules. All of those seem to be very reasonable requests, and I really can't see why we can't, you know, ask to bring this matter forward -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is this a motion? COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to make it a motion if you find that acceptable -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Hiller, second by Commissioner Fiala to bring this back for public hearing. Who was next, Commissioner -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Henning was. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The comment at a previous meeting on the amendment of the animal control ordinance, County Manager, you reviewed those meeting minutes, know the issue. Was that only in reference to the tethering of an animal, of a dog? MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, that was specific to the proposed non - tethering ordinance. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. That wasn't implemented in the ordinance; is that correct? 0 -- ii November 8, 2011 A notice -- or a -- a notice or a warning type system that was mentioned in the discussion under that, tethering. That wasn't included in the ordinance, right? MR. OCHS: Commissioner, you have in your current ordinance, and Ms. Townsend is here to talk a little bit more specifically about the ordinance, but you have provisions in your current ordinance that provide for the issuance of a written warning prior to the issuance of a citation. And I don't know if I'm answering your question -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: For certain, for certain -- MR. OCHS: Yes, for certain violations. COMMISSIONER HENNING: For certain incidents. But it wasn't included in the tethering amendment if I recall. MR. OCHS: Let me ask Ms. Townsend to clarify, sir. MS. TOWNSEND: Absolutely. Good morning, Commissioners, Amanda Townsend, your director of Domestic Animal Services for the record. I believe what the County Manager is referring to is a statement in the enforcement section of the ordinance which says, and I believe I can quote it, I don't have the paper with me. The form of penalty issued shall be at the discretion of the animal control officer, but shall be commensurate with any history of violation of the animal owner and the severity of the violation. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So that includes all enforcement, is the way you see it? MS. TOWNSEND: Yes, sir. That is language in the animal control -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think we do need to bring it back, because I don't see that in the ordinance. What I see under certain cases, there are provisions for the animal control officers for discretion. In the case of the Perkins and other issues that has come to light through the media, it does not provide for voluntary compliance. Page 45 November 8, 2011 MR. OCHS: Commissioner, we look forward to coming back with a full staff report on this issue. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. In the meantime, are we going to enforce the ordinance? MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because I never heard that from your staff or yourself publicly. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. Just to clarify a couple points as we go forward here. The tethering ordinance that we were originally talking about referencing, it was something that was brand new, that was coming out of the blue. It was an accepted practice by the public for many years. And the suggestions that we give some reasonable period of leniency and warnings to be able to proceed only seemed the normal course, and I still think it was at this point in time. I haven't changed my mind on it. I've been one of the strongest supporters and advocate from strong dog ordinances regarding dangerous dogs and I still will because of all the problems we have in the eastern part of Collier County. But I just want to make sure that the public understands that whenever you enact a new law, there has to be a mechanism to reach out. And if we were in neglect in putting it in the ordinance with that time period it was, then, well, shame on us for not catching that at an earlier point in time. However, with that said, I don't know how we would revise that ordinance, because whatever was in there I'm sure would have expired by now. It had to do with a time period of like 30 or 60 days, I can't remember what it was now, but it was a limited thing just to be able to make people aware of the fact that this ordinance existed. Few people watch these meetings, few people know what's taking place as far as our ordinances. And whenever we have something that's a drastic November 8, 2011 change from the norm, we always have to make sure we have an outreach to be able to reach the public. And if we have to make sure that's included in the ordinances that we create, so be it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you very much. It has been alleged that the Commissioners really haven't issued any decisive or definitive guidance concerning this issue, and that simply is incorrect. And I'll read to you the minutes of the October 11th, 2011 meeting of the Board of County Commissioners, starting on Page 177 and going to 178. I would urge us -- I am talking. I would urge us to take a zero tolerance position when it comes to the death or injury of pets or animals. When there is a death or injury of animals because of misconduct by the owners, we need to act decisively and let people understand we will not tolerate it at all. Commissioner Henning observed that the ordinance already had zero leniency and he would hope that the County Manager will enforce the Board's -- I entrust him to enforce the Board's ordinances and restrictions. We went on and we had a discussion. Commissioner Hiller also agreed that we should have strong enforcement of our ordinances. And with respect to the Perkins situation, I made the observation, I would suggest that the person Perkins should have been shut down right then and the dogs taken, no warnings given. I further added on page 181 that we should tell the staff we don't want anybody exercising discretion when it comes to the mistreatment, death or injury of an animal. Commissioner Hiller replied, absolutely, there should be no discretion exercised. And Commissioner Coletta agreed with Commissioner Henning and Commissioner Coyle, and finally with Commissioner Hiller. So there was unanimous support on this Board for strict interpretation of our laws. Things don't change overnight. We have to Page 47 November 8, 2011 have public hearings when we change ordinances. And the staff is working on doing that now. There has been a very clear statement by this Board that we will not tolerate the kind of situations that occurred in the Perkins case. So allegations to the contrary are simply not true. MS. MACALISTER: May I comment, sir? CHAIRMAN COYLE: You may. MS. MACALISTER: We are not suggesting at all that it is not the policy of this Board to enforce the animal control ordinance. But let me be real clear here. We are asking this Board to enforce the entire ordinance, including the citation provisions, which had they been enforced may have avoided a situation like say the Duran dogs that were before you. If they had been issued citations for running at large, instead of slaps on the wrist and then all of a sudden gone to a dangerous dog. In addition, in looking at rewriting the ordinance and fixing what are some fundamental problems with it, you can't begin to talk about how to enforce an ordinance unless you know how the ordinance you already have is being enforced. Unless you know if you issue a citation to this guy for running at large, will he pay it? Will he pay it with a notice that if you don't pay it we're going to issue an order to show cause and the costs are going to go up? We don't have any history because quite frankly -- and this has been one of the DAS advisory board's positions for years, why aren't we enforcing the penalty provisions of this ordinance? Why aren't we enforcing leash laws, why aren't we enforcing running at large -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: We've already stated our position as a Board, okay. MS. MACALISTER: Well -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now there is a process to solving that. The staff comes back with a proposed ordinance to deal with those problems. We will have a public hearing, we will gather input from November 8, 2011 the public. We're not going to hammer out the language today. So we understand how to do this it's just that there apparently has been a misunderstanding or miscommunication here. So we want to clarify that. And it appears to me that the Board is unanimous in suggesting that, okay. Thank you very much. We're going to take a 10- minute break -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: All in favor? CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor of bringing it back for a full public hearing, which is, I think, already scheduled, isn't it? Don't you have in mind bringing back -- the thing we're going to discuss later today is merely an outline, it certainly is not a revised ordinance. MR. OCHS: No, sir, it's not the revised ordinance. That is still in process with the sub - committee of your advisory board. That would probably come back to you -- January? MS. TOWNSEND: January would be a good target. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I would say to you that the item that is on the agenda today is so sketchy that it only raises more questions than it answers. And I can't imagine why we even have it on the agenda. But nevertheless, we'll spend our time thrashing through something that is going to be handled at a public hearing whenever you bring this back. So let's make sure we're clear, the points raised in this petition will be included in the staff s analysis of the new revised ordinance that you're working on at the present time, and that will all be brought back at one hearing to address the new revised ordinance. We're not just going to bring this petition's recommendations back, we're going to incorporate the recommendations that we've heard here with the recommendations that we'll hear at a future public meeting, with the recommendations of the staff, and we will vote on it and no doubt make changes even to that. Right? MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We've got it right now. Okay, all in MR November 8, 2011 favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. Any opposed by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. We're going to take a 10- minute break. (A recess was taken.) MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Manager. Hopefully, we'll have Commissioners here shortly -- or I can get through this agenda real fast without them. COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I say something before we begin? Just a factual thing, simple advice. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I guess so, go ahead. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I would just like to say that as we begin our regular agenda, I would suggest that we as Commissioners all remember about being, being respectful of one another and our audience members. And I always keep this little phrase in my head. Oh, Lord, help my words to be gracious and tender, for tomorrow I may have to eat them. (Laughter.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll see how that goes. Item #9A RESOLUTION 2011 -207: APPOINTING NORMA RAMIREZ TO THE IMMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE — ADOPTED Page 50 November 8, 2011 MR. OCHS: Okay, well, we could start with 9.A, appointment of member to the Immokalee Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve the committee's recommendation of Norma Ramis (sic). COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, a motion to approve Norma Ramirez by Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. Any opposed by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Item #9B It passes unanimously. APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MOTION TO APPOINT GEORGE MARIENTHAL (W /WAIVING THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT) — FAILED; DIRECTING THE BOARD'S EXECUTIVE MANAGER TO RE- ADVERTISE THE OPEN POSITION Page 51 November 8, 2011 MR. OCHS: 93 is appointment of member to the Collier County Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Hiller. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I'd like to recommend George Marienthal. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Hiller, second by Commissioner Henning for George Marienthal. Unfortunately that nomination is not in accordance with the ordinance which requires that the Commissioner be nominated by the Commissioner of the district in which the candidate resides. That candidate resides in District Four. I am the only person who under the ordinance recommend Mr. Marienthal. So -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Mr. Klatzkow? CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a dilemma. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I spoke to Mr. Klatzkow about this before this recommendation was brought forward, and he can advise how to proceed. MR. KLATZKOW: In the past, with other advisory boards that had a residency requirement, if the Commission thought there was good cause for waiving the requirements, such as we couldn't get qualified applicants for it or we had an outstanding applicant in front of it the Board has in the past waived the residency requirement. That will remain up to the Commission to decide, however. CHAIRMAN COYLE: There is a qualified applicant available. Donna Reed has served for a number of years. MS. HILLER: I will not -- I'm not going to recommend Donna. She has served a number of years, and I thank her very much for her service. We have a very uniquely qualified exceptional candidate who has presented and who is willing to volunteer. We are very blessed in this community to have incredible people who have come to live here. And to have someone of Mr. Marienthal's caliber volunteer to sit on Page 52 November 8, 2011 the Planning Commission is quite frankly exceptional. Mr. Marienthal, are you here? Can you step up to the podium if that's okay with you, Commissioner Coyle? First of all, let me thank you for volunteering for this position. Would you care to share with Commissioner Coyle your background and, you know, maybe give us some of your educational background, and then specifically of what's great value that I saw is, you know, your experience at the federal government level. And if you could describe what that was? MR. MARIENTHAL: Good morning, Commissioners. County Manager. Ladies and Gentlemen. I am George Marienthal, and it would be my great privilege to serve on the Planning Commission. I was born in Kansas City, Missouri, and raised in Atlanta, Georgia. I went off to school at the Naval Academy, graduated with an engineering degree from the Naval Academy, a master's from Stanford in industrial engineering and an MBA from American University. I served six years on active duty in the Air Force as a procurement officer and as a development engineer, mainly on the west coast in, space related activities. I understand the Federal Acquisition Regulation, having dealt with it for over 40 years. I served four years as a management consultant for the Office of Secretary of Defense with the Logistics Management Institute doing studies of business and logistical problems in DoD. I served five years on two different tours at the Environmental Protection Agency in three different jobs, including the number two job in water. And I understand how EPA at the federal level passes regulations to implement what Congress has legislated. I spent seven years as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense running all of their environmental energy, safety and occupational health programs. That Page 53 November 8, 2011 included dealing with states, and in some cases county level problems. I served two years as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for administration on a wide variety of issues. And Commissioners, I think that about sums up my federal experience. I also have decades of unfortunately civilian experience, which makes me old. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I thank you very much, Mr. Marienthal. You know, you're federal experience, coupled with your engineering background, your very high level education makes you very uniquely qualified to help on the Planning Commission on many of the projects that face us. We have, you know, major concerns. Not only from compliance with local laws, but compliance with state and federal laws, you know, with respect to environmental, as well as other issues. I, when I saw Mr. Marienthal's qualifications, was duly impressed and felt also that he would make as a result, you know, a very significant contribution. And he lives right on the border of the second district. And you should be happy, he's in your district. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, you see, my concern is not with someone's qualifications with respect to this particular appointment. There are people already experienced with the Planning Commission. I see nothing in Mr. Marienthal's background that would suggest that he understands the Land Development Code of Collier County. And I believe you've lived here what, four, five years. MR. MARIENTHAL: I've owned property since 2001 in Collier County. CHAIRMAN COYLE: But the issue is the application of our land development laws. And quite frankly, my preference would be for someone who has had six years' experience doing that with an excellent record who was recommended by her fellow members to be the vice - chairman of the Planning Commission. So I don't understand why we don't reward good performance on the Planning Commission by reappointing Donna Reed. But Page 54 November 8, 2011 Commissioner Hiller seems adamant. But the other issue is that the ordinance clearly says candidates for the Planning Commission must be nominated by the commission of the district in which the candidate resides. The candidate reside in District Four. And while I'm happy to have someone in District Four with Mr. Marienthal's qualifications, it is not in accordance with the ordinance. So-- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Jeff, can anything be done about that? What did you say could be done. MR. KLATZKOW: It's the will of the Board, ma'am. I mean, it's an ordinance, it's your advisory board at the end of the day. I mean, if there's majority support to waive the requirement, that we get majority support to put a waive requirement in the ordinance, when you come down to it. So it's really the will of the Board. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So are you saying if I -- just so I understand, are you saying that we need to -- that I need to make a motion to allow for a waiver of the residency requirement as it relates to George Marienthal and the Board has the ability to vote on that today, and if we have a majority vote that we can then proceed on voting on a second motion to allow him to join the Board? MR. KLATZKOW: You can make the one motion. You could move to appoint George Marienthal to the Collier County Planning Commission and waive the residency requirement. And then you're done. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is that your motion? COMMISSIONER HILLER: I guess so. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. There's a motion by Commissioner Hiller to name Mr. Marienthal to the Planning Commission and waive the residency requirement. It dies -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no, no, I seconded the motion prior. Page 55 November 8, 2011 CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's seconded by Commissioner Henning. Okay, Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One thing I'm not going to do, George, is question your credibility. You definitely have what it takes to be able to serve the county in many different ways. My whole problem is about the district boundaries and the fact that we're elected as commissioners within a district. And the Planning Commission, aside from the commissioners, is probably the most prestigious and influential group of people within the county. And I have a hard time believing that we can't find a resource within the district itself that would be able to meet this. I mean, District Two probably has more willing and able and talented people that could fill this position and truly represent the people in that geographic area. That's what my problem is with it. I do recognize your credibility, though, sir, and I don't want you to think we're demeaning you in any way. But I don't think it's a good idea to be going outside of a commission district to put somebody into office and to even something like the Planning Commission. I really think that that wouldn't be appropriate. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a motion by Commissioner Hiller, second by Commissioner Henning. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed by like sign? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. It fails with Commissioner Fiala, Coyle and Coletta dissenting. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Then we'll put it back out, continue advertising. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. Page 56 November 8, 2011 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. Do we need a motion to do that? MR. KLATZKOW: No, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Just instruction to Ian to get it back out for advertising. Okay, next item? MR. OCHS: Next item is a time certain, 11:00 a.m. It's Item 13.B.2 on your agenda, to recommend that the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency and the Board of County Commissioners receive a — Item #9C RESOLUTION 2011 -208: APPOINTING MEMBERS TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE - MOTION TO RE- APPOINT CHRISTINE H. JONES AND BRADLEY W. SCHIFFER (W /TERMS EXPIRING 10/1/2014) — ADOPTED; MOTION TO APPOINT MICHAEL DIAMOND & CLYDE QUINBY (W /TERMS EXPIRING 10/1/2013) — ADOPTED; DIRECTING COMMISSIONER HENNING TO WORK WITH STAFF REGARDING COMMITTEE CHANGES AND BRING BACK RECOMMENDATIONS — CONSENSUS COMMISSIONER HILLER: Leo, sorry to interrupt you. May I ask Commissioner Coyle, could we just very quickly do C, 9.C? Because it will only take one minute. And if there are any people waiting in here, we could let them go. Because this presentation might take longer and it wouldn't really be fair. If that's okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: What is it? COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's the appointment of members to the affordable housing advisory -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, I wouldn't have any problem at all -- MR. OCHS: It's a great idea. Page 57 November 8, 2011 COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, thank you. MR. KLATZKOW: I would just note when you're making your recommendations, you need to match the member to the term you want to appoint them, because you have multiple members with multiple open terms. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're going to have to guide us through that, Ian. We have two people considered for reappointment and recommended by the committee, Christine Jones and Bradley Schiffer. And I presume they would be full term appointees. So you want to handle those two first? Is there a motion? Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion to reappoint Christine Jones and Brad Schiffer to -- and I'm not seeing it right here. MR. MITCHELL: Sir, their terms would be until the 1 st of October, 2014, which are three -year terms. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, that's already set. So that's my motion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Henning to accept the committee recommendations to appoint Christine Jones and Bradley Schiffer for full three year terms. Second by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. Any opposed by like sign? It passes unanimously -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And -- I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER HILLER: I thought there were three November 8, 2011 candidates. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're getting to them. We just took two of them. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, so you're just -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: For the full term. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, I'm sorry. I was --okay, then I say aye on that too. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So it was unanimous. Then the committee is recommending Michael Diamond and Clyde Quinby. And -- MR. MITCHELL: Sir, they would be to fill terms that would expire on the 1 st of October, 2013. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So that is a two -year term. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve Michael Diamond and Clyde Quinby for two -year terms by Commissioner Fiala and second by -- was it Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. Any opposed by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it passes unanimously. MR. MITCHELL: Thank you. Page 59 November 8, 2011 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, that is -- MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that's everything. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, there's one more. No, two more. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Two more, yeah. CHAIRMAN COYLE: There's two more applicants, and there are also six -- MR. MITCHELL: Vacancies. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Five -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mr. Battista has potential to do business with the county, it says, and then with Mr. Witherite, I'm trying to remember what I read. Somewhere in here, something about Mr. Witherite. CHAIRMAN COYLE: The other two are not -- Ian? MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: It appears that the other two are not recommended by the committee, so does that mean we're only appointing four people to fill five terms? MR. MITCHELL: Sir, the -- MR. KLATZKOW: You have six terms. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I know there's six terms. MR. KLATZKOW: Whether or not the committee recommends or not that's just a recommendation. You can follow the recommendation and not take those people or you can appoint them. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We don't have a recommendation from the committee on that, so I suggest we readvertise for the remaining terms. That's a motion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So a motion by me to readvertise, second by Commissioner Fiala. And a question by Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I mean, I know Tim •1 November 8, 2011 Witherite quite well and I can't understand -- I can't understand -- (Television interruption.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Turn it back on. It will be more interesting. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I can't understand why we actually need somebody from the committee if they don't recommend we have to readvertise Mr. Witherite, who corresponds to the Board of Commissioners quite often. So I can't support the motion. Second of all, this whole Affordable Housing Committee, as pointed out earlier, we have all the affordable housing we need for years and years. Maybe the committee needs to take a look at either sunsetting or redirection of their duties. One of them was in here -- plans to investigate a linkage or inclusionary zoning. And it just goes on and on, so I think it needs to -- they need to take a look at whether to sunset the committee or have a new direction for affordable housing. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, that's beyond the scope of this particular item. Would you suggest that for a future item for the County Manager to bring to us? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's the advisory board of the Board of Commissioners. Why don't I bring it back? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll work with the County Manager's staff, the liaison for that committee, and bring it back for some changes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, Commissioner Henning, I think you make a very good point. I do think we need to bring it back, especially in light of the problems that we've had with the administration of HUD funding and how that all ties in. So the review of this committee should definitely be reevaluated. The one thing I'm a little confused, I'm not sure why we have six Page 61 November 8, 2011 openings, because we just appointed Gina Downs. So shouldn't we just have five openings? MR. MITCHELL: No, Ms. Gina Downs, Commissioner, has resigned from the committee. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why is that? MR. MITCHELL: She said that she could no longer serve on the committee. COMMISSIONER HILLER: How long was she on the committee? MR. MITCHELL: For six months. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That still leaves us with two vacancies on this committee. And we don't have any nominations to fill either one of them. MR. MITCHELL: Sir, you've the option following Commissioner Henning's recommendation to consider Mr. Witherite. CHAIRMAN COYLE: But -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: And what -- why was -- why did the committee turn him down? CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't know that they turned him down, they just didn't -- MR. KLATZKOW: Didn't have a quorum -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: --recommend him. MR. KLATZKOW: There was no quorum on the committee. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, okay. MR. OCHS : Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, you've got a committee that is sort of dysfunctional. So what are you going to do first? You going to try to fill two positions or are you going to try do something with the committee? MR. OCHS: Just wanted to make a brief statement on Mr. Witherite. Page 62 November 8, 2011 MS. GRANT: Commissioners, Kim Grant, Interim Director, Housing, Human and Veteran Services. The issue that brought us to the recommendations was that we're required to maintain a position on the committee of a resident of Immokalee. And looking at the various applicants and where they could slot into the required experience components, that's what was left on the table. That was the only reason for the recommendation. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So we should readvertise for an Immokalee resident as a minimum, right? MR.00HS: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I ask one more question? CHAIRMAN COYLE: This gets more and more complicated the more we diverge from -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I understand that. But if there are two spaces available and Commissioner Henning feels that this person would be good in one of those positions, would that bother anything? I mean, I know you didn't make a motion, but maybe you should. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: My light was on -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Unless there's some reason why we should move forward. COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's a residency requirement. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But not for both. CHAIRMAN COYLE: For one of them. MS. GRANT: For one of the positions. And then the other individuals need to fit into the various categories as identified. So it certainly would be within the Board's purview if they felt that Mr. Witherite fit into the -- let's see, I believe it would be advocate for low income persons would be one position, they could make that choice. Or you could look at each of the categories and make adjustments if you would like to do that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: But does he have to be a low income Page 63 November 8, 2011 person to be an advocate for low a income person? MS. GRANT: No. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. What do you want to do, Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sorry, I don't have the requirements right in front of me. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But I wouldn't say he's an advocate for low income, I think he's an advocate for responsible government. So waive the requirements for the Immokalee person and have Mr. Witherite -- MR. KLATZKOW: You still have -- even if you appoint Mr. Witherite, you still have open positions on this board to find somebody from Immokalee. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I mean, is there -- do we have to say that Mr. Witherite is -- what? That's what the issue that Kim Grant is bringing up is that it has to be within a category. MR. KLATZKOW: You have an ordinance that really ties your hands, quite frankly, as to -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, okay. Commissioner Henning had the right idea in the first place. Let's take a look at the organization at the advisory committee to see if we need to continue the advisory committee or change its makeup, and let's quit the stammering over whether or not we're going to recommend somebody right now. So I would make a motion that we send this to the staff. Commissioner Henning has volunteered to work with the staff to determine whether or not we need to restructure this committee or retain it at all. And then bring it back at a future date, and at that point in time we'll deal with the vacancies. Is that acceptable to the -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's acceptable. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. We got three nods. Let's do it. November 8, 2011 MR. MITCHELL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Item #13132 RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) TO COMPLETE THE 2011 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FOR THE IMMOKALEE CRA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR — APPROVED MR. OCHS: Commissioners, 13.B.2 is recommend the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency and the Board of County Commissioners to receive a CRA MSTU staff presentation on projects, programs and activities in the CRA and Bayshore Beautification MSTU areas. Mr. David Jackson, the Executive Director of the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle CRA, will present. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm handing the gavel to the chairman of the CRA. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hi, I'm the chairman of the CRA. What we're going to do here is, David, make your presentation, let's hear staff s presentation, and then I want to hold off on questions from the Commissioners until we hear from the speakers. One of the things I'd like to accomplish here is to get all the speakers through before we break for lunch, if this is going to be a long, drawn -out process, so that at least they can serve their part of the program and we can go forward. David? MR. JACKSON: Thank you, sir. David Jackson, executive director of the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle CRA. I also serve as the executive director of the Bayshore MSTU and the Haldeman Creek Page 65 November 8, 2011 MSTU also. Before we get started, I'd like to say thank you very much to the Board to allow me to present today about our area and how it's growing and what is some of the good things that are going on in the area. I'd also like to disclose that I was quoted in the Naples Daily News that Commissioner Coyle asked me to give this presentation. Actually, it was Commissioner Coyle as chairman and agenda manager asked me if I wanted to present. He gave it to me as an option. I took that option and I said thank you to that part of it and put it in here. So that's where we're at with this part of it, to disclose that it's my choice to be here today. A quick overview of the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle area is 1,800 acres, and it encompasses from Davis Boulevard all the way down to where Sabal Bay is now. Also there is an MSTU, it's called Bayshore Beautification MSTU, and it encompasses most of the land south of U.S. 41. And there's also the Haldeman Creek MSTU created in 2008, which has all of the Haldeman Creek area outside of the city limit of the City of Naples. One of the things the people wanted to do is take care of their neighborhood. This is a good quote from National Trust for Historic Preservation. The second sentence is exactly what the people are after: We can keep accepting the kind of communities we get or we can start creating the kind of communities we want. And that is exactly what has happened in this area, the people want to create. They also created a vision. But a vision without action is nothing more than a hallucination. And the people knew that there was three components that they had to come up with. They had to have community participation, which they did. Had to do design through the county process, and also planning. To implement this, they created two organizations, actually three, the CRA and the two November 8, 2011 MSTUs. Three things are required to be successful in any venture, whether it's government or private: You need a plan. And it's got to be adopted by the government, and it has to be adopted by the citizens. Because if the citizens don't support it, it may not be very effective. You need a dedicated and qualified staff. And all three organizations have those, dedicated and qualified. Recurring source of funding. They also have a recurring source of funding. So with all three they're able to get going. Latest conversations that have been going around town have got the people in my neighborhood talking. And I'd like to talk about some of the things they're talking about. Tax increment financing. This is for the CRA. I will not dwell on the taxing unit for the MSTU. We have a base year of 2000 with $288 million land value. We capture the value of land as it appreciates over the base value, and we do this every year. The base value is $288 million. And over the 11 years of the existence of the CRA, not all the money is captured. The red circle shows that over the 11 years the general fund has received $13.5 million from that area into the general fund. The blue area is the area that is captured and goes into the CRA. Basically it's a peoples' tax dollars being spent outside their front door. The Bayshore /Gateway Triangle TIF, as you well know, we've incurred -- we are acceptable (sic) to the wrath of the recession just like everybody is. So as property values decrease, so does our revenues. And this has caused some concern for the people in the area. One of the things that's been talked about is leveraging our TIF. In 2006 when we were on the upswing, we got a $7 million line of credit from Wachovia, and we proceeded to buy some properties. The properties were substandard housing, and we started doing some Page 67 November 8, 2011 programs on it. As we approached the term of this line of credit, we renegotiated and advertised and received a $13 million loan that was approved by the CRA and the Board of County Commissioners that has a term of 2014. These are some facts that I got from the budget office on the term loan. You can read all that. But the main thing I wanted to point out is the last three lines, how will it be repaid. Through tax increment revenues, CRA operating revenues and also any land sales that we've purchased. When we buy that land, we put it towards the principal. Now, one of the questions is what if the CRA went away? What if the CRA staff went away? What if it went to a full debt service account? Well, a couple of things I'd like to point out that currently if we kept the millage rate the same and property values were the same of approximately, let's use a number of one million dollars, and that over the next three years until the term of the loan is due, you'd only reduce the loan to about $7.5 million. That would leave you, if you -- 11 years yet left to pay off. If you did that, absolutely nothing would happen in the activity in the area, so the area may continue as it is or it may slide. Who knows. Nobody knows until you take action on that. What is the purpose of the CRA and the MSTUs? We fill the gap. We fill the gap between government and the people. Sometimes they don't understand the government process; we help them through that. So we provide them a personalized service for everything and anything they do. We have an open door policy and they come in every day. And we're always working with county staff, County Manager's staff to get things done to help them through the process. But we're not just sitting on our hands using only TIF. Now, the first four of these grants that came in, they were acquired by the Transportation Division under Norm Feder. We do thank him for that November 8, 2011 and the work that they got on that. The HUD DRA grant is $2.7 million. That was applied for by the CRA. That's a total of four million additional dollars that have come into the area since 2005. We also have commercial leases that annually gives us $300,000 of revenue that goes toward it. We're filling the gap between the recession, where we were and where we are today. Other grants that we've applied for, the numbers are not really specific here except the bottom line in the first column on the right, $1.9 million we have applied for. And future grants that we will be applying for is the five million in the future. So we are looking for money, looking for money to leverage our TIF and to move forward. We're filling the gap of the loss of revenues over time. Here's some projects: Basically currently going on is the Bayshore Drive South improvements. This is an MSTU project, $1.2 million paid for in cash. Basically improving it with a multimodal pathway and adjacent to the Botanical Garden. And we have several partners, the Botanical Garden, Sabal Bay and also Del's Warehouse right there at that corner. So we're improving the neighborhood. Let's talk about stormwater and drainage improvements. This is a LIDAR map. You talked about it at the last meeting at length about LIDAR. The blue area is our area here in the coastal high hazard area. We flood. We flood a lot. That's the way it is there. Well, this is the kind of thing we get when we have localized large storms. How can people do business? How can people get in and out of the houses when this is the effect of what we had? So we said, let's go ahead and start going forward, and we teamed up with the county department now Growth Management Division. And I'd like to give kudos to Jerry Kurtz in the arrow there and Shane Cox, along with Norm Feder and Jay Ahmad, and all the work that we did and working forward in the Sixties Davis Triangle. You can see with the blue circles, those are made man (sic) and natural ponds. The red circle is the lowland area where the water naturally migrated. November 8, 2011 So what they did was the county staff decided this is where they're going to put the stormwater in. Perfect place for it because that's where the water was draining anyway. So this is the completed pond. But for a contribution from the CRA of $529,000 to the county to purchase land, we would not have the second phase expansion of this pond currently today. So we're filling the gap. Residential improvements. Well, commercial is working pretty good. So what are we doing with the residents when it rains hard? We developed two plans for the Triangle and for the Bayshore area. And this is what got us the 2.7 million grant. Basically we were shovel ready, we brought it forward and we got the grant and we're going to be going forward. Again, filling the gap with the funding loss. Davis Boulevard lighting project. This was a grant that was acquired by county transportation. We contributed $200,000 for the light poles. We also do business relationships with SCORE and also local bankers, and we do one on one discussions to help the small businessman and small business woman, answering those questions, help them with grants, bridge loans, how to do a budget, how to do a business plan. Some of the programs, the things, if you haven't been looking around as you drive through the area, this is a corporate improvement of which the Old Grecian Gardens is now the Five Guys. There was no money from the CRA, they went to the area because that's where they wanted be, and it's a good area. Another one was the old -style McDonald's, they didn't want to give up the land, and they now have a new -style McDonald's there. And this was a private party, commercial improvement party program of which it used to be Bevy's Bar and Grill and now it's Lindy's Interiors. And all that money was funded by the man that owns the building. But we also have grant programs. Our goal is to go from blight to beauty. So what we do is we fill the gap, providing some TIF grants for residential improvements such as this one for a homeowner Page 70 November 8, 2011 to improve his property. When you improve the property, the value goes up, the neighborhood goes up. Commercial projects, I'm going to step through some real quick here. These are all visual, nothing to read. This is a completed project; it was assistance of the CRA grant. You can see the marked difference. This is on Commercial Drive, House of Carpets. The man moved and he created two more jobs. This is a new one, multi -- probably over a million dollars of input into the area, and he's creating 40 jobs. And he took the old Holland Salley building on Linwood Avenue. And now gone and he's up and running with people there newly hired. This building here was a local man brought this building, he relocated to the area with a grant. And now he's running his own business there, private business, and he's on Kirkwood Avenue. And that building is a thousand percent better than what it was before. So let's talk about some projects in work. If you haven't driven down Bayshore Drive or the Triangle area, let's talk about a few things that are going on now. You'll notice the work that's going on. This is Sea Tech. It's consolidating two offices, one up in the industrial area and one in the City of Naples, to Bayshore Drive. Why does he want to be there? Because it's a good place to go. He purchased this building, and currently it's under renovation. You can see it today. This is the old Tipsey Seagull. Everybody sees it, it's an icon on the Haldeman Creek. It's now going to be the 360 Market. It's under renovation. Bayshore Aluminum. Not a very good looking building when the man bought it. But now he's putting it, facing it all with stone. And it's going to be Haul -it -All in the granite business there. BE Home Realty. This is going to be another place that's going to create 20 to 30 jobs in the near future. And it's currently under work. And it's an old warehouse that used to be there for rummage Page 71 November 8, 2011 sales. Now, here's a couple things that are coming on. This is Leo's Sod. It's in poor shape, but -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Leo Ochs? MR. JACKSON: I think so. I think he was in the SIP meeting with us. But it's Leo's Sod. And it's got a new owner and he wants to dress up the place. So we go with him to the county zoning meetings and we help them out and we probably will give them a grant to improve that site. And it sorely needs it, and so does the owner know that. Mini Max recently closed its doors but it's going to become a retail operation under the same ownership. And we're going to help them out and improve that building also. I'll tell you more about that later. So here's a grant program summary. Let's look at the bottom line. CRA invested this year -- or excuse me, last year, FY2011, invested $240,000 of CRA funds. The owner invested $991,000, for a total of 1.2 million of capital improvements in the area. We're filling the gap. But for our grant, many of these people wouldn't have improved at all. Let's talk about what these buildings and these commercial ventures are doing. The number of commercial buildings improvements in the area since 2009, last two years, have been nine. Total retained jobs or relocated, 56, and we're forecasting another 200 in the near future, for a total of 259. Now, one of the major things I want to point out here is over these two years there was a total of about $4 million in capital improvements put in over the last two years. We're filling the gap of the lack of resources. I'm almost to the conclusion here. The quality of life issues. We do more than just give grants. This is just a short list of some of the Page 72 November 8, 2011 things that we do. We work on quality of life. All these things are important to the people that live and work there. We've broken the area down into neighborhoods and we are targeting those areas for improvement. And we're filling the gap between the government and what you can provide and what the CRA and the MSTU is allowed to provide. So we are working on it. For instance, Neighborhood Focus Initiative. We talk about the sidewalks. The school kids have to walk in the street to go to school. Who says that's safe? So what are we doing, is we're installing sidewalks. Here's another occasion. We have a lot of people that bicycle in the area. Where do they bicycle? In the street. They have to deal with the cars. So an MSTU project that's going on now is making multimodal pathways in which the child in the small red circle is separated from the vehicles on the street. This project is underway. And also there was a question about lighting. Look at the black lamps that are there for pedestrian lighting for safety in the evening. Talk about lighting again, the CRA put in six lights in certain areas back several years ago and the MSTU has put in 89 lights, all in the residential area, for security. Also for security for pedestrian crosswalks, we've got a lighted crosswalk there that's engaged when the person goes between the white bollards. Not only that, but here is the green bike lanes, the only ones in the State of Florida. We've had calls from California and The Netherlands on how did we do it, we want to follow you. We're the leaders of the pack on this one. So do people use those lighted crosswalks? You bet they do. We paved roads. Back in 2006 we started paving all the dirt roads in our area. CRA helped, along with the residents there, to identify the roads, and all dirt roads in the CRA are now paved. We don't have any. Page 73 November 8, 2011 Environmental cleanup. We purchased an old gas station. How would you like to live next door to an old gas station with tanks that are still in the ground and they may be weeping? Not good for kids. So what we did was we did environmental cleanup by purchasing the area. $100,000 from the owner went towards the project. And we cleaned it up, and now it is shovel ready for commercial development. The people have pride for their neighborhood. Very important for you to understand that as a CRA board. The people come out monthly and clean up their area. Even we have helpers from the county and sheriffs office in the lower left -hand corner. That's a cleanup event that went on two years ago on Holly Avenue. Sheriff showed up, code enforcement, CRA, and the people went out and they cleaned up the area. We have to go back and do it again and again, but we still do that and we support it. So what do we have? Some of our local heroes, there's a Marine Corps league, they've been cleaning Bayshore Drive for 20 years. They're the boots on the ground. If you want to know if the place has changed at all in 20 years, ask one of them. They've been there on the street. Let's talk about Haldeman Creek stormwater dredging project. That was a county project there. There was about $2 million done in 2006. Well the -- advisory committee, get that one correct, took a tour and went out and looked at dilapidated structures and now are identifying them now to clean up the area. Not only that, but they were a part of the coastal cleanup where they physically went out and picked up the trash in the waterways. And these were all done by volunteers: High school kids, ROTCs and people in the neighborhood. They also worked on some of the navigation posts that they're allowed to have, they have to maintain. They've wrapped them and also replaced one post that was missing. Public outreach. We do it every month. Committee meetings. Page 74 November 8, 2011 People are not afraid to come see us. They're in our office all the time. And this is where the rubber meets the road. The people get to meet with all the advisory committees and they get to say I like this, I don't like this, I want this, I need this, can you help me. And this is where we make it all happen. Future projects. Shadowlawn Drive, if you look at the right -hand corner there, this is working with Jay Ahmad and the Transportation Division that we're going to go improve this road in the future. Funding of course, but that's where we'll go with it. Also the MSTU's looking at Hamilton Avenue and Thomasson Drive. They're going to do this project, it's a three to $4 million project. They're going to improve that road to be the same of all the other county roads. Cash deal, 4 million, cash. It's all paid for by the people. We are also rezoning an 18 acre site. Once it's completed the rezone for a mixed use development, we'll put in and advertise for a development team. And the value of the land will be higher. We work with Sheriffs Department and Code Enforcement. We've made a partnership with them. We have community meetings where people talk about how to be safe, how to keep the area clean, and we do this all by neighborhoods. Recently we had a neighborhood watch meeting, and this happened just this last weekend. It was coordinated over the last three months in which people come together and they meet their neighbors. They keep it clean and they watch out for each other. Let's talk about crime, crime statistics. These are generalized numbers. This is the Sheriffs grid 3123. This is called the Bayshore /Triangle area by the Sheriffs Department. In 2005 I asked the Sheriff, how are we doing? They had 18,000 Sheriffs service calls. In 2011, the last data to date is 6,000. That's a 66 percent decrease in activity in the area. And not all these calls are crime calls. A fair number of them are just extra patrols. So they put Page 75 November 8, 2011 people out on the streets there for extra patrols during certain periods of time. So we are getting better. How do you get rid of crime? Well, first thing you do is you go to the people and say where's the bad guys? They know. Where's the bad girls? They know. Where do they live, where are they operating from? We identified three streets and a lot of locations. And you can see over the years, we went in there proactively with Code Enforcement, proactively with the Sheriffs Department, we've been able to decrease the activity on those streets, and now they're good neighborhoods where people live and enjoy their time. We also had to do some demolitions. Some of them were done by Code Enforcement, some of them were done by the CRA's reacquired property. But if you get rid of the bad housing, the substandard housing where the bad people live, bad, bad, bad, you follow that one there, you end up getting better, better, better. I've taken up a lot of your time and I've only talked about a small amount of stuff that we do. What you see here are things I haven't even talked about that we do. We do a lot of stuff for our neighborhood and our community. So thank you very much for this opportunity to speak, I really do appreciate it. And I think it's good for the viewing public and you to hear what's going on. And I think this is very apropos. Right now my brain is full, so thank you, sir. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Dave. We do have 21 speakers. But Commissioner Henning, your light's on. Did you want to wait or you want to just -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I think there's some misunderstanding that needs to be brought up. Partly on mine. The comment that I made has nothing to do with the MSTU beautification in Bayshore. I supported all those amendments that was on the agenda, although I did have questions. I do recognize that the landscaping, the aesthetics on Bayshore Drive is a huge difference Page 76 November 8, 2011 than what it was in the past. My comment about the 20 years was, as I drove down Bayshore there was a lot of empty storefronts. What I didn't realize, and this is my misunderstanding, what is going to be transpiring in the near future, like Mr. Jackson said, Sea Tech, Leo's Sod is one that's been there for eons, and their aesthetic approval, and the Bayshore Stone. I do want the best for Bayshore and Bayshore Drive. And I apologize to anybody if I offended about your neighborhood or your place of business. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was really nice. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That was very good, Commissioner Henning, thank you. Commissioner Hiller, did you want to speak now or after the -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want to mention one thing. It's just a point of order, you know, and this holds true for all of David Jackson's -- CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Could you move the microphone just a little closer? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, sorry, sorry. Can you hear me okay? Thanks. Thanks for pointing that out. One of the issues that -- we have an ordinance that requires that any material that's brought before the Board has to be submitted before the agenda is publicly produced. And I raised this with Leo. The submittals by Mr. Jackson did not include any of the back -up. So, I mean, technically we can't accept any of this unless we have a vote. And I'm sure, you know, all the Commissioners will happily vote to accept it, but we do have to follow the ordinance, since that was an ordinance adopted by the Board, and that is that unless it's approved by this Board, you know, we can't accept presentations or additional information like this. So I think we should just -- you know, I'll make a motion to accept his information as presented. But I would like to ask that, you Page 77 November 8, 2011 know, he include back -up in his agenda items before he submits them for Board review and approval. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second the motion. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner Hiller and a second by Commissioner Fiala to accept the report as is. And with that we're going to take a vote, then we'll get to the speakers. All those in favor indicate -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. All those opposed? (No response.) CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it unanimous. With that, we're going to go to the speakers. I think that some of the misconceptions have been cleared up. And I appreciate Commissioner Henning's reevaluation of it. It takes a true person to be able to take a total look at something and change their mind. We all do that occasionally. And with that in mind, the speakers, we have 21, you may want to avoid being repetitious in what you say. In some cases if you heard it from other ones and you agree with them, all you have to do is stand and waive. But in no case I don't want anybody to think that they're not welcome to come up here and speak for three minutes. And with that, would you call the first speaker. MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir. And we'll use both podiums so I'll call two names. The first speaker is John Hayter, and he'll be followed by Kathy Smith. 64,�- '7 November 8, 2011 CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is Kathy in the audience? Okay, fine. MR. HAYTER: Well, thank you very much. Obviously I'm not Kathy, I'm John Hayter. And I'm here to talk about building the business of the Bayshore CRA. Every business has to have a strong new identity to do business successfully. And every business that is going to be successful has to tell the world what they have to offer. So about a little over a year ago several people from the Bayshore CRA got together and said things are happening now, and now is the time to create a plan to build business and have it going month in, month out. And so we put together a team of eight people. And very quickly, here they are. They're not people that are bored and want to get involved, these are people that have done it in the past. Alisha Cage is a realtor in the Bayshore area of Naples. Brian Holley is the CEO of Naples Botanical Gardens. Rebecca Maddox, an author, director and now the owner of the new pasta -- Naples Pasta, which is going to replace the Tipsey Seagull. Kathleen Pennazzato is the CEO of the Pennazzato Group independent marketing and public relations company. Michael Sherman is a retired commercial real estate executive who ran the New England division of CB Richard Ellis. Vicki Tracy, who is an activist. And I know all of you would know Vicki. Patrick Utter, who is in charge of real estate for Collier Enterprises and Hamilton Harbor. And he is the guy that's going to build Sabal Bay. And John Hayter, an ex- advertising executive who owned -- oh, I'm getting a -- right, okay. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You still have a minute, sir. MR. HAYTER: Pardon me? CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You still have a minute. MR. HAYTER: I know, but that's not much. We then -- so this group went together and what we did was what David said, we went to the public to get a brand name for the area and Page 79 November 8, 2011 a vision. And we got feedback. We did 386 interviews of people in the region. And they voted for yes, to get a brand area. Yes, it's good for business, attracting business and yes on the vision. And the vision is where creative people can thrive. And the brand name is Naples Bay Village, Where Creative People Can Thrive, is going to attract all kinds of businesses, cultural arts, shoemakers who make design boots, landscapers, architects, what have you. It's going to be a hotbed of creativity business. And we're going to make it successful. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir, appreciate you being here today. MR. MITCHELL: Ms. Smith will be followed by Vicki Tracy. MS. SMITH: Hi, I'm Kathy Smith. I'm a resident of Bayshore Drive on 27 Colonial Drive. I'm lifelong resident of Naples. And I moved out to Bayshore in '05. I just wanted to brag on my street for a few minutes, because I love it out there. And anything bad ever to be said, I remember 20 years ago there was somebody sleeping behind every Palmetto bush. The street was littered with crack cans and it was a wild place to be. Today we have so much pride in our street, in our community, and all the way from one of your favorite people on Becca Avenue down to one of our other favorites on Cindy, the county crosswalk lady who waves at everybody when we go by. It's a real sense of community. And three people I'd like to thank are David Jackson, Corporal Mike Nelson and Johnny Cisnero. They've all done a great job in their part in their office of cleaning up our street and letting us feel like we're part of a real community. I'm friends with the guy that rides the scooter with the little dog with the red -- we call him Mayor, the Mayor of Bayshore, Arty, with his dog. We all feel safe riding our bikes, walking the sidewalks. It's a humble working class blue collar community. And we thank you for your approval of everything you've given out there and we look forward to the future of it. Thanks. O-M. November 8, 2011 MR. MITCHELL: Ms. Tracy will be followed by Mr. Pallis. MS. TRACY: Thank you very much for listening to us today. And as you heard my quote in the paper, you never know what they're going to write, I think it's important you Commissioners understand what's happening over in our town, my town. I've lived here for 35 years, 30 of it in East Naples. My husband's born and raised in East Naples. I own three businesses in East Naples, six homes. My husband employs eight people. My brother is one of the people that employs 40 people. We own three buildings. And we chose East Naples because of the changes. I'm in Fred's district, I've been in Donna's district. My entire family lives there, and in Port Royal. The Port Royal brother chose East Naples to put his business, not because of what is going to happen, because of what has happened. I work in East Naples. I work for the, of course, the Arlington and Lely Resort. I've been on the MSTU board. I was vice chairman of the Haldeman Creek. I don't volunteer typically for these types of things, but I'm so passionate about East Naples that people get sick of hearing me talk about it and talking about it. And I'm passionate because of what's happening. I wasn't a big fan in the beginning of anything that had to do with government interaction because I don't understand that. God bless you people that do this for a living. But I have to tell you, since I've been involved every time I'm asked by this Commission to get involved, and it's not just my Commissioner that asks me, I say, great, I'm going to do it, and I'm going to serve. I don't know what I'm doing, but I'm going to go serve. The last meeting that we had from a community, there was 60 people. And I can tell you that I'm on the Chamber board, I'm on every board in town. You don't get that kind of response unless it's from a community that cares about what's happening. That CRA and Page 81 November 8, 2011 that group of people who work in that office do not just administer the CRA. It's not just aesthetics. They call to help businesses, they call to help homeowners. And I'm just proud to be living in there. I want to continue to serve and educate you as somebody who lives there, works there, plays there. I want to see its growth. I remember what it was. Please help us keep it going the way it's going. We need that group of people over there. Thank you. (Applause.) MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Pallis will be followed by Maurice Gutierrez. MR. PALLIS: Good morning, Commissioners. Nice to be here with you. I want to kind of comment on everything that Mr. Jackson said, which is very, very good. He's a hardworking man and his staff are great people. With that, all I can say is I've been down there on Bayview Drive for about 13 years, built a house down there. And I have just seen a complete change in that whole area down there. Bayshore Drive is a beautiful street, one of the better streets in Naples, I may comment. They're going to embark now on doing some of the side streets, which I'm particularly interested in. And they're going to do the street I live on and improve it with sidewalks and trees and lights and everything. So it's just a -- it's a nice place. And also, I haven't driven up to the CRA area for about four or five years. Only at night when I go up to the English Pub. Well, they have improved that area so much that it's impressive, really is impressive. I think you people as commissioners should be very proud of the people you have. So with that, that's all I have to say. And I want to thank the MSTU who I go down and go to their meetings a lot, that they are just a great mess of people, nice group of people. Thank you. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. (Applause.) November 8, 2011 MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Gutierrez will be followed by Bill Cugno. MR. GUTIERREZ: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Maurice Gutierrez. I'm currently the chair for the Bayshore MSTU. I've been involved with it for almost 15 years, almost since its inception. Because of that I've got a little bit of history I want to share with you. The way they're structured is we're appointed liaisons. They allow us to oversee and achieve things that we have no idea how they work in the county. Unfortunately we went through five or six in five or six years. One quit in the middle of a meeting, two we have fired or replaced, and two were promoted out from under us. Until David Jackson was appointed director of the CRA and his desire to oversee the MSTU, we were basically on a day to day basis trying to accomplish things. Leadership cannot be accomplished when there's a constant change of leader. The very reason we are successful is because Mr. Jackson's passion and leadership in picking his staff has done everything for us to maintain consistency. In the 34 years I've lived on Bayshore, and this is my home, there are only really two true leaders that I can point out, the late Bill Neale, who had the vision to get us where we are today, and of course Mr. Jackson which has taken up the reins and taken us to where we are today. There can be no doubt that we have been effectively improving everything from crime to image in the years both the boards have been in existence. And the attempt to dismantle or interfere would give the county what they had prior, was nothing. Our achievements are evidence of those who wish to open their eyes but cannot be valued by those who remain blind. I ask the Board of County Commissioners not to walk blindly through our neighborhoods but stop and smell the blossoms of our success. Thank you. (Applause.) Page 83 November 8, 2011 MR. CUGNO: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Bill Cugno. I live in Lely. And I'm the property owner of 2479 Kirkwood Avenue. Two years ago I searched for a piece of C -5 property. In my search I stopped at the Bayshore by the suggestion of a friend. Following that I directed all of my attention and knew I wanted to be in Bayshore. I wanted to be in the Bayshore Triangle area. And I found my working with the staff at the CRA, specifically the Bayshore CRA, to be outstanding. All the way through the process they were helpful. I purchased a piece of property that I found in the Triangle area. I applied for a grant. I received, and you saw in the chart today, about $15,000, which represented about 20 percent of my expenditures for the entire rehab. I have done a number of rehabs in three different states. What I have found is I found the staff professional, I found them very assisting dealing with the county and the regulatory advisory committees and in the permit process. What I learned attending their meeting and why I'm here. I attended the Bayshore meeting last week simply for one reason -- I don't normally go to the meetings. I went to say thanks, thank you for what you've done. It's been a year. I've completed the project. And in that I heard the concern from this Commission about the status of the CRA. The purpose of my visit is to add credence or credibility to their actions. When I finished my project, I looked also for additional properties. I put together an LLC and purchased the property next door. We're going to do that as rehab without any assistance from the CRA. More specifically, what I also found within the community is -- he mentioned the stormwater today. I speak to the neighbors on Kirkwood commercial and other areas since we've had the successive rains. You did a great job. Major compliments. The road paving, November 8, 2011 great work. The aesthetics has improved considerably. Congratulations to those, this body and others that have done it. What I noticed though, with these accomplishments comes a level, from a businessman's standpoint, of excitement and enthusiasm within the area. I look back, and in 18 months, every one of you can see this, take a look on the street and see what has changed. The Goodyear Automotive that's been redone with or without assistance. Rowland Auto, which has been done. AutoMatic Commercial building being done right now, 2303 on Commercial Avenue. On Kirkwood, Extreme Auto Import Performance. All of these businesses, with the assistance not only in dollars but with enthusiasm, excitement and a direction from government that has improved considerably the Triangle area. The reason I came was to share that. Thank you very much. MR. MITCHELL: Michelle Tricca, and she'll be followed by Rusty Moore. MS. TRICCA: Hi, I'm Michelle Tricca. I am a photographer here in Naples and I've lived on Bayshore Drive for five years. And I just want to speak. I created the Naples first public art installation and I made it happen on Bayshore Drive. What made it happen in -- the majority of it happened in March of this year. And I chose Bayshore Drive because I felt like not only do I live there, I'm very proud of the street that I live on, but there's a beautiful building that I've been driving by for the last few years that I always envisioned as this canvas for a large format photo mural. And so the idea that I had was to photograph the faces of our community. My whole intent was to show the diversity we have here in Naples, because we're perceived in the press and in our advertising to be the rich, white man golfer community. And I wanted to show that we have all walks of life, all ethnicities, all races, genders, ages. And I was empowered to make this happen by David Jackson and Page 85 November 8, 2011 everyone at the CRA, which they completely backed me for. I currently have approximately 1,000 faces on this wall at 3945 Bayshore Drive. I know, Commissioner Fiala, I've a beautiful portrait of you up there. Thank you for showing up and supporting that. And that's really just all I want to say is that I made this public art installation happen. I wanted it to happen on Bayshore. And it's gotten such a huge response from people in the community. I still have people calling me to this day. They show up. I received a ton of press. And they'll call my phone number and ask if they can get their face on the wall. Unfortunately I've completed the project, but it's brought a lot of people down there. It's been an attraction. People still go down to show their friends all hours of the day and they'll bring their friends to the Taqueria on Bayshore. That's gotten a lot of business from this being an attraction for they'll go to Botanical Gardens. So I actually did it as an indefinite art installation. It's been up since March and it has taken its toll with the weather and the rains over the summer. So I am planning something bigger and bolder photographically down there. So look forward to that. Thank you. MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Moore will be for followed by Irene Liltchfeld. MR. MOORE: Commissioners, hi, I'm Rusty Moore. I'm owner of Moore General Contracting Services here in Naples. I've been fortunate to be selected as contractor in three of the projects Mr. Jackson has spoke about. That's three buildings that we've already or currently are transforming in that area and beautifying. That's three businesses that were attracted to that area for one reason or another, and not going somewhere else, to Lee County or elsewhere. And also, as he had spoken, employing, you know, one -- 30 plus people, another one's going to be at least 20 to 40, from the indications I've had when I finished that building. And another one 20 plus. In addition to that, as a contractor it's -- in doing this work, it's November 8, 2011 put my business where I've only before employed four or five people I'm now currently employing 20 to 25 people. So it trickles down not only to the effect of the beautification of the area itself and the businesses that are coming in and the employees that they're providing, but it's also trickling down to the people that are -- I'm able to provide employment to. So areas are not transformed overnight. It's not Kelly Road anymore, but it's done building by building. We can't snap our fingers and all of a sudden it's Port Royal. But I think it is going in the right direction. And I'd like to thank the CRA and David Jackson and his staff and the Board of Commissioners for their ongoing efforts. And I urge and encourage you to further continue this type of redevelopment. Thank you. (Applause.) MR. MITCHELL: Ms. Liltchfeld will be followed Chellie Doepke. Please, you can -- MS. LILTCHFELD: I thought you mentioned that Irene Liltchfeld would be after the speaker from -- MR. MITCHELL: Yes, it is, you can speak first. MS. GREEN: Well, good morning, good afternoon or whatever time it is. I'm very proud to be up here. And I listened to all that has happened in this community and I feel like hmm, I'm 400 pounds. I'm Irene Ann Liltchfeld, and I don't know whether anyone's ever heard about me or not. But I came here in 1970 and I bought two pieces of property. It was on the corner of Kelly Road and Shoreview Drive. I built an apartment building plus some commercial to either have offices or to have retail. When I came and picked up a newspaper after I had bought the property and my building was almost built, I read that -- some horrible things about Kelly Road. I thought how terrible. The children that live out there are not going to have a Chinaman's chance of growing November 8, 2011 up and doing anything because the newspaper was running their future. So of course I had an office there. I was an accountant and did tax work, and I represented people for Internal Revenue Service. And I thought, Irene, you've got to do something about this. I fought for children in Indiana before I came here in 1969 and started building in 1970. I fought for the kids up there because they needed a chance to do well. So I started with the kids here. And I decided, how can you do this? I thought and thought. It took me a few years to come up with it. So then I decided well, you know -- the Kelly Road is on the paper every night. Why don't I change it to another name? So what I did, I submitted 10 names on the first week it came out. Why, then someone stood up and spoke against it. And I called the person and I said, what do you mean speak against it? Where is he? And he told me who it was and I said well, I didn't know he owned property here. And they told me that they -- you didn't have to own property, you could stand up and talk about anything that anyone wanted. So I'll tell you, I called out here and said put me on the agenda, I'll be back here next week. Next week I got it changed from Kelly Road to Bayshore Drive. And I listened to all the stuff that's happened since then and I am so proud of everybody and everything they've done. And I thank you. (Applause.) MR. MITCHELL: Chellie will be followed by Lacy Ingram. MS. DOEPKE: Good morning, Commissioners. I welcome this opportunity. I'm Chellie Doepke. I'm a realtor. I own a couple pieces of property in the area, in the Bayshore area. And I actually am also with Bayshore Cultural and Performing Arts Center. I just want to thank you, I want to thank the CRA and the advisory board, David Jackson for the support they've given us in the past. And very briefly want to say that, yes, I moved here in 2004. November 8, 2011 There have been a lot of improvements in the area. It's an area that was very difficult before then and has taken on tremendous improvements as you've seen today. I just want to speak to the activity level in the area that has been tremendous over the last few years, and it's been through your encouragement and the CRA's improvement as well. You've been able to give to the community festivals, there have been tremendous events going on at Naples Botanical Garden. There was and continues to be a Jazz in the Garden series. There's going to be a Jazz in the Park series. And we have a major two -day festival going on. This brings everybody to the area and they feel safe. It's -- these are exciting times. And we're all really, really fortunate to be a part of it. We're seeing a magical transformation in the area. And I thank you for your support, hope you will continue your support. I thank the CRA and David Jackson for their help and their effort. MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Steve Main, and he'll be followed by Judy Helms. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to interrupt for -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Not now. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Not now? CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, no, not now. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, sir. MR. MAIN: Thank you. Good morning, Commissioners. Appreciate the opportunity to come and speak to you. I'm currently a member of the CRA for Bayshore Gateway, as well as on the Haldeman Creek MSTU. I figure it would be good to get a twofer instead of just one. You know, that extra paycheck is awesome. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Extra paycheck. MR. MAIN: I've been a business owner -- there isn't one. I've been a business owner in the Bayshore area, we've got the two businesses, Royal Yacht Service and Gulf Shores Marina. Been November 8, 2011 there since 1998. And the thing, I've got to tell you, David's gone through a lot of things, and I was going to talk about all of those. But I'm going to put this aside because I don't need to reiterate that. The key, the most important thing that I want you all to take away from Bayshore Gateway and our whole area now, it's the people. What has changed so much is the attitude of the people that live there. I remember when I first got here in '98, Friday night all you'd see, nothing but guys walking to the convenience store, walking out with 18 packs of beer. That was it. You didn't see people on the street. Now families, mothers, kids in strollers, kids on bikes. Anybody feels safe to walk around. We've got lighted areas, we've got pedestrian crossings. And what has happened is it's a chain -- it's just unbelievable how things have changed there in terms of how we feel about the area. You have people walk in to our business, I've had it happen several times, where they'd say, you know, I've been looking around, I'm thinking of, you know, maybe buying in the area here because the prices are down, but you know, what about the crime, because I heard this and I heard that? And you've got to take them through. Everybody wants to go back. They heard about Kelly Road. Well, guess what, it's not Kelly Road anymore, thank you. So what I want all of you to take away is come on down and see us. We see Commissioner Fiala many times at the CRA meetings, she's kind enough to come and visit those. I know you other Commissioners are from other districts, but it's a stone's throw over there, you know, go grab lunch at Five Guys, come on around the corner and just go drive around and see what you have. You wouldn't believe -- you start to go on some of the back streets off of Bayshore, you won't believe what you see back there. With the Haldeman Creek MSTU, we took a bunch of people on a cruise back through the canals and everybody was shocked by what Page 90 November 8, 2011 they saw. They had no idea there was water in some of these places. So come see us. You'll like what you see. And we are here to do the things to make that area better. We're going to continue to turn around. And thank you for your support. (Applause.) MR. MITCHELL: Judy Helms will be followed by Karen Beatty. MS.HELMS: Thank you, County Commissioners, for this opportunity to speak. I'm a resident of the Bayshore Triangle area. I also have an interest in a business community there. I'm speaking in support of the CRA and David Jackson, the executive director. The CRA's presence was felt in our community beginning in 20005 2001. However, the real communication with the neighborhoods began in 2005 when David Jackson took over. I moved to the area in 1994, and as people have described, it wasn't a place really to be. I won't go on with reiterating what everybody else has said. You've heard lots of our positive comments. I don't think I've heard any negative ones. I hope you will appreciate that. But what I noticed in listening to everyone is the passion this area has, the passion that the people who are working there show, the passion that the business owners show. It really takes that kind of passionate umph, so to speak, to get a community up and running and going. And we all have it. You just notice it there. And so I would welcome all of you to our community, to some of the events that go on there. And come and visit us. Come and talk to us. See what we're talking about. I would, if I was a Collier County Commissioner, be very proud. And of course this can be a model to communities all over the United States. So I would even look at it in a bigger way. And I thank you. David Jackson and our community, we value him, and we value the CRA. And I thank you. Page 91 November 8, 2011 CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. (Applause.) MR. MITCHELL: Karen Beatty will be followed by Michael Sherman. MS. BEATTY: Hello, my name is Karen Beatty. I've lived in the Bayshore Drive area since 1984. I moved from Old Naples and it was just an investment property for me at first and then I was in the position to move, so I moved there. And I was quite shocked when I moved there. The crime level was palpable and visible and scary. It's changed so much now. I used to be embarrassed and shy about admitting that I lived there because I would hear people in town talking about Bayshore, the other side of the bridge. The best thing about it at the time was Amador's Bistro, they were there. And I'd hear some of my friends say, we should meet at Amador's sometime. It's a little scary to go over there. But I didn't tell them that I lived there because I was shy about it. But now I'm so proud. And I've been on the board for five years, the CRA board. And I've seen how hard David Jackson has worked and his staff. They work 24/7. Not just normal hours, but 24/7. And I appreciate your cooperation thus far, and I hope that you continue. It's scary to think that the CRA might stop and it's not appreciated. I just can't tell you how proud I am to live there now and how much I enjoy the neighborhood and how safe I feel. And there's much more I could say but my neighbors and friends here have already said it. Thank you for your time. (Applause.) MR. MITCHELL: Michael Sherman will be followed by Peter Dvorak. MR. SHERMAN: It's getting hard to think of things to say. I'm a former commercial real estate executive, and I moved down here 10 years ago and have been what I guess I would call a booster and constructive critic of the CRA for all of that time because this is like a Page 92 November 8, 2011 little piece of democracy in action, the kinds of stuff that goes on at these meetings, where you really argue about what you're trying to make your community into. I've never been in a situation which is as small as this and therefore I can really focus. And it's extremely frustrating because you don't get your way all the time, and it's extremely exciting because during the 10 years that I've been there, as everybody said, there is a transformation of this community, and it's turning into something which is a funky, interesting, exciting place to be. And it's a place that greater Naples needs, not just the Bayshore area needs, but greater Naples needs. We're starting to call it Naples Bay Village because we're trying to have this understanding of what a unique little kind of subsection of a really exciting larger city can be. I was asked also when I said I was going to speak here by Rebecca Maddox, who is the owner of Naples Pasta Company and the person who has spent over a million dollars so far on developing something called 360 Market, which will be a very exciting addition to this neighborhood right there on Haldeman Creek. She also is a critic and a great supporter and wouldn't be there without this kind of support that is shown by the CRA. So count me as a supporter and one that's willing to make critique on occasion. Thank you. (Applause.) MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Dvorak will be followed by Sondra Quinn. MR. DVORAK: Thank you, Commissioners. My name is Peter Dvorak. I've been a stakeholder in the Bayshore area since 1988 as a property owner, a business owner and also a resident. I currently sit on the CRA board, advisory board, and obviously we have a very passionate and vocal constituency, and that's something that I really value. The staff with the CRA is also extremely dedicated. I've been a Page 93 November 8, 2011 small business owner and real estate developer, and it's easy to see big projects that have gone into our area, you know, tens of millions of dollars being spent, whether it's at Hamilton Harbor Yacht Club or the Botanical Gardens or the Botanical Place condominiums. But it's -- you don't -- the impact of the smaller investments can be even greater. And I see the CRA staff work with individuals who come in and need help navigating the complexities of the planning and permitting and zoning process. And I see a lot of investments that have only been made because of the CRA staff involvement and encouragement and assistance and guidance. I've worked in many other areas outside of Florida. I've never seen a resource as valuable to the local community as our CRA. We've come a long way in the last 15 years. I've seen it myself. But there's obviously still work to be done. To change a neighborhood completely takes time. And I think it's admirable that all the work that's been done down there, none of those properties have been taken by eminent domain, it's all been private investment and public - private partnership. And that's a tremendous accomplishment. But we need your continued support to continue with that success. Thank you. (Applause.) MR. MITCHELL: Ms. Quinn will be followed by Linda White. MS. QUINN: Commissioners, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you. It's been awhile. I'm here because I wanted to -- I am now -- I'm a resident. I am the former director of the Botanical Garden and I'm also a volunteer in the area. I'm president now of the Naples Garden Club. And I guess I wanted to just say that sometimes it's difficult to walk into an area and to know how much it's changed if you don't know all of those little innuendos of what it used to be like. So you've heard. We've said so much about how we've changed and what it looks like. But I have a transformation story to tell you. November 8, 2011 My first -- I came here in 2001 in January, and we ran a summer camp the very first summer. And we had a couple of kids show up. One showed up in a taxi cab because they were afraid to allow their child to walk in this area. One of the mothers called and said, I'm sorry my child can't come back because somebody said to me, why would you ever let your child go down Kelly Road, that is a horrible place, you can't let your child go to this camp. Well, obviously things have changed quite a bit. Also at the time the Garden Club left The Depot (sic) because there was a change and they had to get out of The Depot. And so the Garden Club moved to The Depot. I need to tell you that there were numerous women who quit the Club. They would not drive down Kelly Road and come to that area. We now have over 200 members and we are running a House and Garden tour from there for a thousand people, we're doing a flower show at the Botanical Garden, we bring in 4,000 people. They've gotten over all of that sort of thing. The 165 acres that was at that time nothing more than just a strip mall and people living in camps in the trees have now turned into this fabulous Botanical Garden with over 100,000 people coming. So that's been a huge change, but you had to sort of know what it was like back then. And many of you have come down a lot. But I encourage you to do that. The other thing I think that's really helped on Bayshore has been the Botanical Place where there are now places for people who work to live around that area with the fire station. And I wanted to thank you for what you have done over the years to contribute to the success of Bayshore and to the Botanical Garden and to what's going on. I hope that you will continue to support us and to support the CRA. Thank you. (Applause.) Page 95 November 8, 2011 MR. MITCHELL: Linda White will be followed by Lynn Novo. And Lynn Novo will be your last speaker. MS. WHITE: Oh, yes. Linda White. And I just have a little bit of an anecdote, I suppose very similar to Sondra's, except I preceded her in this area by about four years. We moved in '97 to Windstar. And at that time the Botanical Garden had a motley assortment of parcels of land right across the street divided by trailer parks. So it really wasn't really good for a major garden. So I tried to get involved to improve the garden and improve the whole area, and I had the same kind of pushback that Sondra experienced. We gave a black tie event at Windstar to try to raise money for the Garden. And everybody that I knew in Port Royal would not come over the bridge. They would not come over the bridge. And those few who did venture, they couldn't believe it. So luckily we've changed that perception. I served as five years -- five years as chairman of the Botanical Garden, still on that board, and I'm on the board at Windstar as well, and I've watched this change and now all our friends, as Sondra pointed out, do come over the bridge. And I thank everybody that's been involved in making that happen. Thank you. (Applause.) MS. NOVO: Hello, last but not least. And I'll be brief. I'm Lynn Novo, and I'm the project manager for 360 Market. On a personal note, I moved to the area about a year ago and I have found Bayshore Drive to be a beautiful place to walk my dog and ride my bicycle. I go down Thomasson and from the Botanical Garden up to 360 Market frequently. The task of restoring that iconic building that so many people in the community know as the Tipsey Seagull has been challenging, both because of the number of years that the building was vacant and because of its location in an emerging neighborhood. But because of the very existence of the CRA and the MSTU, we had the confidence o •• November 8, 2011 to make the sizable investment in the community. David Jackson and his staff have been invaluable throughout the project. Several times a week I stop in the office or make phone calls to them. I find their experience and expertise invaluable in helping to give us suggestions on how we might improve what we're doing, and working through the building permit process and even as we shape our business plan. We're really glad the CRA is there and we really want it to continue its good work. We think that it's valuable for the whole community. But we are committed to making 360 Market a success. And we know that we hold a valuable position and being with a gateway to that community, and we are striving to make that successful. So we look forward to the time when you'll all stop in and be guests of ours at 360 Market. Thank you. (Applause.) MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we do have an additional speaker, that's Chick Heithaus. MR. HEITHAUS: Yeah, I'm sorry, you thought you were done. But I just do want to say one thing. I am a volunteer. I'm involved in three different organizations that find themselves involved in the Bayshore area quite a bit. SCORE was mentioned. The other two don't really matter. But I'm there a lot and have been for about eight years. I've seen a tremendous amount of change. You've all heard that. I just want to add my voice to the reality check. But one thing that hasn't been said, we often don't know what's going to happen because of the things we say, and I want to thank Commissioner Henning for what he said last week, look what it's created. And wouldn't it be wonderful if every interest that comes before this Commission could have this kind of presentation from the community. And especially, Commissioner Henning, I want to thank you for the very statesmanlike comment you made that opened this Page 97 November 8, 2011 meeting. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're welcome. MR. HEITHAUS: Thank you. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. With that, let's go to Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much. I've been making a couple notes. First of all, a tip of the hat to Commissioner Henning. That was great. Secondly, I want to thank all the outstanding residents who came here today. This is what you see on Bayshore. Look at these wonderful people. And it's so good of you to give up your day to be here with us and show support. I want to thank Dave Jackson and his team. Boy, oh boy, you guys are just wonderful to work with. I love to watch you in action. I love to see what you can do, what you do do for the business community in the area as well as for the residents. You're helping to make it improve every day all the time. I want to say that I'm proud of the Bayshore area. I'm proud of the Triangle. And look at some of the things that are being created, I mean, like the Botanical Garden for instance. No other place in Southwest Florida has a Botanical Garden, and we do. And it's an outstanding place. And Hamilton Harbor, what a wonderful place Hamilton Harbor is. The CRA of course is at the base of this. The MSTU, those people are paying their own way to beautify their area. They're not asking for any tax dollars from another soul. They've done it all by themselves. And that's another thing to be very proud of. We have a shining star on the horizon in the Bayshore area, and it's the Bayshore Cultural and Performing Arts Center that wants to build a place for our local people to perform and display their art. And I wish them so much success, because their success will be another success for Bayshore. November 8, 2011 And I want to also mention the lovely, lovely golf course community of Windstar, who's been there all the way, supporting Bayshore, supporting the MSTU, supporting the CRA every step of the way. And I thank you all for all that you do for this area to make it look better. Should there ever be a vote to eliminate the CRA, I'm here to tell you, I would never vote for that. Never. That's so important to the vital -- to the vitality of the area, to the redevelopment of the area and to the success of the area. Thank you. (Applause.) CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I -- Commissioner Fiala said almost everything I intended to say. You've done a wonderful job. It's a perfect example of how residents and business leaders can work together with government to get great things accomplished. It couldn't have happened without all of you working together. But it prompts me to ask you a question. Just recently the Chamber of Commerce and the EDC, Economic Development Council, hired a consultant to provide recommendations to the community about how we could transform our economy. And the consultant came here and he said to us, I did not find a single person that I talked with who thought that Collier County was a friendly place for businesses. Now, I want you to raise your hand if that man came to talk to you. Did he? Wouldn't that be a wonderful place to start in assessing how you can go about transforming a community? And by the way, if we had a similar report from the Immokalee CRA, you'd have the same thing. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN COYLE: They're doing a wonderful job out there. Their residents are involved. They're just as excited as you are. So when people want to look for good examples here in Collier County, MUM November 8, 2011 they're here. And they've been here for a long time. And we're really beginning to see what's happened as a result of your cooperative efforts to get things done in Collier County. So once again, I'd like to thank you, and particularly commend David Jackson for -- he is without a doubt the best leader of our CIA that we have ever had. And he does a wonderful job. And you've been great in supporting him. So thank you very much, Commissioner Coletta. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you so much. First of all, I want to thank all of the citizens who came out today. I've actually been given a tour of your community, having visited it many times, because I know people who live down there, but by one of your residents. And I actually, long before I knew, you know, David was going to present today, had visited to see what the CRA was all about, to see what was done. And you certainly have done some marvelous things. I was very curious to learn about the history and how -- and I loved your presentation about how you renamed the street from Kelly to Bayshore, that was really neat. I commend you for that. That's actually a very strategically smart move. And I had gone back -- I love the Naples Daily News, it's a newspaper near and dear to my heart, and I had gone back and I looked at articles in the past to see, you know, what happened and how the community had evolved. And, you know, while I understand that you appreciate what David is doing for you now, what I found very interesting to read was how much success you had already achieved by December of 2004. And there's an article that was published about Bayshore Drive on the upswing and its evolution, and basically talked about how wonderful you were then and how you had all raised $4 million through your MSTU and you had beautified Bayshore and what you were doing about Naples Botanical and the emerging businesses, and Page 100 November 8, 2011 how crime was down, how it had decreased very, very significantly. And even Donna, a quote from Donna, and Donna was saying, Fiala who owns property off Bayshore remembers telling others to buy in the area several years ago because she said, it's a place where they would make money someday. They all thought I was nuts, she says, I kept telling them this is a great thing, very few believe me. Turns out Fiala was right. Okay, so that was in 2004. And after David joined you, you've continued to make progress, which is again very positive and I certainly can only commend you for that. What my concern is has nothing to do with your accomplishments nor with your future plans to continue growing and bettering your community. My concern rests with what concerns everybody today, and that is money. And quite frankly, I wish David had spent a little bit more in his presentation on the finances of what's going on with the CRA, and my concerns about that, none of which is a reflection on any of you or what you have done. In fact, it's your tax dollars. So I'm concerned for you. And so this is what I want to share with you. I've received numerous e -mails about the finances. I've been asked in person about the finances of the CRA. And just to give you a little summary of my understanding for your benefit, is essentially going into Fiscal Year ' 12 you basically have a $3 million budget. And of that $3 million budget, one - and -a -half million dollars is going to debt service, okay. That's basically a check that's stroked by the Clerk of Courts to the bank to pay off your loan, which the CRA has a very large loan, and I'll get into that. And then the bulk of the other expenditures, if you will, is made up of close to 500,000 in personnel services, which is for four -- is it four or five employees, David? MR. JACKSON: Five. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So David, your executive director, Page 101 November 8, 2011 who makes 125 and then four employees who make between 60 and 70,000 to manage approximately 426,000 in grants. Now, that is a very big expense to manage that sum of money. And that's one of my concerns. Because in these hard economic times, these are disproportionately high salaries for the administration of those grants. The other issue is with respect to the loans. I -- CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, Commissioner Hiller, you're doing a wonderful presentation -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: I won't be long, I'm almost done. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I was concerned about the report -- the court reporter -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are you okay? Can I finish -- CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's been one heck of a long time between breaks for her. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm almost done. I won't be too long. Bottom line is we have a very large -- and I say we, because the Board is responsible. The CRA has a very large loan coming due. David said that by 2014 it will be about a $7 million balloon, okay. We don't have the money to pay that off. And we went out and asked banks to come back and say would you be willing to restructure this debt. And basically the answer was no. We have the Fifth/Third -- would you like me to read it to you or should I just summarize it? I'll make all of this available to you. The long and short of it is, we don't have any indication that the current bank, Fifth/Third, is willing to alter the current loan conditions for the payoff in 2014, and there are no other banks that will finance on terms that we can accept. So I am concerned about that. And you should be too. Because we want you to be successful but we have to be realistic about money. And so we need to sit down and think of what we need to do to plan for the imminent future and figure out, you know, how we're going to pay this debt off. And the county can't backstop that debt. So we Page 102 November 8, 2011 have to figure out what needs to be done. And I want you to be aware of it, because I think it's very important that you understand the realty of the finances of the situation, and we have to work together to address it and solve it. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you so much for being here. This concludes the CRA portion of the meeting. I'm turning the gavel back over to our Chairman, Fred Coyle. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And we are going to break for lunch. We'll be back here at 1:30. Thank you very much. (A luncheon recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, Board of County Commission meeting is back in session. Item #9E SOLICITATION ORDINANCES, AND, COMMISSIONER COYLE' S DESIRE TO ENACT A SOLICITATION MORATORIUM, SO AS TO ENSURE THAT THE EXISTING PROVISIONS AND ANY POSSIBLE FUTURE SOLICITATION MORATORIUM PROPOSAL SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE A PRIOR RESTRAINT UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT, NOR ANY OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION — COUNTY ATTORNEY TO BRING BACK A REVISED ORDINANCE(S) FOR THE BOARD'S REVIEW - APPROVED MR. OCHS: Commissioners, you had an 11:30 a.m. time certain CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, 9.E? MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, let's do it. It's Commissioner Hiller's item, right? Page 103 November 8, 2011 MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. It is to direct the County Attorney to research the Constitutionality of the provisions provided in the county's solicitation ordinances, and Commissioner Coyle's desire to enact a solicitation moratorium so as to ensure that the existing provisions in any possible future solicitation moratorium proposal shall not constitute a prior restraint or under the First Amendment or any other Constitutional amendment. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll second it for you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But hang on a second. Let's not -- can we -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to have discussion. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Coyle? CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to have discussion. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Hang on a second, don't make the motion yet. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HILLER: The reason I brought this forward is because it was -- you know, we had hoped to bring forward the recommendations to improve our ordinances to basically better allow for solicitations in this county from a public safety standpoint, because there have been a lot of concerns about solicitations in public right -of -ways, and there had been concerns that, you know, some of the solicitations might be done by agencies that were fraudulent. And so a group of citizens, as you know, veterans, had come to me and they proposed several solutions. We took those recommendations to the Sheriffs attorney who reviewed them and felt that they were Constitutional as well as enforceable. And then the County Attorney wanted time to review them. And in the process of all of this, what became very apparent to Page 104 November 8, 2011 me was that this question of soliciting and where you solicit is actually a very, very complicated matter, and that we as government have to be extremely careful in how we craft our ordinances and what we propose with respect to solicitations. And there are many different types of solicitations. There are solicitations by panhandlers, there are commercial solicitations, there are charitable solicitations, and there are different forums you can solicit in. There's a public forum, there are non - public forums. And then there's that area in between. And all that area is governed by the First Amendment. And there has been a lot of litigation with respect to that. So I started to look back into what we have done, what our practices have been, what some of the considerations were that had been put forth, and I started to become very concerned, which is why I brought forward the suggestion I did today, to have the County Attorney research what our current ordinances say and whether they're Constitutional, any potential proposal on a ban, which -- and the County Attorney has already done some partial research on that, and I will comment to the research he's done, and also look into this issue of permitting, which has been a requirement in the county, and whether or not the way it's being done is again Constitutional and legal. And to that end we also have a very special guest here today who has signed up as a speaker. We have Marty Moorhead. And Marty is the executive director of the Muscular Dystrophy Association, and she's going to share with us some of the legal issues that she knows about, because she does obviously have people who solicit on her behalf. One of the things that she will be addressing is what's known as the Iris Roberts Act. And I have a copy of that here for anyone who wants to know anymore more about. One thing I want to share first is with respect to the issue of bans. And I did look over the research that the County Attorney did. And Page 105 November 8, 2011 here's my concern, and this is in no way a reflection on Chairman Coyle's recommendation, because quite frankly he was sincere in his wishes to come up with a good solution. The only problem is, is that when you propose a ban on solicitations, for it to be legal you have to have, you know, a compelling public concern. You have to have a compelling public reason to basically impinge on someone's First Amendment rights. And the concern I have when I look back at the various counties that have imposed bans is that they did have public safety reasons. They had histories of problems in the medians or they had accidents and injuries. So what they did is they had enforced bans because of evidence of problems. And those bans would in effect have the consequence of promoting public safety. We don't have that. We don't have a history of accidents in our medians related to solicitations. So for us to say that we want to ban solicitations in medians for public safety reasons without any evidence of there being any history of public safety concerns could potentially be challenged. While again, I think what Commissioner Coyle was suggesting, you know, was with all the right intentions, my concern is on the legal side. And I don't want us to be put in a position where we face legal challenges. So that's why I would like the County Attorney to go forward and to review all these issues to make sure we do the right thing, that we properly respect the Constitution, that we don't infringe on anybody's First Amendment rights, while at the same time promoting the interest of public safety. So my motion is really very simple -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, it was my motion, but it's all right, go ahead. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I like his motion. I don't mind him letting him make the motion. Maybe if he makes the motion he'll vote for it, right? Page 106 November 8, 2011 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Not necessarily. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Not necessarily. I almost had him there. So the bottom line is it's a very, very important issue. And we need to tread very, very carefully to make sure we do the right thing for the right reason. Should we have our public speaker? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, call the public speaker. MR. MITCHELL: The speaker is Marty Moorhead. MS. MOORHEAD: Good afternoon. And thank you very much for the opportunity to come and speak with you all today. My name is Marty Moorhead. I've had the pleasure of being the Executive Director for the MDA here for the last nine years. And I'd like to start off by thanking the community of Collier County and supporting MDA for the past decades. And two of the main fundraisers that we do in the Collier County area is the MDA boot drive, which is held in March, and then also our Naples Telethon Executive Lock -up. I want the Board to very much understand how much we need these funds. Our ability to collect and do our solicitation in March is vital to me being able to provide health care services in the local area. I know that there's been some question of some of the organizations that have come in, but please, none of the organizations that are operating properly in your area that are very well respected, very well documented on where my money goes to. I send children to MDA summer camp, I have clinics that I support, I provide wheelchairs, leg braces, telecommunication devices, all of the health services that we provide are based on this ability to do our fundraiser in March, the solicitation. It's over $50,000 for us. So please, I understand your concerns with others, but -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Marty, can you address the Iris Roberts Act? Page 107 November 8, 2011 MS. MOORHEAD: Absolutely. The Iris Roberts Act is -- was developed to let organizations collect above the permitting process in certain areas, and basically allows an organization to collect for 10 days, a total of 10 days, in a certain area for a year. And also, you have to have insurance, you also have to be able to provide legal documentation that you are a valid registered nonprofit. So really, what our biggest concern is enforcing this. We feel that there are some organizations that may not be valid. I think that might be some of the concerns of yours as well. But it really comes down to let's look at how we enforce this and make sure that it is valid, people, and make sure that we're not hurting the ones that are valid and are doing it for the right reason. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And just to add to that, the Iris Roberts Act basically provides that organizations that can prove what's required by this statute, that they are in fact legitimate organizations, are not required to get local government permits. MS. MOORHEAD: Absolutely not. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And local government can't ask them to get a permit because they are actually exempt. MS. MOORHEAD: That is correct. COMMISSIONER HILLER: This is the Act over here. I have a copy if anybody would like to take a look at it. And so I've asked the County Manager to make sure that we are not asking organizations who are qualified to have permits when they don't need it. MS. MOORHEAD: Absolutely. And it does have -- also to not have us to overdo it it has a limitation of 10 days per year. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, exactly. So that's very important. CHAIRMAN COYLE: First, you understand that there was never any proposal to keep you from soliciting funds. MS. MOORHEAD: Absolutely. We just -- when we know -- as U M November 8, 2011 soon as this comes about and just start talking about it, you never know how it's going to go. And so that's why we wanted to make sure that we were coming to make sure that you knew what it is that we do. Because sometimes when -- we've seen it in other areas where it's been brought about because people were trying -- or abusing it. And unfortunately sometimes it can come about where it's discussed for everybody to be off the streets. That's the only reason why we are here, to make sure. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You do understand there's a difference between having permission to solicit funds and having permission to solicit funds in the streets? MS. MOORHEAD: Well, Iris Roberts provides for it to be in the streets. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. This specifically relates to nonprofit organizations. I'll just read this for the record. It's exempting certain nonprofit organizations from permit requirements related to obstructing streets or roads for solicitation purposes, establishing conditions certain nonprofit organizations must meet in order to solicit charitable donations on certain streets, roads, and rights -of -ways, authorizing local government to halt solicitation activities if such conditions are not met, providing -- and, you know. And basically it goes on to list what the requirements are that the local government needs to establish as the right level of proof to allow for these solicitations. And as Marty said, it is for a period of time not to exceed 10 cumulative days within one calendar year. And if you do fall within the parameters of this statute, then county government cannot force you to get a permit. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'll continue with my statement. The proposal, which was not approved by the Board, by the way, was that we have a temporary moratorium. And that temporary moratorium would expire before your March fundraising event. MS. MOORHEAD: I apologize, we thought it was a six -month Page 109 November 8, 2011 that would take us through the end of March. CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, we clearly discussed in the meeting, and I said let's not let it interfere with the March fundraising event. MS. MOORHEAD: Wonderful, thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay? But the Board might not support it under any circumstance. But it is standard practice. And that's the reason I'm making the motion here. It is standard practice for the County Attorney to look at the legality of anything we do. And we've already scheduled this to come back I think in the first meeting -- where's the County Manager? The first meeting in December. County Manager? MR.00HS: Sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that when this is coming back? MR. OCHS: That's my plan, sir. I have to work in conjunction with your County Attorney to make sure he's comfortable with the ordinance. But the direction from the Board was to try to bring this back on the December meeting. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So we've already got it scheduled for the December meeting. It will be a time certain, I think. And it is common practice for the -- in fact, it's required that the County Attorney review any of these things for legality, enforceability and that sort of thing. So it's just a motion to do what we were going to do anyway. And that's why I'm in favor of it. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you, Commissioner Coyle. The only thing is that actually wasn't quite the case. Because when you brought your motion forward before when I subsequently asked for what research was done and what had been determined with respect to the ban you were proposing, the County Attorney had not done research on it. So I wanted to make sure that going forward not only was the particular issue with respect to what amendments we would make to our ordinance be considered, but that these other issues be researched Page 110 November 8, 2011 as well. And with respect to a temporary moratorium, while I appreciate that's what you had been thinking, I question whether that would be Constitutional under the terms that you were proposing. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, if you're going to make the legal interpretations, why do we need to ask the County Attorney? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because I'm not making the interpretations, I'm questioning the legality of what we do as government, and it's my duty to, and it's the County Attorney's duty to do the research and bring back the answers to the questions. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why don't we do that. County Attorney, you want to -- MR. KLATZKOW: No, I'm under Board direction to work with the County Manager. We will bring back a revised proposed ordinance for the Board's review. I'll be working with Commissioner Hiller and her group for their input. I'll be working with the Sheriffs Office for their input. And whatever is brought back to you will be vetted for Constitutionality in the conformance with the -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: But there's more. I want to see a review of how we are permitting and whether what we are doing with respect to requiring permits pursuant to any ordinance or any other law is legitimate and whether any ban that may be proposed in the future, for whatever reason, I think there needs to be an understanding of that. Because this is an issue which apparently comes up quite frequently. And I think we need to address all these issues at this time in a very comprehensive way, not merely the proposals that we're going to bring forward to address the concerns of the veterans -- MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, the ordinance that I bring to you will be fully vetted, okay, and it will be my professional license on the line, because I'm the one who signs off for these that it will be lawful. That is always the case, ma'am, all right? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala? Page 111 November 8, 2011 COMMISSIONER FIALA: My biggest concern is not of course with people like MDA or any organizations that collect local money to help local people in very legitimate circumstances. What -- the big problem I have, and if we stop permitting, I don't know how we're going to solve it then, are these people, the fly by night organizations that come in, they come into our community because we're considered -- I don't know that we are, but we're considered a wealthy community. And so they then prey on our people and take their money back and spend it however they please on whatever they please. And even if they give 20 cents toward helping a disabled veteran, everything else goes in their pocket. I want to stop that. And I'm hoping that whatever is going on is going to not change that so that people like that are allowed to prey on our citizens. I have a big concern with that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that is the purpose of bringing this back, see if we can get something that will stop that kind of practice without harming the legitimate organizations. So all in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. Any opposed by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we got it done. Where do we go from here, County Manager? Item #I OA RECOMMENDATION FOR THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BOARD) TO DIRECT THE COUNTY Page 112 November 8, 2011 MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO IMPLEMENT A PUBLIC INFORMATION PLAN FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) DIGITAL FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP (DFIRM) AND TO ADVERTISE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE (FDPO) FOR FUTURE BOARD CONSIDERATION — APPROVED MR. OCHS: You go to Item 10 on your agenda. The first item is 10.A, a recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to direct the County Manager or his designee to implement a public information plan for the adoption of the Federal Emergency Management Agency digital flood insurance rate map and to advertise an ordinance amending the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance for future consideration. Mr. Casalanguida will present. MR. CASALANGUIDA: County Manager, if I could have the viewer, please. Thank you. Good afternoon, Commissioners, Nick Casalanguida. This is a little bit of a housekeeping and good news item as well. I spoke to a couple of you who said it would be good to get this information out to the public. So that's what I'll do, sir, and I'll try and be brief. You have the FEMA flood maps and we should be getting our letter of determination coming soon. What you see in front of you on the screen is our current flood maps. Notice they're pretty standard and the districts are broken down almost by, I would say, street lines rather than any geographic boundary except for the coastal area. Your next slide shows you what our preliminary D -FIRMs are going to look like once they're adopted about six months from now. Obviously a lot of work has gone into them and are a lot more detailed. You had your staff prepare an appeal for two of the basins that Page 113 November 8, 2011 you have in front of you right now, the green and the brown. I'm happy to report that FEMA accepted that appeal and it's moving forward as part of the new flood maps. Those two updated basins will be included. Now, there are other basins that have to be done, and I'll get to that in a second. What you've done with that appeal is you've probably saved about 20,000 structures from going through the LOMA process in those two areas, and that's significant. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why don't you tell the public what LOMA means. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. It's a Letter of Map Amendment, which means if you're identified in a flood zone and you're built on a pad, you can pay a surveyor to do the necessary engineering documents, submit the information to FEMA, and get excepted out of the flood insurance requirement. So that is what a LOMA is. So by getting those two basins -- and I'll go back to that map just to show you. By being in those two basins and getting them excepted into the new maps, if you're above the flood zone you are picked up now and you will not have to spend that money or that aggravation to go through that. So that's a big deal for those folks. You can see the green and the brown, those are the two basins that have been done by this appeal. You can see those other colors on the map all still have to be done as well, the coastal modeling. This process will take us into 2013, but it's not going to delay your flood map acceptance in the next six months. It just means it will take a while to get the rest of these basins into the updated LIDAR. Your timeline, we expect a letter of final determination to come in next week. And then we'll have six months before the maps become effective for flood insurance purposes. And there's a difference between flood insurance and building permits, and we'll get Page 114 November 8, 2011 into that in a second. We expect to bring the ordinance to the Board in early January. Sixty -six days at March 30th will put an effective date. That allows us to do public outreach from November 16th all the way to March 30th. And that's important because we need to tell our builders, those folks coming in with building permits, that it's not the time you submit, it's the time you're approved. So they'll have the benefit of looking at these maps, and if they can make that determination that they need to build or permit to the new BFEs, base flood elevation, they'll have time to do so. So we're going to do a tremendous outreach process over the next six months, but more effectively, 66 to 90 days, 96 days. As you can tell, that's where we are right now. So we have the six -month adoption period. The Board has six months to adopt these maps. We're again shooting for March 30th as an effective date. But the insurance ramifications won't take place until mid -May. Now, residents can prepare themselves for the LOMA process that are outside of those two basins that they can prove that they're above the BFE. What that means is for those other 10 basins or so, they can work with the county staff, determine if they're above the BFE, hire a land surveyor, get them on board, and then they can make that business determination as a homeowner whether they choose to purchase the flood insurance at the higher rate, purchase a base flood insurance or do the Letter of Map Amendment and prove to the federal government and their insurance and mortgage provider that they're not in a flood zone. So effective date of impacts. This is what I wanted to focus on because this is televised and I know a lot of our folks watch this. Again, I want to state that it's not when you submit, it's when you get approved for your building permit that you have to look at that base flood elevation. So we're going to bring an ordinance to the Board in early Page 115 November 8, 2011 January and do a roughly 66 effective date adoption delay so that we can let our builders, architects, engineers know what that effective date is. Now, that doesn't mean if you get approved before that effective at a lower base flood elevation there are no ramifications. You will be grandfathered under FEMA. But when you go to rebuild or put an addition on, you will be -- if you build at that lower elevation, subject to the new requirements. So for us it's an opportunity for people to come in and tell them, look, even though you could be at a lower BFE, base flood elevation, you may want to design and build to the higher BFE, if there is one, because there are other consequences as well. Put up our website. At the main web page we have some. We also have something at www.Colliergov.net /flood maps. And we're going to have two public information meetings in those basins and let people know what's going on. And we'll have our website up and running like we did last time, where someone can plug in their address and it will show where it is. That's the extent of my presentation, Commissioners. If you have any questions or comments, I'll be happy to take them. Otherwise, your recommendation for the staffs recommendation of approval would be fine. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, motion to approve by me, second by Commissioner Fiala. Commissioner Coletta has a comment. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I'm fine, I was just going to make a motion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, you want me to withdraw mine? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You want me to withdraw my motion and let you -- Page 116 November 8, 2011 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, your motion will do just fine, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. Any opposed by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion is carried unanimously. RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AN UNDERGROUND FACILITIES CONVERSION AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY (FP &L) FOR "PHASE ONE" OF THE VANDERBILT BEACH MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT (THE 'MSTU') UTILITY CONVERSION PROJECT AS STIPULATED BY FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TARIFF SECTION 6 AND TO APPROVE PAYMENT TO FP &L IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,806,091 TO COVER THE CONSTRUCTION COST FOR FP &L UNDERGROUND UTILITY CONVERSION - MOTION TO APPROVE WITH A REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION FROM THE FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE REGARDING ISSUES — APPROVED MR. OCHS: Commissioners, 10.B was an item that was continued from the October 25th, 2011 BCC meeting. It's a recommendation to approve an underground facilities conversion agreement with Florida Power & Light company for the Phase I of the Page 117 November 8, 2011 Vanderbilt Beach Municipal Service Taxing Unit Utility Conversion Project, as stipulated by Florida Public Service Commission tariff Section 6, and to approve payment to FP &L in the amount of $1,806,091 to cover the construction cost for FPL underground utility conversion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We've heard this probably half a dozen times. Do we have to hear it again? MR. OCHS: Sir, I don't believe any of the issues have changed from the county staff perspective. I know that the County Attorney and the Clerk's Office along with our staff have been working to find a way to allow for a proper prepayment to FP &L for them to do the work. Staff has recommended approval and we've compared the estimate from FP &L against an estimate from a private engineering firm. The cost seems to be competitive. I don't believe that's the issue as much as the prepayment issue. And I'll let either Jeff or Crystal address that. MR. KLATZKOW: I think it's fine if you approve this item. I've talked to Crystal in the past on this. We will continue to work with Crystal and the Clerk's Office to get the Clerk comfortable with this item. If for some reason the Clerk is still uncomfortable with this item, then perhaps we'll will get an Attorneys General Opinion so the Clerk can, you know, be comfortable with that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: The last thing we want to do is have this thing come back again. How many speakers do we have? MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have 12 speakers. MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold. I just wanted to note that there is a time period that we're dealing with for this particular item as well. We've got until February 20th of 2012 to pay the amount. So if we do an Attorney General Opinion on this, I know that takes some time to obtain, so we have -- Page 118 November 8, 2011 CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have 12 speakers? Will you hold up your hands, please? Now, tell me, is -- puts your hands down now. Is there anyone here who opposes this approval of this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, so all of you are supporting approval. I make a motion we approve it and let the Clerk work out his payment mechanism however he can. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by me to approve this item, and seconded by Commissioner Coletta. And -- is that for speaking on this item? Okay. All right. And was Commissioner Hiller first or Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, you can take my light off. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That leaves Commissioner Hiller. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HILLER: You know, the residents of the community are very frustrated by being caught in the middle of this process. And, you know, from having communicated with them extensively about what's going on, it seems to me there are three issues, the first issue being the issue of the prepayment. And it was actually brought to my attention by one of the advisory board members and one of the lead members of this project that staff should have known that this was going to be an issue all along, because in the minutes from the Vanderbilt Beach MSTU meeting dated June 2nd, 2003, it said the money is needed up -front for a contract. So I guess my concern is this appears to have been left to the 11 th hour and it could have been something which was considered well ahead of, you know, the time it was brought to the Clerk's Office's attention, since, you know, they just deal with whatever Page 119 November 8, 2011 information, you know, you provide. The second issue that concerns me is a question that has been raised about the bidding process and whether this was properly let and whether there shouldn't be some sort of competitive bidding. And I just want to make sure there's confirmation on that. The third issue is apparently there was communication between FP &L and I believe the County Attorney's office where FP &L said they would not subject themselves to audit by the Clerk's Office, which obviously is a problem. So those are the three issues that are pending. And even if we sit here and approve it today, and I completely support approving this, because I think this is a project that needs to move forward as expeditiously as possible. I'm concerned that our approval is going to give false hope to these good citizens that they think that merely because we've approved it that somehow it's going to happen, because you've got all these issues that are basically tying this up, and, you know, what is a realistic time frame for them to expect that they're going to be able to move forward? And I would like to know. Because I e- mailed Leo and I haven't gotten a response yet. So I want to know what we anticipate is the timeline, even if we sit here and approve this today, that these people can expect to see action on this prof ect. MS. ARNOLD: To address the question with regard to the prepayment and staff not providing enough time and the 11th hour, with all due respect, we went through and did our due diligence and conducted a pilot project to ensure that each step could be done with everyone's authorization. That pilot project went through successfully. There was no issues raised from anyone's office with respect to the processes of prepayment. The prepayment amount that was done for that particular project was $23,000. If the process itself, regardless of the amount, was a problem, we Page 120 November 8, 2011 wish that someone would have told us that was an issue at that particular time. So we were attempting to do our due diligence to go through and follow the process as it pertains to the tariff and all the regulations that are associated with the tariff, as well as all of our local regulations. And at that time no one advised us there was an issue with prepayment. With respect to how long it's going to take to resolve the issue, staff cannot answer that. I'm going to have to look to the County Attorney's Office and the Clerk's Office, because that's not an issue that we have. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like an answer from the County Attorney's Office and I would also like an answer from the Clerk's Office as to where we are and why we are where we are. MR. KLATZKOW: We are where we are because the Clerk is uncomfortable with this, ma'am. It's as simple as that. COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's not good enough for me. MS. KINZEL: Commissioner Hiller -- for the record, Crystal Kinzel. Let me address the issue with the pilot and the prepayment. There is obviously a monumental difference between 1.8 million and 27,000. There's a basis in some of the statutory, we've gone back and reviewed some of the payments that were made previously to make sure that there was a difference or justification in those payments. There is an ability under the statute to pay under a category two level, which is under 35,000. Obviously had we been aware there would be a $1.8 million problem, we would have addressed that when it came to our attention. And since then we've made some due diligence in this way. I can also tell you that there has been an agreement with FP &L in the past that they let us pay after the work was done in a construction environment. Again, $91,000, much, much different than a $1.8 million deposit in escrow. Page 121 November 8, 2011 So those are some nuances. But we have been working with the County Attorney's Office to resolve the differences between the Clerk's ability to pay. We need to make sure it's a legal payment and that we can process it legally. And that's what we are working through, and we have been working through that. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But we've got the issue of the bidding and the auditing as well as the payment. And how long is this going to take to resolve? Because these people want to move forward on this project. MR. TEACH: Commissioner, Scott Teach, Deputy County Attorney. When the item was brought forward for the September agenda, I had some concerns of my own that I had shared with Crystal too as well, and I actually wrote FP &L and I raised about five points concerning the audit issue, just because I knew it was going to be an issue, about possibly phasing the project so that the upfront money wouldn't have to be paid at the lump sum of -- in the very beginning of the project, and some of the other issues. FP &L basically brushed off those issues by arguing that the tariff controlled and the Public Service Commission tariff didn't require them to allow any of those, they didn't have to extend any of those courtesies to us. To some extent the tariff sets a minimum floor that FP &L has to comply with. If they wanted to allow some of these things or extend some of these things to the county, they could. But FPL, they make the decision whether they want to do business or not with us. In some shape it's sort of like an adhesion contract where you really have no negotiating room in place here. And that's what the MSTU is facing right now. Jeff had indicated that, you know, we're going to continue working with Crystal. Crystal and I have been communicating, we've been talking to the Public Service Commission. I've had e -mails and Page 122 November 8, 2011 I've had a phone call into the Department of Financial Services, Local Government Bureau today to speak with their chief auditor, and I know Crystal's had conversations with him as well. So we're trying to get to the same place. And I spoke with the members of the MSTU Advisory Board a little while ago and explained to them, you know, the Florida -- the tariff, the FP &L tariff also has a provision where we have a binding cost estimate, which, as Michele indicated, is good to the end of February. But with just cause, FP &L can extend that binding cost estimate. And what that does, that locks in the price that we have right now. So if we needed a little extra time, I know it's not something that's favored, and we don't favor that either, but if we needed a little bit of extra time to get an Attorney General's Opinion or whatnot, we could be able to do that I think by working through FP &L and then working with the Clerk's Office on it. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what is our time frame? I'm still not understanding -- MR. TEACH: Well, if Crystal and I hear back from the Department of Financial Services today, this afternoon or whatever, you know, we're -- we may get something positive or we may find out that there's an issue that we need to address. Just one final thing regarding the competitive bidding. This -- you know, FP &L is the sole service provider of this utility. We would have to go through all FPL approved contractors, FPL approved engineers, and even if we split the contract up, and we can do a portion of our own, you can do that, other jurisdictions have, Jupiter Island, for example, did some of their own project, there's a possibility that -- it's a neater package when you can do it and have FP &L do it, because we don't have our contractors and their contractors do working. We have liability issues when we've run into situations like that in the past. Those are things that we've tried to avoid. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can we legally avoid bidding it? Page 123 November 8, 2011 MR. TEACH: Under the tariff it gives you the option of having FP &L do it or going out to bid. That is a good question. The tariff is an administrative regulation and it does provide for that. Others have done it. And I can tell you that I could probably point to 12 or 15 municipalities where projects have been in excess of maybe 200, $300,000, which would be -- exceed the competitive bidding statutes, where they have had FP &L complete the project. But that's where we're at on this. We're trying to move this along, and we understand the frustration of the community and we're trying to reach that goal. COMMISSIONER HILLER: If I may ask one last question. I'm trying to figure out the worst possible scenario to gauge the expectations of the constituents. If you had to -- let's assume everything that you attempt fails and you have to request an opinion from the Attorney General, what's the time frame on that? MR. TEACH: In the past -- I'm trying to think, maybe 30, 60 days we probably could get an answer. MS. KINZEL: Yes, Commissioner, I think even on the BBO it did not take more than two months to get that at the latest. And we would ask for an expedited process, if that's where we end. COMMISSIONER HILLER: At the best we could resolve this as quickly as tomorrow if they called us back. At the worst we're looking -- MR. TEACH: Maybe by the close of the year. COMMISSIONER HILLER: At the worst by the close of the year. MR. TEACH: Yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So that is an answer to your question realistically of what the time frame is and why. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I'll tell you what causes me Page 124 November 8, 2011 some confusion. I'm just looking at this basically. So you've got a group of people here who have a desire to change their community in their minds for the better, and so they said we'll save up to do that and we'll form an MSTU, or a bank. So they've taken this bank called the MSTU, they've put their own money into it, no county money is in there at all, just their own money, and they say, okay, fine we've saved up enough money, now we want to do it. And here they are prevented from using their own bank. I just have a real problem with that. I think that they should be allowed to go forward. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I do too. When was this first brought to the Board? MS. ARNOLD: Around 2004, I believe. And at that time it was estimated -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, wait a minute, wait a minute. The issue of the advanced payment and the item that is currently before us. MS. ARNOLD: Oh, September, September. CHAIRMAN COYLE: September, okay. So we've gone through almost two months and we haven't gotten any closer to resolving it to the best of my knowledge, because I don't think we've answered the fundamental question. And the fundamental question is what does the Clerk need to have to pay the bill? Is it an AGO opinion or is it an opinion from some administrative clerk in Tallahassee that says yeah, okay, the way I read it it's all right? What is it that the Clerk wants in order to get the payment made? MS. KINZEL: Commissioner Coyle, we've methodically worked through all of the options that we have. For example, as we -- as Scott Teach indicated, the first avenue was obviously to sit down with FP &L and see if we could come up with a quick local remedy that FP &L would agree to an audit provision escrowing the funds with both the Board and the Clerk as approvers. That resolution actually worked on something that we were doing with FDOT and the State Page 125 November 8, 2011 Treasury. So we worked on that first because we thought that that would be the most expeditious remedy and resolution of the issue. Scott provided that. They responded back they were unwilling to do that. Then we contacted other counties because Michelle had provided a list. There were two counties on there. We thought, well, if another county is doing it we don't need to reinvent the wheel, how did they legally do it and we would follow that. Unfortunately Seminole said it wasn't really their county, it was a municipality. And Okaloosa can't find any record that they did actually prepare this. The other items that were on that list were the municipalities. We've been -- and we've been working with the County Attorney's Office through each of these avenues to most expeditiously resolve the issue in our minds that would be easier to do locally. After those were exhausted, we've been reviewing with the state, the financial services, the auditor there, and as Scott said, if the Financial Services Division provides the Clerk with a legal reference that he can pay from, we're resolved. But -- and at the worst case we believe an Attorney General's Opinion would be appropriate and that way we have resolution of the issue. But we have methodically over the last four to five weeks done each of these things hoping that those would be the quickest and easiest remedy locally. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why don't we just agree that we need an Attorney General Opinion and request it and just get it done, okay? There's no point in running down any more blind alleys. Just get an AGO -- ask for an AGO opinion, and it will either tell you you can do it or it will tell you you can't do it. Is there anything wrong with that? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Only -- well, not really, because Page 126 November 8, 2011 we should get that in the pipeline, because that way we know if all else fails we at least have that already in the works and we're saving that much more time rather than delay. So obviously that is the thing to do, while still proceeding along the other avenues to see if we can find resolution there. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, you don't know how many of those are going to run into a dead end. And we're just spending time doing things that are not working out. So let's go for the Attorney General Opinion. Can we get that done very quickly? Okay. Commissioners, would you -- well, suppose I -- yes, you can. But let me just finish. I'd like to get this resolved fairly quickly. And what I would like to see happen is that I'd like to see this get approved with instruction to our staff that we, in cooperation with the Clerk, seek an Attorney General's Opinion on the payment, the advanced payment issue. And then that takes care of it all in this one meeting. If we get the AGO opinion, and it is favorable, the Clerk makes the payment. If it is not favorable, then I guess we scrap your project, which is really crazy. I can't imagine an Attorney General Opinion that would do that. But nevertheless -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which leads me into my question. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can the MSTU bank that these people have placed their money, if they decide to withdraw their money and put it into another bank and then they can just make their decisions themselves through their own board and calculate all the expenses and whatever and they approve it, can they do that? MS. ARNOLD: That's more of a legal question. I can't answer that. MR. KLATZKOW: This is tax money. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, they won't have the authority to spend it. So, okay, that's -- is it acceptable to everybody who wishes to speak that we vote to approve this under the conditions I just stated, Page 127 November 8, 2011 or do you feel compelled to come up and -- MR. ARTHUR: I think it's agreeable. We want to get it approved by the Commission. And then we -- I'm Charles Arthur, chairman of the Vanderbilt Beach MSTU. Our purpose today was to get you folks to approve the payment. We understand there are issues with the Clerk. We don't necessarily agree with all those issues. But I think taking this dual path where we're looking at the financial institutions under the State Treasurer or CFO is one path, and then getting an Attorney General's Opinion is another. I personally have talked to the Public Service Commission. Florida Power & Light, under the statute and under their tariff can charge us what they want and tell us what to pay. And they can also tell us they're not interested in doing our project, and there isn't anything we can do about it. So it's not like we have the choice of going out and getting Duke Energy or somebody to come in here. We've got to use Florida Power, and they're pretty much in the driver's seat on how that goes. So I think I speak for the rest of our group that we would go along those lines if it's approved today. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Your name? MR. MARTIN: I'm Alvin Martin, known as Bud Martin, feeling like Captain Yossarian. One request. In case the powers that be say no, I wish somebody would start thinking now about how we give the people their money back. Because we've got a sizable fund accrued to go against a specific project. And if you -- if all of a sudden we can't do this project, I wish somebody would start the paperwork going now that says how do we reimburse our prior depositors. And that might even be part of the argument that says whether they approve it or not. Because I think giving it back might be a lot more problem than paying it. Page 128 November 8, 2011 Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't know that it will be, but nevertheless. Okay, we have a motion. All in favor, please signify -- MS. ARNOLD: Can I have just one clarification? Because I do believe Crystal brought up not only the prepayment but the auditing ability. And I just want to make sure that the only issue at hand is the prepayment, because we want to make sure we ask -- MS. KINZEL: Actually not, Michele. I would recommend that we clarify all of the issues regarding the bidding question that Commissioner Hiller had a question about, the pre -audit and the prepayment. And we can do that all in one AGO. But Scott can answer that. But I would recommend we cover it all. MS. ARNOLD: I don't want to have to come back and have another question. MR. TEACH: We'll make sure it's covered in the AGO. And just for the record, there's elaborate rules with the -- under the tariff with the Public Service Commission. And if there's issues with the construction project, you can always appeal and file complaint with the Public Service Commission. And the vendor, in this case FP &L, would have to produce its records for audit by the Public Service Commission. So there's other safeguards to audit and whatnot. But we'll ask the question. aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. Any opposed by like sign? Page 129 November 8, 2011 (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it's done. Hopefully something good will happen. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I just say one thing? You would think that FP &L would try their best to be as cooperative as possible in making this a reality. Because there are so many other groups out there that may want to do the same thing, which is, you know, a lot of business to them and it's to their advantage because it's certainly more cost effective to them when their wires are buried. MR. ARTHUR: In our view they have been cooperative. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Okay, County Manager? MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Where do we go now? Item #10C RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT 60% DESIGN PLANS FOR THE GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK BY KIMLEY -HORN ASSOCIATES, INC. - MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED W /STIPULATIONS — APPROVED MR. OCHS: 10.C. Mr. Chairman, that's a recommendation to accept 60 percent design plans of the Gordon River Greenway Park by Kimley -Horn and Associates, Designers. Ms. Ramsey will begin the presentation. MS. RAMSEY: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I just wanted to take a couple of minutes to let you know that we're going to review the plans as they are today, which is approximately 60 percent. I have our consultant here, J.P. Marchand, is going to do the presentation for you, and then after the presentation will take questions. MR. MARCHAND: Thank you, Marla. Page 130 November 8, 2011 Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, good afternoon. I am J.P. Marchand with the Kimley -Horn Associates. With me today from your consultant team with is Ray Loraine, an Environmental Scientist with Cardno ENTRIX. You approved the rezoning for the Gordon River Greenway Park project in July and asked that we bring back the site plan to you. That's what we're doing here today. The principal staff members that have been working on the project also include Barry Williams and Tony Ruberto from Parks and Rec. and Alex Sulecki from Conservation Collier. This has been a cooperative project. The principal partners in the project include Collier County Parks and Rec., Conservation Collier and the Naples Zoo. Several other major stakeholders have also been very involved. Those include the Airport Authority, the City of Naples, The Conservancy of Southwest Florida, the Southwest Florida Land Preservation Trust and the neighbors in the neighborhood, particularly the Bear's Paw community folks. We have regular stakeholder meetings for this project every couple of months. We also held a neighborhood meeting on October 19th to review the 60 percent plans. Generally the site plan that we'll go through today is the same and has the same features as the concept plan that you approved with the rezone back in July. It is part of an overall larger project that involves a north south trail system through a major part of the county. This is the overview of the entire project. It's about a 124 acre project. There are two principal development areas or nodes, we've been calling them, that provide access to the project. There's one on the north end of the project in this area here and a second one on the west side of the project. The zoo is located immediately north of that one. In addition to that, there are several miles of trails that both link these nodes and also form the north south corridor or spine trail Page 131 November 8, 2011 through the park area. It is planned to connect and extend both north and south from here north of Golden Gate Parkway in this area and south onto the airport property and south from there in this area. The trails are boardwalks or asphalt trails. They're boardwalks through all the wetlands except in this very easterly edge of the project. This is an asphalt trail. This is adjacent to a proposed road that will be added in the future by others developing property just to the south of that. The width of these trails are from 12 to 10 feet for the shared use trail. That's the one that runs all the way from the north all the way down through the property and all the way to the southerly end. That's proposed for shared use both for bicycles and walking, all kinds of uses, as well as a connecting trail connecting the westerly node across the Gordon River and to that north -south spine trail. The trails there will be from 12 to 10 feet. The asphalt trail portions will be 12 feet. The boardwalk will be 10 feet. That's similar to the boardwalk that you have at Clam Pass. The other boardwalks that go through the wetland area. That's one from this node through here, another one connecting up that way, and then through the area like this. Those are proposed to be eight feet. We had been looking at 10 feet there. There's a considerable cost to that. But with eight feet, we'll work for a non - shared path, so we're going to designate those as non - biking paths, but more for walking and enjoying the wetland area. So those we're looking at an eight -foot width there. It reduces the impacts in the wetland area as well. That's similar to what you have on the boardwalks at Freedom Park. We're also proposing trail lighting on the major shared use trails. That would be the spine trail through the project from north to south and the connecting trail running from east to west. The lighting is proposed is a LED lighting fixture, it's a cut off fixture, so the light shines down, it doesn't shine out. And we're looking at meeting the Page 132 November 8, 2011 standards required for a shared use trail, but not exceeding those, so that we minimize the lighting. In this area there's a rookery right at the point where the Gordon River and the Golden Gate canal confluence. And that rookery, north and south of that we'll also be adding shields to those lights to shield them from the rookery. There are two bridges in the project, one connecting the westerly node with the rest of the project crossing the Gordon River in this area, and a second larger bridge connecting the north and southerly portions of the project across the Golden Gate canal. Based on input we got from some of the neighborhood meetings we've had, we've extended the -- or enhanced the span of the bridge across the Golden Gate canal. Essentially both bridges will span the open water portions of the Gordon River and the canal. We're looking at a timber bridge that will preserve the look of the boardwalk as it goes across both locations. And also in general, we have a fishing platform proposed just south of the Golden Gate canal bridge. It would not extend out into the water so as not to impair use of the water but would be located adjacent to the water's edge so it could be used for fishing. The last general part of the project that I want to point out is a stormwater treatment system. In the northern portion of the project off of Golden Gate Parkway, we're going to be -- have an opportunity to capture some runoff from the Parkway that currently discharges directly to the river. We're going to be able to divert that into a stormwater treatment box and then into a spreader swale and be able to treat that water and gain a little bit of net stormwater quality benefit by doing that. A little more detail on some of the parking node areas. This is a blow -up of the westerly node. The Goodlette -Frank Road is on the left hand side of the project. The zoo property is immediately to the north, The Conservancy of Southwest Florida to the south. Page 133 November 8, 2011 Access to this is proposed from the new driveway that The Conservancy has installed. We'll be connecting to that to the south. And then in a cooperative project with the zoo, the County Parks and Rec is working on a connecting roadway that comes off of Fleischmann Boulevard and the traffic signal there and ties into our project so we'll have access there. So we're not proposing any new access to the Goodlette -Frank roadway. The components in this node include the shared use parking, and I'll talk a little bit more about that, shared use parking with the zoo. There's a restroom, a pavilion, a children's play area and a kayak launch facility with a connection to the Gordon River. The parking facility, this is going to be a shared use parking. When the zoo is finished with their master plan and this project is finished and they're being done cooperatively, this will be all of the zoo's parking. There will be no other parking on the zoo property. So all of the zoo's parking will be here. We have a total of 617 car parking spaces in that parking lot, with 10 bus spaces. We've gone a lot of back and forth with the zoo over what exactly are your needs in terms of parking. And there's not any real easy category to go to to look at okay, how much parking does a zoo need. But the zoo has done some evaluations. We've gotten a letter from the zoo that states based on their visitors, the number of visitors they've had, experience that they've had, they estimate that they need 585 spaces plus the bus parking and had concluded therefore that the proposed 617 spaces will support the zoo's current operation. We are proposing that a good portion of the parking be grass parking. That's all the green that you see in the southerly portion. Again, the zoo is up here, so the closest parking to the zoo is all proposed to be paved parking. This parking to the south we're proposed as grass parking. The zoo currently has a large grass parking lot that they use right now. And I'll get to the grass parking again a little bit more too. Page 134 November 8, 2011 We have some more grass parking in this section of the project. In this area we have a total of 44 parking spaces, generally to serve the park users and the kayak launch users. Again, these passive park facilities are a little bit difficult to predict the parking requirements. Doing -- using at -- the closest things we could come to those, we came up with a requirement of at least 24 spaces. But looking at Freedom Park and experience that the park has had at other parks, Freedom Park has 45 spaces, we considered that the 44 spaces would be appropriate for the park portion of the project. And of those we've got another 10 right in this area that would be grass parking. So all total we've got 320 grass parking spaces out of some 660 total spaces in this node. That's about 48 percent of the parking would be in grass parking. The county code allows generally up to 15 percent of the park required spaces to be grass parking. So we believe though that in this case a higher percentage of grass parking is acceptable. That's because they don't want to have somebody coming back and have a whole lot of parking in grass and then have it all deteriorate and be a big problem later on. We think that a higher percentage -- and this is acceptable for a couple of reasons: One, it's going to be stabilized with a geo fabric underneath the grass. It will be irrigated. The zoo currently has success operating the grass parking area as long as they are able to irrigate it. They have a considerable amount of their current parking is in grass. And we're providing a lot more paved parking than they currently have now too. So we don't believe we'll be overloading this grass parking area. We also will demonstrate, the parks will have an opportunity to demonstrate a green approach to the project by having the grass parking. They've had several county parks where they've had considerably more than 15 percent of the parking in grass, and that's worked well. Page 135 November 8, 2011 And then finally we've also designed the stormwater system as if it was all pavement, so -- and that's how our permits are being reviewed as well. So if there is a problem in the future over some of the grass deteriorating, it can be paved without having to go through a stormwater permitting or stormwater system modification. The system is sized and being permitted to handle 100 percent pavement. So as part of our -- the discussion this morning, we would request that the Board specifically allow grass parking at greater than 15 percent so that we can have that taken care of and be able to do what we're proposing here. I want to mention the stormwater system a little bit. We have a treatment train of low impact development features associated with this. First in that line would be the grass parking that I talked about already. Finally, the second would be the -- a number of the islands, as many as we've been able to, we're going to have depressed islands, a bio swale or stormwater can then go into that. From there it goes into the dry retention facilities. I mentioned that they have been sized for 100 percent pavement over the parking areas. We've also sized them for the most restrictive nutrient removal requirements, and it ended up our end result is there's no discharge out of these ponds at all for over 95 percent of the rainfall events in an average year. There will be no discharge coming out of the ponds. For those events that there is discharge, it will discharge into the wetland area here and then into a created wetland area that we're going to be creating in this area. So it will filter through those before it gets into the river. On the northern node next to Golden Gate Parkway, it's much smaller. It's just to serve the park. The access is going to be off a driveway being located here, a separate project but being coordinated with the county parks. And timing is the same as our project. Page 136 November 8, 2011 This node includes parking for park access. It includes a maintenance storage facility, a restroom and a pavilion. The access to the park node includes a fence along the Bear's Paw Golf Course. That was part of our neighborhood -- results of some of our neighborhood meetings. In this particular case we're providing 50 spaces, again for these passive uses. A little bit difficult to determine based on the standard criteria how many you need. We've estimated at least 24 spaces. But again, based on experience and that, we feel that the 50 is appropriate. In this case we've got 22 of those spaces as grass parking. That's right in here. But again, we've designed the stormwater system as if it was 100 percent pavement. Similar types of treatment train system with the grass parking and the large amount of retention available. Again, same criteria, no discharge out of this pond either until -- from almost -- for most, over 95 percent of the storm events in an average year. And then it will also discharge into the wetlands and filter through the wetlands prior to going into the river. Briefly, permit status on the project. Typically you submit it about 60 percent, but we've previously submitted most of our permit applications, and we've had the opportunity to get comments back. We've responded to those comments and incorporated them in the plans that we've gone through briefly this afternoon. So we have the benefit of that. Our Army Corps of Engineers permit, we recently sent in responses for those comments. Our Water Management District permit responses, we got some October comments. We just responded to those as well. County Site and Development Plan, we have our first round of comments and we'll be responding to those this. week. We submitted to the U.S. Coast Guard for the bridges, and we've also evaluated height restrictions relative to the airport, our initial evaluation, so we Page 137 November 8, 2011 don't have any concerns. But just to be on the safe side, we have made a submittal to the Federal Aviation Authority as well. I expect that we'll start receiving the actual permits for all those within the next few months. We still do have a Gopher Tortoise Permit to submit, but the timing on that is such that you want to actually receive the permit as close to construction as you can because they expire and you have to go out and resurvey if you're too far off. Schedule is to go to bid in the first quarter of 2012 and construction start in May. We will be coming back to the Board one more time with this project, or at least once more that I'm aware of. We have a special treatment zoning district over a portion of the eastern portion of the project along the river here that we will have to come to the Board with as well to get final permits for that. And with that, I'd be happy to try and respond to any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, you did a very good job. The only problem is I've heard from Bill Poteet from the Conservation Collier group and they said they approved the design, but since they approved it it's been changed and the pathways have been reduced. And they're concerned that it hasn't gone back before them for approval before it came to us. I also heard from a number of community members who are very concerned with the reduced width of these pathways, especially from groups that do a lot of cycling, and I personally would like to see it come back after it's gone back before the Conservation Collier group. That to me I think is something we should do and make sure it's done right. MR. MARCHAND: And if I just could, the Conservation Collier property is all the property south of this line right through here. And Page 138 November 8, 2011 all the trails on the Conservation Collier portion are staying the same width, there's no changes to those. The trails that are proposed to be changed are these interior to the wetland and north of the Conservation Collier property. But I would - an eight foot boardwalk -- again, and that's why we kept them at 10 feet and 12 feet through that where we're going to have the bicycles, we agree that they should be like that. The idea was that the boardwalks are very extensive. It's probably a two and a half million dollar item for all these boardwalks. And if we can reduce the width to eight feet on those areas where we're going to be promoting more walking and not promoting biking, and maybe even signing it No Bikes, eight foot is adequate for that kind of use. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But then what says that people don't want to bike the whole way? I mean, this is something that would be encouraged. And I understand that we want to save money, I do understand that. I also understand this is going to be with us for many, many years. As a couple other letter writers said to me, we're going to have to live with this forever, let's do it right the first time, not just skinch on it, 'cause you can't go back and then change it or it will cost you a great deal more to do that. MR. MARCHAND: Just to be clear, the north -south trail that will run all the way from the north of the project all the way through the project and all the way to the south, no changes, that's 12 feet for the asphalt and 10 feet for the boardwalk. MS. SULECKI: good afternoon. For the record, Alex Sulecki, Coordinator of Conservation Collier. I just wanted to mention that because this project is moving at a different pace than the Conservation Collier meetings, the committee assigned one of their members, Jeff Curl, to be their representative in these meetings. And at the meeting on Friday where we discussed reducing the width of the non -spine boardwalks, Jeff Curl was there, Page 139 November 8, 2011 and he actually thought that was a great idea. So I think Bill Poteet hadn't spoken to Jeff Curl because of Sunshine laws. And we hadn't had a chance to go before the committee and explain this, so he didn't understand that it was just the non - spined park portions of this project that were being under discussion for being reduced and the Conservation Collier portion was removing the same. And I spoke to him about that today. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And what did he say? MS. SULECKI: He thought that -- he still had concerns about the whole project. And that's all he said, really, he still had concern. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'd definitely like to hear from the public on this. You're asking us to deviate I'm sure from the site design from the Land Development Code on the parking grass area? MR. MARCHAND: Yes, sir. I talked with Fred Reischel at the Zoning Department. That's his area. And he said that the way to get an approval to go ahead with over 15 percent was to bring it up through -- at a Board opportunity like this. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, there's nothing in the backup material that you're asking for a deviation. And I have a little concern about that. And as long as Community Development doesn't mind about that deviation then, and this process, then I don't have a problem with it. But I just don't want to set precedence. Mr. Casalanguida is probably going to address that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: He's referring to a variance, but not through just a 60 percent design plan. I think he could bring it to the Board as a design standard deviation as a Board agenda item specifically to that point, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. So I am correct. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You are correct. It wouldn't be just through a presentation of a 60 percent design plan. Page 140 November 8, 2011 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, okay. And I agree with that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. Commissioner Fiala, I got the same letter from Mr. Poteet, and I got it right here. Because also I had concern. I'm glad that staff did call them up and talk to them. But obviously they didn't give them the comfort level they needed to be able to say there's no problem. How far off would we be if we continued this just to the next meeting 'til after they can meet to be able to discuss this? MS. RAMSEY: Marla Ramsey, Public Services Administrator. You can tell us not to change them, if you wish us not to do that. Currently we have a 10 foot boardwalk, that's what we've been talking about. You're going to see the ST overlay, which is where these boardwalks are currently located. We're going to the EAC, who has showed concern in the past about the amount of impacts that go through that wetland area. So as a response to some of those information that we were receiving and from some of the community meetings, we have recommended an eight -foot boardwalk. You will actually see this segment of the plan again as part of the ST overlay. My goal at the end of this meeting today is to approve the 60 percent plans that are not within the ST overlay so that the staff and the consultants can move on to the 90 percent plans. And then once the ST overlay has come back to the Board, then we will go ahead and have them move on the 90 percent of that particular part of the property, which is mainly the dark green areas that I guess fall -- this isn't working -- but from north to south, the green areas where the northern parking is down to the Conservation Collier land. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So what you're saying is that the dark green area is where you're having the reduction in the size of the boardwalks. And I mean, the logic you use is perfect. I don't have a problem with it. But the thing is is that what was Page 141 November 8, 2011 presented to Conservation Collier wasn't the same thing as we got in front of us now, and I kind of wonder if it's been vetted through the problem. There must have been what, five, six, seven e- mails, all with the same theme. How far would it throw us off if we just ran it back through them as far as timeline goes? Will be that close on time that we couldn't wait one month, or would it be longer? MS. RAMSEY: I think the Conservation Collier's meeting is December 12th. That's the next time that they do meet. Again, as I said, the public meeting that we had on the 19th, that was brought up at that location. We have been talking about the EAC and their concerns about the impacts for quite some time in the stakeholder meetings. A number of the stakeholders are here today. You could have opinion from them. But again, as I stated, you're going to see the ST overlay one more time, where you get to make the determination whether you want eight foot, six foot, none, as they run through that particular part of it. This is an overarching element of it, and at the end of the day I'm looking at trying to move on to the 90 percent plans and everything outside of the ST overlay, which is what -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I also want to move along in an expedient manner. But the only problem is, is Bill stated in here that once you get past the 60 percent, it's very difficult to make changes. MS. RAMSEY: Again, I am not approving the area within the ST overlay to move to the 90 percent. I am only doing the stuff outside of the ST overlay. So I am not approving the 60 percent plan after this meeting today, I'm only approving the stuff outside of the ST overlay so that we can move forward on the 90 percent and allow both the EAC, the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners to opine upon the width of that boardwalk in the ST overlay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So right now what we're Page 142 November 8, 2011 basically approving, and we have another chance to be able to come back on the boardwalks themselves, but the regular bicycle path that goes from east to west or north to south -- MS. RAMSEY: North to south. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, north to south there, that's going to be the full width that was explained to everyone in the Conservation Collier and all the other meetings, that hasn't varied. MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The only variation -- and that's something that's coming back to us for reconsideration when again? MS. RAMSEY: Well, I'm still waiting on the meeting time for the EAC. So I hope you're going to see it by the end of January, first of February, because I really hope to be out doing construction sometime in May. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I understand that. But you'll also go back to Conservation Collier and run it by them one more time, just to give them a level of comfort? MS. RAMSEY: They'll be -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Even though it isn't Conservation Collier land, I know that. MS. RAMSEY: They'll see the plan again on December 12th, that's their next scheduled meeting. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that's before it comes back to us? MS. RAMSEY: Oh, yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Great. Okay, I'm on board. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many speakers? MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have three speakers. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, you want to speak now? COMMISSIONER HILLER: I share Commissioner Fiala's Page 143 November 8, 2011 concerns. And quite frankly, I think, you know, this change has not been publicly vetted. And while I understand there might be some future opportunity to consider this, we need to respect the input from the people. And I think this should be continued to allow for that input and then brought back where they have been given an opportunity to, you know, participate in the dialogue with respect to the approval of this. So I would like to make a motion -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- to that effect, that it go back to the committees, since this is a change that they were not aware of. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Hiller and a second by Commissioner Fiala to continue. We have public speakers. Let's hear the public speakers. MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker is Matt McLean. MR. McLEAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners, I'm Matt McLean. I'm on the board of the Naples Zoo. I stand before you today to speak on behalf of Naples Zoo. As far as Parks and Rec is concerned, we feel like they've been very proactive with us. They've continued to keep us engaged in the communication. We've met with them, we partnered with them, we are a part of the project, not only with their meetings but from a financial aspect too as our zoo lease with the county has a cost share component to help cost share this project, specifically the components related to the parking area, which J.P. alluded to you on today. So I just want to reiterate that we are very much supportive of the project. We think it's a wonderful thing for the community. It's a great thing. The citizens within the county voted to preserve this land to make it available for the public to go in and enjoy. Page 144 November 8, 2011 As far as the zoo's concerned, we do have a couple of concerns. One's with respect to timing. For us, as you guys know, we have a very seasonal business at Naples Zoo. We're very, very concerned with respect to the time when the construction will start. Parks and Rec has been very proactive with us, assuring us that they're going to be continuing to work with us to make sure that they'll provide the least amount of impacts related to our seasonal accounts within the zoo. And we appreciate that, knowing full well that we're trying to hopefully work with them to have construction start in May. What we would not like to see is construction starting this time frame going into our major season. And the other thing is, with respect to us, just the concern of the cost share itself. It's a significant component for the zoo to undertake. We understand that we have -- we are -- we're doing it as part of our lease. We just want to make sure that when the time comes from the construction that we get good numbers with respect to how much it is going to be involved with our cost share so we can budget that amount and make sure that the repayment can be made accordingly and proper back to Parks and Rec and the county. With that again, I'd just like to say that we appreciate the opportunity to be here today, fully support the project with Parks and Rec, and look to continue to work them in moving forward. Thank you. MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Ellie Krier. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Krier. MR. MITCHELL: Krier. MS. KRIER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Ellie Krier, the Executive Director of the Southwest Florida Land Preservation Trust. The first thing I want to say is that the Land Trust recommends acceptance of the 60 percent plan as provided, without the suggested decrease in boardwalk widths. But having said that, I'm between a rock and a hard place. Page 145 November 8, 2011 I absolutely do not wish construction to impact the zoo, and that is critical to all of us. But I do need to say that in your executive summary where it talks about the stakeholders concurring, when this was drafted we didn't know about the reduction, and we do not concur with the reduction. If there is a way to phrase your motion today to not delay the process, and coming back to Ms. Sulecki's comments on Conservation Collier, the two parcels of Conservation Collier land don't have this decrease. So there's really -- certainly they need a level of comfort that that's really true, but they needn't delay you. If there's a way to phrase your motion that the decrease to the eight feet is not part of what you move forward on today, then we'll fight this battle at the EAC and the Planning Commission and be back to you, and in that way not delay Ms. Ramsey's desire to move on to her 90 percent. It's a balancing act, I understand that. But at no time did anyone expect any of these paths would not be non - shared use. And I regret that members of the Naples Pathway Coalition couldn't be here today. They didn't have enough notice. And they fully expected this would be a fully shared use path in all respects. So thank you. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Coyle, can I ask Ellie a question? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Ellie, about the lighting, I was under the impression this park was going to be open from dawn to dusk. Were you aware that they want lighting? Was that something you all had talked about? And where did that come from? MS. KRIER: At the stakeholders meeting even from the earlier time, I recall lighting being mentioned. It's been till 10:00 p.m. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, so they're going to keep the park open till 10:00, not sunrise to sunset. Page 146 November 8, 2011 MS. KRIER: There's no final -- and Ms. Ramsey should speak to this. But as far as I know, there's no final decision on that. The lights that are involved, especially with regard to the zoo and The Conservancy, because there are animals there, as well as the Rookery, are all dark sky initiative, facing down, shielded. And keep in mind you have a very low light issue simply because you're in a runway approach. So lighting is being looked at very, very closely. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And do the other parks have operations until 10:00 at night? MS. KRIER: Many of them around the state do -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: But Rookery and any of the others, are they open till 10:00? MS. KRIER: No, but Rookery is a state -- if you're talking about Rookery Bay, that is a state park -- it's not even a park, it's a National Estuarine Research Preserve and not applicable. So -- but we are also looking at joint management agreements around the state with other multi jurisdictional greenways to provide your staff with some sense of what else can be done and how management agreements are formed. MR. MITCHELL: Sir, the last speaker is Nicole Johnson. MS. JOHNSON: Good afternoon. For the record, Nicole Johnson, here on behalf of The Conservancy of Southwest Florida. The Conservancy does support the 60 percent plan. We think that this is really a major step forward in something that is a very, very important initiative. The 60 percent plan has several improvements that we're very excited about. The grass parking so that you're reducing the impervious area, that's I think a wonderful addition to the plan and we very much appreciate that being put into a more sustainable footprint. Also, the improved stormwater on site. These are LIDs that the county is going to be encouraging others to do through the watershed management planning effort. So having the county walk the walk is Page 147 November 8, 2011 certainly very, very important. So we're very excited about that. There are certainly going to be other issues as this moves forward. And it sounds like the boardwalk and pathway widths could be some of those issues on the ST parcels that need further discussion at the EAC and Planning Commission. But be that as it may, we do support the 60 percent plan. We would like to have that move forward. And we'd also like to thank staff for being very professional in all of this, for including all the stakeholders, including The Conservancy, in the discussions. We very much appreciate all of their efforts in this process. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. I have a couple of questions for you. If you're not going to have the greenway open in the evening after dark, why are you going to have lighting? MS. RAMSEY: No, we intend to have the greenway open until 10:00 P.M. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Till 10:00 p.m. MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I did not hear that stated clearly. Is that what you're planning? MS. RAMSEY: That's exactly what we're planning. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, with respect to differences of opinion about the width of the other boardwalk areas, do you have a cost analysis concerning that? How much more is it going to cost us to have a wider boardwalk than it will cost us if we have an eight -foot boardwalk? And to what extent does that impact the ability to complete the project on schedule? MS. RAMSEY: I think that we have enough funding to complete the project with the 10 foot width. The estimate that I received, it's about a half a million dollar savings in the reduction of that two feet, from 10 to eight. November 8, 2011 Our biggest concern is trying to get the ST overlay approved through the three steps yet that we have to do and that there might be some concession, and that's why I discussed it at the stakeholders meeting about whether there would be any comfort level of doing that, based upon -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think that process has some merit. And I'd like for the motion maker and the second to at least consider it. It is counterproductive to just keep having this whole plan come back for reconsideration or delaying a decision. But it makes a lot of sense to specify that there are certain things we expect you to do, like communicating with certain stakeholder groups to resolve issues about width of the boardwalks and things of that nature, and bring those back to us once you've met with them and resolved any problems in communication or perception. So I think it's far more efficient for us to say we approve the 60 percent plan, but we want you to iron out a few issues with some of the stakeholders and bring them back to us when you bring the ST overlay back for our review. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll amend my motion to that effect. MS. RAMSEY: Most definitely. And that really was -- the reason for my discussion on last Friday about the eight foot was just an anticipation that we would get some pushback from the EAC about the amount of impacts that we're doing in the ST overlay, and wanted to have some flexibility in order to do that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're going to have some conflict, because you've got the bikers who want them wide so they can use them, and then you've got the environmentalists who say don't take up so much of the green space, you know, keep them narrow. So there's going to have to be a compromise here, and maybe it's true that nobody's going to get exactly what they want. Commissioner Henning was next. Page 149 November 8, 2011 COMMISSIONER HENNING: I want to understand the motion. The motion is now reflecting to approve the 60 percent design and with the understanding the only reduction in pathways is in this special treatment. MS. RAMSEY: Not yet. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon me? MS. RAMSEY: I don't believe that it's yet been approved to take it to the reduction. I think it's a recommendation. But we're going to have to go to the EAC in order to decide that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. Because of your presentation, you said the only reduction -- MS. RAMSEY: That's the only reduction -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- that's happened is in the special treatment area. MS. RAMSEY: That was one of the recommendations that we were making, that's right. But you've heard that there's some pushback on that. So you can decide to keep them as we have and then see what the process does to us for the ST overlay. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think that makes the most -- no, what I mean is, we should -- just in answer to your question about the motion as we're addressing this further, I think we should approve this as it's been presented to the community, to the different groups that have approved it and, you know, you can come back and if you want to amend this plan to change it from 10 feet to eight feet after having vetted it with the community, that's fine. But what the EAC and everybody else has heard up till now is that they're going to be 10 foot pathways. So we should approve it as it's being presented. And then if you want to amend it, bring it back at whatever stage, at the SDP or whatever -- whatever stage. So I think what we do is we approve it as it's been presented with the 10 foot pathways and everything else, you know, as presented. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Does the second agree with Page 150 November 8, 2011 that? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I do. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Maybe a way to do this, and I'm not sure if an ST amendment requires a neighborhood information meeting, but I would suggest that you have something similar to that, bring all the stakeholders together and through -- I'm sure through that you would get a consensus with the Environmental Advisory Board and the Planning Commission with the help of the stakeholders. So -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'm sorry, were you -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I was next. I wanted to ask, was everybody aware in the stakeholder meetings that they were going to be open till 10:00 at night with lighting? MS. RAMSEY: I believe we've discussed that at the very beginning, yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to make sure of that. My second still stands. I think that there's -- being that this was changed after everybody agreed that they approved of it with the 10 -foot sidewalks -- pathways, 10 and 12, whatever it was at the time, and nobody had been advised that it was being reduced until we got it, I prefer to make sure that that is taken back to those groups, including Conservation Collier. But that the rest of it I can see going forward with the 60 percent, but I think we ought to address those pathways and make sure that we get it right and we present what we actually want to do. Like one of the letter writers said, you know, we have to live with this pathway forever, so let's do it right the first time. MS. RAMSEY: I agree with that. And Andrew from The Conservancy actually sits as the actual member from The Conservancy, so he is a member of ours -- stakeholder. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So the motion intent is clear to you, Page 151 November 8, 2011 right? MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I would like to just add one thing. I think Commissioner Fiala brings up a good point about the lighting. Because I have some concern about that. I heard Ellie say that, you know, it's always been her understanding that it was going to be open later. But I think that needs to be vetted with the groups as well. Because I've actually heard a member of the EAC tell me that they thought it was going to be sunrise to sunset and why did we need lights. So I want to make sure that the message is being communicated uniformly to everyone who has had a stake in this, be it an advisory board or a constituency group. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I've heard the same thing. And I do -- can we put that into our motion to make sure that that -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely. So we're going to add that in there. Commissioner Coyle, would you like to recap our motion, since you're so good at that? CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm not sure I'm good enough to do this one. But the motion is to approve the 60 percent plan with the expectation that the pathways in the ST portion will be taken back to the stakeholders to resolve differences in width and that the lighting issue will be also vetted with the stakeholders, and -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Um -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry? Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want to clarify one thing. That first statement you made, that we're approving this plan as has been approved prior to the changes that were being proposed here today with respect to the pathways. MR.00HS: Correct. Page 152 November 8, 2011 CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you're going to vet that with the stakeholders. And then if there's a disagreement about the width of the pathways, you're going to bring a resolution back to us. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Right? MR. OCHS: Yeah, when we get the recommendations from the EAC and the stakeholders. When we bring the ST overlay back you will -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: And not to digress too much, but you understand they're going to have different opinions. You're going to have to present to us a compromise of some kind for us to review and sort out at that time. MR.00HS: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: But -- okay. Nine - and -a -half, okay? And that you're going to make sure that the lighting has been vetted with all of the appropriate stakeholders. And I think that's it. So all in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. Any opposed by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. And we'll take a break for 10 minutes. We'll be back at 3:14. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, Board of County Commission meeting is back in session. That takes us to — Item #1 OD Page 153 November 8, 2011 RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT A REPORT ON COLLIER COUNTY'S WETLAND MITIGATION OPTIONS — APPROVED MR. OCHS: 10.D, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN COYLE: 10.1). Another one for me today. I'm popular. MR. OCHS: This is a recommendation to accept a report on Collier County's wetland mitigation -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, no, that's not the one. MR. OCHS: That's not yours, no. -- on Collier County's wetland mitigation options. Ms. Price will begin the presentation. MS. PRICE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Good evening, good morning. I'm not sure I know what time it is anymore. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's 3:14. There you go. MS. PRICE: 3:14, thank you. A.m, p.m.? CHAIRMAN COYLE: There's a clock right there. MS. PRICE: Len Price, Administrative Services Division Administrator for the record. Commissioners, you had asked us at a previous Board meeting to write a letter to the Southwest Florida Water Management District regarding the ability to use a letter of reservation for wetland mitigation credits at an airport project. This item that we've brought to you addresses the response that we got to that letter and provides the options as we understand them as to how we can move forward. I brought with me today our consultant, who can provide some more technical information for you. Diane Rosensweig from Scheda Ecological Associates has been working with us for a number of years on the wetland mitigation permit, and she can address these options for you. And also Clarence Tears and Ricardo Valera are here in the audience to answer any further questions you might have. Page 154 November 8, 2011 MS. ROSENSWEIG: Good afternoon. For the record, I'm Diane Rosensweig, and I am Senior Scientist with Scheda Ecological Associates. What I'd like to do today is basically give you a little bit of an explanation and elaborate on the table what was included in your agenda package just to show you the various options for mitigation that are available to Collier County. In all instances when you're talking about wetlands, the first and foremost you want to try to avoid and minimize impacts. But in some cases that's not possible and you have to impact wetlands, and thus you have to mitigate according to federal and state regulations. Back in the Eighties and Nineties, up until 2008 there were several different options for mitigation, and the most popular option at that time was to do -- suppose you had a road for example and you impacted three wetlands and there was, say, a half -acre of impacts. The most preferred at that time mitigation option would be to actually in your permit include the design for a mitigation area in which you as the permittee would be responsible to build that mitigation area and to monitor it for a minimum of four years, sometimes five years, until it meets the success criteria that were specified in the permit. Now, as you can imagine, this was quite cumbersome, especially on a federal level. And when I say federal level, the Corps of Engineers is the prime federal agency that issues permits. However, as part of their commenting, the commenting for each permit, you have Fish & Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries, NOAA, you have a variety of federal agencies that look at each of these mitigation options -- mitigation sites, excuse me. And as you can imagine, with having permit responsible mitigation all over, not only Collier County but all over the state and the nation, it was extremely cumbersome to make sure that quality mitigation was actually occurring and that people were monitoring and maintaining these sites. Page 155 November 8, 2011 So in 2008 the Corps came out with what they called the Compensatory Mitigation Rule. And that rule basically changed -- completely changed the way things were done on the federal level. Rather than having the individual permittee responsible for mitigation, they said it was far more beneficial for a mitigation bank to be in place that the Corps could use to have centralized areas for mitigation, rather than piecemeal postage stamp size mitigation sites throughout the country. The Compensatory Mitigation Rule, the reason the Corps changed their mitigation policies, they wanted to look at the big picture, they wanted to improve the ecological conditions for the regional watershed, they wanted to provide viable and sustainable ecological and hydrological functions for the mitigation service area. They felt that the mitigation bank would be effectively managed in perpetuity. It was much easier to have things in one central location. And in order to -- I'll get into it a little more detail. To have a mitigation bank, a lot of scientific background data is collected and it takes a long time to permit these. But they want to feel very comfortable that the impacts are appropriately mitigated at these locations. They also felt that a mitigation would not destroy areas with high ecological values. Because I can't tell you how many times I've seen valuable uplands back in the Eighties and the Nineties converted to wetlands just because they had to. You know, beautiful oak areas converted to a wetland because there was some impacts by a ditch or -- you know. So there was a lot of faults in the way that the Corps and the federal agencies used to do mitigation. And it's much easier to account for success that the criteria has been met in a bank. So that's the whole reason behind why the Corps has shifted. And currently the way they look at a permit, if there is absolutely no way you can totally avoid impacts or minimize and you have to Page 156 November 8, 2011 mitigate, the hierarchy is, number one, mitigation bank by far. Number two, they have something called an in lieu fee mitigation bank which is similar but has a lot more strings attached so it's still far below the mitigation bank. And then at the bottom of their list is this permit responsible where you do mitigation either on -site or off -site. And they really shy away from using that these days. And thus because of this, Collier County Conservation Collier contacted Scheda and asked us to help them put together a feasibility study because they were, you know, at the time thinking about purchasing some land out at Pepper Ranch. And when we looked at the site and we saw all, you know, how it was so strategically located, very close to Lake Trafford, provides a buffer there, it was surrounded by public lands, there were known threatened and endangered species that inhabited -- inhabited the ranch, it's a perfect location for wildlife corridors, we -- you know, our professional opinion was this was a really good site for a potential mitigation bank in the future, knowing that it's going to be a long and arduous process. As you can see on the table, that's the major drawback for a mitigation bank is it takes a long time to get it through the permitting process. But once you're through the process, it makes life so much easier for all people that need to mitigate when they can't avoid an impact. Because you no longer have the time lag to show that, oh, our site is going to take five years to be successful. No, it can be successful in a year because we can already have it in the ground. And so that's why we were involved with developing a feasibility study. And then pursuant to that, back in 2010 we were hired to look at actually permitting Pepper Ranch to be used for a public mitigation bank. Not to make money, just to be used for public Collier County projects. And that's what we've been doing, we've been collecting Page 157 November 8, 2011 date, we've been on -site numerous times. We've got two reports. And recently we submitted the draft prospectus to the Corps of Engineers. And we've been talking to them all along about why we think Pepper Ranch is an ideal location for a mitigation bank. We submitted the draft prospectus to the Corps and within, I don't know, six or eight weeks we already got our first set of questions, REI's. We're currently working to respond to those. We've been coordinating with other agencies and South Florida Water Management District. Because another benefit, as you can see from the table, for a bank is that it's good for the Corps credits and for the South Florida Water Management District credits. They may not -- you know, if you have a permit, the two different -- the state and federal agencies may look at the impacts differently and assess different mitigation requirements, but a bank addresses all those requirements, because you'd have a separate ledger for state credits versus federal credits. And so when Melissa called and said that we had a request to say hey, can we use -- we need three credits right away, can we go and do it out on Pepper Ranch because we know it's a great site, the answer is no, at this time that's not a good option. It's not a good option because we don't have a permit. We've gone through so many hoops to get to where we are that if we go and ask them to change our service area, it's going to set us back. And not that they're going to punish us, but they're going to say, why, you know, we've been working together to get to this point, can't you just wait till it's permitted. You knew this was a risk, that it's going to take a while. And so that's why we're here, just to say in our professional opinion we believe that, you know, at this time we don't have the option to use Pepper Ranch, we have to wait till it's permitted through all the formal channels. Page 158 November 8, 2011 Questions? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who was first? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Hiller. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Must have been Commissioner Hiller. Okay, go ahead. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you for your presentation. I'd love to get a copy of your feasibility study. I'd also like to get a copy of your draft prospectus that you've submitted. With respect to your representations that we can't get a reservation against what you have in the pipeline, I'm not sure I really understand why not. Because, to use an example, I think it was Commissioner Henning who brought up at the last meeting that very clearly that was done by Barron Collier when they got a reservation against their lands that they were using to draw mitigation from for Oil Well Road. So I actually -- and I also spoke to -- I'd love to hear from you, Clarence, because you and I spoke about it. You know, with respect to these wetland credits, my understanding is you can draw wetland credits from anywhere within the basin. Secondly, my understanding is with respect to panther credits, which we're not talking about, but panther credits you can get from anywhere in the state. I didn't understand you had to get it specifically -- your schedule says it has to be within the region. So can you -- first I'd like to hear why you think we can't get a reservation. And then secondly, I'd like to hear from Clarence. MS. ROSENSWEIG: Well, we have -- we've spoken to John Griffin, who is our Corps contact, and he's the person that is -- you know, he heads the department that's reviewing -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's his name? MS. ROSENSWEIG: John Griffin. And he basically said that you've submitted this draft prospectus with a very defined service area. And if we're going to propose -- Page 159 November 8, 2011 COMMISSIONER HILLER: What do you mean by service area? MS. ROSENSWEIG: Service area is the area in Pepper Ranch that's going to be considered the county's mitigation bank. And he said that we would basically have to withdraw the prospectus and change the boundaries and then resubmit. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why is that? Why is your service area limited and why is that service area -- why does it not qualify for a wetland credit? Because we're only talking about wetland credits, because that's all that's needed. MS. ROSENSWEIG: Because we're trying to permit Pepper Ranch as one whole mitigation bank just for Collier County projects. We had to give specific geographic regions that were included in the prospectus. And some of the areas on Pepper Ranch were not included in the draft prospectus because they were SSA areas. I'm not even sure what SSA stands for, but its prior agreements that the county had made that we wouldn't get credits in certain areas. So as you can see in that crosshatched area is the service area that we have included in our first phase of the prospectus, and then the pink area is the second phase. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And so help me, why are there -- why do we not have three wetland credits in the area that you're looking? MS. ROSENSWEIG: We don't have a permit at the time. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it's not having a permit, it's actually getting the reservation. Like to do -- you might want to talk to Barron Collier because, I mean, they did it very successfully. They didn't have a permit, they didn't have a bank, but they got the reservations to allow the start of construction pending the approval of the permit for the bank. MS. ROSENSWEIG: The only thing I can say is do you know when this was? Because this compensatory rule was 2008 and they've Page 160 November 8, 2011 gotten very strict about -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: They just -- they were just approved in 2010, I believe. It was -- I think it was late 2010. MS. ROSENSWEIG: I don't know the answers to why -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Maybe I could help move this along. Clarence, you know the answer to that question? MR. TEARS: On Oil Well Road, let me -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute, you need to get up to the mic. MR. TEARS: The Oil Well Road issue in Barron Collier I'll let Ricardo Valera, the regulatory administrator, talk about that first, okay. But he'll know the answer to that. But the most important thing is you have to have an approved plan in place before you can even get a reservation. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And what does it take for us to get an approved plan? MR. VALERA: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Ricardo Valera, I work for the South Florida Water Management District, and I am the regulatory administrator in the lower west coast. I believe that the question right now is what does it take to get a letter of reservation. I'm not fully aware of the concept of letter of reservation, but my understanding is that to set aside mitigation on land owned by the county, you need to have a permit first. We receive correspondence from staff inquiring about mitigation on Pepper Ranch for improvements at the airport. A few months ago we issued a permit for the Airport Authority to expand a portion of the airport facilities and internal road and conceptual approval for some industrial sites there. And when we did the review of this, the proposal that the applicant made, the Airport Authority made, was to mitigate using Panther Island to offset the impacts to wetlands that were going to happen as a result of those improvements. That met the rule and we Page 161 November 8, 2011 authorized those improvements contingent upon the credits being available. If there's a change in plans, we would like to regroup and advise the proper staff so that they can consider what the alternatives are. But there is no bank in place right now over Pepper Ranch, so there's no ability to draw anything from there at this point. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. And I understand there isn't a bank in place but it's in the works. And basically what happened with Oil Well Road was they had submitted a Biological Opinion, and on the basis of the submittal of this Biological Opinion, they were able to get a reservation. And those reservation credits were in fact what allowed them to go forward with the permit and construction pending the permitting of the actual bank. And there's a lot of correspondence that the county has that addresses that. So -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, if I could, let's clarify a point. The Oil Well Road issue didn't reserve any credits from a bank, so it had nothing to do with a mitigation bank. They actually identified specific parcels equal to the mitigation that they needed and they developed a plan to rehabilitate those parcels so that they would be acceptable for the purpose of using as mitigation. COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's what we're doing too -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, it's not. COMMISSIONER HILLER: It is. CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, it's not anything like we're doing. We are trying to get credits either from panther reserve or your suggestion was to get reservations against Pepper Ranch. We can't get reservations against Pepper Ranch because Pepper Ranch is not an approved mitigation bank. Once it becomes an approved mitigation bank, we can get credits for that. But it is undetermined how long that's going to take. So we Page 162 November 8, 2011 can't confuse what happened on Oil Well Road with trying to get a reservation against a Pepper Ranch mitigation bank. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have to say I don't really understand what the difference is, because the bottom line is, and it's not just Pepper Ranch, we have other properties that we were intending to mitigation bank. And just to put the timeline in perspective, you know, we bought Pepper Ranch in 2007. We paid a premium to get those mitigation banks. It was always our plan to have a mitigation plan approved for purposes of mitigation banking. You know, there is a conservation easement over that property. I believe that Conservation Collier has prepared a monitoring program that I think we approved. So again, I understand that they were talking about one -- that Barron Collier was addressing one parcel. Well, we're addressing one parcel too. And that parcel can either be labeled Pepper Ranch or Starnes or anything else. So there is really no difference. And again, what's happening is the consequence of this delay, and I don't know why this was delayed until 2010 to start this process, given that we bought it in 2007, is having the effect of charging the taxpayer twice for the same thing. Every time we're buying one credit from Panther Island or any other bank that's out there, we are double paying. Because we've already paid once through the purchase of Pepper Ranch and all the costs associated with creating and maintaining this bank. So the taxpayer is being double charged. And I find that unacceptable. And I want an explanation. Why is there a delay? Why isn't this already done? Why we're going out to the private market when we paid a premium? I'm very concerned. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just answer a question. Can we get a reservation against Pepper Ranch? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Or against any other county property to allow us to get these wetland credits so as not to have to go Page 163 November 8, 2011 out and buy privately. MR. VALERA: Pepper Ranch is not a mitigation bank, it has not been authorized to -- so we're unable to grant any reservations, per se. If the county pursues in the future to submit an application to us, we will review it. We have yet to receive an application for that. Now, if it there's other alternatives being -- yes? COMMISSIONER HILLER: We have not submitted an application yet? MR. VALERA: The Water Management District has not received an application for a mitigation bank yet. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why not? Not to you, I want to know why not. It's 2011. We bought this in 2007. MS. ROSENSWEIG: Right. But the way the process works is you submit this draft prospectus along with -- and then they make their comments. We adjust the comments and in the next step we submit it -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: They who make -- MS. ROSENSWEIG: The Corps of Engineers and the federal agencies. Then as the second step, as part of the REI, is we submit the ERP, joint ERP for both the District and the Corps, you know, once the little -- the details are worked out in the draft prospectus and it goes out to public notice. And then it's a bank that's acceptable to both the South Florida Water Management District and the federal agencies. They may have different ledgers and different accounts. And just to go back to what you were saying about the areas that -- you know, portioning a part of Pepper Ranch, that's considered off -site mitigation. It's not part of a bank because we don't have a permit. There is no Pepper Ranch bank. So you can't guarantee that it will -- I mean, the Corps could say no. I mean, we don't know that for sure. We're doing our best to prove to them that's it's an excellent choice. Page 164 November 8, 2011 In the end, the federal agencies are the ones that say yes or no in conjunction with, of course, South Florida Water Management District. But it's not a bank until they tell us it's a bank. So we can't really get credits ahead of time. Now, if you want to do this off -site mitigation and, you know, pare off, you can do that but you're just going to slow down the process for the permitting of the bank. So it's a difference between federal and state regulations. It's a bureaucracy; it takes a long time. And that is -- you know, we tried to highlight it costs a lot of money to get to that point. But once you get to that point you have it in perpetuity, there's no lag time. It's quick, it's easy, you write a check and you're done. COMMISSIONER HILLER: What about Starnes? MS. HENNIG: For the record, Melissa Hennig, Principal Environmental Specialist. Pepper Ranch was purchased in February, 2009. COMMISSIONER HILLER: 2009? MS. HENNIG: 2009. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, my mistake. I thought it was 2007. MS. HENNIG: Starnes was purchased in 2007. So during the first year we developed a management plan, which normally takes two years, but we hired a consultant, knowing that we needed to hurry. That took a year. We vetted it through the public. I think we had like six public meetings. At which point before it was even approved by the Board, we hired Scheda to start the process. It's just taking a while because they have to do all their on -site work and develop their prospectus. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So can you help me with Starnes? MS. HENNIG: Starnes is -- that particular property is 368 acres. And we had it looked at by Transportation and a few other departments in the organization. And it's just -- I guess it's not enough Page 165 November 8, 2011 bang for the buck. What we're using at Starnes is for panthers, for panther credits. If we wanted to use it for wetland credits, there would be so much involved with the restoration that wouldn't -- it would be cheaper to go to a bank. That's why the decision was made not to make that into a wetland bank. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And what is the status of the application for that bank? MS. HENNIG: For the -- Cara -- for the record, it's Caracara Prairie preserve. We are currently still stuck on the -- it's the trust agreement. It's the one agreement that's holding up the process. It's been holding them for two years. MR. OCHS: Explain that, Melissa. Explain the trust agreement. MS. HENNIG: Okay, let me take a deep breath. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm going to take one too. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a lot of other Commissioners who have questions, you know. We don't want to turn this into a tutorial on mitigation banks. Our concern really is one thing right now, and that is getting mitigation credits for the airport in Immokalee and getting that resolved. We've been told that it is not possible to get a reservation against Pepper Ranch. So that's been decided. Now, Commissioner Henning, go ahead. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ricardo, good to see you again. What we were told, when to purchase wetland credits for the airport was not needed at this time. So I think we need to hear from the airport at a later date when are they really needed? Because obviously we can purchase them from panther mitigation bank. But hopefully we'll get permitted by the time they need it and purchase it from ourselves. So should we have the -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I can partially -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- chairman of the Airport Authority contact the director of the airport and see how long it's Page 166 November 8, 2011 going to be postponed? CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't know why you want to postpone it. You don't have any other alternatives. First of all -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because it's not needed. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well no, that is not the case. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's not needed right now. CHAIRMAN COYLE: The manager of the airport said last meeting that it's not needed immediately. But you will recall that the Florida National Guard wants to put a facility in at Immokalee Airport. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Not any time soon. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That facility will -- with a facility that will -- the airport will have to accommodate at least up to and including C130 aircraft. That requires substantial advanced preparation for runways and extensions. And if we're not prepared to move forward with that, we could jeopardize the accommodation of the Florida National Guard. Now, the question arises, why are we wanting to delay it? Why not get that done sooner than later, because it will then promote the economic development of the airport. So why would we get hung up on that and delay this thing? Let's get the mitigation credit issue solved. The only reason it wasn't approved last time was that Commissioner Hiller had alleged that she was told that we could get a reservation against Pepper Ranch. Well, now we know we can't get a reservation against Pepper Ranch. And our only real option is to buy what, 3.8 acres of mitigation, I think, from a private mitigation bank. So there is not a less expensive alternative. So I don't understand why we want to delay it again. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I talked to the airport director and he says he doesn't have the money to extend the runway. CHAIRMAN COYLE: The monies come from grants from the Page 167 November 8, 2011 federal and state agencies with a very, very small match by local governmental entities. So if you don't -- if you're not prepared to utilize a grant, you're not likely to get a grant. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, obviously this has to come back so we can get all those questions answered at a future date. I'm going to make a motion to approve the recommendations under this item. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, what are they? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Approve the staff s report. MR.00HS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's all it is. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's all you can do here. MR. OCHS: This was just a staff report to try to provide information that we learned both from our consultant and from our conversations with the officials from the Water Management District, tried to lay out the four options and the advantages and disadvantages for you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you very much. And I appreciate the fact that we want to maximize our savings out there by picking up panther credits. We do know that it's going to take quite a while to be able to get these in place, if ever. There's a possibility too that we may never take the panther credits when we get a chance to offer them. Because I've been told by a fairly reliable source that in order to be able to do that we have to give up all sorts of uses at Pepper Ranch that we use today. May or may not be true, it's not something we have to deal with. But here we got a bird in the hand and two in the bush. The credits when they come available will always be needed. Are we going to run out of projects, Leo, in the next two or three years where we can apply credits to? I mean, these credits are like money in the bank when we get Page 168 November 8, 2011 them, correct? MR. OCHS: When you get a mitigation bank established, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: If we do get it established. When we do get it established, these credits are sitting there waiting. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So, you know, as far as accepting staff s report, I don't have any problem with that, I think that's a good direction to go. As far as the Airport Authority goes and getting this moving forward, I think we've heard enough now, and we're not -- we're not -- we're not going to -- we can't wait to find out what's going to happen another year from now. We have to have a project that at some point is shovel ready when the money comes down. This delay, delay, delay is never going to get us where we need to be. So right now we have a motion, we have a second for the approved status report. When are we going to be able to get the airport item? item. CHAIRMAN COYLE: It will be on another agenda, or another COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to comment. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I think Commissioner Fiala was next. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I think when we first bought both of these properties, I can never remember it, Starnes is the way I remember it too. And also Pepper Ranch, we bought it of course for preservation, that's what it was all about. And then we thought of other uses, especially for Pepper Ranch, we were thinking of camping and fishing and children's hunting, youth hunts and so forth. There were so many uses for it. The mitigation thing didn't come up until we were exploring other uses for the land as well. And I think that's when we started Page 169 November 8, 2011 wanting to see how we could move forward with that idea also. But I just wanted to make clear to our audience that we didn't buy these places for mitigation banks, we bought them for the pleasure of the community who's paying for them. They paid the dollars for it out of their taxes because they wanted to put this land in preservation. And then I wanted to see us also move forward with this. I think that this is an important effort to move forward with. No telling how much -- once -- you know, if you figure the cost of the land in there as well as all of the mitigations and all of the times, it will probably cost us as much on our own land in the end. But did you want to say something, Leo? MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. Again, just at the risk of laboring this, but I want to make sure that the Board understands what you have on your screens and on the visualizer is four options, okay. And what we talked about was the fact that we cannot at this point get a reservation from the permitting agencies on Pepper Ranch until we get the public bank in fact mitigated. The fourth option here is another way that the Water Management District has explained that we may use as an approach. I don't know, you heard from our consultants that we're not sure that if you use that approach that the federal agencies would accept it. And if you wanted to use that approach on Pepper Ranch, it's likely to set back the process that we've already begun with the federal permitting agencies to establish your bank. But it is an option, it's just not one that we would recommend to you right now because of the impacts that it may have on the larger goal of getting the mitigation bank established with Pepper Ranch. Because when you do that, according to this information, you know that both the federal and the state mitigation requirements will be satisfied by establishing that bank. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And also, my final thought was, Page 170 November 8, 2011 without some type of -- without some type of mitigation bank either in reservation or purchased, we can't really move forward to request grants from the federal government to extend this runway to then proceed with the expansion of the airport. I mean, if I were the federal government and I could see that they didn't even have their mitigation taken care of, I would just put off giving them any grant until they did. So I think that we need to address this seriously and move forward. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I'm listening to all these declaration of facts and they don't seem to be at all the facts that I've heard. First of all, to clarify, Clarence was the one who had told me that we would be able to get a reservation. And he actually questioned why we hadn't submitted our plans, and I questioned the same. Secondly, with respect -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, let Clarence respond. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Actually, on two separate occasions. MR. TEARS: There may have been a misunderstanding. But any time a reservation or any impact is looked at, there has to be an approved plan in place and a permit issued. You know, Ave Maria was one. With Oil Well Road there was an approved plan in place. They did some on -site mitigation and they got so many mitigation -- you know, they got impacts -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: When was the plan approved? MR. VALERA: This is Ricardo Valera with the Water Management District. I don't recall, I think it was in late 2009, early 2010. COMMISSIONER HILLER: It was in 2010. I think it was in -- actually, where is Jay? Page 171 November 8, 2011 MR. VALERA: I believe that was when it was -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Crystal, do you remember when it was approved? It was about -- it was 2010. Norm, do you remember when it was? MR. FEDER: It was in 2008, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Their plan was approved? MR. FEDER: Their plan was approved -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: They got a permit -- MR. FEDER: -- it went through the federal agencies. They had the permit when we went to -- their permit was actually in hand in two thousand -- mid 2008. Because we had six months in which to go to construction by DCA. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what was it that they got in 2010? MR. FEDER: I have no idea what they got in 2010. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So why did you withhold payment? I mean, if they had it in place -- MR. FEDER: Oh, the monitoring plan. They got approval to move forward based on what they had committed on -site in their project and other issues, which is a little different than what you're raising. And then they got their monitoring plan itself approved in 2010. And Commissioner, you asked a couple of times why the delay in getting the approval. You go through the federal process first. Our federal process has been stopped because unfortunately the federal agencies weren't ready to work with our Clerk in managing our dollars for the -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Starnes property. MR. FEDER: -- Starnes property. And as well as for the Pepper Ranch. COMMISSIONER HILLER: The purchase of Pepper Ranch most certainly was with the contemplation of creating a mitigation Page 172 November 8, 2011 bank. In fact, I have watched the older tapes of the discussion about the acquisition of Pepper Ranch, and it was clearly stated that if we weren't going to mitigation bank that the price that the county was paying was exorbitantly more than it should. But for the fact that we were going to be getting panther mitigation credits and essentially a bank out of it, that the price would be justified. MR. FEDER: I think former County Manager Jim Mudd raised as that process was going through that that was one of the advantages in the purchase. COMMISSIONER HILLER: He actually was the one who very clearly stated that the price was unjustified without that, and that it should be substantially less. And in fact we paid 33 million, plus we gave $10 million in TDR's, or allowed the developer to keep $10 million in TDR's and they got mineral rights. I mean, I'm -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, you're way off subject here. But if you'd like to have a tutorial on that issue, we can schedule that for another time. So all in favor of the motion to approve the report, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. Any opposed by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, the report is approved and accepted. Is it time for another break now? Where do we go now, County Manager? Page 173 November 8, 2011 Item #I OE RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT AN UPDATE ON ASSESSMENT OF AND IMPROVEMENTS TO DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES ENFORCEMENT OPERATIONS — APPROVED MR. OCHS: Commissioner, now we go to Item 10.E, which was previously item 16.D.17. It's a recommendation to accept an update on assessment and improvements to Domestic Animal Services enforcement operations. This item was moved at Commissioner Hiller's request. Ms. Townsend can present. MS. TOWNSEND: Good afternoon, Commissioners, Amanda Townsend, your Director of Domestic Animal Services. The item that we placed on your consent agenda was simply an update to sort of bring you up to speed on one of the many activities that we're undertaking to assess and improve our enforcement services based on public feedback that we received at a Domestic Animal Services advisory board meeting on September 20th. The item in particular is that we invited an assessment team. We put together a team of experts who are familiar with enforcement activities from some varied backgrounds, a representative of the Sheriff s Office, who is also an advisory board member from the Sheriffs Office ag. unit, someone from Palm Beach County Animal Care and Control, who's over their enforcement, as well as Jake Sullivan, your senior park ranger in the Parks and Recreation Department, and Belen Brisco, who is an independent animal welfare consultant and comes from really a rescue background sort of to bring a variety of perspectives. They looked at enforcement activities for each officer for several days, we provided them with daily logs with data base information Page 174 November 8, 2011 and what have you, and made some recommendations on improvements we can make which -- and we concur with all of the recommendations and we'll be moving to make each one of those changes. That is one of a number of items that we are doing in response to public input. In particular, we want to address the public's concerns at every level. So where we looked at day to day enforcement and what our current practice is -- practices are and how those can be improved, the next step is to look at our departmental policies and procedures. We're currently revising the policy and procedures for the entire enforcement section, both the assessment team's report and those policies and procedures will be on the Domestic Animal Services advisory board agenda for their regular meeting scheduled for November 15th. I thank the Board for providing some clarified direction on overarching policy toward enforcement. I concur with the stance as Commissioner Coyle has articulated that with zero tolerance on areas of abuse and neglect. I am a proponent of working with animal owners to allow them to come into compliance in areas of licensure, areas of vaccination, even sometimes, depending on their history, in areas of general violations. I think ultimately our goal is to change the behavior of the animal owner. And if we can do that successfully without issuing harsh penalties, we should do that. However, I -- again, I agree with the direction of the Board where abuse and neglect is concerned. We will be also asking at our November 15th advisory board meeting to put together a sub - committee of the advisory board to work on ordinance changes as the petitioner suggested today. And we'll do our best to meet your time frame to bring you something in January. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. How many speakers do we have, Ian, the same five to six? MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we've got eight, but it depends on how Page 175 November 8, 2011 many people from this morning sort of stayed over. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think they're all here. They might have even added some. MR. MITCHELL: Oh, they've definitely, yes. Sir, we've got eight in total. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Eighty? MR. MITCHELL: Eight. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I was going to adjourn the meeting. Okay, let's start, two at a time, one at each podium. You'll speak at the same time, we'll get through this a lot faster. MR. MITCHELL: Colleen MacAlister. And she'll be followed by Kelly Fox. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the other person to take the position over there. MS. MACALISTER: The only thing I would like to say at this point in time is, number one, we haven't seen the recommendations, we will certainly all be at the November 15th DAS Advisory Board Meeting. With respect to what Ms. Townsend has just reported, and she stated that she concurred with you, Commissioner, with respect to zero tolerance regarding abuse and neglect, the problem with discretion in the other areas of enforcement is that it is not Ms. Townsend that is the one out there in the field doing all of these investigations, it's each animal control officer. And when you say, well, I'm in favor of working with the owner, well, it's not Ms. Townsend that's working with each owner, you know. And very few cases come across her desk and come to her attention. The problem with that kind of discretion is that what it results in is no enforcement, because every officer then makes an independent decision whether to work with an owner or not. As we saw in the Duran case, had that couple been cited more than one time for allowing their dogs to run at large, you know, we might never have Page 176 November 8, 2011 had such a tragic situation as we did with two dogs being held for two years in quarantine. I think that, again, when you adopt a policy of education or working with someone over compliance and you have a lot of officers in the field with that kind of discretion, the end result is zero enforcement. And I think it sounds good from a podium to have -- to have someone say I support working with owners and bringing them into compliance, but the fact of the matter is it's not just about abuse and neglect, it's about public safety. We can't have dogs running at large. And a $25 fine is not particularly burdensome. Even a $100 fine is not particularly burdensome, but it's a lesson learned. And I think until our -- until we see what happens when they simply say let's just enforce the ordinance, we don't really know how it's going to work. Thank you. MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker after will be Bibi Barrett. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Please start with your name. MS. FOX: Kelly Fox. I would just like to say I appreciate that all of us and you are in agreement that changes are needed. The lack of enforcement by the local ordinances is an issue. We have current local ordinances that are enforceable. I feel that DAS should not be following a policy of voluntary compliance, they should be enforcing full compliance and issuing citations when appropriate. If our local police department followed this policy it would be a free for all. The Perkins situation could have been avoided if our local ordinances were enforced. So basically what is the problem here? We can't say that it was a method of voluntary compliance when the anti - chaining was brought up, because that was brought up when that issue -- when the anti - chaining was going to be passed back in January 26th of 2010. So what were they doing before that then when violations were occurring back in 2000, 2002? Page 177 November 8, 2011 So I just -- I don't understand what the problem is on why -- I mean, we have local ordinances that can be enforced. So we can make all the changes, and changes do need to be made. We can have one ordinance or we could have a million, but if they're not being enforced we're still going to have a problem. So I don't think that we should let DAS pick and choose which ordinances should be enforced. It should be full enforcement across the board. So I just hope that the needed changes will be made and that they'll be made soon for the animals and the community. MR. MITCHELL: Bibi will be followed by Tom Kepp. MS. BARRETT: Good afternoon. I know it's been a really long day so I'm going to be as brief as possible, even though I only have three minutes. But long story short, I'm very grateful that it has been brought to light that we've all finally acknowledged there is a problem, a serious problem, and we all have finally agreed that we need a serious solution. Having said that, I would like to know some specifics here or get them out here so we can get working on this as soon as possible. Number one, we've discussed having some type of a subcommittee looking over and revamping our existing ordinances, which is a wonderful idea and long overdue. I would like to establish some type of set deadline for this. This issue has been ongoing for quite some time now and I don't want to see it swept under the rug as it has been. And I can tell you we're not going away, so we're not going to allow that to happen. Number two, I would like to insist that when we do have a subcommittee it include a varied group of people from the community. I don't want to see it be one -sided to only DAS or only certain interest groups. I would like to see multiple members of the community have their input so that we do write practical laws that are applicable to our citizens and also protect our animals. Page 178 November 8, 2011 Number three, we have a lot of great ordinances already in place. However, they're just sitting there waiting to be enforced. Don't understand why they're not being enforced. But I guess we're getting to the root of that problem. And there's definitely a lot of room for improvement with the current ordinances. And lastly, I feel the process, once it's decided on, needs to include very clear procedures that are very open to the officers for follow through. There seems to be very ambiguous ways of how things are handled and no particular policies or procedures that are being followed at this time. I would also like to see a system of follow up where when a case is opened it is followed through to the end, it's not this guy visited, this guy visited, and then there's nothing in between, no resolution, and then we have Perkins number two again. And lastly, some type of a process for checks and balances so that we are assured as citizens that the taxpaying employees of this county are following through with what they are tasked to do and doing all the appropriate policies that are set forth for them. Thank you. MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Kepp will be followed by Mary Ellen Metro. MS. METRO: I would like to give my minutes to Mr. Kepp, if he needs them. MR. KEPP: Hi. One thing I want to clarify. Earlier in the -- earlier this morning sometime, this -- there was a comment made about this group that's helping to rewrite some of the policies and procedures being a subcommittee of the advisory board. I think it was a misspoke, but to my knowledge it is not a subcommittee of the advisory board. I've been on the advisory board seven years now since it started, and that group is not put together as a subcommittee of the advisory board. Okay. Because that was said this morning. It was maybe just misspoke. But it's not. It's, you know, we have one Page 179 November 8, 2011 member on there that is from the advisory board, but it's not certainly our opinion, necessarily. I've been coming up here about these issues, like I said, for seven, eight years now, whatever, since '04. And I have newspaper articles that I've been quoted in all along speaking about this issue. And we're still hearing, talking about it. And I'm sure you all are probably pretty tired of hearing about it and I'm really tired of being here. And I wish we didn't even have to have an advisory board. But I can tell you this: In the seven years I've been, nothing really has changed as far as enforcement goes. And this Perkins dog -- Perkins issue is proof of that. And we've talked this -- we've been here before, we've talked this until it's -- you know, until I'm blue in the face. And I appreciate you this morning basically with no, saying we believe this enforcement and we want it followed. Because I don't understand why it wasn't, you know, taken that way. Because -- but the bottom line is now we know where we're at on this at least. The problem is one of the arguments is, well, we can't do this because of our manpower. That's real simple. I mean, manpower, every agency there right now has a low manpower rate. You take the most severe cases and you follow up on them and you solve them before you -- and you go down the chain. But people like Perkins, they shouldn't be -- it shouldn't be done over five and six years. I mean, these bad cases need to be dealt with. And you don't need -- you know, there's a chain of -- you deal with the worst cases first and then you go down the abuse cases. We euthanized 3,000 animals approximately last year in this county. And so obviously common sense tells me let's go after the people that are having puppies and kittens and not spaying or neutering their animals. Those are the people that you go -- that you put the most of your manpower into. And to go back to places five and -- I just spent a month ago, November 8, 2011 approximately a month ago, we had a case in my neighborhood that a dog kept getting out through the fence. About six months -- I'm terrible with times, but approximately -- I have it all dated here. Probably eight months ago it got out and attacked another dog. And no tickets were still given. Back in, oh, I think it's '07 or something, it cornered a lady at her house. I have all the documents here, the public records. The DAS had been there like five times in five years and still never issued a citation. It took myself and two neighbors to fill out full affidavits and sit in here all morning at the magistrate's because they appealed it. And it took a DAS officer sitting here all morning, his time. And finally because they saw we weren't going home, they finally paid their fine. And that was it. But it took us to do this. And DAS had been there five times in approximately four, five years. And that was with a bite case, an attack case. I mean, the whole -- and actually, the dog, it's not a dangerous dog. It did what dogs do. It was their fault because they didn't fix their fence and they knew nobody was going to give them a ticket for doing it. And it took us in the public to do their job. And it's the same thing with the Perkins dogs. And I can find you a whole bunch of other cases. This is a newspaper article from another county meeting in '08. And it's Commissioner Henning and Coletta. And I'm not going to read the whole thing, but basically they say what should happen. Both of them are basically saying, you know, we're going after the animals. Where we should be going is after the owners of these pets and make them responsible. And both of you in this article kind of say that thing. But it hasn't been done. And that's DAS's responsibility. You know, to go round up all these strays and just euthanize them, well, maybe that has to be done, but those strays are coming from someplace. And those are the people that, you know, they're the pros, they need to find out where they're coming from, which I can tell them where they're coming from and go after these people that are not Page 181 November 8, 2011 being responsible. And people in -- pick up the newspaper, go on the internet and we'll see all these people selling puppies, giving puppies away. Go after them first. Those are the people that are causing this problem. And it's a taxpayer -- you know, we're paying for all these officers to go out there, and they're not doing their job. So in finishing this up, we've come to a conclusion today that enforcement is -- you want it done. And I think that's always been the case. But I'll give DAS the benefit of the doubt, maybe they didn't understand that. From this day on, though, they've got that directive. And I don't know who is directly responsible over Amanda, who her boss is, but somebody needs to be responsible for making sure that gets done. If they don't, they need to lose their job. And if Amanda doesn't do it, then she needs to move on. And if she gives direction to those officers and they don't do it, they need to move on. And that's -- you know, I've been here, like I said, seven years, you guys are, you all -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're going to have to wrap it up, your time has expired. MR. KEPP: Okay. And the bottom line is somebody needs to be held responsible from this day on. Thank you so much. MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker, who's also the last speaker, is Teri Licastro. MS. LICASTRO: Hi. My name is Teri Licastro. I'd like to thank all of you for allowing us to speak about this subject that's dear to most of our hearts, and I'm sure to a lot of other people's hearts that could not be here. The Perkins case has allowed for a reexamination of how our animal enforcement agency handles cases involving breeding, kenneling, cruelty and neglect. Our county needs to implement a zero tolerance for those individuals that are creating an environment which promotes the overpopulation of animals. Page 182 November 8, 2011 Like Tom said, there are over 3,000 animals killed at DAS every year in our county, which I find appalling, that we need to do something. Because our county, it should be a no kill county. In my opinion, I'd like to see that happen one day. It should go along with the beauty of this county. We shouldn't be killing animals that are perfectly healthy. And it happens every day at DAS. There are over 3,000 animals killed at DAS every year, and a majority of those animals are being bred by unlicensed, unqualified people in back yards, providing less than substandard conditions for breeding moms and pups. How many of those Perkins dogs were adopted out to unscreened applicants? How many of them through the years ended up at DAS? How many of them were ultimately euthanized? I'm asking the Commissioners and DAS to enforce and strengthen existing laws to help curb the endless cycle of overpopulation by unqualified breeders so that we could stop killing the animals at our shelter. Is there anyone here or on staff at DAS that supports overpopulation of animals in Collier County, cruelty, neglect, abandonment, back yard breeding, street sales of puppies, which goes on all the time in Immokalee? I see it all the time. And we shouldn't allow that to happen. Stray dogs running the streets of Immokalee, Golden Gate, parts of Everglades are using it as a dumping ground and no one's addressing it. So I'm asking if we could really start looking into these things. And start with the enforcement so that we become a stronger county and it makes for a better place to live. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- I talked to Tom Kepp. Tom Kepp, as you said, has been on the advisory board for quite a while. And recognizing that we can make some changes to our ordinance, that's one of the things that we can and shall ask our Page 183 November 8, 2011 advisory board to do is take a look at our ordinance. They can create a subcommittee. And of course that subcommittee is under the Sunshine, and those committees are advertised and all the stakeholders are more than welcome to go to these meetings to give input. That's the proper way to do it. And again, our ordinance on the Perkins case doesn't give any flexibility, but there are some things within here that you don't want flexibility, that flexibility is in the ordinance, such as to fine an unattended motor vehicle without significant ventilation under the conditions of such period of any time may endanger the health or physical wellbeing of an animal due to heat or lack of potable water. According to our ordinances, and the County Manager and I spoke about this, a law enforcement officer or DAS officer has the discretion not to give a warning or citation. I don't think that was the intent of Amanda or her officers. I truly believe if you're going to work in DAS, you love animals. But if you need a stronger -- something stronger in writing from the Board of Commissioners, I'm going to make that motion to request that the advisory board create a subcommittee to take our ordinances and clean them up. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that a motion? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And seconded by Commissioner Fiala. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir. I guess the question is the ordinance that we got. Now the one I'm most familiar with is the dangerous dog ordinance; that's been before us in the last 10 years about three or four times. And every time we came back, excuse the pun, we put more teeth in it to try to make a difference. But in spite of that we still have these instances taking place, you know. And I guess regardless of what level of law you put out there, people are not -- Page 184 November 8, 2011 we're not -- one, if we're not going to enforce it and people aren't going to obey it, then the objective is never going to be reached. So the question is, I guess, is are we cutting too much slack? Obviously we cut too much slack in the Perkin case, and there's been some other examples out there we've seen over time. And like Commissioner Henning mentioned, quite often the people that are attracted to your department are animal lovers. And they'll do anything they possibly can to try to provide for the comfort of the animal. And sometimes they don't do the proper thing when it comes to the owner of the animal. I don't know if the ordinances that we have now aren't strong enough or we're just not enforcing them. And if we go through the mill to make these things all over again to be able to rewrite them, I don't even know if that's going to get us where we need to be. So my question to you is, is one of the things that I've been told by law enforcement officers out there is that we do not have enough people in the field. Is that correct? MS. TOWNSEND: We can always do more with more bodies, Commissioner, I can't deny that at all. As far as an ordinance enforcement goes, one of the biggest challenges of course is to get appropriate evidence. And I know that we had a case that Commissioner Fiala is familiar with in the recent weeks where there was a dog -on -dog attack. We can't find the attacking dog. It fled the property. We've done routine patrols, we've picked up strays, we've brought them to the house of the owner -- of the animal who got attacked and said, is this it? And they go, no, that's not it. So we're out there and we are working hard. Sometimes there's -- sometimes the disconnect comes between when an incident happens and what kind of evidence we can collect to prove that it happened and therefore issue a penalty fairly. That's a big part of our disconnect Page 185 November 8, 2011 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The penalty is always fair. If the ordinance is written it's always the ordinance that has to be followed to the letter of the law. And if people want to appeal that, there's a legal system to be able to do it. What I would strongly suggest, you know, we're talking about rewriting all the ordinances. We're talking about going through lengthy procedures, putting together a subcommittee to be able to come up with new ordinances. I don't know if we need to go that far. What I'd like to see done is the County Manager do what he's supposed to do and just do his own personal investigation of what's taken place and then report back to us telling us where he sees the deficiencies are and what it's going to take to correct them. But obviously there's deficiencies or we wouldn't have this many people coming before us with the issue. And they all seem to be saying the same thing. MR. OCHS: I'd be happy to do it, sir. But we already have direction from a previous item to work with the stakeholders and the advisory board to bring back a revision to your ordinance early 2012, so-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How will I know those ordinances are going to be enforced? See, this is the problem that we're talking about, they mentioned this over and over again, that the existing ordinances aren't being enforced, that too much slack is being given to the pet owners out there and there's no reason for them to comply. If that is true then that would be the first step and the easiest one to correct. MR. OCHS: Commissioner, I can take care of that. There will be no more discretion. Then you'll have people lining up here telling you how heavy handed your staff is, but -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, if that's the case then -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, Leo. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Leo, I know. Okay, you're :i November 8, 2011 going to have to do this thing in the correct manner. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Once again, you have laws and ordinances we put together. If the laws and ordinances are too strict, then we should be amending them. But if they're not too strict, then they should be abided by. It's that simple. I don't know what the problem is. How does it work for -- let's go through the examples. If you have a dog that's running loose and it gets outside the yard and it's running loose and it's picked up, what is it for the first offense? MS. TOWNSEND: Well, if we pick up a dog that's running loose, the biggest challenge originally is to find out who it belongs to. If it doesn't have a tag on and it's not microchipped, it's coming back to the shelter and it's anybody's guess if anyone is going to come looking for it or not. If the animal has identification, we'll scan the animal in the field, we'll look up its license in the field, we'll attempt to make contact with the owner. On a first occurrence, we're going to return the animal to the owner with a warning. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that's what the ordinance reads, right? MS. TOWNSEND: The ordinance reads that there is discretion of the penalty issued depending on the history of violation of the ordinance -- I'm sorry, of the owner and the severity of the incident. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But does it read differently for the second occurrence, or does the same wording apply? MS. TOWNSEND: Let me show you the wording, if I may. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Because I think we're getting to part of the problem that's here. It's the amount of discretion that you have. I can understand if it was the first occurrence, you know, don't do this again, you know you're liable for a fine or whatever. But if the discretion can be continued, and if you'd read it out loud for everyone, Page 187 November 8, 2011 that would be most appreciated. MS. TOWNSEND: The fee policy, you know -- MR. OCHS: Hold on, hold on -- MS. TOWNSEND: It talks about graduated impound fees for example based on first and second impound. The ordinance allows for both aggravated and non - aggravated citations. That more has to do with what the violation is than repetition. But the area that you see highlighted there in yellow is where the ordinance specifically places the discretion on the animal control officer based on the history of the violator and the severity of the incident. And we generally follow the practice. And like I said, we're working on our policies and procedures. They're coming to the advisory board on the 15th. They're going to get a chance to take a look at that. We generally follow a procedure of warning the first time, citation the second time. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's fine, but that's not what it says here -- MR. OCHS: Commissioner -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- the discretion exists at all levels through the -- every occurrence that goes the discretion still exists. MR. OCHS: Well, Commissioner, this refers to penalties outlined in Section 1436. And here you have 1436. MS. TOWNSEND: The way the ordinance is constructed is that those penalties have to do with what the nature of the violation is. So, for example, if it's licensure and vaccination we issue a seven -day warning to comply. If it's a general nuisance violation, we can issue a notice of violation, $25 payable immediately or it escalates. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And then the word "can" is the part that's problematic in there. Without some sort of definition of what a person can do or can't do, and it's left up to the discretion of an OEM November 8, 2011 agent in the field to keep coming back the third, the fourth, the fifth occurrence and be able to use their own discretion, I think that's one of the things that we got a little bit of -- we lost a little bit of control over. My own opinion, once again, maybe if we take this before the different groups and start moving it forward, we can come up with something that's a little more definitive as far as when action's going to be taken. I appreciate everybody bringing this forward today. I didn't realize that it existed. MS. TOWNSEND: We can probably address that in some department policy procedures as well. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Leave that up, Leo. Leave those penalties up. One of the problems here is unlike what has been represented by some members of the Board, these penalties are not certain. They don't say shall, they say may, okay? Now, some members of this Board have alleged that it is certain, it says shall, shall, shall, shall. Well, it doesn't say shall, shall, shall, shall, it says may, may, may, may. Maybe we need to make sure it says shall, okay? But we're not going to write this today. We have accepted your report, or at least I hope we're going to accept your report with a recommendation that you get back to us with the revised verbiage so that we can actually enforce these laws and put some teeth in them, okay? Commissioner Fiala -- I'm sorry, Commissioner Hiller. I mean, you look so much alike, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I know. Can you show us where it says may? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, read the first -- well, leave it up there. What did you just do? MR. OCHS: This is the same thing. November 8, 2011 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Number one, may issue. Number B -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no, that's not May issue. I want to know where with respect -- not with respect to May issue, with respect to penalties. The enforcement is shall. That's the issue. They were not talking about May with respect to penalties, we're talking about shall with respect to enforcement. I just wanted to clarify there's a big difference. CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, there's no big difference at all. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, there is -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: You shall enforce it, which means that you may or may not issue a citation. That's -- you know, it's nonsensical. But, so -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Then I guess the law is nonsensical -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, it is -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- that's why it has to be revised. CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, no. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But anyway, that's not the issue. I don't want do debate this. I want to talk about what I want to talk about, which is -- I just wanted to comment on your point. The one concern I have, and we talk about dogs and cats, and I understand very much the concern about, you know, those kind of animals. But I also have a concern about horses, and we've had incidents in this county where we've had tremendous abuse of horses. And to the end of staffing, code enforcement is supposed to be your partner. And it goes to the issue of what was brought up in the morning that, you know, we have zoning issues that relate to animal life, activity, I'm not sure what term you want to use to describe it. And I think there needs to be better coordination between Domestic Animal Services and Code Enforcement and Zoning with respect to the enforcement of these laws. So I'd like to go ahead and review that. Page 190 November 8, 2011 And in fact, you know, someone mentioned to me that there was a change in the Land Development Code with respect to one of the horse requirements, but I never saw any history of approval to that. So I'd like you to look into that. I'll talk to you afterwards about that, Nick. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm ready to vote on the motion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. All right, all in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. Any opposed by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we'll see you hopefully in January with a new ordinance ready for everyone's review. MS. TOWNSEND: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: How does the break schedule look to you? It sounds good? Okay, we'll continue for another 45 minutes. No, we'll take a 10- minute break. We'll be back here at 4:36. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have three Commissioners. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. You have a live mic. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have four now. Let's do it. We've got a lot of work to do, not a lot of time. Item #I OF RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN AN UPDATED U.S. DEPARTMENT OF Page 191 November 8, 2011 HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) STANDARD FORM (SF) 424 FOR THE HUD COLLIER COUNTY ENTITLEMENT GRANTS FOR ACTION PLAN (AP) YEAR 2011 -2012 AND TO AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE HUD GRANT AGREEMENTS UPON THEIR ARRIVAL — APPROVED MR. OCHS: On that note, Commissioners, the next item is 10.F. It's a recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign an updated U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Standard Form 424 for the HUD Collier County Entitlement Grants for Action Plan Year 2011 and 2012 and authorize the Chairman to sign the HUD Grant Agreements upon their arrival. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, this is by Commissioner Hiller, so go ahead, Commissioner Hiller. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. I had several concerns with this. The first is that the dollar amount in executive summary changed from two million, 649 to two million 871. The second was that you're requesting us to authorize grant agreements that we will not have seen upon their arrival instead of waiting to the December 13th meeting. I don't see any reason why we can't wait to the December 13th meeting. I would like to have the opportunity to review whatever it is that's going to be signed. And then it also says that what you want is that once this is executed to allow expenditures as of October 1 st -- and this allows -- I'm going to read this, just because I don't want to misinterpret what's said or misstate what's said. But this allows for administration costs to be covered for the entire period but subrecipients would not be able to incur eligible expenses until the date the Board approves the subrecipient agreement. So it sounds to me like what you're saying is subrecipients are not Page 192 November 8, 2011 allowed to expend but you're allowed to expend? I would be concerned about that, again, because if for some reason we don't receive these funds -- and we had agreed that no one was going to expend based on our prior approval. And now you're coming back with a proposal to allow for spending on the administrative side in anticipation of this, which is, you know, I don't think we should be doing that. And I also don't feel that we should, you know, allow the Chairman to sign these grant agreements without this Board reviewing them at the December 13th meeting. And I want an explanation for the dollar difference. MS. GRANT: Okay. Kim Grant, Interim Director of Housing, Human and Veteran Services. I believe I'll be able to answer your questions. First the dollar amount difference. HUD actually increased their funding to us, and that is the reason for the difference in the amounts. And that's also the reason for the need to update the SF424 form. COMMISSIONER HILLER: What will that be allocated to? I'd like to know what projects that increase will be -- MS. GRANT: That will be allocated -- oh, the specific, the increase and which projects they'll go to? Do we have that? MR. OCHS: Commissioners, it's the same list we showed you at the last meeting. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So now you're going to -- and where is the -- so where is the difference between the 2649 and -- I know this list. I want to know how you're going to allocate the difference between the two million 649 and the two million 871. Whatever the difference is, how much is that? Like the 225,000 or however much that is, who's going to get the additional funding? MS. CASTORENA: For the record, Margo Castorena, Federal Grants Manager, Housing, Human and Veteran Services. Any overage that the federal government gives us will have to be Page 193 November 8, 2011 reprogrammed to an activity. So if it comes in and we do not have -- if we do not have at this point the project that will be -- that it will be allocated to. When this -- yes, and we will come back to the Board requesting their permission to go ahead and reprogram funds and allocate to the next project that was scored highest. When these projects came forward, when the applications were submitted, we took them all in, the evaluation committee selected them and graded them. Based on their allocation and what types of funds could be used to fund different projects, we used those funds as expediently as possible. So what we will have to go do is look at what that list is, which is the next project that scored the highest, and then come back to the BCC and request your approval to go ahead and make an additional grant. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So in other words, the allocation of the increase hasn't been decided at this point and will come back to the Board for approval. MS. GRANT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. But you've got in this application that you have here, you've broken down some dollar amounts. And I quite frankly don't understand how to reconcile this, because the numbers don't reconcile to what you've got here. So is this actually what you're going to be submitting, this form that you have in your back -up? MS. GRANT: Yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, because -- MS. GRANT: What are the numbers that -- could you point me to -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: You've got one number, your home grant amount 662,000 -- I'm just rounding. ESG grant amount 94,000. And then nothing for the housing opportunities. And then Page 194 November 8, 2011 basically that's it. So I don't know, you know, if this is somehow supposed to reconcile to this two million eight, but I -- MS. GRANT: It should reconcile to the 2.871. There are three different grant programs coming to us from HUD comprising that 2.8 million. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you show me where on this schedule how these numbers reconcile? Because I can't see it. MS. CASTORENA: Again, for the record, Margo Castorena. Commissioner, what you were looking at on the SF424 -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that's this schedule, right? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am. Yes. That is Collier County's agreement with HUD, okay. So all that does is it tells Collier County how much of an allocation we are going to get. The listing that they have on the visualizer is the subgrants that will go to subrecipient organizations. Any deviation or any overage we will have to come back to the Board and ask for your approval to grant more funds. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But again, what does the 662,000 and the 95,000 represent? Then you've got another line item called additional federal funds, leveraged, seven million, then you've got another under emergency shelter grants, additional federal funds leveraged is 957. I have no idea what these numbers represent. And they don't tie in any way to your executive summary. MS. CASTORENA: There are three grant programs: The Community Development Block Grant, the Home Initiative Partnership Program and the Emergency Shelter Grant. Those equal to the amount of the revised SF424. That is our grant with HUD. Collier County with HUD. The amount of leverage has only to do with the money that people are bringing to the table to help expedite and use these. What HUD does when it gives us a grant is it also wants to know if we put a Page 195 November 8, 2011 dollar in each program, how much of a return will we also be getting from your community. So leverage is basically the bang for your buck that you are going to be getting. This figure is derived from the applications that the subgrantees -- or the subrecipients turn in with their application. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand. But again, and I don't mean to repeat myself, but I just simply want to know the reconciliation because -- and on this form that I'm looking at, it doesn't have anything about CDBG, it only has home, you know, housing opportunities for people with AIDS and Emergency Shelter Grants program. And I just have to express the reason why I am, you know, focusing on this is we've had so many problems with housing I think, you know, we need to be as diligent as possible to ensure that we're doing everything correctly, whatever it is we're doing. So I just need to have that level of comfort in order to be able to accept this. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is it true, Kim, that the way to assure accountability is to review this at the time that we're making a decision to allocate it to the subrecipient and then through an audit of the subrecipients' expenditure of those funds? Is that the way that it is accounted for to make sure that it is spent responsibly? MS. GRANT: To ensure that it is spent responsibly, correct. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Signing the agreement with HUD merely acknowledges that HUD is going to give you that much money. MS. GRANT: That's correct. And that's based on the action plan that the Board approved and the projects that have been approved, correct. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So it's not going to help us determine whether or not the funds are being spent responsibly by a subrecipient, it just acknowledges receipt of the funds; is that correct? MS. GRANT: That's correct. This is a step in the process of Page 196 November 8, 2011 receiving the funds, correct. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So without signing the agreement, we're not going to get the funds; is that right? MS. GRANT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, I actually think I have it figured out. So I may be able to answer your question for you. It looks like if you just total those first lines, then it will total the new revised total of two million, eight. So you've already made -- I guess, and I'm just eyeballing this, but it looks like you've already made a decision to allocate that 200 somewhere. And I'm not sure without, you know, reconciling it to that detail where. But that's what it seems to be. No, does it only add up to the two million, six? MS. CASTORENA: This -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: It adds up to the two, eight. You must have allocated it somewhere already. MS. GRANT: Commissioner, this form is to represent the allocation of HUD funds to us in those three different pockets. Since they have increased their funding from our original application in July, that form will include the increased amounts. That, however, has not been the increase. The 200 or something thousand is not reflected in there in terms of where it will go. As we've already expressed, we'll be coming back to the Board to ask for your permission and agreement for those additional allocations at a future date. COMMISSIONER HILLER: It has to be, because you have all the different categories here and you have these dollar amounts broken out by categories. MR. OCHS: That is what HUD tells us, ma'am -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, they tell you that that -- MR. OCHS: Yes, that's what they are going to allocate -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what's going to happen is they Page 197 November 8, 2011 tell you that that, for example, two million four, or let's say the 660,000 for home is what you've got for that program. And then you'll go back and you'll pick a project. MS. GRANT: I understand your question now. Yes, that is correct, yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So that at least reconciles or answers my question about the reconciliation. Again, with respect to authorizing the Chair to sign the grant agreements upon their arrival, I want to see them. So, you know, I can't approve that. I don't see any reason why we can't wait till December 13th. And again, as to the expenditure of funds, I don't think we should be expending any funds till we actually get the money, because we don't want to be in a position where for some reason if we don't get it you're expending it and we're in trouble. We're talking about a shorter amount of time. Because, you know, based on what you're suggesting in this executive summary, I don't see any problem -- I don't see any reason we can't wait. MS. GRANT: I'd like to clarify at least one point, and that is that we are not suggesting that we spend or expend any of the funds until the agreements are signed. So we're not suggesting any expenditure until the agreements are signed. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Including for administrative? MS. GRANT: Including for administrative. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Then you can spend after the grant agreements are signed at the December 13th board meeting. MS. GRANT: We could. Now, for administration, that's somewhat simpler. We can figure out what our administration costs have been and do the appropriate expenditures. At the last Commission meeting you approved six subrecipient agreements with effective dates of October 25th. Our goal here is to let them begin to spend their funds as of those effective dates, but not until -- not until the agreements are signed. November 8, 2011 And our goal is to rather than wait an entire month until the next Board meeting, which is certainly an option, I need to be real clear about that, that of course is an option, we're simply trying to shorten the time frame and get these things moving. And one of the main reasons that we're trying to do that, Commissioner, is that these are 12 month grants. And one of the compliance requirements has to do with timeliness. And so again, our goal is just to get these things moving. MR. OCHS: This is not for our benefit but for the subrecipients ultimately, so they can get started. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, also for ours because we get MS. GRANT: To cover the administrative costs associated with it and also, yes -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Put that list back up of the recipients. So this is not the first time we've had this come through. Every year we get to see this. It's come through year after year after year. And it helps out from anything from -- oh, Eagle Lake Park's on there too, Commissioner Fiala, you notice that? A lot of great agencies here: Shelter for the Abused Women and Children. I mean, yeah, okay, it's government money and it's being directed to these agencies through the County Commission. But to delay it for reasons that I can't perceive is not doing anybody justice. I mean, just look at the list here. The Seniors Meal Program, the CRA in Immokalee, City of Naples Park Improvement. There's $100,000 there. Maybe we ought to wait on all of this for a while till at least the tourist season ends, huh? COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's not about waiting on this. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, I'm at a loss where this discussion's supposed to take us. If there is something wrong with Page 199 November 8, 2011 what we've been doing every year, then that should be what we're dealing with. But with that, I'd like to make a motion for approval. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion for approval by Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think the concern is the administration cost. And if it doesn't occur that you get the monies for the subrecipients, we still give the approval for that expenditure. And would the motion maker agree to amend on the administration expenditures, to bring it back at the next meeting? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm not too sure why that would be necessary. I mean, please help me with this a little bit. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you don't want to give authorization to expend money -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think we just got through saying that money can be expended until -- what's the date? MS. GRANT: Until the agreements are signed, we're not asking for any money to actually be expended. We're simply asking that once the agreements are signed that the administrative costs will be allowable back to October 1 st, which is the effective date of the grant. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that reasonable administrative costs for -- MS. GRANT: Yes. Yes. And there's a certain portion of the grant fund that's allowed for that. So yes, it's correct, allowable, compliant and reasonable. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that is stated in the executive summary -- MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- that no expenditures will be made until the HUD grant agreements are executed? Page 200 November 8, 2011 MS. GRANT: Correct. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So there's no risk. Commissioner Hiller, one more time. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I need help. I'm reading this and legal, I need your help. It says in your executive summary this is a 12 month program with a compliance requirement to timely spend funds. Unfortunately, while the program starts October 1 st, HUD traditionally does not forward their grant documents for several weeks after the effective start date. Past practice has been to date subrecipient agreements in accordance with the grant start date rather than the date on which they were approved by the BCC. This practice is no longer considered acceptable. And you've just told me you have agreements that you dated -- MS. GRANT: We dated October 25th, which is the date that the BCC approved the agreements. So we did not back date those approvals. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, so October 20 -- okay, you're treating -- so -- MS. GRANT: The program starts October 1 st. But in concert with the County Attorney and with the wishes of the Board, we are not asking for subrecipient agreements to be dated that date. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Then you go on to say, to ensure the county has adequate time to expend the funds and to cover the cost of administration associated with the grant, staff is requesting the BCC authorize the Chairman to sign grant documents upon receipt rather than to wait until the BCC meeting following receipt, which could jeopardize the timeliness requirement. MS. GRANT: In other words, we have one year to spend a certain percentage of these funds that come to us. And each month that goes by before we're allowed to start making those expenditures puts us at risk in that meeting compliance requirement. COMMISSIONER HILLER: When do you expect to get these Page 201 November 8, 2011 grant agreements? MS. GRANT: I'm sorry, grant -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: When do you expect to get them? MS. GRANT: HUD has told us that they are ready to expedite them to us. They are waiting for the updated SF424, which is a new procedure for them this year. So as soon as that is -- should the Board choose to approve this executive summary and authorize the Chair to sign that S17424, that would go to HUD very quickly and they've agreed to expedite those agreements to us. So our expectation is a few business days versus a month or more. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And then you intend to allow -- what do you mean by intending to allow for expenditures as of October 1 st, 2011, the award start date? What does that mean, upon agreement execution allow expenditures (sic) as of October 1 st, 2011, award start date? MS. GRANT: Right. And here we're parsing out that once again the agreement is effective October 1 st, that's when the grant funds are available. So we're parsing out that we have allowable expenditures, administrative expenditures as of October 1 st, the award start date. But once again the subrecipients would not be allowed to expend their funds for any activities prior to the date on their agreements. So the ones we brought last time were October 25. There will still be more coming, and whatever effective date those agreements are, they would not expend funds prior to the date of those agreements. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And why can you do that? MS. GRANT: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why can you go back to October 1 st? MS. GRANT: The grant provides for administrative costs based on the effective date of the agreement. And it's customary, because we of course have been doing work associated with the grants, Page 202 November 8, 2011 including getting the subrecipient agreements prepared, et cetera. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Legal, are you okay with all of this? I mean, I -- it's -- MR. KLATZKOW: Oh, I had the same questions you did and, you know, I called Kim and we had a lengthy conversation. And I'm not uncomfortable with this, how's that? Working with HUD is not my favorite thing to do, to put it mildly. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you think we should approve this and there won't be any risk in any way with respect to anything from a finance perspective, or -- MR. KLATZKOW: The reality is this: HUD gives you a set of form documents. You either sign or you don't sign them. It's not like you can negotiate the terms of the agreements. I'll take a look at the forms as they come in. Unless there's something absolutely obnoxious in them, there's not much point to bring it back. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So then we can go ahead and authorize the Chairman to sign that form, and then actually what I would like to see is I would like to see all these grant agreements. If I could have a copy of them by e -mail before the Chairman signs them, that would be great. MS. GRANT: That's fine. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I want them early so I can sign them before she gets them, okay? MS. GRANT: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HILLER: He is so darling, you have to love the guy. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, are we ready to vote on this? All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. Page 203 November 8, 2011 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. Any opposed by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We've got it done. Item # 1 OG RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A ONE -YEAR RENEWAL OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT WITH LAKE TRAFFORD RANCH, LLLP, FOR CATTLE RANCHING AT PEPPER RANCH PRESERVE FOR AN ANNUAL REVENUE OF $25113 — APPROVED MR. OCHS: Next item is 10.G. It was formerly 16.E.2 on your agenda. It's a recommendation to approve a one -year renewal of the lease agreement with Lake Trafford Branch LLP for cattle ranching at Pepper Ranch Preserve, for an annual revenue of $213,000. This item was moved by Commissioner Hiller. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the reason I pulled it is because I see it as a companion item to the discussion we had about mitigation banking. My concern is that this is potentially one of those activities that would, you know, prevent or slow us down from getting our mitigation banking. And if that's the case, there's no way I can approve it. MS. HENNIG: There's a provision of a lease that allows -- MR. OCHS: For the record? MS. HENNIG: Oh, I'm sorry. Melissa Hennig, Principal Environmental Specialist. In Article I. the last paragraph, it states that it can be amended from time to time to change the size of the cattle lease area. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But again -- Page 204 November 8, 2011 MR. KLATZKOW: I'll take it further than that. We've got the right to terminate on 30 days' notice. COMMISSIONER HILLER: However, is that going to impede our ability to get the mitigation bank? Because I think this is one of those activities that will impede mitigation banking, isn't it? MS. HENNIG: No, it shouldn't. They're aware. They have our management plan with the Corps, and if they say it's not going to work, we'll just tell them okay, we'll stop the cattling (sic). CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Yeah, the point is we wouldn't continue the cattle lease on those portions of the land that are being used for the mitigation bank. If we did try to continue it, it would impact our ability to get it. But we would intend to either modify the lease and define the extent of the grazing so it doesn't interfere with the mitigation, or we cancel the lease and there is no grazing at all. So we're protected. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So the presence of -- the presence of cattle ranching on Pepper Ranch is not going to in any way inhibit the progress of our banking application, again, to confirm? MS. HENNIG: No. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I motion to approve. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner Fiala. Second by Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Uh -huh. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. Page 205 November 8, 2011 Any opposed by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. (At which time, the court reporters were changed out.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: We can speak now? Okay. Good. Where do we go from here? Item # l OH RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD RFP #11 -5666 BAREFOOT BEACH CONCESSION AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN A CONTRACT WITH DAY -STAR UNLIMITED, INC. D /B /A CABANA DAN'S AND TO APPROVE THE TERMINATION AT VENDOR REQUEST OF CONTRACT #00- 3168 "BAREFOOT BEACH CONCESSION AGREEMENT — APPROVED MR. OCHS: 10.H., sir. It's a recommendation to award RFP #11 -5666, Barefoot Beach Concession, and authorize the Chairman to sign a contract with Day -Star Unlimited, Incorporated, doing business as Cabana Dan's, and to approve the termination at vendor request of Contract #00 -3168, Barefoot Beach Concession Agreement. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller, you pulled this, didn't you? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. The reason I pulled it is two -fold. One, I wanted the citizens of the community to be aware that Cabana Dan is going to be making quite substantial improvements. And, if I may say, at a very cost - effective price. In fact, the improvements are quite material and he's going to be doing them for about 50,000. And I think it's important that, you know, we articulate and show the people what the improvements to the concessions will be and to the chickee but because I know there November 8, 2011 has been a lot of discussion about improvements at that beach. And then I also would like to give -- Cabana Dan is what I call him -- an opportunity to explain some of the issues that he will be doing to get this done for us, that we otherwise, would do. We're really saving a lot of money as a result of his contribution. It's a very unique contract. And if you could just explain it, explain what his improvements are. And then, Dan, if you could explain, you know, the complexities and how much you're really doing for us. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And this will include the construction of the fishing pier and the observation deck? COMMISSIONER HILLER: In fact, one of the reasons I brought this forward -- because I said, wow. I mean, look at this. We have a private contractor, you know, basically building his own concession not on the backs of the tax dollar -- of the taxpayer. And, you know, how come we can't do something like that at Vanderbilt. So I was very impressed with it. And I thought it was worthy of note. And it's quite a contrast to the Vanderbilt Beach project. So good job. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who made the motion? CHAIRMAN COYLE: We don't even have a motion yet. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: He makes a motion to approve. Commissioner Fiala seconded it. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. Page 207 November 8, 2011 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I need the -- I would like the presentation, please. CHAIRMAN COYLE: The what? COMMISSIONER HILLER: I want him to do the presentation. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You've got three minutes. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. I'll be brief. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioners, Mr. Chair, Barry Williams, Park and Recreation Director. Commissioner Hiller, thank you for pointing this out. It is something that we're very pleased with as a Parks and Rec Department. Cabana Dan -- we've worked with Cabana Dan for many years at Vanderbilt Beach Park. He does a tremendous service for the community. Part of the negotiations that we had with him on his taking over the Barefoot concession -- and what he did was -- when looking at the concession itself, we have a couple of areas. If you're familiar with the beach park location there, we have a main facility that houses bathrooms and a small area for concession. We also have a spot on the beach itself. And that's where Dan is offering to make some improvements to help provide for the folks that come to that beach location. In your packet he did provide some rough sketches. And I would be happy to put those on the visualizer for consideration. And I do appreciate your offer to allow Dan perhaps the November 8, 2011 opportunity to talk a little bit about his plans. I don't know if that's something that he would want to come up and maybe speak to. MR. BYERS: Absolutely. Sure. MR. WILLIAMS: If that's okay, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have a minute and a half left, Dan. MR. WILLIAMS: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead. MR. BYERS: You want me to go ahead now? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, sure. MR. BYERS: My name is Dan Byers. I'm probably better known as Cabana Dan's. Barefoot Beach is a unique opportunity for us. We want to bring the concession there up to the level of the rest of the park. The area where we would provide food service is pretty much now a garage, for better terms. It was where the old vending machines used to be housed. It's a vanilla room with a roll-up shutter. We have to take that, get approval with the DPR, and turn that into some type of food service facility, which will require plumbing and sinks and water and many, many other things. There are apparently no tables or chairs there now. I guess the current vendor must have owned those. Those have been removed. We have to replace those. The beach concession that's there now the chickee hut, is in major need of repair structurally, roof -wise and so forth. And we will have to go through the proper permitting process to get that done through DEP and on and on and on. Also, there we will be placing all new equipment, all rental chairs, all new kayaks, all new paddle boards. The but will be completely refurbished. You know, of course, a new staff. So we're going to take the full operation and bring it up to what I say is a five -star service. You know, coming from eight years of running the Ritz - Carlton beach, my desire when I opened Cabana Page 209 November 8, 2011 Dan's was to take that service out of the Ritz and provide it to the public. We've done that with Parks and Rec since '98 at Vanderbilt Beach and now, through the competitive bid process, we won the bid to do that at Barefoot Beach. So we're looking forward to evolving it and working with the park department to find out what people need there. Every location is a little bit different. We know what works at Vanderbilt. We're going to take that to Barefoot and evolve. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And how big is that going to be? MR. BYERS: What; the -- MR. WILLIAMS: If I may -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: The size. MR. WILLIAMS: If I may, what this is, this is an elevation that shows existing facilities. So we offered that as part of the package just to show you what the concession location would be. This is a -- a floor plan, if you will, and the area that Dan would be operating from. And you can see the area that he talked about with rollup shutter. This is this area right here. MR. BYERS: It's labeled vending machines. It's about a nine by nine room. Then there is a considerable deck, which is probably 20 foot by 20 foot maybe. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. MR. BYERS: That's off of the beach. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And so you're going to be improving that and you're going to be improving the chickee but and you're going to be buying all this equipment. And then at the end of the day, all this good stuff that you're doing, you're going to allow the County to keep. And you're doing this all for $50,000; is that a fair assessment? MR. BYERS: Pretty much. I mean -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Well, that's really amazing. Page 210 November 8, 2011 And, you know, thank God for private enterprise. So good job. MR. BYERS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thanks a lot. MR. BYERS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right, County Manager. COMMISSIONER HENNING: All in favor. aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It carries unanimously. Item # 101 RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT STANDARD OPERATING POLICY "AT0012 RESERVING BALLFIELDS — APPROVED MR. OCHS: 10.I. is a recommendation to adopt the Parks and Recreation Department standard operating policy AT0012, Reserving Ball Fields. COMMISSIONER HILLER: The reason I brought this forward is we've had a lot of contention, if you will, in the community over the use of ball fields. And so one of the things that staff decided to do -- and I happen to have heard from the competing interests. And so staff went ahead and they decided to figure out a better policy to resolve differences between these competing interests for the Page 211 November 8, 2011 ball fields. And they've done that. And one of the reasons I wanted to bring this forward was so that all the people out there who use the ball fields know what the new policy is, are not taken by surprise, and understand that everything -- every effort is being done to make it as fair as possible. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. There is a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. But I think -- I think he should present it, so I think people know what it is. MR. WILLIAMS: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many people do you think are listening to you? MR. WILLIAMS: That's a good question. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I am. MR. WILLIAMS: At least five. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I will say right now I assume a lot of people are driving home from work -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right. COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- or picking up their kids at school. But the wonderful thing is because of Collier County TV, people can watch us on replay whenever they want. It's basically free -- you know, free computer TiVo. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Only people who don't have a life. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HILLER: In Collier County, I think that's a lot of people. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's what puts her to sleep. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Much healthier than sleeping pills. CHAIRMAN COYLE: It does a pretty good job for me. MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioner, we can further -- we can put this on our website, too, and let people know. COMMISSIONER HILLER: That would be a good idea. MR. WILLIAMS: It's a fairly straightforward practice. We do Page 212 November 8, 2011 appreciate Commissioner Hiller's working with us and the groups that she mentioned. We basically put a prioritization together who uses the athletic fields in our community. And this is -- we've attached the standard operating procedure. It's basically meant to give us some guidance. We vetted it through the Parks and Rec Advisory Board. And they approved it, as well. But it's just a system of priorities. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Nobody is going to understand what you're talking about if they're watching television. Why don't you put it on the visualizer -- MR. WILLIAMS: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and let them have a look at it. MR. WILLIAMS: Just to go through this very quickly. If you can -- if you look at the current procedure, in terms of how many game and practice field reservations are done, what I really want you to focus on is Item C and our facility priorities. That becomes the area of contention. And right now what we have is a policy and what we're offering you is -- we look at prioritization that shows our programs or activities sponsored by the Collier County Parks and Recreation Department will have first priority. And we have a number of programs that we provide to the community for folks, for their children, for families. Those programs that are developed by our parks and rec professionals are the ones that we have as first priority. The second priority is we have a number of co- sponsored agreements with a variety of youth sports organizations. Little league and soccer primarily are the biggest ones that we work with, but we also have organizations that we work with, the lacrosse. We also have other types of sports, roller hockey. These type of organizations, they meet the same mission as the Parks and Rec Page 213 November 8, 2011 Department, in terms of they are providing youth sports. So they're our second priority. We work with these groups typically two to three months in advance to schedule our existing fields. And so typically you will hear people talk about -- if you have kids that play sports, typically there's spring and fall sports that we look at. But we have a number of other groups that also will play through the summer. Our third priority that we work with are all other rentals. And this comprises a variety of different groups that play -- typically we're looking at travel teams. Travel teams are teams of children that have risen to a higher competitive level, in terms of their -- (Commissioner Henning left the Boardroom - -) MR. WILLIAMS: -- development in a particular sport. They may play throughout southwest Florida, but they often will wish to host games in our community parks. And, in doing so, invite teams from other parts of the southwest Florida area to play -- to play against them. This is done -- the travel teams are more advanced. They're more competitive in nature, in terms of what they provide. So these are the folks that typically -- they are not part of a routine league that plays, but they play throughout the year and they look for whatever available time that they can play. Last what we have is our walk on usage. These are people -- are folks that come and want to play and use a field. This isn't necessarily the mom or dad that show up with their son or daughter that wants to throw a frisbee. These are people that show up and they want to play. They may have a team and they're practicing -- getting a bit more extra practice. These folks are folks that we would consider walk on. Now, we just -- we put them last. We typically can accommodate walk on play. I mean, it's just a matter of finding in our system, you know, the availability. So these are the priorities that we have and hopefully, you know, Page 214 November 8, 2011 that's helped with some of the contention that we've dealt with. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. With out of town teams playing out of town teams, how far in advance do you allow them to book? And how do we know that our teams won't be overlooked because those teams coming over like our parks better so they reserve them well in advance -- (Commissioner Henning returned to the boardroom.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and so our teams then lose out? I have heard that complaint a little. MR. WILLIAMS: I understand. I know that's a perception. We do have -- we do know that from time to time we'll have groups that will come unannounced, not working with us in any way, and come to our parks from the east coast. And if that's the case, obviously our Collier County citizens have priority. If folks are playing from out of town without our permission on the fields and we have the fields programmed for Collier County youth, they would take precedence and we would ask -- you know, we would ask the folks to leave. Typically when we have our travel teams, for example, that play teams from out of County, they do so by inviting them in. Again, they're trying to get a higher competitive team, if you will, to play. What that does is it basically helps our families here stay at home and invite these more competitive teams in. That's the scenario where we do -- we do encourage and support. They would be -- they would fit into this third category, this third prioritization. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me see if I understood what you just said. So you do not reserve any of the fields when an out of town team requests it, but if they happen to come into town and are playing, then that's okay? MR. WILLIAMS: That's not okay. Page 215 November 8, 2011 COMMISSIONER FIALA: But you do not -- you do not reserve for out of town teams? MR. WILLIAMS: Not as a rule, no, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, okay. Then some people are under misconceptions. Okay. Is there a sign up to that? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do we have a motion yet? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. Is there a sign up that says we do not allow out of town teams to reserve our fields? MR. WILLIAMS: There is not. But typically the -- for example, Lee County, somebody wanted to rent a field in Collier County to play. You know, our response would be encouraging them to work with the Lee County Parks and Rec Department. If the Lee County folks are coming to play a Collier County team, that's a different scenario where we would invite and encourage. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I understand. Okay. Very good. VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner Coletta. Second by me. Is it -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have one quick question. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, go ahead. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you just explain how this reconciles the, you know, disagreements that have existed between Little League and the other group called Cal Ripken? But the local Cal Ripken as opposed to any traveling group. MR. WILLIAMS: Absolutely. We had a situation, I believe it was last fall, where a -- there is a youth baseball organization that has come to prominence throughout the country called Cal Ripken. It's similar to baseball with some nuances that are -- that -- that are a little Page 216 November 8, 2011 bit different from the Little League. We were approached last fall about making space available to them. And we allowed them to play in a variety of our parks. What they asked for, and what we've provided them, is a cosponsored agreement for them to play. And before, when we didn't have them scheduled, they showed up at the end of December wanting to play in the spring. We had already programmed our fields for the spring and so we treated them as a rental. But in the fall -- the following fall, we were able to accommodate them and make them a cosponsored league. So we found that we've been able to accommodate both leagues. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Which is really great. MR. WILLIAMS: It is. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because it has eliminated a lot of contention in the community. It's built a lot of peace and harmony. MR. MITCHELL: And we're hearing a lot of good things about Cal Ripken. It's a great opportunity for kids that want to play that type of baseball. So we're pleased to be a partner with Cal Ripken now. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you. Item #I OJ Page 217 November 8, 2011 RECOMMENDATION FOR THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE PHYSICIAN LED ACCESS NETWORK (PLAN) IN THE AMOUNT OF $509000 TO PROVIDE MEDICAL REFERRAL SERVICES FOR LOW - INCOME RESIDENTS IN COLLIER COUNTY - COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO BRING BACK AN UPDATE ON THE LITIGATION - CONSENSUS MR. OCHS: Commissioners, 10.J. is a recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign an agreement between Collier County Board of County Commissioners and the Physician Led Access Network, PLAN, in the amount of $50,000 to provide medical referral services for low- income residents in Collier County. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. And actually I had suggested that -- to Marla that we could move this back on consent. I didn't catch it when we were working on the agenda. There was a lot of confusion between the terms in the contract and the summary -- the executive summary. They didn't really parallel each other. But she explained everything and it's reasonable. I guess the only question I have -- and it's really related to PLAN, but not to this agenda item. So I'll -- by the way, I'll make a motion to approve. VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner Hiller and seconded by Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER HILLER: The only -- the only thing I would like to ask is: Are we still funding litigation to defend PLAN against the lawsuit that was brought against Marcy Krumbine? MR. KLATZKOW: We are still involved in that litigation, yes. Page 218 November 8, 2011 COMMISSIONER HILLER: But are we still using County resources to defend PLAN against that? MR. KLATZKOW: We're using Jackie Hubbard. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are we? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Should we be? MR. KLATZKOW: Board direction. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I would like to bring that back for review to see if that's still appropriate at this time. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor of the present motion, please say -- MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we do have -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- aye. Huh? MR. MITCHELL: We do have speakers, whether they want to waive since -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. Let the speakers speak. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We've got a -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, let them speak. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We've got a motion to approve. Do you want it approved? MS. EADINGTON: I just have one point of reference. We all -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Don't talk from there. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've got to get to the podium. MS. EADINGTON: Margaret Eadington. I'm Chairman of PLAN. I believe that next Tuesday we do have a mediation appointment with the Plaintiff and ourselves. So maybe after Tuesday that will, in fact, be settled. So maybe we can wait until after Tuesday to bring that back. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure. That's great. Thanks for pointing that out. I appreciate it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Do we have any other speakers? Page 219 November 8, 2011 MR. MITCHELL: She's waived. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. Item #I OK AUTHORIZE STAFF TO ADVERTISE AN ORDINANCE FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION THAT AMENDS ORDINANCE NO. 04 -129 AS AMENDED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF REVISING THE CLASS 2 CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR POST - HOSPITAL INTERFACILITY TRANSPORT SERVICES - MOTION TO SEND ITEM BACK TO EMSAC FOR REVIEW AND CLARIFICATION AND TO BE PLACED ON A FUTURE BOARD AGENDA FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION - APPROVED; INTERIM EMS DIRECTOR WILL CALL AN EMERGENCY EMSAC MEETING TO DISCUSS BOARD CONCERNS MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item 10.K., formerly 16.17.6. It's to authorize staff to advertise an ordinance for future consideration that amends Ordinance No. 04 -12, as amended, for the purpose of revising the Class 2 Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Post Hospital Interfacility Transport Services. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller, you pulled Page 220 November 8, 2011 that one, too. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I did. And I was very concerned about this. First of all, this is, you know, a modification to our ordinance about a COPCN. And, you know, we have had tremendous concern in the community about ensuring that there is, you know, a uniform standard of care. You know, uniform procedure, if you will, training requirements and so forth. And, you know, I do not believe that this was actually voted on by the -- the MPAC. Did they actually vote on this? MR. KOPKA: No. There was a meeting on Friday -- I'm sorry. For the record, Walter Kopka, Interim Chief for Collier County EMS. There was the meeting on Friday and it went before that board on Friday. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it wasn't voted on? MR. KOPKA: No, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. And that concerns me. I think this is something that needs to be, you know, discussed and reviewed by your committee and voted on by your committee. And, you know, this is something that really should not be on the consent agenda because of the -- you know, the overwhelmingly concern of this community with respect to the quality of care provided by these BLS and ALS service providers. So I would like to make a motion that this go back to your committee for review and approval -- or review, discussion, and approval and then be brought back to us on the general agenda. MR. OCHS: Commissioner -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are we certain it was not sent to them, Walter? It was part of the minutes -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it was not -- they did not vote on it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- from the prior meeting. Page 221 November 8, 2011 MR. KOPKA: No. It was on the agenda for this past Friday. That was the meeting that it was heard at, but it was not voted on by that committee. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So, I mean, I think we need to have, you know, a vote by the committee and discussion by the committee. I think we need input to make sure that all members of the committee, you know, agree with this. And that the community has the ability to provide input into it, as well. And then I think we should, you know, discuss whatever is brought forward based on that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's make sure we get our facts straight here. There is a policy to be made which is to authorize -- to develop an ordinance that will permit us to award a Class 2 license essentially, then there is a decision made by the Board of County Commissioners to award a contract to Ambitrans. Those are two separate actions. One is a policy action to create an ordinance authorizing the Class 2 category. COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. We already have an ordinance that provides for a Class 2 category. This is a modification of the existing ordinance that provides for that. MR. OCHS: Commissioner, as a reminder, on your visualizer this is -- this is a copy of the executive summary that you approved at the last meeting awarding a certificate -- a Class 2 certificate to Ambitrans. In the title we indicated that not only was the recommendation to make that award, but also to allow us to bring back an ordinance amendment that would allow them -- because there were some conflicts, as we pointed out. The current ordinance for Class 2 operators only allowed transports between hospital facilities that they owned. And we indicated we needed to make that amendment. That's part of this item. And also to allow the Class 2 operator to have their own medical director, much like you allowed North Naples to have their own Page 222 November 8, 2011 medical director when you awarded their certificate. So this is the first reading of those changes that you authorized us to make last meeting as part of the award of the certificate to Ambitrans. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Except -- MR. OCHS: That's all this is. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't see anywhere in here where it says that the standards adopt -- that basically our medical director -- that Dr. Tober has set as the standards for the County will be the same protocols for these Class 2 providers. I'm not sure that that says that. And you've got other stuff in here that we didn't discuss, like, for example, statistical data will demonstrate how proposed services will directly impact the population and territory proposed to be served. And, yet, when we had the presentation by Ambitrans, there was no statistical data that was provided. In fact, I asked questions about, you know, how many people will be served, you know, et cetera, et cetera, and how. And no one could really even give me the numbers. MR. OCHS: No, ma'am. We gave you the number. We talked about that. COMMISSIONER HILLER: After. MR. KLATZKOW: The ordinance provides that they must -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Someone said they think it's about 2,000. MR. KLATZKOW: The proposed ordinance does provide that the Class 2 operator must operate under protocols approved by the County Medical Director. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Where does it say that? Can you help me? MR. OCHS: No. It says if they -- if they choose to use the County's Medical Director, they then have to conform with the standards. Page 223 November 8, 2011 MR. KLATZKOW: No. What it says -- whatever they choose, their own or ours, they must comply with the Collier County Medical Director. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Where does it -- MR. KLATZKOW: "B ", ma'am. Section II. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm looking at "B ". MR. KLATZKOW: Section II, Paragraph B. COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. It just says: If the operator provides for its own, the Medical Director shall work cooperatively with the County's Office of the Medical Director to ensure continuity of care. Where does it say -- shall comply with all -- MR. KLATZKOW: It will operate under the protocols approved by the County Medical Director. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Shall comply with all guidelines and policies approved by the Board. And shall notify and work with all the hospitals and service -- so does that -- does that mean that they will abide by Tober's standards? MR. KLATZKOW: Whoever the -- currently Tober, yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. My concern is -- what I want to ensure and why I wanted this publicly vetted and not just on the consent, I want to make sure that everybody who gets a COPCN from us is governed by the same standards; the same standard of approval, the same standard of its service, you know, the same standard of training. I want consistency throughout. That that's what the community wants. And I want to make sure that -- to the extent that we are giving a Class 2 COPCN, that it is no different than any COPCN awarded to anyone else. MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because that's what the community wants. They want a uniform standard for everything -- MR. OCHS: Well, you don't -- Page 224 November 8, 2011 COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- across the board. MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. But you don't have that now. VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's right. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. But that -- I want to make sure that whatever is being proposed here is consistent with that. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. Well, a Class 2 operator must operate under Dr. Tober's protocols, whether they use Dr. Tober or their own medical director. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: That's the intent, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. I want to be sure of that. And what about the requirement for the statistical data? MR. KLATZKOW: That's in "K". COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. That's a new addition. MR. KLATZKOW: Right. COMMISSIONER HILLER: What is that about? MR. KLATZKOW: I was told that was your request. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's -- let's get back to the issue of what the Medical Policy Advisory Committee did or did not do. It was my understanding, because the document was attached to the minutes of the prior meeting, that they had considered it at a prior meeting. But that was not the case; is that correct? MR. KOPKA: Correct. It was presented to them for this meeting. They hadn't met for three months -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. MR. KOPKA: -- before that. So this item came to the board after the last meeting and prior to the meeting on Friday. CHAIRMAN COYLE: After the award to Ambitrans? MR. KOPKA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: But it was a -- it was a question of whether or not Ambitrans could have been -- should have been awarded a certificate or was it the policy itself that was brought before Page 225 November 8, 2011 the committee for review? MR. KOPKA: The change in the COPCN ordinance was brought to the committee. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, okay. All right. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Now -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, if it was brought to them last Friday, why didn't they take action? MR. KOPKA: I couldn't tell you that. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I think we should send it back to them. And the other thing is: Did -- Ambitrans only got a BLS COPCN. They didn't get an ALS COPCN. MR. KOPKA: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Ambitrans only got a BLS COPCN -- MR. OCHS: No, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- and they didn't get an ALS? MR. KOPKA: This is for a Class 2 inter - hospital transport. This is not for 9 -1 -1 pre - hospital calls. COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. I understand. And those are very important. MR. KOPKA: That's ALS and BLS. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Because when it was presented, it was my understanding it was strictly for BLS. Because everything related to ALS has been deleted from the ordinance. All the wording regarding Class 2 ALS transfer certificates. MR. KOPKA: That was all added to Section 12(b). All that terminology was condensed into that paragraph under Section 12(b), where it refers to the medical director and protocol. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who is making the motion? COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like to make a motion. I would like to make a motion that this go back to your MPAC for review to ensure that it, you know, properly reflects what our Board's Page 226 November 8, 2011 intent would be because it's very, very confusing to read. With what's being deleted and what's replacing what's deleted, I see two very different things. So it would really help to make sure that, you know, it's properly reviewed and brought back to us. So my motion is that it go back to the MPAC committee for review and approval and then resubmittal to the Board and be placed on the general agenda so the whole community can be aware of what's going on. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I will second that. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. MR. OCHS: Okay. As long as you know that slows down Ambitrans from getting into service potentially. MR. KOPKA: Not necessarily. When this Board approved the COPCN -- I'm sorry -- the application for North Naples Fire, the COPCN wasn't revised for eight months afterwards. So I feel comfortable with Ambitrans starting service prior to the completion of the COPCN. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: When will the advisory committee meet again? MR. KOPKA: I believe January. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can you meet before then? MR. KOPKA: I could ask the Chairman if he could call another meeting. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Why don't you ask him to call an emergency meeting and get this done? VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's the cleanest way to do it. VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hold on. Hold on. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead. Commissioner Henning was next. VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Listen, it went before -- Page 227 November 8, 2011 COMMISSIONER HENNING: You go. That's fine. VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What are we doing here? We're just -- we're just shuffling paper back and forth. We're not getting anywhere. This is supposed to be a service that's economical to be able to provide a cost saving to the patient. It's not supposed to be our EMS personnel with a million dollar ambulance. The only thing it is is a glorified taxicab where they can lay flat. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, no, no, no. It's not. Oh, no. In fact the gentleman who died, died as a result of one of these interfacility transfers. VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. Well, they should have called EMS in the first place and had them respond. That was a procedural error. It had nothing to do with the inter -- and the fact that they called it wrong was the biggest mistake. The thing is is this is supposed to be a cost savings. A lot of people don't have insurance. They can't afford $800 for an ambulance. This is going to bring the cost down considerably. So now we're going to try to build it up, to fortify it to make it just like EMS? I'm not there. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't think that's what anybody is doing. COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think I can -- I can tell you why they didn't consider it. They thought that the document that was in there was an award of the contract to Ambitrans and they said why -- the question that was asked was: Why didn't we get a chance to do this before the certificate was issued? And there wasn't really a good answer for that and they just dropped it and nobody did anything with it. And, quite frankly, that's exactly what I had -- I interpreted it to be. That it was the award to Ambitrans of the certificate that they wanted to consider and not the Page 228 November 8, 2011 policy itself. But, nevertheless, that's -- that's subject to interpretation. But that's exactly what I thought they did. But, in any event, do we have a -- Commissioner Henning, go ahead. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did MPAC review the North Naples licenses? MR. KOPKA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And NCH's? MR. KOPKA: I wasn't on the board at that time, so I couldn't answer that question. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Just to provide consistency. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Do -- Commissioner Hiller made a motion. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Call it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And it was seconded by -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you say we can still move forward? Because I wanted to make sure that we don't lose this opportunity. So you say -- you can work in tandem with this, right? MR. KOPKA: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Fine. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. But you're going to ask for an emergency meeting to get this considered, right? MR. KOPKA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then all in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. Page 229 November 8, 2011 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed by like sign? VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes four to one with Commissioner Coletta dissenting. All right. Item #1 I A RECOMMENDATION TO APPOINT COMMISSIONER COYLE TO SERVE ON THE COLLIER COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD — MOTION TO SUGGEST TO THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS TO HAVE THE CHIEF JUDGE DETERMINE WHO SHOULD SIT ON THE BOARD AND APPOINT SOMEONE TO THE BOARD — APPROVED MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes you to Item 1 LA., formerly 16.K.2. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. This is -- MR. OCHS: It's a recommendation to -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: This is me again. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Appoint Commissioner Coyle to serve on the Collier County Canvassing Board. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. And essentially the reason I pulled this -- would you like me to go? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. The reason I pulled this is because, you know, the Board -- one member of the Board of County Commissioners who is not in the election normally would be appointed to sit on the Canvassing Board. However, the condition is is that it would be the Chair. And in our case the next Chair as a result of how it was last voted on would be Commissioner Coletta. And he's obviously running, so Page 230 November 8, 2011 he can't be the Chair. So the statute then provides, well, if it can't be the Chair, then you see if there is another member of the Board that possibly could sit on the Canvassing Board. However, it has to be someone who is not supporting one of the candidates who is up for election. And I would say that isn't true for Commissioner Coyle. And so, therefore, the next default is that if a substitute member off the Board cannot be appointed, then the decision is actually made by the Chief Judge of the Judicial Circuit in which the County is located. And the Chief Judge shall appoint a substitute member who is a qualified electorate of the County, who is not a candidate with opposition in the election being canvassed, and who is not an active participant in the campaign or candidacy of any candidate with opposition in the election being canvassed. And, obviously, the intent there is that whoever sits on the Canvassing Board be someone who is politically independent in this election. And so I don't think it should be Commissioner Coyle and I don't think it should be myself. And I think we should turn this over to a judge and have a judge decide who that independent person should be. And that's my motion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I will second it. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I agree with that. I had agreed to do it only for the presidential preference primary, as a matter of fact, for that reason because no -- no commissioners would be running in that race. And I had made it clear to the Supervisor of Elections that I would not be available to do it for the primary or the general election. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think it makes it easier if we just get one person who does the whole thing. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I tend to agree. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let's keep it simple. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So why don't we make -- make a -- how Page 231 November 8, 2011 about modifying your motion to suggest to the Supervisor of Elections that she ask the Chief Judge to appoint a substitute member -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- rather than a member of the Board. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. I make my motion accordingly. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And I'll second it. Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I call a motion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. OCHS: That takes you to It passes unanimously. 13.13. -- 13.13.1, Community Redevelopment Agency. Sir, you may want to go into session. This is CRA. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Here you go. COMMISSIONER FIALA: CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. MR. OCHS: There are no As. What happened to 13.A.? What happened to 13.A.? CHAIRMAN COYLE: I have got D.A.1. MR. OCHS: "A" is our airport -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: It was the Airport Authority. VICE - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But there was nothing for that. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Actually, that's not true. There was the -- Page 232 November 8, 2011 CHAIRMAN COYLE: The valuation of Penny Phillippi. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's B. MR. OCHS: Yes. 13.13.1. is the recommendation to the Community Redevelopment Agency to complete the 2011 annual performance evaluation. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's not what I've got. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mine says 13.A on my little -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Mine says 13.A. I., too. MR. KLATZKOW: It's misprinted. MR. OCHS: It's a misprint, sir. I'll get that fixed next week. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Are you telling us we have different agendas? MR. OCHS: No. I would never suggest -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: You gave me and Commissioner Fiala agendas that are out of date and erroneous? COMMISSIONER HILLER: I thought he was -- I thought Coyle was going to add the word "political ". CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, it probably is. I'm serious. Item #13131 RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) TO COMPLETE THE 2011 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FOR THE IMMOKALEE CRA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR — APPROVED CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The CRA meeting will now come to order. Penny, would you go ahead. MS. PHILLIPPI: Good afternoon. My name is Penny Phillippi. I'm the Executive Director of the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency in Immokalee. And this -- we've brought to Page 233 November 8, 2011 you today the last step in the process for my annual evaluation, which, as you know, I write a self - appraisal. The advisory board does an evaluation, and the District Commissioner does an evaluation, and then we bring it back to you for the final evaluation. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Great j ob, Penny. Motion for approval. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Can you please take your place, sir. Please behave yourself or I will have to -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: My apologies. Go ahead. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Leo, did you have that conversation? MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, I did. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Hopefully we can get that straightened out. That's very concerning. MR. OCHS: I understand. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's going to be on the agenda in the future, correct? MR. OCHS: Well, I'm going to ask Penny about that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's -- that's what was agreed on when we talked about that at the last meeting. Otherwise, I could reconsider it. MR. OCHS: We're talking about the full -time position that was part of the discussion at the last meeting when we combined the administrative functions for the Immokalee CRA and the Immokalee MSTU. Part of that executive summary we approved that -- that joint Page 234 November 8, 2011 administration through the Immokalee CRA was the approval of a full time -- additional full time position to help Penny administer those duties. And Commissioner Henning at the time expressed concern that he didn't see evidence that there was a FTE -- a full FTE's worth of work to do in that added position. So there has been some discussion about whether or not there is enough work, in fact, to merit a full -time position out there. And that's -- that's what this discussion -- I have kind of been the intermediary and expressed to Ms. Phillippi that the Commissioner wants to see more evidence of the need for the full -- full FTE that was approved. And I will let Penny address that, if she would like. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And, once again, too, before we go too far, how does this tie into the evaluation? It's a separate item, isn't it? MR. OCHS: Well, Commissioner just raised it as a point of discussion, so I was trying to address it. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's fine. I'm just trying to -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: I can -- I can reconsider. -- ask for a reconsideration of the item on the agenda. I'd much rather resolve it and be responsible to the taxpayers in Immokalee. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's go back to you, Penny. Would you answer that, please? MS. PHILLIPPI: Yes, sir. I thought I had addressed it. I put down a list of all the duties. The issue was that the citizens came to us and said, "We need a full time person," primarily because they didn't feel like that they were getting the kind of attention and services that they felt like they should be getting. I took to them several options, including a part -time person, a lesser paid -- something just under a project manager, and a project manager. So it was at their request that we brought that forward. Page 235 November 8, 2011 And I think I indicated last time that I believe -- seriously believe that with a full time person dedicated to the goals and objectives as outlined by the MSTU Advisory Committee that a great deal more can be accomplished through leveraging funds, through a person -- one person handling all the finance pieces of it, doing the purchasing pieces, and all those things as currently done by many people. I believe that we will see a lot of changes come into Immokalee through that initiative in partnership with the CRA. And I think we saw some of that this morning in David's presentation of the things that have been happening with the CRA and the MSTU at Bayshore. And until I actually implement it, I can't give you anything more definitive than that. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Henning, if you have any questions. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I'm not going to ask any questions. We're deviating too far off the topic. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, try to bring it back to where you want it to go. Because I would really like to see this resolved, rather than drag it out. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the issue is transportation provided services to this. It wasn't even a half a person. It was only -- I mean, they were managing other MSTUs. So it was only like a third or even less than a third. The goals and objectives, I still don't even see a half a person in that. And I understand it's the wishes of the advisory board members. What if that person has duties under the CRA? They got responsibilities under the goals and objections -- objectives under the CRA? You're going to be over that person anyways, could you find some duties for that person to do? MS. PHILLIPPI: Of course we could. And, as I said, as we start getting grants and leveraging funds, that person is going to have more and more projects to manage on their own. Page 236 November 8, 2011 Currently -- I have to tell you, Brad Muckel is our project manager under the CRA. And he's been spending approximately 20 hours a week working on the MSTU while trying to keep up with his other duties. Because there are already things in progress and things moving that need to be done. FDOT wants to remove a bunch of trees from the island. Well, these are big trees. Do we want to kill them? Do we want to move them? What do we want to do with all these trees? So there is a whole other process that evolves out of the MSTU that isn't typically handled by the CRA. So, yes, the two are going to meld in many ways. I don't see how they cannot. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you provide me some more information on that? MS. PHILLIPPI: I would be glad to. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Possibly even an accounting as the year goes forward how the workload is being broken down and if there -- if all of a sudden business does drops off -- and, hopefully, it doesn't. I hope we are into an improving economy. At that point in time we can take whatever measures are necessary. Who is next? MS. PHILLIPPI: Even six months down the road would be a good measurement of what got done, you know, and how much that person had to do. I will be happy to bring a report in six months, if that would be -- if you think that would be helpful. MR. OCHS: In addition to the list that you're going to provide immediately to Commissioner Henning, correct? MS. PHILLIPPI: Uh -huh. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Penny, would this person also be applying for grants -- MS. PHILLIPPI: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- for the CRA, the MSTU, and, Page 237 November 8, 2011 really, to cover their job, as well? So that that job would beat least partially funded by grant funds? MS. PHILLIPPI: Well, the MSTU -- that person -- I envision that person applying for grants for the MSTU. So depending on who we get and the -- their abilities and training and experience, not only would they have to apply for it, they would have to manage that grant, have the physical construction of those projects. And many times that will be married to CRA money, to MSTU money, and to whatever other money comes. Perhaps it's even supervising volunteers. I can see a lot of layering and partnership going on in this -- in this situation. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And, yes, maybe even help some of that -- I know you have a lot of community outreach. I love even your little lunches that you sell to the community around there. And that you make that place available to everybody so that they know that you exist and that you're reaching out to them. That's wonderful. But, I agree, it will be good to see the -- the figures of now and in six months. I like that idea, too. CHAIRMAN COYLE: With respect to your evaluation, I make a motion that we approve your evaluation. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think you already did. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think we already did that. There has been a motion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: It has been so long, I had forgot it. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. But we've got Commissioner Hiller next. Commissioner Hiller. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know if that is on from before or not. COMMISSIONER HILLER: The reason -- and I talked to Penny about this. You know, I cannot understand why only Commissioner Coletta reviewed Penny's contribution because she has Page 238 November 8, 2011 been really just an outstanding executive director. And I've worked with her a lot since I started. MS. PHILLIPPI: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I asked Jeff if there was anything in her contract or any legal provision that limited Penny's review only to Commissioner Coletta. And obviously, you know, that doesn't seem to be the case. So I would like to have the opportunity to review her. And I think all the other Board members should have the opportunity to review her. You answer to the Board, not to Commissioner Coletta. And so I would like to have that opportunity before your evaluation is finalized. The other thing is in reviewing the backup, one concern I had was I saw that you were rated by your advisory board. And my concern with that is that you don't work for the advisory board. You know, I can see where the advisory board could maybe, you know, rate whether or not, you know, the CRA has advanced objectives that they all agree to at the beginning of the year, but I think it creates the wrong mindset in the members of the advisory board if they are evaluating your performance. And I would hate to see you be in a position where you're, you know, serving so many masters. It just becomes very confusing. The last thing I would like to say is that there were some things in your evaluation, which -- you know, we've talked about this, but I'll bring this out -- that really are very difficult for you to comply with. Like, for example, ensuring that you have diversity in who you employ. I mean, you really only employ two people. There are two people who work there that are grant funded, but you really only have two employees, even though there are four that work for the benefit of the CRA. So it's very difficult for you, you know, to achieve objectives like that. Page 239 November 8, 2011 And I'm not sure if HR just has to put that in your evaluation because you're a supervisor. But I think we need to rereview how you're evaluated to make sure that the criteria that you're being judged against are reasonable. And that's not to say we don't want to promote diversity. We do. But practically, in your situation, that would be a very difficult thing to judge you by. So those are my three comments. And so I would like to make a motion that we -- CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I've already got a motion on the floor. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, sorry. I didn't know that. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, that's quite all right. But may I make a comment on it. The CRA Advisory Board, to them, this is the -- a local form of government for Immokalee. They don't have a city government. And it's a very coveted position to serve on this. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, no. Definitely. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: They put a lot of work and a lot of energy into it. And I can speak very well for them because almost everything that comes forward not only from our CRA, but David Jackson's CRA also is approved by this Commission almost as is because there has been so much thought put into it. I don't want to see that local control or what is perceived to be local control watered down in any form. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, it shouldn't be -- CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. Let me finish. COMMISSIONER HILLER: It shouldn't be watered down. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There is absolutely no problem with -- like today, we have this review before us -- for you to come up with your own particular valuation point by point and be able to offer it up as a counter point to what's already there. I don't think we need to change something that's not broken. It's Page 240 November 8, 2011 working out fine. If you want to put any more into, there's no reason why you can't. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I think there is a problem with Penny receiving an evaluation from people she does not answer to. I mean, she works for this CRA Board. And I think it -- I think it would make it difficult. I think it sends the wrong message. And that by no means dilutes the role or the importance of the advisory board because they are really good people and they're making positive contributions to that community. That being said, I think an advisory board should not be evaluating County staff that answers to the Board of County Commissioners. I think that's -- MR. OCHS: She is not County staff. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm sorry. You're right. The CRA staff that answers to the CRA Board. Thanks for correcting me on that. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I think the Board should evaluate Penny. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, that's nice. But we don't work with her all the time. She does come in and let us know what she's doing. But she's the one that works with them day in, day out. They're in and out of that office. They know whether she's performing her duties. They also know whether she's doing them on time. They also know whether they -- the community -- the surrounding community accepts that or doesn't accept that. They see everything that goes on. We're on the peripheral. It's fine if you want to weigh in on that, but I don't think anybody can evaluate Penny as her own people can. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Penny, what's your thoughts on that? I mean, we spoke about that. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, before you start dialogue back and forth, let me recognize you first. Page 241 November 8, 2011 COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And we'll be more than happy to keep this going. Before we go any farther, Penny, please don't be upset with this dialogue that's taking place. You're watching sausage being made. COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's not true. MS. PHILLIPPI: Well, I would like to just talk about the background on this -- CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please do. MS. PHILLIPPI: -- evaluation process. As you recall, when I first came here four years ago, David was already here and had kind of a process in place. And I was fumbling around trying to come up with a process, trying to mimic the one that Jim Mudd was using. So at the direction of this Board, the County Attorney created kind of this process. This procedural process. And -- and that's what we're both working under right now. So if it's your pleasure, you can certainly rearrange it, change it, or -- CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we haven't reached that. Right now there seems to be one person that has got a different opinion the way it should be and we're trying to come up with some way to make it work for everyone. And I do think Commissioner Hiller should be able to play a role. I don't think we need to change everything that's there. But there is no reason why she can't do her own evaluation based upon the criteria that's already put together, or even come up with her own criteria. I don't think that -- that would have any negative impact upon anybody on this Commission or CRA Board in this case. With that -- I'm sorry. Commissioner Hiller. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Just so you all know, I discussed this at length with Penny yesterday. And she and I, you know, vetted these ideas. And she was very favorably disposed and she even shared Page 242 November 8, 2011 with me it does create confusion, you know, where the CRA Board may think that she works for them as opposed to -- the advisory board, rather than the CRA Board. So just to clarify the sausage, the sausage was in the making yesterday. Today we were trying to put the casing on it so we could all enjoy sausage in a bun or I don't know what you -- CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. I appreciate the dialogue. I really do. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So the point being is that -- I think this is something that Penny would maybe appreciate being vetted -- CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we've been vetting it. COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- in terms of the process. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: My motion still stands -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- as is. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Call the motion. MS. PHILLIPPI: Can I say one more thing? CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I was just going to call the motion, but go ahead. MS. PHILLIPPI: I think it is good to get feedback from the advisory board. I think that's good. Perhaps the solution would be that a final step -- because it's a pretty cumbersome process as it is. The final step would be an evaluation from each of you and then that would be the final accepted evaluation. Perhaps that's the solution. And that way the local advisory board can say their opinions and each of you can say whatever you want to say in your piece of the evaluation. And then everyone will have said everything they wanted to say, I guess. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now, I can't really object to that. That's not a bad idea. That brings everybody into play. But I didn't want to diminish the authority of the advisory board itself, as far as the role that they play in it. Page 243 November 8, 2011 How do they work it with David Jackson's CRA? MS. PHILLIPPI: It's an identical process as laid out by the County Attorney and approved by this Board. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So the Bayshore CRA is the same as the Immokalee CRA? MS. PHILLIPPI: Only in his case he has two Commissioners. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm for leaving well enough alone. I mean, I'm willing to have a discussion on this as we go forward sometime in the future. But right now we have something that's working quite well. We've got a chance to discuss it. There's no reason why Commissioners can't go item by item down through the agenda and say, you know, "Well, this is an item I think you need to work on," and just carry it from one extreme to the other. But I don't want the process to become any more burdensome than it is becoming. If there's a shortcoming and a failing, then let's address it. But, honest to God, Penny, you're doing a marvelous job. I appreciate what you're doing. David Jackson, same thing. We've got two elements of government that work out there directly with the community. The smallest form of government going and it works the best. And I don't want to do anything that's going to undermine it. My motion stays as -is for this point in time. And, with that, all those in favor indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Ave. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the motion carries Page 244 November 8, 2011 unanimously. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good job, Penny. MS. PHILLIPPI: Thank you. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Leo, next item. Item #13B3 RECOMMENDATION THAT THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) APPROVE THE CRA STAFF'S SUBMISSION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE BAYSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE MIXED USE OVERLAY TO COUNTY STAFF FOR INCORPORATION INTO THE BCC - APPROVED LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CYCLE. IF THIS REQUEST IS APPROVED, THE SPECIFIC AMENDMENT LANGUAGE WILL BE REVIEWED BY COUNTY STAFF AND INCORPORATED INTO THEIR SUBMISSION TO BE BROUGHT FORTH TO THE BCC FOR REVIEW IN 2012 — APPROVED MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Next item is 13.13.3. It was formerly 16.B.1. It's a recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency approve the CRA staff's submission of amendments to the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Overlay to County staff for incorporation into the BCC - approved Land Development Code amendment cycle. If this request is approved, the specific amendment language will be reviewed by County staff and incorporated into their submission to be brought forth to the BCC for review in 2012. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before you speak, let's go right to Commissioner Hiller and get her questions and maybe we can shorten the timeline. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. There was absolutely no backup in this, in terms of what amendments are being forwarded to Page 245 November 8, 2011 staff for consideration. And, quite frankly, I mean, I would like to see them before I approve staff spending any time on -- on bringing this forward to the amendment cycle. MS. JOURDAN: For the record, Jean Jourdan, Bayshore Gateway CRA. This is -- this is normal process. What happens is right now they're in draft form. If they were provided as backup, that would be fine. We could put them as backup, but they're merely in draft form because they have to be vetted through the public process. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand. But I would like to know what, you know, you're thinking of proposing to see if I even want to suggest that they move through the cycle. I understand they have to be vetted, but I would like to have some idea of, you know, what you're proposing to do. At least, you know, a draft outline. MS. JOURDAN: Correct. And that's why when staff will be coming to you on January 10th, they will bring the entire list. And at that time you will have them before you and you can say whether or not you want staff to spend the time. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you give me some idea of what you're proposing? MS. JOURDAN: At this point most of it is reorganization, as far as to make it more clearer for the public to read and for Commissioners. And even staff over in the Zoning Department sometimes have difficulty, as far as the format goes, and contacts our office asking us to interpret the format. So the main objective is to make it in a user friendly format. In addition, there are -- one of the other substantive things would be encouraging redevelopment. And basically after reading -- I know CBIA is submitting an actual amendment that's going to go in -- that will be in the executive summary in 2012. And, actually, it almost mirrors theirs in trying to allow redevelopment to go in and incentivize them in order to be able to do redevelopment. Page 246 November 8, 2011 It's very difficult now when you have a building that has been vacant for a while, in order to get it up and running, without expending an enormous amount of funds in order to get that development. So what happens is it just sits there vacant. No one ever proceeds in order to try to get the business up and running. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are you talking about economic incentives? MS. JOURDAN: No, not economic incentives. It would be relaxed codes, as far as things such as setbacks, things like that. A lot of the lots were grandfathered in. They're nonconforming. There is no way that they can meet the current setbacks. If a building has sat vacant for over a certain amount of time, they have to meet those codes, even though when there was a previous building in there -- business in there they did not. So these buildings are just left vacant. No one does anything with them because they cannot meet the code. So that's the amendments that we're working on. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is that primarily what the focus is? MS. JOURDAN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Got it. All right. Then I'll make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And second. Is that something like what we had in the Triangle where all those 14 lots were long strips or pieces and so you couldn't get the right landscaping in or the right window spacing? MS. JOURDAN: Yeah. It's impossible. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And so you couldn't redevelop because the amendments weren't there, so -- CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You said this is going to come back to us in January? MS. JOURDAN: Yes. Collier County staff -- Page 247 November 8, 2011 COMMISSIONER HENNING: For more information? MS. JOURDAN: Collier County staff in January -- as a matter of fact, I talked with staff today. And January 10th it's on the agenda. And at that time they will bring to the Board of County Commissioners because the Board of County Commissioners is the one who has the regulatory authority in order to approve these. They will come back and they will have a list of all the amendments that have been submitted. Not only by County staff, but by outside entities. I know -- I happen to know CBIA is one. And they will list all those amendments as they are proposed. And at that time you will vote on whether you want them to move forward. And in moving forward, then there would be the neighborhood informational meeting, DSAC meeting, Collier County Planning Commission, the whole process. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So we're going to get a look at it prior to giving the authority to -- MS. JOURDAN: Move forward. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- go out there and move forward? MS. JOURDAN: Correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Which really addresses Commissioner Hiller's concerns. MS. JOURDAN: Yeah. And I'd be afraid if they were -- if they were put in as backup now. I know going through the amendment process in previous years they can change so much once they're vetted through the public that it's not going to be the same document that you see because there is so much public input. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it won't be in January. MS. JOURDAN: No. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Even after January there is going to be a lot -- MS. JOURDAN: Oh, that's what I'm saying. They're going to Page 248 November 8, 2011 change. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure. Great. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Great. With that, all those in favor indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) MS. JOURDAN: Thank you. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Wonderful job. Great presentation. Next item. Item # 13134 The ayes have it. Thank you. RECOMMENDATION FOR THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) TO APPROVE A ZERO DOLLAR CHANGE AND MODIFICATION TO A COMMERCIAL BUILDING IMPROVEMENT GRANT APPLICATION BETWEEN THE CRA AND A GRANT APPLICANT WITHIN THE BAYSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE AREA — APPROVED MR.00HS: Yeah. 16.13.4. MS. CASERTA: B.4.? MR. OCHS: I'm sorry. 13.B.4. It's a recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency to approve a zero dollar change order and modification to a Commercial Building Improvement Grant Application between the CRA and a Grant Applicant within the Page 249 November 8, 2011 Bayshore Gateway Triangle area. COMMISSIONER FIALA: When is the baby due? MS. CASERTA: Three weeks. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Hiller. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you take us through this? And the other thing is I was looking -- I don't know if you're familiar, but I was looking at the underlying contract, the schedule of values. And I, quite frankly, never have seen something like this. I mean, for example, they're billing for builder's risk insurance, general liability insurance, worker's comp, cell phone charges, mileage reimbursement. I'm -- it's just -- it's not your typical construction contract. So I was a little bit concerned about it and I -- when I saw the time extension, with all the problems that, you know, we've had with the Clerk's Office with, you know, time extensions in order to allow for payments, I just wanted to make sure that we didn't have a problem. And also some concerns about the valuation of these contracts because they are the basis for the match. So, for example, if a contractor has inflated his contract, then obviously we're contributing more than we have to. I just -- I just had some level of discomfort with this. So I would like you to, you know, take us through it. You know, why the extension. You know, why those kind of charges in the contract and basically what this is all about. MS. CASERTA: Okay. For the record, Ashley Caserta, grants coordinator. This is not a time extension. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, I thought it was. MS. CASERTA: It's a zero dollar change. And so what they're doing is taking one contractor that was approved and switching it out for another. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Then I must be mixing it Page 250 November 8, 2011 up with something else I read. MS. CASERTA: Okay. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So that -- well, I guess that's the concern. Because when I was reviewing it, I just didn't understand the terms -- I'm sorry. I'm making a mistake in terms of my notes. But my concern was about this contract. MS. CASERTA: Which one? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is it the Gulf Coast Consulting Group? Are they the new contractor? I mean, that's what I have in my back up here. I've got a whole bunch of contracts. It's just very -- MS. CASERTA: Gulf Coast Construction is the agent, if you will, and then on the last page of the backup there is a spreadsheet. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. I saw that. MS. CASERTA: That has all of the subcontractors. Taylor Carpet One is highlighted and they're the new subcontractor. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what is the purpose of all this other information in here? Who is Gulf Coast Consulting Group? MS. CASERTA: Gulf Coast Consulting, again, is the agent for the applicant -- for the owner. And I included their scope of work that was already approved because I wanted it to be clear for the record what the scope of work is. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And then this is a subcontractor under Captain -- under the consulting group? MS. CASERTA: I'm not -- I'm not sure what the question is. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I guess, Gulf Coast -- I guess he's the GC then. Is that what it is? MS. CASERTA: Right. If you will, they are the agent. They are the project manager. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Yeah. I just didn't understand that from reading it. I couldn't figure out what all these Page 251 November 8, 2011 things were and I thought that the -- that Gulf Coast Consulting was the contractor. So can you explain to me in the GC's proposal, which, as you have pointed out correctly, and I was aware, had already been approved, what -- how come we've got these charges in here? Because that's not typically what, you know, these construction contracts look like. MS. CASERTA: Which one are you looking at? COMMISSIONER HILLER: The Gulf Coast Consulting Group schedule of values. MS. CASERTA: And specifically what is it that you're asking? COMMISSIONER HILLER: For example -- I mean, there are a number of questions I have. But, for example, the insurance. I mean, they're passing through, you know, about $3,000 in insurance as part of the cost of the contract. I mean, is that typical? That doesn't seem normal to me. MS. CASERTA: Well -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: I've worked with GCs. I've never had a charge like that passed through to me. And on top of that you've got, you know, profit and overhead. But, you know, you've got other charges that seem unusual in here. I just -- the whole thing didn't make a whole lot of sense to me. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, do I hear a motion? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I will second that, but she does need her questions answered. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. And I just -- I don't -- I just really don't understand it. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One suggestion I would make, David, is before the next meeting or any other meetings in the future, when you have CRA business, please try to take an effort to meet with Commissioner Hiller and answer her questions. Page 252 November 8, 2011 COMMISSIONER HILLER: That would be great. I would really appreciate that. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That would be wonderful. Because, I mean, what we're doing is we're doing basic discovery here that could have been done outside of this room. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And also what would benefit would be if you would put, you know, the backup with the material you're presenting in such a way that it makes the packet self - explanatory. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, yeah, I don't know if that's necessary, but -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, well -- CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But I do think that taking the time -- if all staff members would just take the time to meet with Commissioner Hiller and go in great detail through there may be starting right after Wednesday when the agenda comes out. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would really appreciate that. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That would really work, you know. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like that. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Because, I mean, what you're doing is some basic discovery here. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, I agree. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And a lot of times I spend a considerable amount of time with different members of staff to get where I need to be. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, everybody else calls and makes an appointment and debriefs me. Penny, you know, has a standing meeting with me and gives me all the information, you know, as do all the other staff. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, that didn't work either because Penny didn't spend enough time because you had a lot of Page 253 November 8, 2011 basic questions there, too. COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. Penny and I had discussed all of this yesterday. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, so we're reviewing it again today. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Board for approval and you said no. had suggested. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: any case, let's move forward. COMMISSIONER HENNING: CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala, okay. lo. We were bringing it to the Penny had agreed with what I Well, maybe she did. But, in Question. Yes. I'm sorry. First, Please turn on your light. It would be a little bit easier. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I did. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I know you did. Commissioner Fiala first. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't have anything. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Forgive me. I thought you were in the process of -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I --somehow, Commissioner Hiller, I missed that. And I'm looking at an item here. You have mileage on a contract -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: And cell phone charges. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, cell phone charges. You have drinking water and ice. But, also, some of the things that are normal in a contract, such as trash removal -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. Those were reasonable. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Punch out list, administrative Page 254 November 8, 2011 office. That's usually in there. Permits. But cell phone, mileage reimbursement. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the insurance cost. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. This is not -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, $3,000 in insurance. COMMISSIONER HENNING: This is not normal. MR. JACKSON: Commissioner Coletta, may I help? CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please. Go ahead, Mr. Jackson. MR. JACKSON: David Jackson, Executive Director of the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA. The agreement is made with the owner of the building. The owner of the building has a general contractor of which he makes his contract with the GC. That's what you're looking at. That is between two private parties. It's not between -- let me finish. It is not between us and them. Our contract is with the owner of the building. The GC has subs. In all effort to be totally transparent so that when this goes forward through this Board for this process to get your approval on it, and when it goes to Crystal Kinzel's office in finance, so they don't reject it and take a long time to not pay it, we know what they want to see. All we were trying to do here is to show that we have already an agreement by this Board. And that we wanted to show with all transparency that the GC substituted one sub for another. Such that when it came time to declare for payment, finance would pay it. Now, when we get receipts in, Ashley goes through them with a fine tooth comb. And she goes through these items. She says not approved, not approved, not approved. And she comes up with a total of things that are approved. And if they match the requirements for the grant, then we match the grant accordingly. Then we deliver that to finance. Finance audits that. If they have any questions, we come back with that. And then they're authorized for payment. Page 255 November 8, 2011 So I think what the confusion is here is the zero dollar change is to be totally transparent that we have one sub exchanged out for another sub. And we wanted to make sure that was clear, approved by you, so that when we made -- made invoice for payment to finance, that the Clerk wouldn't have any problem with it. So the confusion here is kind of looking at the contract thinking that these -- the GC's contract is with us. Our contract is with the owner. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The participation by the CRA fiscally, how is that matched up? Is it matched up by the job or by the building? MR. JACKSON: By the improvements made to the building. COMMISSIONER HENNING: By the improvements. The estimated cost of the improvements? MR. JACKSON: The actual costs made to the building. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. JACKSON: And this is reimbursable costs. No money is put out in advance. So if they do not meet the criteria of the grant -- if they pay for a new air conditioner and a new air conditioner is not an item that is allowed, we subtract that from the thing and we add in only those things that are approved. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well -- MR. JACKSON: If they're not approved, then they are not submitted and sent forward. So all the things that are approved go forward. Finance looks at them and they recheck our checked numbers. And then they won't cut the check if it doesn't meet the criteria. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So if the amount of the grant is based on the cost of the job and the cost of the job is including water, ice, insurance, gasoline reimbursement, those normal costs that are the cost of doing business, instead of time and material under another general contract -- Page 256 November 8, 2011 MS. CASERTA: What you're looking at on the Gulf Coast -- Gulf Coast Consulting is their scope of work for the entire project. What we are funding is on the spreadsheet, the subcontractors. So those insurances and other items of concern, which I agree, are not being funded. It's just the subcontractors' work. Their bids were originally approved. And they were not included because we weren't making changes to those. I only included this time what the one change was. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it's just -- the owner of the building is actually not paying what's in our backup material then for the ice, the insurance? MS. CASERTA: We are not reimbursing them for it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, we are not. I understand that. MS. CASERTA: If they pay it, it's not part of the agreement. It's not part of the grant process. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. They only get a percentage based upon the cost and that -- that base cost is in our backup material? MS. CASERTA: As approved -- I'm looking for the original approval date. But as approved originally, all of the backup material included all of the subcontractors that are shown in this spreadsheet. Every single thing that they are going to do was -- was already included in the backup and approved. I can put this on the visualizer, if you would like. It was included. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I understand that. I was just trying to figure out Gulf Coast Consulting Group for 158,000 -- we're going to pay a percentage of that. I understand that. That's what Mr. Jackson said. And that's a correct statement? MS. CASERTA: We -- the grant program, as already approved, pays for certain projects and certain activities only. Page 257 November 8, 2011 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Mr. Jackson said it's the total amount of the contract. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Jackson, step up to the mike. Please correct that. MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. If I -- if you thought I said that, then I must have stated it not clearly. In the grant program there are specific items that are listed that are eligible for the grant. Now, the total project may be 150,000. Our grant is a 50150 match. The most that we will match is 50,000. So he's obviously putting two to one or three to one into the project. Now, the things that are allowed for are, like, paint, windows, infrastructure, items that may go on, awnings, storm windows. There may be something in the interior part of it. Those are specifically listed in the grant. So all the other items that he's expending above the 100,000, that's -- are his costs, as are with all grants. So I'm sorry you misunderstood me. But there are specific items that Ashley goes over. And if they bill us for an air conditioner and it's not approved, we don't reimburse them for that. It's only specific items. And most of those things are done by the sub. And the owner has got to pay the GC and all that profit and everything in there. We're not paying for that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine. I mean, if we approved it before, I think -- we'll have to watch them a little bit closer. MR. JACKSON: Well, you can watch it. I mean, we're checked by finance through the Clerk. They go over it routinely. And quite often we get a question from the auditor at the Clerk's before they pay lt. And if we have sufficient documentation, we either go back and get it. If we made an error, they catch it and then we strike it and then Page 258 November 8, 2011 we readjust accordingly. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. My only concern is looking at contracts before usually have time and material. And that material is laid out and then, you know, the profit of the labor covers things like that was mentioned. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Can we go to Crystal for just a moment? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm done. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Crystal. MS. KINZEL: Excuse me. Because I think the question -- David, when you calculated your 50 percent of the grant award, this -- this obviously equals more than that 50 percent. But do you have a list that shows exactly what was included in the 50 percent calculation? Okay. But -- so that would equal 100 percent on those. The subcontractor sheet is 100 percent and you're going to only reimburse 50 percent of those items on the subcontractors? I think that's where the confusion is between -- how did you calculate the 50 percent cap if it was 50 percent, but they're going to spend 155,000? Some of those items could have been embedded or not. The 50 percent calculation needs to be on the eligible items for your grant program. MS. CASERTA: Correct. MS. KINZEL: And so that's how you're calculating the 50 percent? MS. CASERTA: Yes, ma'am. MS. KINZEL: Okay. MS. CASERTA: The column on the left, the lowest bids. Exterior, you can get up to $30,000. They're at 70. So, you know, if they were at 60, they would get up to 30. But they're exceeding that. Interior, you can get up to $20,000, 50 percent match. They're at 51,000. So they're exceeding the project threshold where we would Page 259 November 8, 2011 reimburse. MS. KINZEL: And those subs don't include the GC's cost for ice and -- MS. CASERTA: Right. MS. KINZEL: I think that would clear. Does that help in any way? MS. CASERTA: Correct. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The Clerk's Office doesn't have any problem with the process. MS. KINZEL: Well, I can see where the confusion was. And had they calculated it on the whole general contractor amount, that would have been a problem, which is why I asked to clarify it for the record so that we understood when you do submit the bills. And we'll go back and look at this one and make sure that it has been paid properly. MS. CASERTA: I have a good relationship with your staff, as well. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: With that, I'm going to call the question. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I just want to ask: What business is this? MS. CASERTA: This is Sea Tech. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah. That's right. I'm sorry. MS. CASERTA: Two story building on Bayshore. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. Page 260 November 8, 2011 CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it unanimously. Thank you very much. We're going to take a short break for the court reporter. We'll be back here at 6:36. See, I can add ten to the number. (A recess was held from 6:26 p.m. until 6:36 p.m.) CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Come on. Take your seats, ladies and gentlemen. Leo, next item? Item #13135 CRA RESOLUTION 2011 -209: RECOMMENDATION FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) TO APPROVE A CRA RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE BAYSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE CRA SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT PROGRAM AND APPROVE AN AMENDED FORM OF THE CRA GRANT AGREEMENT — ADOPTED MR. OCHS: Next item, sir, is 13135. It's a recommendation for the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency to approve a CRA resolution to amend the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle CRA Site Improvement Grant Program and approve the amended form for the CRA grant agreement. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hi. Welcome back. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm going to -- CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I'd like Jeff to explain it, because he had some concerns with it, then he worked through it, and he was -- he's the best person to address this. Page 261 November 8, 2011 MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I don't know about the best person. And actually the correct -- because I worked on this some time ago, my memory's a little fuzzy. But the issue is this: Let's say we had a widow who wanted to get a roof done and we had matching funds but she doesn't have the money herself, we'll have a third -party charity come here, and instead of the widow putting up the 5,000, which we match, the charity will put up the $5,000 for her, which we will match. Currently, we do not have the mechanism in our process to do that. What we're doing is we're changing by resolution the grant process so that this third -party charity can come in here and put up the money. MS. CASERTA: Can I also just add that absolutely nothing else about the grant agreement will change. The nonprofit will still have to provide the two bids for each type of work. So if you're getting roof and windows, two bids for the roof, two bids for the windows. They're still reimbursing certified contractors. They're not coming in and doing the work pro bono and getting reimbursed for something. This is -- absolutely nothing else is changing except for who's putting up the money and being reimbursed. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Crystal? CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Crystal? MS. KINZEL: Thanks, Commissioner. I think what might be the confusion, when you say reimbursed, you are not reimbursing the charity for their 50- percent portion. You would only be matching the charity's contribution. MS. CASERTA: Yes, ma'am. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now everybody understand? MS. CASERTA: They are paying 100 percent, and then we pay. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Does the wording reflect that? Jeff, make sure that it clearly -- MS. KINZEL: I don't know that the wording said that, but I think that's what you described to the commissioner that you meant it Page 262 November 8, 2011 to do, and however we legally -- and then we'll go back and validate that. MR. KLATZKOW: I think we've got it right. COMMISSIONER HILLER: The matching funds will be reimbursed to the same party as identified in the -- that make full payment to the vendor. So first you'll establish that the charity has made 100 percent of the payment to the vendor. Then you will reimburse your portion that you've agreed to with respect to that total contract, and the charity will pay the balance? MS. CASERTA: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Then I think that properly reflects that. And, yes, we worked it all out during the break with Jeff. Thank you. MS. CASERTA: Okay. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do I hear a motion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve this item. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion for approval and second. Any discussion? (No response.) CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it Page 263 November 8, 2011 unanimously. Good job. Last item for the CRA. Item 13136 RECOMMENDATION FOR THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) TO APPROVE AND EXECUTE A SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CRA AND GRANT APPLICANT IN THE BAYSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE AREA - MOTION TO DENY — FAILED; MOTION TO APPROVE — APPROVED MR. OCHS: 13136. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. The last item I pulled -- because I was really concerned that we're making these kind of expenditures with tax dollars. And, essentially, what this is is an expenditure to basically put pavers in someone's private driveway. It's not a business, and it's just on a, you know, regular side road, and they have a concrete driveway. And, essentially, you know, here's the diagram of where they're going to have pavers instead. And, you know, this is a portion of the total cost, but nonetheless, you know, we're still using tax dollars to put pavers in a private drive. And, quite frankly, I just find that unacceptable. So I'm going to make a motion to deny. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I've had those same concerns in the past, but it was a 4 -1 vote always. The -- anyways. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So do I have a second on that? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I'll second the motion. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Anybody care to Page 264 November 8, 2011 respond to that? MS. CASERTA: Sure. The purpose of the grant project is to help facilitate neighborhood beautification efforts and functionality. Essentially, the driveway is cracked and is going to continue to be degraded, and it's not -- you know, it's a sore spot in the neighborhood. Again, this is a project that has already been approved through the grants process, and it is something that has been deemed to be acceptable and approvable as part of the grant program, driveways, pavers, things that are visible to the public. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, are you done? Anything else? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I'm finished. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. In this very, very old neighborhood -- and that's what it is -- these were one of the first neighborhoods in Collier County back in this area, long before anything was built up north. And these things really show their age, and yet many of the people have never had a will to improve them because everything kind of looks downtrodden. And so what they've been trying to do is encourage people, if you put up some money, we'll help you along with a grant to try and improve your property. If you look better, maybe this guy will try and make his property look better, and maybe all together we'll have a better looking neighborhood, but it has to start with somebody, and that's what the grant funds are for. The neighborhood -- you ought to go to one of these CRA meetings. It's marvelous because so many people participate throughout the neighborhood because they're encouraging this. It's their tax dollars, and they're encouraging this to take place. They want to see more of this. And by doing this they're also hoping that as the area improves it Page 265 November 8, 2011 will bring a better clientele, and improve their image even more, so I am definitely for this. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And I'm going to -- my light's on right now, even though you don't see it on. But I just -- I want to comment. I agree with you. And it's -- you got to start with the simplest part of the neighborhood. You've got to go forward. And it showed bad faith on our part after everybody's attending these meetings. This local form of government, it's been working very well. We just got through complimenting the CRAs for doing such an excellent job. We just recognized the fact that they're the glue that holds the communities together. So I'm not about to turn around now on this issue. I'm sorry, Commissioner -- I'm sorry, Commissioner Hiller, your light's off, but did you want to speak? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yep. I wanted to say a word. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry. I turned it off. COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's okay. That's all right. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm very conscious of people's lights and when they're to speak. You'll find out -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: You are going to make a marvelous chairman. I can hardly wait for next year. We're going to have a lot of fun. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, golly gee. Thank you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Me, too. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please go ahead. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're almost done. COMMISSIONER COYLE: What are we doing? CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, that's what I -- Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like -- can I comment? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Page 266 November 8, 2011 CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. That's what I was waiting for. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, okay. I didn't -- well, I thought you were still talking. I didn't want to interrupt you. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, no. Usually when I pause for more than ten seconds I forgot what I was going to say or I'm through. COMMISSIONER HILLER: It was a life breath. Okay. Yeah, you know, I understand the idea of improving the community with the tax dollars and what the overall intent is but, you know, there's a point where it just seems, you know, over the top. I mean, having, you know, a neighbor's tax dollar pay for the other neighbor's paver driveway, I mean, to me just is a -- is a little bit more than helping out with beautification. Actually, I think this person is on your street. Shoreview? Are you on Shoreview? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh -huh. COMMISSIONER HILLER: This is one of your neighbors. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's Commissioner Fiala's house. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Maybe you know the driveway. No, I don't think -- it's not Donna's house. But the point being that it just -- you know, I'm looking at these -- you know, concrete cracks can be easily fixed. I mean, you can paint over; you can, you know, asphalt the driveway. I mean, I think that would -- you know, we've got, you know, lots of neighborhoods with, you know, really beautiful homes that have asphalt driveways. Pavers are expensive, let's face it, and it's a -- very luxurious. I just think that if, you know, other people found out that their tax dollars were going towards someone's private paver driveway, it just really -- I just -- like I said, we have a motion -- do we have a motion and a second? Yeah. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, we do, to deny. Page 267 November 8, 2011 COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. So can you just -- yeah, can you call it? CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'd be more than happy to. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want to -- CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All in favor of the motion to deny, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those opposed to that motion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. So the motion failed. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to make a motion to pass this recommendation, this grant improvement for the betterment of the Bayshore area. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And do I have a second? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I have a motion and a second. MR. JACKSON: Commissioner, in discussion, may I add something? CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You may. MR. JACKSON: David Jackson, executive director for the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle. May I address Commissioner Hiller's comments, please, for just a second? It will be simple. I'd like to correct a statement that you made; you said it twice. Using someone else's tax dollars to fix somebody else's driveway. This lady has lived here since the duration and the creation of this CRA. She has paid into the CRA treasury, the TIF fund, for 11 years. Page 268 November 8, 2011 This is some of her own tax money going back in to improve her property. This isn't her neighbor's money paying for her driveway. COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, it is in part. It is. In fact, you know, everybody could make a claim that they should all get a grant because they all made a contribution, and that's not what's happening. And so, again, the issue is, is how are these monies flowing back and for what improvements? And like I said, my feeling is that this particular improvement is more than is needed to achieve the objective of beautifying and improving the neighborhood. I just think it's a very luxurious improvement, and that's it, so -- MR. JACKSON: And I'll just add this one thing, is that though they are pavers, I recently had a driveway done, and the cost was the same as pavers because you had to tear it up and put it in. So there was COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah -- no, concrete is definitely expensive. Concrete is not an alternative. Asphalt is. MR. JACKSON: You say tomato, I say tomato. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're getting -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: But asphalt is very inexpensive, and asphalt is a nice solution. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's recognize something. We're going to diverse opinions -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- on things like this, and that's been a very good discussion. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And with that, all those in favor of the motion to approve, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. Page 269 November 8, 2011 CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. CRA CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the motion passed 4 -1 with Commissioner Hiller being the negative vote. And with that, I'm going to turn the gavel back over to the chair. CRA CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't want it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You got it. CRA CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, County Manager. Are we going to AUIR now? Item #8A ORDINANCE 2011-43: PRESENTATION TO COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BCC) OF THE 2011 COMBINED ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY REPORT (AUIR) ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT (CIE) AMENDMENT AS PROVIDED FOR IN CHAPTER 6.02.02 OF COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND SECTION 163.3177(3) (B), FLORIDA STATUTES — ADOPTED MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. 8A is the presentation to the Collier County Board of County Commissioners as the 2011 combined Annual Update and Inventory Report on public facilities and Capital Improvement Elements amendment as provided for in Chapter 6.02.02 of the Collier County Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I've got a question before we start. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Before we start on this -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Wait, wait, wait. Everybody's talking at once. Hold on. Let me recognize -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute. Page 270 November 8, 2011 COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're not chairman. COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're not the chair. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. You're right. COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's not next year yet. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: You know, you give him a compliment, and you tell him he's going to be a good chair, and he steals the gavel, you know. Oh, my God. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'll tell you he just -- you know, the power goes to his head. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Totally. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I know. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Who was first, Commissioner Henning or Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I wasn't watching. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller, go ahead. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. You know, given that it's seven o'clock, and I believe that there are, you know, citizens that are interested in participating and, you know, didn't anticipate having this heard at this hour, I think, in all fairness, I think we should bring this back tomorrow morning to allow the community to participate. The AUIR is a very important study, and it should be given the attention it deserves. It's not something that we should be just blowing through, and it's something that should be heard at a time when, you know, people would expect to come, which is during the day. I mean, we don't normally, you know, meet at seven o'clock. So I personally don't mind staying here till midnight, but that's not the point. It's not about what I can or can't do. It's about, you know, what's fair to the public and also what's fair to staff. I mean, they have families, and I think we need to be considerate of the fact that they probably didn't anticipate being here at this hour also. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, actually, we schedule meetings in Page 271 November 8, 2011 the evening because it makes it easier for people to be here. The people who are working can be here during the evenings. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And you know what, normally if that's what we had done and said, we're going to listen to this AUIR at seven o'clock at night so everyone can be here, that would have been great, but that isn't what was anticipated with today's meeting. So I would like to make a motion that we continue this to tomorrow and give everyone the opportunity to hear this fresh, and for those citizens who would like to attend, that they can do so tomorrow morning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to second the motion, but I have different thoughts. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Motion by Commissioner Hiller to continue till tomorrow morning, the AUIR, and seconded by Commissioner Henning. All in favor of the -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no, no, no. My light is on. I know my opinion differs than yours, Commissioner Coyle, but I wish -- I appreciate it if you would give me ample time to speak. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, if you'd begin speaking, that would be fine. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm just waiting for the recognition. I only have two questions on the AUIR; however, I know that there's hundreds of millions of dollars being spent in District 5, and I'm not sure how much Commissioner Coletta has. But with that, being facetious, if we're going to spend a long time on that, it's not fair to each other and it's not fair to staff. So if there's anticipated there's going to be a lot of questions on the AUIR, I think it's appropriate to be refreshed and go tomorrow. CHAIRMAN COYLE: This is probably one of the briefest Page 272 November 8, 2011 AUIRs that we've ever had in the past 10 or 11 years. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I agree, but I'm not sure if others have a lot of questions. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree also. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I don't know. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can I make an offer of compromise? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There's nothing to say we can't start it and get into the mechanism of it, at least get our arms around it, then we can come back in tomorrow and be able to deal with it. Why don't we go till eight o'clock, put one hour into it, then come back here tomorrow at nine, and the public will be here in time to speak. We won't have them speaking tonight. We'll be able to deal with that part of it when we get to it. We meet both ends. I know we have three commissioners that have a commitment for an 11 o'clock appointment, and they paid $150 a ticket for it. COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's the -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that's at 10:30 we have to leave here. COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's tomorrow? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Donald Rumsford's (sic) luncheon. COMMISSIONER HILLER: For -- who's Donald Rumsford, for COMMISSIONER FIALA: Rumsfeld. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Rumsfeld, excuse me. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Rumsfeld. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's getting late. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm like, who's he? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In any case, we could -- Page 273 November 8, 2011 COMMISSIONER HILLER: Hundred and fifty for whom? And who's sponsoring him? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much, Commissioner Hiller. I appreciate it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. This is going nowhere. Look, how long will it take you to make your presentation on the AUIR? MR. BOSI: There are very few projects. I believe staff -- in the traditional mannerisms that we would go through individual department and department section by section -- my suggestion was going to be -- was going to open it up to the Board of County Commissioners. Transportation and drainage are your two components that have the major projects. CHAIRMAN COYLE: How long is it going to take you to do the presentation? MR. BOSI: Twenty -five minutes at the very most, with questions. CHAIRMAN COYLE: With questions? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's do it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. How about -- how long would it take you without questions? MR. BOSI: Five minutes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Let's have the five- minute version, and we'll save the questions until last. Okay? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you've got a motion on the floor and a second. You have to deal with that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to withdraw my second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We don't have a motion on the floor anymore, all right. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I want to know more about this Page 274 November 8, 2011 Rumsford. MR. BOSI: My name is Mike Bosi, your Comprehensive Planning Manager. This is the Annual Update and Inventory Report and the Capital Improvement Element update. Last year you heard this at the same period of time. There's been a number of changes that have taken place. My PowerPoint's going to focus briefly upon those changes. One, what is AUIR? It's a snapshot of how we're doing meeting the levels of service that the Board of County Commissioners has adopted for this county against the demands that are being placed against it. Every year we look at it and make sure that we're providing the amenities and the services that our county residents are expecting. We have two categories of facilities. One is your Category A, roads, drainage, potable water, wastewater, solid waste, parks, recreation, schools, and those form your concurrency management system, which is pertinent to one of the questions we'll be asking the Board of County Commissioners related to this AUIR. Your Category B Facilities, or your non concurrency Facilities, Jails, Law Enforcement, Library, EMS, Government Buildings, and your two Dependent Fire Districts. Policy 1.2 of the CIE element says that population estimates come from the University of BEBR, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, with a seasonal population adjustment. In 2007, as part of the 2004 EAR based amendments, the Board of County Commissioners shifted from a weighted population to a seasonal population, and that seasonal population is simply your permanent population times 1.2, or 20 percent markup from your permanent population. CHAIRMAN COYLE: By that way, that should be BEBR, not BERB. MR. BOSI: Noted, thank you. Page 275 November 8, 2011 How do -- and question, how much do we build? It's your new population times your level of service standards of your capital improvement. Library buildings are straightforward. As a good example, if you added 36,316 people over the five year period and your level of service standard, which it is, it's .33 square feet per person, you multiple your new populations times that standard, and that's what you're required to build, and that's what dictates the capital expansion. Utilities and transportations have a more elaborate system, but those staffs will be able to elaborate upon that. It's identified for the new and replacement of worn and obsolescent facilities that will be no longer used in the five year period. It establishes the rational nexus required for utilization of impact fees in both the categories that I described, and it's an approximation of all the revenues projected over the five year period based against the county's ability to pay for the obligations -- the debt obligations that are associated with the Capital Improvement Program. Section 6.02 of the Land Development Code requires that the CIE meets those levels of service standards and that public facilities are available for when the development's going to come on and demand services from those individual's (sic) facilities. And 6.02.02 further says, to ensure that, we're going to develop the AUIR. One of the things I always tell this Board of County Commissioners, it's the only county in the State of Florida that goes to such great lengths to talk about levels of service standards, not just for your Category A facilities but for your Category B facilities, talking about libraries, talking about your dependent fire districts, talking about your jails and your law enforcement. No other county has a process like the AUIR. So in terms of openness and gaining input, I think it provides terrific opportunities. And it was through Ordinance 94 -27 is when the AUIR was established. It's a blueprint for concurrency, as I Page 276 November 8, 2011 mentioned. In 2010, last year, we combined the AUIR and CIE. It used to be separate processes. But because they were at different times and the financial pictures would alter somewhat, it created much confusion. So in terms of efficiency and clarity of the process, we combined it, and it was directed by the board, and it was accepted. As I said, both focus -- both processes focus on levels of service and what capital expansions are needed to meet those levels of service, so it was a natural -- it was a natural merging of the two. When I mention changes to the process -- and that's related to House Bill 7207 signed by -- it was actually June 3rd. I'm sorry, that's a typo. It affects the AUIR/CIE. No longer is concurrency for roads, schools, parks required by the state. Each local government is now allowed to make a decision as to whether they want to maintain those components of concurrency within their concurrency management system. The CIE no longer is required to be financially feasible by statute. There was a significant push by the state for a number of years that we are going to make sure that every locality had the financial feasibility. One thing I will point out is within our Capital Improvement Element of the Growth Management Plan, Objective 2 does require that the county has a financially feasible CIE, so what's put before you is a financially feasible CIE. And it's no longer -- CIE is no longer required to be reviewed by the state, which was a prior -- a prior requirement. And another subtle difference is it's no longer an amendment to your Growth Management Plan. It is simply an updating the schedule of capital improvements that are attached to your Capital -- your Capital Improvement Element. So it is not an amendment by the Growth Management Plan, and it's a -- it's an important distinction. I think that that needs to be recognized. Page 277 November 8, 2011 This just talks about BEBR past trends. The greatest thing that we wanted to accomplish here is if you notice in 2009, 2010, and 2011, on the very last column with growth percentage annualized, you're going to see that BEBR is saying that we're -- our growth rate is under 2 percent, and that's been a consistent pattern now for the next three years. Whether that's going to be the new growth reality that this county is going to construct to will only be determined by time. What are we asking for today's meeting? And within the executive summary we had seven specific requested actions from the board. The most -- or the highest priority is to approve the ordinance related to the Capital Improvement Element which is -- like I said, it's updating the schedule of capital improvement programs that's associated with your Capital Improvement Element. The second is to provide direction regarding maintaining the current components of the county's current -- concurrency management system which is now roads -- like I said, roads, schools, and parks are now at the option of this Board of County Commissioners as to whether they'd like to see those remain. One of the recommendations that came from the Planning Commission was to have staff work with the municipalities and the school district and see whether there was merits toward maintaining school concurrency. In speaking with the school district, one of the things that we based upon that recommendation -- and if the Board of County Commissioners would direct it, staff would work with the school -- with the school working group, which is the group that meets on a regular basis between the municipalities, the school district, and the county for school planning purposes to put together a recommendation that we would bring back to the Board of County Commissioners regarding that very issue. That was -- that was the one area of concurrency that the Planning Commission thought that would be worth exploring whether we should maintain it or not. And the last is related to an issue with the construction of Oil Page 278 November 8, 2011 Well Road and the developer's contribution agreement, the specifics of Mr. Casalanguida will be able to provide to you, but it's to direct the county manager or his designee to manage the impact fees in projects identified in Attachment D of the roadway portion of the CIE consistent with the conditions outlined in the Ave Maria LLLP letter attached. Basically it's asking the conditions that were put forth within that executive summary, I believe, Page 4, that those are the conditions that that specifically -- request is relating to, meaning that we're going to utilize some of the impact fees that we've received within that district outside of the district with the understanding that those monies will be -- will be redirected towards the -- their proper allocation. With that, that ends staff s presentation. We -- we spent a day with the Planning Commission. They provided a unanimous recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners with two exceptions. For roads and for parks they said take out the projects that were unfunded. The section for parks and roads that were presented to the Board of County Commissioners are in line with the recommendation of the Planning Commission with those unfunded projects removed. With that, staff is available from the various divisions and departments within the AUIR book, but we'll open up to the commission towards whatever specific questions you may have related to the project. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just to make sure that I understood what you told us, this report is in complete agreement with the Planning Commission's recommendations? MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So anyplace there was a disagreement, you've changed it so that it complies with the recommendations of the Page 279 November 8, 2011 Planning Commission? MR. BOSI: Yes, it's modified based upon those directions. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. Thank you. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I only have two questions, and that's for water and sewer. Provided in our book is the service -area maps, which is existing and future water services on Page 50, and then 66 is the solid waste. Wastewater. Looking at the map I see some areas that we don't serve and never have served. Is there a -- any changes within these maps? MR. BEALS: Good evening, Commissioners. Nathan Beals, Collier County Public Utilities. The maps themselves, the boundaries have not changed. We have areas within the boundaries that are exempt from impact fees where we don't currently serve or plan to provide service, and that is reviewed in the next meeting or one of the next meetings after the -- each AUIR to make sure that we maintain a current exempt area map. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Then why do we even have these areas within it if we have no plans? We don't collect any fees. We're not doing anything. Why do we -- why don't we amend the maps to reflect that? MR. BEALS: The service boundaries are created as part of the state statute, and these were areas expanded when we were expecting to do expansions out into the east, central, or the northeast more recently, or back in 2005 master plan, 2003 master plans, when we were expecting to do any central location, and we still have plans on the shelves for the northeast plants. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What does the state have to do with water and sewer in the service area? MR. BEALS: It's involved with the special district or the special act that created the Water /Sewer District, and it controls our boundaries of the Water /Sewer District. November 8, 2011 COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the maps were a part of the special district? MR. BEALS: Well, the boundaries and the legal definition of them, from what section, township, range, and metes and bounds. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So you're saying to change these maps would take legislation to approve it? MR. BEALS: Yes. We did have an ordinance that we maintain that keeps it exempt. So basically if you are in that area of the east, central, or northeast, that if you build a new house, we're not providing service to you, you don't pay impact fees. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you don't -- we don't collect in the urban -- urban Estates. MR. BEALS: Correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or even urban and eastern part of Golden Gate Estates according to these maps, and that's the same exemption. MR. BEALS: Well, the center of the map that's Golden Gate City is serviced by the FGUA. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, there's urban Golden Gate Estates, which some refer to, you know, one mile east of Collier Boulevard or West of Collier Boulevard. We don't service those areas. MR. BEALS: Correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. MR. BEALS: There are areas there that can connect to us, but we don't go and actively provide service. They are not charged impact fees for being in that area when they build new construction. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But your previous comment said the -- I believe the fringe areas were exempt? I'm just -- MR. BEALS: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- asking, does that apply to the urban Golden Gate Estates? Page 281 November 8, 2011 MR. BEALS: Yes, there are many areas within the boundaries themselves, mostly the Golden Gate Estate area, inner Golden Gate Estates, and -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: The fringe. MR. BEALS: -- areas that are conservation sections that won't see any construction that we have -- that we have included in our exempt areas. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I have a lot of issues, so let me start with the first. You know, where you've taken the BEBR and you've applied a 20 percent factor to it, I mean, I don't see where that's justified. Like, for example, with government buildings, we have a tremendous surplus. Now you've basically increased the population by 20 percent, and so you've tried to project a lesser surplus than we've got. I mean, our situation -- I mean, we're more overbuilt than even what's presented because of this 20- percent population adjustment. I don't see the justification for having this "keep" number in all instances, so I have a problem with that. That's number one. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, can we deal with that one right now? Okay. Who's going to answer that question? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let me -- MR. BOSI: We've visited this question before with the Board of County Commissioners, and I don't think we -- I've ever given you an answer that completely satisfied, but what it is is individual members from the municipalities, members who are visiting us, whether -- if they own property, they sometimes utilize the services of the government -- of government buildings. They utilize the facilities. So the square footage that's provided for tries to take into the combination the type of loads that will be experienced in January, February, and March, which is going to be an increase within the system. Page 282 November 8, 2011 COMMISSIONER HILLER: Not by 20 percent. You know, to have this blanket adjustment is just -- MR. BOSI: The Growth Management Plan does not provide us any options. Now, we can -- if it's the board's direction for us to revisit the seasonal population number, that's a different exercise. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think we should, and I really would propose that, because I -- looking at this, where everything is basically being designed to, you know, Easter Sunday really is a problem. And, like I said, what I'm seeing throughout the majority of the elements of, you know, your AUIR/CIE is basically tremendous surplus as you point out in one of your initial statements, and I'm really concerned about that. And then in certain areas I see where I think we have the highest obligation, deficiencies. And I'll get to that. So I do feel that we need to revisit that, because I do think it has the effect of manipulating what our real position is with respect to a number of these elements. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's stop right there. Who's going to address the population adjustments for peak season? MR. BOSI: And I thought that I just did. It was a policy decision by this Board of County Commissioners in 2007. They shifted from a weighted population average, which was -- used to be your seasonal population, to -- and that was a formula of 67 percent of your permanent population and 33 percent of your permanent population with the seasonal adjustment of 33 percent above that. That was a very confusing formula. The Board of County Commissioners said, based upon some empirical data that was provided through comprehensive planning, that 20 percent was an appropriate number for your seasonal adjustment, and we're obligated by the Growth Management Plan to utilize that for our seasonal numbers. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So you don't have any flexibility with respect to that? Page 283 November 8, 2011 MR. BOSI: No. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And it's a reduction from a 37 percent increase from before? MR. BOSI: The 20 percent is a slight reduction over the weighted number that we were utilizing, yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So it's been -- why is it true that you can adjust it from 37 to 20 percent but you can't go below 20 percent? MR. BOSI: Oh, you could. I could -- we could take our seasonal population -- if I presented you empirical data and the Board of County Commissioners was comfortable with it, they could say put a 50- percent markup to it, but it takes the Growth Management Plan to be amended to do that. It's set within the Growth Management Plan. So it -- to change it, it's like any amendment to the GMP. It's a long, elaborate process. CHAIRMAN COYLE: But to give Commissioner Hiller a complete and accurate answer, you have to recognize that there are different adjustments that are appropriate for different services -- MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- that we provide. For example, you don't have much give or take on water and sewer. You've got to plan for the peak. MR. BOSI: And -- you have to plan for peak -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. MR. BOSI: -- and there's a direction from the -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: I agree with that. MR. BOSI: -- Board of County Commissioners to be extremely conservative. That one distinction is also with the roads and stormwater. They're not population- based. They're real -time based. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. MR. BOSI: So that is a slight distinction. And I would tell you -- for community parks, if you look at community parks, that's not based upon the full unincorporated and the municipalities. That's only November 8, 2011 allocated for the -- for unincorporated Collier County strictly. So there are some individual components within the AUIR/CIE where we utilize different population numbers. I will admit the majority of them utilize the peak season, which is your 20 percent markup. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Going -- continuing with that. And, Commissioner Coyle, thank you for providing the clarification. In the email where you responded to me on the question about the population -- which I still have an exception to. I take exception with and I think we should bring it back and analyze it -- is -- it says that you're supposed to use BEBR except when we're in a census year, when we have census numbers. So did you use census numbers for this? Because I thought you were using BEBR. But according to this email it says that you're supposed to use census estimates. MR. BOSI: We did use census estimates -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: You used census? MR. BOSI: -- that were incorporated within the BEBR numbers. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So the census was incorporated into the BEBR? MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because here in your email your response is, is that BEBR is separate from census and that the census MR. BOSI: The BEBR numbers were delayed two months this year because they had to incorporate the factoring of these 2010 census estimates that were provided for. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So that's actually -- BEBR are one and the same for purposes of this? MR. BOSI: For the purpose of this population, yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, great, wonderful. The next item that I'd like to address is under requested actions, it's Item 7, which is direct the county manager or designee to manage November 8, 2011 the impact fees and projects identified in Attachment D of the roadway portion of the CIE consistent with the conditions outlined in the Ave Maria LLLP letter attached. And then what we have at the beginning of this staff report is a letter from Ave Maria signed by Blake Gable, and it provides what seems to be a -- an amendment to the DCA. Now, it's supposed to be acknowledged by Nick Casalanguida, but obviously Nick cannot sign in a contract amendment on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners. And, you know, this has provisions in it, some of which I can't accept and others of which I can, but are, you know, absolutely contrary to the DCA. So, I mean, if we've got -- and, really, I don't want you to address it, Nick. I want the county attorney to address it, because this really doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. And it -- in effect, for the benefit of the people who are listening, it's all about, you know, the shifting of impact fees between districts and, you know, the un- -- one of the unfinished projects, specifically 60044C, which was to be completed under the DCA. MR. CASALANGUIDA: May I, Mr. Chairman? It might be helpful if I give an introduction to this for the county attorney. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you. Your Attachment D, which is on Page 20, shows your five -year work program. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're going to have to be more specific. We've got a packet with information in it, and then we have this document with information in it. You're going to have to tell us -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you put it on the overhead? CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- which section you're talking about. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's in your book, your AUIR book. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Under which tab? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's under Page 20, under Category A facilities. Page 286 November 8, 2011 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. On page what, 20 you said? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Twenty. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And it's up on the viewer right now. It's your Attachment D. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Got it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay, very good. That is your five year road program. Now, when we developed this program, we also looked back at Ave Maria DCA that says, monies from that impact fee district and adjacent district have to go towards the Oil Well Road proj ect. Well, as you know, Ave Maria has not developed that area as much as we've liked. They recognize that. We've done both ends of that project consistent with that agreement, monies collected within that district or adjacent district, and more recently we've agreed to resurface that middle section of the road with the understanding that they wouldn't ask us to do anything for the next five years. That was a letter we received from Ave Maria a little while back. Kind of to piggyback off that letter, we said, well, we've got Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson. That's an important project in District 5 that requires an improvement. It's a failing segment. And we said, if we're handcuffed by putting all the pipeline money the next five years towards Oil Well Road, while you're growing very slowly, and we resurfaced the middle section and widened it, you kind of put us in a bad jam. So we reached out to Ave Maria and said, can we take the money that we collect over the next five years in impact fee, that district, and apply it to some other capital projects that we think are more important than Oil Well Road right now? They thought about it for a while, and we talked back and forth, and they agreed, provided by this letter, for a reduction in impact fees dedicated to Oil Well Road over the next five years consistent with this attachment. They said, Page 287 November 8, 2011 whatever you've provided to the Planning Commission, whatever the board's going to see, we're okay with that. You're going to do some other improvements that are good for people in the Estates: The bridge on 23rd, Golden Gate and Wilson intersection, and continue on with those projects that are needed today. So what they've said is, rather than put that money in an account for us, which everybody would not like right now, we'll allow you to move forward with that project. But one particular caveat they said is, any monies collected in Ave Maria, we'd like that to be consistent with that district that we've set up through the DCA that you have. And we said, we don't have an issue with that. So they've allowed us to present this Attachment D, which is our five -year program, allow some other needed projects within the area to move forward as long as we take the Ave Maria dollars that they collected and one mile around Ave Maria and keep it for that area; we didn't have a problem with that. It's actually a reduction in the demand of the DCA. They're not asking for more. They're asking -- they're letting us take less. So that's kind of where we're at, and then the county attorney can opine as he sees fit. MR. KLATZKOW: And, Nick, it's my understanding that we had -- you had discussions with them, should we do this by a DCA amendment, and they did not want to amend the DCA? MR. CASALANGUIDA: They said absolutely not would they open up the DCA at this point in time. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Here's the problem. You're not going to amend the agreement, but you're basically going to do things which are supposedly in violation of the agreement. MR. KLATZKOW: Well -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: And we don't have an agreement to say that we can violate this agreement. I mean, to me that's just not November 8, 2011 the way we should be doing business. Either we're amending the DCA or we're not amending the DCA. Why would they be objecting to amending the DCA? You know, this has the effect of an amendment. So why wouldn't they agree to do it legally and properly? Because to call this -- to say that this is not an amendment makes no sense. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And, ma'am, the only thing it changes is that we don't have to pipeline funds to Oil Well Road. That's -- as I read -- and it was drafted -- and I helped them draft it -- was, it's a forgiveness of that requirement. Rather than encumbering the county to do more, they've de- encumbered the county to do less and said, for the -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, again, we are bound by a contract. We're obligated under that contract. If we're going to do anything contrary to that contract, the contract provisions say there has to be an amendment, a formal modification. So I don't see how we can be doing this and getting away with it. MR. KLATZKOW: We're not doing anything and getting away with it. This was -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, the agreement -- MR. KLATZKOW: Ma'am, I mean, we made the request of them because it benefits Collier County. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Understood. MR. KLATZKOW: And they're willing to do this much. They're not willing to amend the DCA. My preference -- and I told them that. My preference would be to amend the DCA and get it before the board. For whatever reason they don't want to go that way. They preferred this letter. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have a problem with that, because I think that exposes us to a contract dispute. I mean, this letter does not serve as a basis for a modification. Now we're going forward, and we're doing something contrary to the agreement, November 8, 2011 supposedly, according to this letter. MR. KLATZKOW: What's your alternative, ma'am? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, the alternative is you don't do it. MR. KLATZKOW: In which case you won't -- you'll be losing all those projects. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand that. Well, then they need to understand that and agree to a modification. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We've just been talking about being business friendly, being flexible -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's the -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- working with people so that we can benefit the whole county. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand all that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And if they're in agreement and everybody's in agreement -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Either this is a -- you either have a modification or you don't. You can't be half -- you can't go halfway on this. You can't just sit there -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think they have an agreement. MR. KLATZKOW: It's more of an estoppel and a waiver than it is an agreement. And, again, it's not the preferred way to do this, but it's the best deal we can cut. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I also don't understand with -- Bullet 3 of this. I mean, this is -- you know, and I certainly don't think that this is something Nick can cut under any circumstance. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I didn't sign it, ma'am. I just acknowledged I received it was what they've asked. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Well, it doesn't say acknowledge receipt. It said "acknowledge." So, you know, Bullet 3, you know, I really don't understand what that means, and I don't understand the implication of it. Page 290 November 8, 2011 MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's -- it will apply for grants, and we'll do our best to keep things moving in our program the best we can. And it says -- it's best efforts, which is kind of, you know, one of those, we shall do our best efforts to keep moving forward, apply for grants, maintain a schedule, accelerating projects where possible that qualify for funding. But it doesn't require us to do anything other than use our best efforts. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But why are they requiring that of us? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, I think what they've said is, you've got a five year program; do your best to maintain that five year program. That -- so they wanted to -- so they put us on notice, don't let these projects drag out, you know, so -- keep things moving. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But what is it -- how is it their business how we do business? And how can they include that in this agreement? And then it also says, to further pursue funding for that particular project with the same level of priority and diligence as is exercised with respect to other projects in the five year program. Is 60044C part of the five year program? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So how do you go for funding for this with the same level of priority as with other projects? I mean, priority means -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Grants. COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- that one comes first. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Grants, ma'am. They're referencing grants. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And what's the priority? MR. CASALANGUIDA: In other words, we apply for any and all grants that are available. There's that Indian Roads Reservation grant that we could apply for in that area, economic development grants. If a project gets approved out there, we can go through -- they Page 291 November 8, 2011 are within the RASIC (phonetic) in Immokalee. So anything that they qualify for, they just say, "and apply for it," you know, and we're comfortable doing that because we're reaching -- we're applying for anything that we can qualify for. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, like I said, I can't accept this as presented as an alternative to, you know, properly modifying the contract. I mean, there's a way of doing business and it's governed by the law, and I think that's what we're bound by. And this loosey goosey, you know, here's a letter, Nick, you know, acknowledge that you received it, I mean, just -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, I did tell them to put it on the Board of County Commissioners, an exhibit to this executive summary, so the board would have to review the requirements. Again, it's a reduction. COMMISSIONER HILLER: For -- Commissioner Coyle didn't even know it was in there. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I didn't? COMMISSIONER FIALA: But you know what? This is where government is getting in the way. You know, we're talking about thinking about our people, about our community, and we're talking about less government. And, I mean, we've stated that many times, less government. And to have to -- have to adhere to something letter by letter by letter instead of working for the betterment of the community and preparing these agreements so that we can help that community, instead of hinder them, I think it's important. I say less government. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, it has nothing to do with more or less government. It's about the law. CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's about your interpretation of the law which, as we all know, is sometimes very bizarre. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I don't know if that was necessary, but it's the same opinion as our county attorney. Page 292 November 8, 2011 CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's not the same opinion as our county attorney. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That he said that we should amend the agreement. CHAIRMAN COYLE: He said his preferred -- MR. KLATZKOW: The preferred way to do it -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- process. MR. KLATZKOW: -- would be to amend the agreement. They don't want to do that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And I fully understand why they don't want to do that, and you should, too. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why is that? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Because once they open up that agreement, there are all sorts of things people can come in and demand that would be detrimental to them. And if they don't have to open it up, they're not going to open it up. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Who's going to ask -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: And no lawyer would recommend that they do so. COMMISSIONER HILLER: You know, modifying one provision doesn't affect the rest -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: When you open it up, you're not saying you're modifying one provision. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure, you are. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're opening it up, and lots of things can be done. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Jeff, can you help out? CHAIRMAN COYLE: So it's -- you know, the point is that the county attorney has reviewed this. He believes it is an appropriate procedure under the circumstances. And we can belabor that all night long if you wish. It's not going to change anything. So let's go to your next question and see if we can't get it answered for you. Page 293 November 8, 2011 COMMISSIONER HILLER: Jeff, can you respond to what Commissioner Coyle just said? MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. Let me put it a slightly different way. We're not -- we are gaining by this. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah -- MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. If the Colliers stick by this, we have a great deal to gain by this. If for some reason Colliers decide to say, well, that letter's not binding because the contract requires an amendment in the same form that it was originally signed in, then we're in the same position -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: As we were before. MR. KLATZKOW: -- as we are now. So from a cost benefit analysis, we have everything to gain by going forward with this, and we've got nothing to lose. Would I prefer a formal amendment to the DCA? Yes. Do I know why they're not doing this? No. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Here's why. I'll tell you why. Because if it's not a formal modification to the contract, at any point in time they can change what they have committed to, and we go back to where we are now. So to secure our plan to be able to take these funds and build these other projects, as we have outlined in the CIA (sic), what we want to do for the benefit of the taxpayers is secure that that is, in fact, going to happen, because that is what those citizens need. MR. KLATZKOW: Well -- but to be fair, we'll be getting into construction agreements as a result of this. We've been relying on this letter to our detriment, so I don't know that they can just yank that letter any time. Commissioner Hiller, I agree with you, my strong preference would be to amend the DCA. I don't know why they don't want to amend the DCA. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And could you address what Commissioner Coyle said, that amending it for this -- Page 294 November 8, 2011 MR. KLATZKOW: He might be right. I mean -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: It doesn't open -- it doesn't open anything else. It merely addresses this one issue. It's a singular modification related to this. It gives everybody certainty. It provides that this is all being done legally, and it provides certainty for our projects. If we go back and we say, oh, we entered into these contracts because we detrimentally relied on this letter, they'll laugh and they'll say, well, guess what? That was a nonbinding, you know, agreement. It's not a modification to the contract. We can renege it at any time. MR. KLATZKOW: Ma'am, they may feel targeted. I mean, I don't know what else to say. I mean, they've taken a lot of negative remarks from this board over the past year or so. And, you know, I don't know how comfortable they are coming in here. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, we're exposing the taxpayers. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're not exposing the taxpayers. COMMISSIONER HILLER: We are, because if we get into these contracts and then we can't pull these impact fees, and we're going to have to pull it out of General Fund to pay, which means we're going to take the money away from, you know, other services that those taxpayers anticipated they would get for those dollars contributed. MR. CASALANGUIDA: These are simply road impact fees. And right now the way -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. And if you don't get those impact fees -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let's hear what he has to say. COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- and they all go to Oil Well Road rather than to these projects, then these projects, once committed to, would be drawn from. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Does anybody -- is there -- yeah, okay. Page 295 November 8, 2011 We're going to go to some other commissioners. Who was next? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I'm not done. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I know you're not done, Commissioner Hiller, and you won't be done until four o'clock tomorrow morning -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're right. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- because you keep belaboring the same issue. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, these are big issues. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So we'll try to answer your questions, and then we're going to vote. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta, were you next? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think it was Commissioner Henning. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, go ahead. COMMISSIONER HENNING: As far as the 20 percent seasonal population, could you provide us in the future -- Mike, I don't know if it's readily available. I'm not sure if that 20 percent has actually changed at all over the years, but I would like to see that to verify that. Commissioner Hiller may have a valid point, but if it hasn't changed, then we haven't built anything for that seasonal population of 20 percent. Thinking that that 20 percent is the coastal seasonal residents, and all the growth is in the, you know, urban to rural, nothing has changed. Do you see what I mean? MR. BOSI: And I think what your statements are, that there would be merits for us to look at the seasonal population rate and see if that 20 percent is still a valid number to represent the influx that we do receive. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the influx of that 20 percent may -- that number may have not changed for a decade. That Page 296 November 8, 2011 -- those seasonal residents that live up and down the coast, Marco Island, Gulf Shore Boulevard, Port Royal, City of Naples, that's -- it may not have changed over the years. MR. BOSI: And what I can do is look and find and identify the data analysis that was provided to this board when you got -- when the commission made that change in 2007 to see what the justification of why that 20 percent was arrived upon and provide that, and if that leads to further questions, then I will -- you know, we'll explore wherever the board would direct us. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, yeah. But if it was ramping up and we're providing -- we're not providing if it for roads because it's peak p.m. -- MR. BOSI: Yeah, it's real time. It's real time based. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Water and sewer. The only other ones is, you know, public services. Well, safety, too, with the jail, and police force. MR. BOSI: And we've adjusted jail level of service based upon the actual incarceration rate and the cell availability. We've lowered our levels of service standard for our jail rates, and based upon the sheriffs ability to better manage our occupancy rate related to the 287G program and the deportation, but we have made those adjustments. But I can provide that -- that information, and if the commission would like to see us move forward with it, you know, we'll be at your direction. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think it was Coletta. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta, go ahead. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. Yeah, going back to the 20 percent. That's -- we're taking the seasonal -- not the seasonal population, but the permanent population Page 297 November 8, 2011 and we're increasing it by 20 percent across the board. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, is that what it is? MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh. MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, you've got the floor. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's as I understand. Okay. Then I misunderstood. I thought it was 20 percent of the seasonal. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So the -- that -- I mean, if you took the actual population need -- like Commissioner Henning said before, you have to deal with the seasonal population when it comes to water and sewer. You can't run out of the water; you can't run out of the capacity for sewer. You also have to deal with other issues. But when you come to, like, parks and rec, you've got a little bit of room to be able to play there with, and that's where the 20 percent comes in over and above the full time population. I think we're there. I mean, so far we haven't had any complaints about inadequate space in the parks or the libraries have been crowded. The only question -- the only thing I ever hear is the hours of operation, never the fact there's too many people using it. So I think we're pretty close on to where we need to be on that. But one of the others that I really wanted to talk about was, it's a little bit upsetting. Nick, can I have you come up again regarding -- this is, once again, regarding the issue of Oil Well Road, Barron Collier's stepping forward and making the adjustments to the contract by a letter. I mean, if we can't take the word of Barron Collier out there, with -- to memorialize an agreement, a difference to the agreement in a letter sent by the CEO of the company, Blake Gable, I don't know I�._- •: November 8, 2011 where we can go in this county. I mean, you know, God forbid that we're making such an issue out of the fact that they didn't bring the whole thing back up for reconsideration. One of the suggestions I'd like to make to my fellow commissioners as we're going through this process, if you've got a point that's a little bit out there and you can't seem to get the answers to it, make a motion for some sort of action to take place so we can go up or down on the motion and move forward. You know, I'm willing to spend as much time as necessary with this, but I'd like my time to be as productive as possible. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. I just wanted to address parks for a minute, and that -- and as I was looking through the park listings here, the park inventory -- and it says parkland inventory. And I wanted to note, at one point in time Commissioner Henning had wanted to know what -- how many community centers we had in District 1. He'd asked that question at the end of one of our meetings, and so I asked Marla Ramsey to send me a note telling me how many community centers we had in District 1. And then I scaled it down to just East Naples, because Marco has a different set of things altogether over there. And, of course, there isn't one in East Naples District 1. But she mentioned on this, on her list of things, regional parks, and she said there were seven regional parks in East Naples. And I was really surprised, so I asked her what they were, because I didn't know of any. I mean, Sugden Park is there but, of course, that's in Coyle's district, and I didn't know of any regional parks in East Naples. So she sent back -- of course, she sent back Marco Island ones, but one of the things she mentioned on here, Goodland Boat Park, Collier Boulevard Boat Park, Rich King Memorial Greenway, Caxambas Boat Park, or I though, maybe we ought to categorize some Page 299 November 8, 2011 of these things so that we have a better grasp on what kind of parks we're actually talking about. Because we've been trying to build up our boat park repertoire, if you -- you know, our boat parks for our boaters, but we don't have a listing of boat parks. Same with greenways. We're to build more and more. Somehow I can't consider Rich King Memorial Greenway a regional park. I mean, you can't go swing on a swing or, you know, anything like that. It's a -- you know, it's a nonmotorized pathway, is what it is. So maybe we ought to put them in categories that actually mean something. So if they say a regional park, you think of North Naples Regional -- or North Collier Regional Park or, you know, even Sugden Regional Park. And so -- that's just something to consider. I don't ask you to change it now, but I think that they send a different message than what they really are. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think she's right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd love to know our stock of boat parks. MR. BOSI: Well, and we're -- and, Barry, you elaborate upon -- Barry could elaborate upon this. The reason why the boat parks are considered regional, it's because of the draw. It's because of the regional -- the regional classification is known for its -- someone will travel more than 5 or 10 miles to that facility. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. But, Mike, that isn't my point. MR. BOSI: No, and I understand. I think that -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think we ought to have a classification as boat park. I think people ought to know where our boat parks are, all of them and as we add we'd have more under that classification. MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioner, we can -- and what we can do in future AUIRs is we can categorize it. We could distinct -- make a Page 300 November 8, 2011 distinction between a regional park, as you're describing with Sugden or North Collier versus these other boat amenities, like the boat parks. We can segregate them and show them as what they are. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And even greenways. I mean, if I were a tourist or even a winter resident and I picked up a list of the parks, I'd want to be able to flip to boat parks or -- MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- or to biking pathways or something. MR. WILLIAMS: And I would say on our website we do have them categorized that way. So when the public's looking for them -- and what we can do with the AUIR is just similarly put them in those type of categories. We do have the distinction of regional park as far as the definition, but there's a way to categorize them so that it's not deceptive to anyone. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thanks. Now, did you have anything more to present, Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mike? MR. BOSI: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, going to the issue of parks, you know, currently we have a very substantial inventory surplus. We have about approximately 150 acres valued about 30 million in surplus. Where -- and, by the way, the General Fund, we've got about 10 million in impact fees going towards the regional. Where -- the facilities, do you have those included in government buildings? Where are the facilities, like, for Eagle Lake and projects like that? Because -- yeah, they're not included in your -- in your community parkland or regional parkland categories. Page 301 November 8, 2011 MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioner Hiller, just to -- one point is that with the parks' AUIR, we focused strictly on land. COMMISSIONER HILLER: On land. Right, so where -- MR. WILLIAMS: But we do have within the appendix section a categorization of the various facilities that we have in our inventory. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So where are the -- so where is the -- where is the CIE for park facilities? MR. BOSI: They are no longer -- they are not a part of concurrency, Capital Improvement Element for the parks. We have regional and community. The board, in 2009, directed us that they didn't see the value of the facilities measure based upon the metrics that were presented, and it was directed -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: So they eliminated that? MR. BOSI: To eliminate that, we include it as part of the appendix -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: As part of the appendix. MR. BOSI: -- and that we try to classify where our new facilities are going to be located at. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. And go ahead and explain the $10 million for Pepper Ranch, or 9 million -- yeah, $10 million for Pepper Ranch. MR. WILLIAMS: Just to get us on the same page, I think you're referencing -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: The 50 acres. What's going on with that? MR. WILLIAMS: Page 103, is that a good place for us to -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let me see my numbers. Actually, I'm on Page 95. MR. WILLIAMS: Ninety -five? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Like 96 and 95. MR. WILLIAMS: Just part of the discussions that we've had with Conservation Collier -- and this has been in the AUIR for the last Page 302 November 8, 2011 couple of years. But Conservation Collier and the work that they do in the land in preserves, there has been talk of Pepper Ranch and developing a recreational component to that where Parks and Recreation would manage either a trailhead or the system of trails to allow public access. That's not something that we have formalized nor have -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: How would that affect our mitigation banking? MR. WILLIAMS: That I couldn't answer. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Passive. COMMISSIONER HILLER: It would be passive? So it wouldn't -- MR. WILLIAMS: It wouldn't -- Nick is telling me that it wouldn't, but let's see if he wants to -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: As long as it's passive recreation for a lot of your mitigation, it doesn't affect that. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So it wouldn't in any way adversely affect those numbers. The ATV park, the $3 million in the ATV park, I saw you had that footnoted. What year do you anticipate to see that project coming forward in? MR. WILLIAMS: Well, there is currently public discussion right now. There's been one public meeting. We are soliciting input from the public about potential spots. We don't have a defined timeline for, you know, the ATV park opening. I know that Nick has been working on some of this, and I'll let him address that, if I could. MR. CASALANGUIDA: The simple answer is, no, we don't have a date, ma'am. We don't know if there'll be an ATV park yet. We're going through that whole discovery phase, so -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, we have $3 million that we got by way of a settlement. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am. Page 303 November 8, 2011 COMMISSIONER HILLER: You know, how can you say that you don't know if there will be one? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Because the requirements to put in an ATV park are a certain amount of acreage. We're going to have to go with the discovery and analysis phase to see if we can meet that. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So where do you have it in your analysis other than as a footnote? Do you have it projected anywhere? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, he wouldn't or we won't, because right now the board's directed us to go out and see what we can do to come up with an ATV park, so -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are you going to amend the CIE -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: You'd have to. COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- to -- so we have to make a note that this is going subject to amendment to add the ATV park? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You do it every year, ma'am. You amend this based on any conditions that change, so -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we're -- over the course of this year we'll analyze it, and next year we'll incorporate it. But as of right now, it's not incorporated or it is incorporated? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's not a capital program because you haven't identified it as such. It's just funding right now. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So we just have a footnote that there's funding there, but we haven't identified that as a project in our CIE? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Exactly. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. The next area that I'd like to talk about is the Category B facilities. And I think the point that you made, that all of the Category B facilities with the exception of the dependent fire districts required loans from the General Fund to meet the necessary revenue. And, you know, I thought that was a very important point. I was very concerned when I looked at law enforcement, and Page 304 November 8, 2011 where I said that, you know, in most areas we have very substantial surpluses. When it comes to the level of service with respect to officers required, our available inventory shows a deficit. And public safety is our number one function. So I have a real concern with that. MR. BOSI: We -- this is the first year that we've modified the level of service standard for officers per thousand. What we had in the past was 1.96 officers per thousand as our level of service standard. What we were finding, though, was that it was only a number for the AUIR accounting purposes. The sheriff had a much different staffing level. We worked with the impact fee and the Sheriff s Office to bring the AUIR to almost a base year with law enforcement. That's why you're seeing -- you would see right now that as it goes out to year'9 that you're going to have a deficit. It's because we're starting at our base year this year based upon the changes that were directed by this board from last year's AUIR. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And what were the changes that this board directed last year? MR. BOSI: Make the level of service standard a more relevant standard. So what we did -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: What does relevant mean? MR. BOSI: Relevant means that this is a Capital Improvement Program. If we just say that we're going to -- we're constructing -- we've got X dollars of construction associated with 1.96 officers, that really wasn't telling you anything in terms of square footage that was being provided. So within this AUIR we developed it, we developed the actual staffing based against the square footage to be able to get a square footage cost per officer, and then as we move forward with population, those -- that population can be translated to -- like I provided within the library, as an example, that square -- that square footage could be appropriately allocated to the population growth, because the way that it was before, that 1.96 officers just wasn't a real Page 305 November 8, 2011 -- it wasn't a meaningful value. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Have you reviewed this with the sheriff? MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. And I see that you have a deficit in the buildings also in the Sheriffs Department in terms of square footage required, that we show a five year deficit. MR. BOSI: Like I said, we're starting at zero right now. We're at zero, where our supply is meeting our demand perfectly from our base year. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand. MR. BOSI: And as we go out and add population, we would be acquiring deficit. What the Sheriffs Department has said to the Planning Commission and during the last year's AUIR hearing was, we will talk with the Board of County Commissioners as we need square footage that is available. But right now, based upon that old standard, we have a surplus of square footage for the Sheriffs Office based upon how their operations are. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because the old standard was incorrect? It didn't reflect reality? MR. BOSI: It didn't reflect their staffing levels at all. We were saying we needed 947 officers at last year's AUIR, but -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, like, I know, for example, one of the deficiencies is an evidence room. I mean, I know that, you know, they really don't have an adequate evidence room. So is that contemplated anywhere here as an expenditure? MR. BOSI: Well, that type of specificity wouldn't be in this document other than the square footage needed. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand. But right now the square footage, you know, projected over the five years shows a deficit. So I just am questioning, you know, where these things are 1: November 8, 2011 considered. MR. BOSI: And, unfortunately, Chief Smith was not here available today to be able to reiterate the conversations that we've had with the Planning Commission related to this. But it was -- we were trying to gain a more meaningful -- and to do that we set our base year at this year and, therefore, the -- the actual -- the way that it's projected to have a deficiency isn't a true representation. So we were -- tried to -- we tried to make it more meaningful, and it seems like -- that we've been able to link it to the capital expansion, a square- footage number, but because of doing that -- because we did that and we set our def- -- or we set our balance at this year, it looks like we're going to need more improvements than what, in actuality, we're going to need. So I'm not sure if we accomplished what we were supposed to. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what you're saying is that the law enforcement AUIR and CIE are not accurate and that they should be revised? MR. BOSI: No, they're accurate. They're accurate, but the -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: But they don't reflect what they ought to be then -- MR. BOSI: They don't -- they don't reflect the surplus of available square footage that is -- that the Sheriffs Office needs, because they -- or has within their inventory. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, then -- then obviously this must be incorrect, because right -- MR. BOSI: No. COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- now when I look at it, it basically says that for -- I mean, it basically shows a five year deficit in terms of square footage and in terms of people. MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mike, the answers you're giving the commissioner really don't make sense, you know. If you've got a Page 307 November 8, 2011 deficit, you've got a deficit. What are you doing to make up the deficit? You know, I know that the sheriff has agreed to 1.84 officers per 1,000 people, and he has agreed that that will provide the substantial -- the necessary staffing for him to do his job. MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, whatever we did to translate that into a deficit of square footage is clearly wrong. MR. BOSI: Well, and it was in the -- and I wish Amy Patterson could be here to help me because she had indicated during the impact fee study that the Board of County Commissioners endorsed -- what we did, we took their current staffing level and the square footage, and we're at zero. This year we're at zero. So all the new population that would be added within this five year window would show that we need improvements, that we need additional square footage. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That explains it better. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Perhaps. I'm still not convinced of it -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Say that again. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- but it gets closer to explaining it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, real quick. I think Amy's coming back to you as part of the annual indexing in December for some of these, so maybe we could have her explain what we've done in terms of level of service with the Sheriffs Office. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. But the point is that the sheriff has agreed -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- that what he's got is adequate for him to do the job. MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I mean, he agrees to that every year when a budget is established; otherwise, he would be screaming if we had cut him to these kinds of deficits on square footage. NUMM November 8, 2011 MR. BOSI: He said his only caveat, he would like to see the Orangetree substation built at some point in time, but that was a clarity that he made with the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just am concerned about the way this is presented, and I think it should be re- reviewed to properly reflect whatever it's supposed to reflect. I mean, it's just very difficult to -- you know, I'm reading it as it's written, and I have no other way of interpreting. And if this is all going to be incorporated as part of the ordinance, then it needs to be accurate. MR. BOSI: The Category B facilities are not associated with the ordinance. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Just the Category A. MR. BOSI: Just the Category A facilities. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Just the transportation. MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So going to -- well, I still think it needs to be worked on. The next issue that I'm concerned about is EMS. The level of service standard has been changed, and it's been changed in two ways. Basically what the standard has changed is that the population has gone from one in 15,000 to one in 16,400 along with response -time goals of 8 minutes travel time countywide to 8 minutes travel time 90 percent of the time urban, and 12 minutes travel time 90 percent of the time rural. And I guess it says that these were approved in 11/07 at the 2000 AUIR, but what I saw in the 2007 AUIR was something different. I saw that what was approved was that the county could not achieve these without fire ALS to get to these standards. I will also tell you that an eight- minute travel time 90 percent of the time as the urban ALS standard makes no sense at all. You know, you might as well just sign off and consider yourself dead. Normally -- I mean, what I think would be a reasonable standard Page 309 November 8, 2011 would be your call to shock time as the standard, and it should be less than eight minutes, because for ALS response, you know, eight minutes travel doesn't get you there. And how do you define travel? Is it from the time you leave the station to the time you get to the site? You know, what about the time that's expended between the 911 call coming in and the time expended, you know, basically parking at the site and, you know, getting a defibrillator attached or the Epinephrine injected into, you know, your critical care patient? So I have a problem with, one, that it doesn't reflect what was in the 2007 AUIR and, secondly, I have a problem with the standard that's being used to establish the level of service, because we're not serving our citizens with such a standard. MR. BOSI: Well, and I could only -- I can't speak to the idiosyncrasies of the calculation of the full travel time, and I would defer that to EMS. I will say that the 2007 AUIR, what was presented to the Board of County Commissioners, did not reflect the one to 16,400, the 8- minute urban time and the 12 minute rural time. It was directed by the Board of County Commissioners to look at it and to make the distinction that we're not going to be able to make the same travel times from the rural as we did in the urban. COMMISSIONER HILLER: There's no question about that. MR. BOSI: And based upon that direction, we developed this process that was formalized within the 2008 AUIR -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. MR. BOSI: -- based upon the direction from the two thousand -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, or whatever year. But the point being -- I can understand that there's a difference between rural -- urban and rural, but that's not the issue. That's not what I'm commenting on. I'm commenting on the fact that we do not have what was the standard which contemplated that this was only achievable if we had fire ALS to supplement what we have and, secondly, as I said Page 310 November 8, 2011 -- I'm just repeating myself -- the level of service standard should be a call -to -shock time and it should be more along the lines of four minutes urban. And, you know, I am not sure what the proper time would be for rural, but certainly not travel time as eight minutes. So, you know, I -- MR. BOSI: And it's well within the purview of the Board of County Commissioners to change how we would calculate the levels of service for EMS. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I'm very concerned, because when I look at your numbers, you know, I see that, again, you have a deficit. And, you know, my areas of concern as a priority will always be public safety because, you know, that's just basic, you know -- MR. BOSI: And what's better than looking at -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- Public Administration 101. MR. BOSI: -- the number of stations that we have available against our population would be 155.1, and that really tells us how we're doing meeting that 8 and 12 minute response time. Now, whether you think that's appropriate or not, that's aside from the question. But that page really tells how the service is at meeting those goals that we set forward. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well -- but that's a problem, because that tells me that we need to do what's necessary to improve, because -- and if that means we need more staff or more engines, that's what we need to dedicate to this, because this is a very important service. MR. KOPKA: Thank you. For the record, Walter Kopka, chief -- interim chief of EMS. A few things. The dispatch time, we've been working very hard to get that time as close to response time as possible. So -- and that's down to about 30 seconds now from the time the 911 call is received until the time the unit is rolling. So we're working very hard to cut that time down, and that's one of the issues you had referenced, Page 311 November 8, 2011 because that can be very extensive. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yep. MR. KOPKA: The other issue you mentioned is call -to -shock time. Our average in Collier County survival rates is about 40 percent, which is four times higher than the national average. National average by the American Heart Association is about 8 to 10 percent of these people walk out of the hospital. Ours is about 40 percent, sometimes less, sometimes more. But on average, about 40 percent of these people walk out of the hospital discharged. So that's something that I think we certainly -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I would like to know, what does Seattle use as their standard for response for ALS? What is their level of service; do you know? MR. KOPKA: No, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think it's actually four minutes, and I think it's call to shock. MR. KOPKA: Right. And these are reference to EMS times -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Uh huh. MR. KOPKA: -- what you're looking at here. This does not reference what -- how long it takes for a deputy to get on scene. COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I understand, no. This is specifically what it says here. I'm reading straight out of the AUIR. I don't know if you have a copy of it. It says, the ALS response -time goal is eight minutes travel time 90 percent of the time urban, and 12 minutes travel time 90 percent of the time rural, with travel time not defined. And, again, eight minutes, no matter how you look at it, I think, is too long if we're looking to save lives, and that's just based on what I've seen other jurisdictions set as their target and, you know, what the -- MR. KOPKA: Right. And -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- survival time is in a critical care situation, like sudden cardiac arrest, which is usually used as the Page 312 November 8, 2011 benchmark for setting these kind of standards. MR. KOPKA: And -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Travel time -- MR. KOPKA: -- again, these travel times do not reflect the time it takes for a public access AED to get to somebody, a fire department AED, or a deputy AED to get to somebody. These times don't reflect that. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it's not just the AED. MR. KOPKA: This is for a transport unit -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, I understand. MR. KOPKA: -- how long it takes for an EMS transport unit. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand. But the standard, again, that I have heard is typically used is call to shock for ALS response times. But like I said, I don't think we're servicing our population by this standard. And I think, you know, we need to revise the level of service standard, for example, to use call to shock and to look at something, you know, far more aggressive than eight minutes travel time. And if that means that we have to provide, you know, more staff and more ambulances, well, then maybe that's what we have to do. But even at this very low level, we are showing a deficit. I mean, we show a deficit, even at this. And that concerns me. We should not -- MR. KOPKA: I understand. COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- be showing deficits of cops, and we shouldn't be showing deficits of emergency response -- MR. KOPKA: Right. COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- because that means we're not getting to someone who's in trouble, whatever the situation may be. So I have a problem with that. MR. KOPKA: And we're working very hard to reduce those times. With technology, with protocols -- Page 313 November 8, 2011 COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand. And you're work- -- MR. KOPKA: -- and mapping. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I realize that, and I appreciate all you're doing. And it's not your fault. I mean, if you don't have the staff and if you don't have the equipment, then, you know, it ain't going to happen. So there's a problem there. I remain -- I mean, I think this needs to be brought back, and I think we need to address it. Then we have the facilities AUIR. And when I look at it, I'm just -- I'm flabbergasted. We have such a surplus. The five year surplus shows 160,000 square feet valued at $55 million, and we have so much empty space. I go into the CDES building and half the building is empty. We have empty space all over. I just -- I'm just really concerned about that. On top of that, you know, we've got this decrease in impact fees, and we've got loans coming, you know, from the county to pay for this. And I just hope we don't propose any new government buildings based on what I'm looking at. So, I mean, with that, I'd like to make a motion to deny this. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, do you -- MR. BOSI: No. There are no government buildings shown in the first five years. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So there's no capital improvements -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- for government buildings at all? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I just -- and what I'm saying is, we should not approve any more government buildings. We have an insane surplus. And it's -- we've got space all over that's empty. We just can't spend money like that. So I'd like to make a motion, based on everything I just said, to -- we can either -- either approve in part or deny in part or, you know, deny completely as a result of the comments that I made, for example, Page 314 November 8, 2011 with respect to fire, EMS -- I'm sorry, not fire -- but EMS, police, parks, and in transportation with respect to the allocation of impact fees, you know, without legal certainty because, quite frankly, the effect of not having the legal certainty without the impact fees means that we can't necessarily accomplish what you have in your plan. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to deny. Okay. It fails for lack of a second. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just have a question. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala, go ahead. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could you tell me what -- there must have been something that prompted you to think that they were going to be building some more buildings, and I haven't heard that. So what made you think that they were going to do that? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I had heard some discussion that there might be construction of a government center further east, some sort of a facility, and I had heard that rumored. And I was like -- hoped that that wouldn't happen. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I'd never heard that rumor, nor had anybody ever spoken to me about that. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Someone actually spoke to me about it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see. Well, I haven't heard that, so-- that? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Skip, do you have anything to say about MR. CAMP: We have no plans to build -- nothing for a long time. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yep, that's the right answer. MR. CAMP: There are themes in the plans for years from now, but we're doing nothing for a long time. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Good. That's the right answer. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Plain and simple. Page 315 November 8, 2011 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner Coletta, seconded by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes 5 -1 (sic). COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Public comment? CHAIRMAN COYLE: My light is not on. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Anybody sign up, Ian? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ian? MR. MITCHELL: Sir, actually the application came after the -- after it had started. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, but you know what, Ian, you let a bunch of people, like, for example, the gentleman from SCORE speak after the item had started. MR. MITCHELL: That was because I already had his speaker slip, and he'd indicated to me he would make his decision right at the end. Everybody had registered before. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think we should let him speak because people stay here -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well, we're going to let him speak. Just hold on a minute. But the motion has been made and it is done. But we can go to public comments at any point in time. You'll Page 316 November 8, 2011 get to speak under public comments. MR. BOSI: And could I just request the action -- the recommendation from the Planning Commission was to direct staff to bring back a recommendation, through working with the school work -- school working group on the maintaining school concurrency to the Board of County Commissioners. We were seeking direction from the board related to that. The Planning Commission asked us to go work with the school working group to see if maintain school concurrency had merits and to bring a recommendation to this board. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, isn't that a decision the school board should make? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. The answer, yes. I'm shaking my head yes. MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Well, there's no reason you can't ask them, right? MR. BOSI: I was just seeking formal direction from the board, but thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's -- okay, good. Thank you. Do we have anything else, County Manager? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let's hear from Doug. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, we're going to hear from him. Let's just -- MR. OCHS: Commissioners, if you recall, when we spoke a few meetings ago when you approved the pilot asset management plan program for public utilities, you had asked for some explanation on how that pilot would serve, potentially down the road, the other divisions. We'd said at that time that we would make a brief presentation on the back end of your AUIR to provide that information. Given the lateness of the hour, we can schedule that at a separate Page 317 November 8, 2011 time, or we can provide that under separate memorandum. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why don't you just send us a memo and give us an update on it, okay. MR. OCHS: Okay. Yes, sir, be happy to do that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That sounds good, okay. MR. OCHS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, can we go to public comment now? Does anybody have anything else? (No response.) Item #14 PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS — DOUG FEE CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's call the public speaker. MR. MITCHELL: Doug Fee. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Veterans Parkway. MR. FEE: Yes, that's part of it. If you don't mind, I had put in a slip for public comment. I'd also put in a late slip for the AUIR. If I could just have one minute on the AUIR, and then I'll continue on. I may not need four minutes, but quickly here. On the AUIR, the DCA, which Commissioner Hiller mentioned, I really think that the citizens need to have a formality, a formal agenda item for that. The reason being -- I attended a meeting here in the last week as it relates to my comments last meeting, which was on Veterans Memorial Boulevard. It's a roadway in North Naples. It is not planned to be built till maybe 25 years out, but there are some significance between the EMS and safety issues and the building of that roadway which is not planned. What I would want to know in the DCA is whatever was decided project wise, that the impact fees could go from district, wherever Oil Well Road is, to those projects. Page 318 November 8, 2011 If in the future there are resolutions or input from the citizens, from the school board, from EMS that would justify this road, would you be able to take impact fees from our area and spend them in our area, okay? Another comment I would make about an agreement, as you know up in our area we had a Bert Harris action that -- a court action was filed for $250 million. You, as the Board of County Commission, came up with an agreement with a developer up in our area. And while the public was involved and could make comments, it was blessed here in a meeting. I wouldn't want you to be able to amend that agreement just with a letter from either side, whether it's the county or the developer in the future. I'd want to know as a citizen that I have the ability in a meeting to give my input on that agreement, okay. I realize it's an agreement between those two parties, but the citizens need to be involved. Now I'll move on to public comment. First of all, I want to say "thank you" for taking the time to ask very important questions. I know you guys have hard jobs, but as a person who attends these meetings, watch the meetings, I've learned a lot today, and I thank you for having the questions that you have. On public comment, based on the length of the meetings, which I personally do not mind, if there be an ability for the county to have a public comment at the beginning of the meeting where a person will know that it's, you know, at 9 o'clock in the morning or 10 o'clock in the morning. It would make it easier on the public for public comment. The second thing I would like to comment, at the last meeting Commissioner Hiller mentioned or made a suggestion to have the Board of County Commissioners consider a new advisory committee for public utilities. I've spoken several times directly to staff in the utility department over the past few years. I do feel strongly and Page 319 November 8, 2011 would like to suggest an agenda item in the future regarding a new committee. I sent an email to the county manager, to some of these staff in the utilities department. I think they may be considering this. In speaking to staff, they mention that they are already vetted through the Productivity Committee as well as the DSAC. As you know, I currently serve on your Productivity Committee as well as a member of a subcommittee looking into capital project side of utilities. We have spent many hours, and much information has been shared. It is very, very complex. I don't envy the jobs of your staff. And while I value the ability to be a member of this subcommittee and the work, I do feel we would be better served with an ongoing committee as it relates to utilities. I did ask in an email how much the budget was for this year, the FY12. I got an answer back that it was 300 million. I then asked a further question and said, could you provide me the last five years? He -- the staff member sent me an email that gave me six years, and it was 1.8 billion, 1.8 billion. I just would like to urge you, we have a parks and rec advisory board which allows us to have citizens look at the operations, look at capital. I really think that we should consider it, and hopefully you will do that in the future. Thank you. Item #15 STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. County Manager, do you have anything for us under correspondence, communication? MR. OCHS: No, sir. Page 320 November 8, 2011 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. County Attorney? MR. KLATZKOW: No, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Well -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that a surprise to anybody? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Leo, we talked a little bit about the termination of Chief Rodriguez, and apparently it was -- there was a situation where it was discovered that there was a bank account. Was that bank account -- did that bank account use the county's taxpayer ID number? MR. OCHS: Not to my knowledge, Commissioner. We're still getting bank records from the bank in question. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, was it his personal account? MR. OCHS: No, ma'am. It was a bank account for some volunteer fire department not for profit corporation. COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're going to turn all of that over to the clerk to audit? MR. OCHS: It's already been -- MR. KLATZKOW: Everything we have -- MR. OCHS: Everything we have has already been turned over already. MR. KLATZKOW: -- we've already turned over. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I think it's really important that anything related to old bank accounts, you know, no matter what, get turned over to the clerk. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, absolutely, I agree. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, absolutely. MR. OCHS: Already been done. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you give us an update on what's going on with your housing audit? MR. OCHS: You mean the divestiture plan that we're working on? Page 321 November 8, 2011 COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, you know -- MR. OCHS: Yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- the houses that weren't stuccoed that we got billed 100 percent for this invisible stucco and stuff like that? MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. We received a partial audit from the clerk's agency. We've addressed all the issues in the audit. We're waiting for the balance of the audit report. I'm sure that is in progress, and I think we're working very closely with Ms. Kinzel and her staff to address issues that are reported in the audit. COMMISSIONER HILLER: When are we going to get the audit? MS. KINZEL: Hopefully very soon, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Cool. MS. KINZEL: We are in the middle of our year end audit, so there will also be the external single audit that will address the grant program. So we're working on both of those, and hopefully by the end of the year we'll have all that done. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And then on the last thing that I wanted an update on is we had an employee at the parks, in the parks division that, what -- is it at Sun -n -Fun Lagoon at the concession, or where was it? MR. OCHS: It was at one of the concession areas at the North Naples Regional Park, one of the ballfields, I believe. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And it was determined that he had taken monies? MR. OCHS: Yes, he had -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's the status on that? MR. OCHS: The employee is no longer employed by the county, and we turned the information over to the Sheriff s Office, and they've done an investigation and filed a criminal charge. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are you and the clerk working on Page 322 November 8, 2011 tightening the internal controls there to ensure that something like this doesn't happen -- MR. OCHS: Yes. We met -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: --again? MR. OCHS: -- just earlier this week and are having a series of meetings to go through our internal controls and our cash - handling policies working, again, with Ms. Kinzel and her staff. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And these policies will apply throughout the county wherever we have any cash? MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. We already have policies in place. I want you to understand that. But, you know, we're looking at additional ways to improve those. Sometimes you can have the best policy, but if you have a breakdown in the execution, you know, you've got an issue there. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Got it. What's going on with the litigation involving the fraudulent billing for the milk? MR. KLATZKOW: I'm still waiting on the full record. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Wasn't that supposed to come in last week? MR. KLATZKOW: Still waiting for it, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we haven't -- did you file an appeal? MR. KLATZKOW: We filed a notice of appeal which starts the process to get the record. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But that's it? MR. KLATZKOW: That's it, yeah. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So nothing new on that? MR. KLATZKOW: No. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Was the individual who -- you know, the state had recommended that that individual be terminated. Was he terminated? MR. OCHS: No. The state recommended that he not be Page 323 November 8, 2011 involved in the food program -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, I see. MR. OCHS: -- going forward. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what did you do? Did you move him to another section in the county? MR. OCHS: No. That individual employee resigned. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, he resigned, okay. MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Got it. So do we have a new person administering the new controls in place over that program? MR. OCHS: Yes, we do. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Great, awesome. MR. OCHS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're working -- you're moving in the right direction. MR. OCHS: I hope so, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Happy Thanksgiving. MR. OCHS: Thank you. You too. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Bahumbug. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I'm going to have a great time, and I hope you do, too. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sure we will. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Just Happy Thanksgiving to everyone. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. And Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree, Happy Thanksgiving. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just three quick things. Commissioner Hiller, you brought up an issue about see through stucco. You don't like transparency, is that what you're saying? Page 324 November 8, 2011 COMMISSIONER HILLER: Now, now. We're getting punchy. It's getting late. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The Blocker lawsuit issue. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, yeah. What's up with that? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Was there any ruling, judge rulings, and what were they? MR. KLATZKOW: It's a case that -- it just keeps going. It's the EverReady -- it's like that bunny. It just keeps going and going and going. We -- we continue to get motions, we continue to get rulings. To be blunt, it's not going anywhere at this point in time. It's -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: What are the latest rulings? MR. KLATZKOW: It was in the last litigation report I gave you, ma'am. At this point I don't -- I'm not following it on a day to day basis because nothing's happening. I mean, every time there's a motion that's decided, there's a new motion that's filed. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I was hoping to -- that we can dispose of that, get back on the IMAP as Commissioner Coletta's motion was, once that was settled, that we'd bring the Immokalee Area Master Plan back. But anyways. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But I thought they were bringing that back anyway. I was told that that was coming back in December. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They are. Everybody's jumping in. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Coletta is bringing it back. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What happened is is that the new growth management laws of the state now, that if you didn't bring it to a vote by December 31 st it automatically died. So it's coming back -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: And you would just start the process? Page 325 November 8, 2011 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- here for us to deal with it at the meeting in December. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is this a reconsideration? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. It's not a reconsideration. It's just -- that we continued it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Until the Blocker issue was settled. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. In this case we're bringing it back because of the fact that it's going to expire on the 31 st. And rather than let it go by, give it one more chance, let the people from Immokalee express their opinions, and we'll go forward from there. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it doesn't really die. All that happens is is you just have to go through the public vetting process again. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This process took eight years and a half million dollars. No one's ready to go back through it again, even if it could be done in 18 months. Believe me, there's -- they want to see it -- they want to see the thing completed. They want to see it pass. If it doesn't pass, I don't -- I haven't heard one person say, well, let's just start over from scratch and go through the whole thing. There's no sense to it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's a whole community project. It's something they've worked on for eight years together, and I think they were -- their efforts were dashed to the ground. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, they haven't been yet. Let's wait till the meeting, and then we'll make a judgment decision then. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Were you finished, Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I wasn't. I don't know how we got off. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't know either. Page 326 November 8, 2011 COMMISSIONER FIALA: You asked about the Blockers. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. You took us there. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The last thing, Commissioner Hiller brought up an issue about the CRA and repayment of the loan. Talking to staff, there is a concern on repayment of that loan. COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's a big problem. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which staff? COMMISSIONER HENNING: People within our financial. And it was suggested that the -- we have a financial committee made up of people from the Finance Department, people from the clerk's auditing financial. COMMISSIONER HILLER: We have a finance committee. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes -- and, you know, other staff members. I think it would be prudent to have them look at that instead of, you know, all these allegations going back and forth. Mr. Jackson says we're okay and other people saying we're not. Let's have somebody independent look at it and make any recommendations to the CRA -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think that's a great idea. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- slash Board of Commissioners of, you know, what can we do. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And we have phenomenal people on that board, and I think it would be a great idea for the finance committee to review the totality of the Bayshore CRA's finances to see, you know, how they're spending, what they're spending, what their obligations are, and if they can meet them based on their, you know, revenues, expenditures, and obligations. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the reason I inquired about it, we have a local businessman that I know that made payments on his 20 year mortgage every time it was ready. And there's a five year renewal within those 20 year mortgages, and that's basically what I understand we have. The bank says, no, we're not going to renew it. Page 327 November 8, 2011 COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And because of -- the property values of his property was down so much, nobody would give him a loan unless he came up with, you know, hundreds of thousands of dollars to refinance it, and they ended up foreclosing on the business and recently moved. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we purchased the properties at the Bayshore at peak, okay. Similar situation, and I think it's worthy now to discuss that so we don't come up with a surprise in two more years. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And we have really -- go ahead. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Such a better subject -- I mean, such a better way of addressing it than attacking them to actually encourage them to meet with finance people and start working through this thing in preparation for how they're going to extend it or whatever they're going to do. They're going to continue to get the TIF, but they've got to get that loan extended. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I make a motion, or do you want to make a motion? I think that's a phenomenal idea. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We don't make motions under correspondence. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon me? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Don't make a motion under correspondence. COMMISSIONER HILLER: We've made motions. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We give guidance to staff. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, okay, and that's fair, is -- who's -- we can't give direction to Crystal. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We can give direction to the county manager to communicate to -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: To the finance committee? Page 328 November 8, 2011 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Our desires to David Jackson and the committee. MR. OCHS: I can just -- and we could put that on an item -- an agenda item. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The finance committee and give MR. OCHS: It's noticed for the next finance committee. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And give the board or the CRA board or the Board of Commissioners their recommendations CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- about the loan and how to address it when it does come due. MR. OCHS: That'd be fine, sir. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And also to review their expenditures in light of their obligations and their limited incoming revenue. I mean, they just -- they need overall help with their financial management. And one other question I have for you, Leo, if I may, Commissioner Coyle, if I can just add on to what Commissioner Henning said. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've had your chance. It's all over now. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I only have one more item. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: What was it, Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: I was wondering why Bayshore has drainage MSTU, like why we're not funding their stormwater from General Fund. COMMISSIONER HENNING: We are. Page 329 November 8, 2011 MR. OCHS: Oh, I think we are in part, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why do they have an additional MSTU? Are we adding -- are we supplementing -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: You must mean the Haldeman Creek one? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FIALA: They had a lot -- if I may jump in -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- or you can. It doesn't makes a difference. They had a lot of problems there because it was silting over, and it was not the county's responsibility to clean out the silt. So the county told them, you know, we understand that you would like it to be a little clearer and also maybe to use it for boating and stuff. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I got it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- but you're going to have to pay for it yourself. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So that really it was supplemental service. It wasn't because there was a drainage problem but rather that they wanted it visually -- MR. FEDER: We are handling it as our priority -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, then that makes sense. I'm just thinking -- you know, I just wondered why they have an MSTU where others didn't. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We are adjourned. MR. OCHS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Page 330 November 8, 2011 ""Commissioner * *Commissioner Coletta moved, seconded by Commissioner Fiala and carried 4/1 (Commissioner Hiller opposed) that the following items under the Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted * * * * Item # 16A 1 ACCEPTING A WILDLIFE CROSSING CONSTRUCTED ON COUNTY ROAD 846 (IMMOKALEE ROAD) RIGHT -OF -WAY AND ADDITIONAL PRIVATE PROPERTY REQUIRED FOR THE CROSSING — AN AREA OF HIGH PANTHER ACTIVITY BUILT AS MITIGATION BY CITYGATE DEVELOPMENT, LLC. THE COUNTY WILL MAINTAIN THE CROSSING WHICH IS ON A PORTION OF LAND ON OWNED BY BARRON COLLIER INVESTMENTS, LTD., WHO ARE CONVEYING THE LAND TO THE COUNTY WITHOUT COMPENSATION Item # 16A2 PARTIAL RELEASE OF LIEN IN CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS VS. JOSEPH H. DEROMA LIVING TRUST LTD., CODE ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CASE CEPM -2009- 0008163, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 824 96TH AVENUE N. — ACCEPTING THE PAYMENT $562.69 FOR A LIEN ON PROPERTY CURRENTLY PENDING IN A RESIDENTIAL SALE WITH FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE. REMAINING REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY MR. DEROMA IN COLLIER COUNTY WILL CARRY AN APPROX. $100,400 LIEN Item #I 6A3 Page 331 November 8, 2011 AUTHORIZING THE CLERK OF COURTS TO RELEASE A SECURITY THAT WAS POSTED AS A DEVELOPMENT GUARANTY BY CNM ENTERPRISES, LLC FOR WORK ASSOCIATED WITH AN EARLY WORK AUTHORIZATION — FOR THE 2010 LETTER OF CREDIT POSTED FOR THE HOME CENTER PLAZA PROJECT Item #I 6A4 ACCEPTING AN ALL -WAY STOP ANALYSIS STUDY AND APPROVE INSTALLATION & OPERATION OF AN ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL AT THE OF PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD AT RIDGEWOOD DRIVE INTERSECTION , WITH INSTALLATION COSTS OF APPROXIMATELY $1,500 FUNDED BY PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION AND ANNUAL MAINTENANCE COSTS OF APPROXIMATELY $100 — AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16A5 BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING CARRY FORWARD FOR PROJECTS IN TRANSPORTATION SUPPORTED GAS TAX FUND (313) IN THE AMOUNT OF $120,627 — FOR TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY (TIS) REVIEW, THE PATHWAYS PROGRAM AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) MONITORING /TRAFFIC COUNTS PAYMENT -IN -LIEU PROJECTS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO BE TRACKED AND SPENT ON PROJECTS ON PROJECTS IDENTIFIED FOR MITIGATION OR ON CONSULTANT CONTRACTS TO PERFORM STUDIES ON THE DEVELOPMENT'S BEHALF Item # 16A6 Page 332 November 8, 2011 RELEASE OF LIEN IN CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS VS. GOMAA ELSAID AND KAREN AMAL ELSHERBEINI, CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CASE NO. CEPM- 2010 - 0009420, RELATING TO PROPERTY AT 11334 LONGSHORE WAY WEST — WELLS FARGO HAS TAKEN POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY DUE TO FORECLOSURE AND REQUEST THE $99450 IN ACCRUED FINES IS WAIVED. OPERATIONAL AND ABATEMENT COSTS OF $1232.39 HAVE BEEN PAID Item #I 6A7 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT & RELEASE WITH CH2MHILL ( "CH211) TO SETTLE ALL OUTSTANDING CLAIMS RELATED TO CONSULTING SERVICES RENDERED UNDER CONTRACT #01 -31959 IN CONNECTION WITH CONSTRUCTION OF ROAD AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS TO VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD, AND FOR EXPERT SERVICES PROVIDED IN THE DEFENSE OF THE COUNTY IN KER ENTERPRISES, INC. D /B /A ARMADILLO UNDERGROUND V. APAC- SOUTHEAST, INC. V. COLLIER COUNTY, CASE NO. 08- 3496 -CA ( "APAC ") AND TO AUTHORIZE PAYMENT — AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16A8 WAIVE COMPETITION AND APPROVE A SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH N. HARRIS COMPUTER CORPORATION FOR THE CITYVIEW LANDUSE SOFTWARE APPLICATION — A 5 -YEAR AGREEMENT WITH CHARGES THAT TOTAL APPROXIMATELY $784,000 FOR SERVICES Page 333 November 8, 2011 THAT INCLUDE SOFTWARE UPDATES AND SECURITY SERVICES ONLY THE PRODUCT MANUFACTURER CAN PROVIDE Item # 16A9 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO FUNDING AGREEMENT #4600002213 WITH SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT THAT PROVIDES ADDITIONAL FUNDING OF $542,500 FOR THE NEXT PHASE OF THE LELY AREA STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND EXTENDS THE CURRENT AGREEMENT INCLUDING THE SCOPE AND TERMS THROUGH JANUARY 4, 2013 AND APPROVING A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE GRANT REVENUE — AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16A10 CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 TO CONTRACT #08 -5130 FOR $33,000 WITH CME ASSOCIATES, INC., FOR DESIGN & RELATED SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF ACCELERATED BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS AND PILOT BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT #66066 — POST DESIGN SERVICES INCLUDING REVIEW & APPROVAL OF SHOP DRAWINGS, REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION, MEETING PARTICIPATION AND PROJECT CERTIFICATION AFTER COMPLETION Item # 16A 11 RECOGNIZING ADDITIONAL FY2011 /12 STATE PUBLIC TRANSIT BLOCK GRANT REVENUE IN THE AMOUNT OF $8385072 TO COLLIER AREA TRANSIT FUND (426) AND Page 334 November 8, 2011 AUTHORIZE ALL NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS — FOR FUNDING UNDER JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT CONTRACT NUMBER AOW93 AND REQUIRES A 50% LOCAL MATCH Item #16Al2 RECOGNIZING ADDITIONAL FY2011 /12 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION SECTION 5311 REVENUE OF $256,334 TO COLLIER AREA TRANSIT FUND (426) AND AUTHORIZE ALL NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS — FOR FUNDING UNDER JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT CONTRACT NUMBER AOW89 AND REQUIRES A 50% LOCAL MATCH Item #16A13 — Continued to the January 24, 2012 BCC Meeting (Per Agenda Change Sheet) RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT A SPEED LIMIT STUDY REPORT AND ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A SPEED LIMIT DECREASE FROM FORTY -FIVE MILES PER HOUR (45 MPH) TO FORTY MILES PER HOUR (40 MPH) ON VANDERBILT DRIVE (CR 901) FROM 9TH STREET TO BONITA BEACH ROAD AT AN APPROXIMATE COST OF $500 Item #16A14 SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE MIRASOL DEVELOPER AGREEMENT TO EXTEND THE THREE YEAR CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC FACILITY ADEQUACY (COA) IN PERPETUITY — AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16A15 Page 335 November 8, 2011 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH ROYAL WOOD SINGLE- FAMILY HOMES ASSOCIATION, INC., FOR WORK PERFORMED ALONG A RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK COUNTY RIGHT -OF -WAY— TO IMPROVE APPEARANCE OF AN EXISTING WALL AND COMMUNITY ENTRANCE. THE ASSOCIATION IS REQUIRED TO PREPARE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS AND WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PERMITTING, INSTALLATION, ONGOING OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE REQUEST Item #16A16 RESOLUTION 2011 -203: AUTHORIZING A TAX PAYMENT REFUND PAID INTO THE ROCK ROAD IMPROVEMENT MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT (MSTU) BY A PROPERTY OWNER THAT WAS INCORRECTLY INCLUDED IN THE MSTU BOUNDARY — ANTICIPATED REFUNDS TOTAL $3,791.29 FOR PROPERTY FOLIO #002112240002 Item #16A17 COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO WAIVE FEES FOR PROCESSING A SMALL SCALE AMENDMENT FOR THE ORANGE BLOSSOM /AIRPORT CROSSROADS COMMERCIAL SUB - DISTRICT PRESENTED UNDER ITEM #6A BY MICHAEL CORRADI AT THE OCTOBER 25, 2011 BCC MEETING, WITH THE APPLICANT PAYING ONLY COSTS INCURRED THAT INCLUDES APPLICATION AND ADVERTISING COSTS — WAIVING THE $9,000 APPLICATION FEE Item #16A18 Page 336 November 8, 2011 AN AGREEMENT DONATING THE RIGHT OF ENTRY TO THE COUNTY REQUIRED TO REMOVE AND RELOCATE A FENCE FOR THE WILDLIFE CROSSING UNDER IMMOKALEE ROAD APPROXIMATELY 2.5 MILES EAST OF OIL WELL GRADE ROAD (EST. FISCAL IMPACT: $0) — A 2 -YEAR RIGHT -TO- ENTER LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH COLLIER LAND HOLDINGS, LTD. AND IN COMBINATION WITH LAP AGREEMENT #42636 -1 WITH FLORIDA'S DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION THAT REIMBURSES COLLIER COUNTY $950,000 FOR PROJECT DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION COSTS Item #16A19 WAIVE FORMAL COMPETITION TO APPROVE SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE OF THE "CARTEGRAPH" WORK MANAGEMENT SYSTEM SOFTWARE LICENSE, IMPLEMENTATION SERVICES & ANNUAL MAINTENANCE FOR GMD (FISCAL IMPACT EST: $195,000) — A WORK ORDER SYSTEM THAT'S CURRENTLY USED TO MONITOR SIGNS, SIGNALS, LIGHTING, SIGNAL CONTROLLERS, BUS STOPS, ROADS AND OTHER ASSETS ALONG COUNTY ROADS Item #I 6A20 AN EXTENSION OF TIME, NOT EXCEEDING 38 CALENDAR DAYS, AND INCREASE IN SIZE, NOT TO EXCEED 1,200 SQUARE FEET, FOR A FABRIC BANNER THAT WILL BE ON DISPLAY AT THE PHILHARMONIC CENTER ADVERTISING AN EVENT DEDICATED TO MYRA JANCO DANIELS Item #I 6A21 — Withdrawn (Per Agenda Change Sheet) Page 337 November 8, 2011 BID #11 -5700, "DEVONSHIRE BOULEVARD LANDSCAPE & IRRIGATION REFURBISHMENT PROJECT" TO HANNULA LANDSCAPING & IRRIGATION, INC. FOR THE AMOUNT $278,818.46; AND REJECT THE BID FROM AMERI - PRIDE, INC. FOR IMPROVEMENTS FUNDED BY RESIDENTS OF THE RADIO ROAD BEAUTIFICATION MSTU Item #16B1 — Moved to Item #13B3 (Per Agenda Change Sheet) Item #16B2 AFTER THE FACT APPROVAL TO SUBMIT AN ENTERPRISE INVESTMENT FUND GRANT APPLICATION TO FIFTH THIRD BANK FOR $25,000 IN ADDITIONAL FUNDING TOWARD THE CRA FY2012 TIF GRANT PROGRAM — SUBMITTAL DEADLINE WAS MISSED AND IF APPROVED FUNDS WILL BE USED FOR FY2012 RESIDENTIAL, SWEAT EQUITY AND LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENT GRANT APPLICATIONS Item #16B3 — Moved to Item #13136 (Per Agenda Change Sheet) Item #16B4 — Moved to Item #13B4 (Per Agenda Change Sheet) Item #16B5 — Moved to Item #13B5 (Per Agenda Change Sheet) Item #16C1 UTILITY EASEMENT WITH COLLIER COUNTY WATER - SEWER DISTRICT FOR THE GOLISANO CHILDREN'S MUSEUM OF NAPLES WATER UTILITY FACILITIES LOCATED AT NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL PARK, AT NO Page 338 November 8, 2011 COST TO THE COUNTY — REQUIRED TO CONNECT A WATER -LINE TO A PARCEL LEASED BY THE MUSEUM Item # 16D 1 TWO (2) SATISFACTIONS OF MORTGAGE FOR OWNER - OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS THAT HAVE SATISFIED TERMS OF ASSISTANCE OR REPAYMENT IN FULL HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO COLLIER COUNTY — SHIP PROGRAM FUNDS OF $12,500.00 HAVE BEEN REPAID FOR PROGRAM ASSISTANCE FOR PROPERTY AT 2160 43RD TERRACE SW UNIT 51AND 2430 SHADOWLAWN DRIVE, NAPLES Item #I 6D2 A DONATION AGREEMENT AND ACCEPTING A WARRANTY DEED FROM LAKE TRAFFORD MARINA, INC. FOR A PARCEL OF LAND ADJACENT TO THE ANN OLESKY PARK, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $18.50 — A. 13 ACRE +/- PARCEL BEING USED FOR ADDITIONAL PARK ACTIVITIES Item #16D3 MODIFICATION TO DISASTER RECOVERY INITIATIVE AGREEMENT # l ODB- D4- 09- 21- 01 -K09 BETWEEN FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (DCA) AND COLLIER COUNTY TO EXTEND THE PERIOD OF THE GRANT AND UPDATE WORK PLANS — EXTENDS THE HURRICANE HARDENING PROJECT(S) COMPLETION DATE WITH GOODLETTE ARMS, LLC, IMMOKALEE AREA CRA, BAYSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE CRA AND IMMOKALEE Page 339 November 8, 2011 MIDDLE SCHOOL & HIGH SCHOOLS SIX (6) MONTHS TO THE DATE DECEMBER, 2012 & CANCELING A PROJECT AT THE IMMOKALEE APARTMENTS Item #I 6D4 CHAIRMAN TO SIGN AMENDED AGREEMENT OAA 203.11 AND ATTESTATION STATEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. DBA SENIOR CHOICES OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA AND APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO REFLECT AN OVERALL DECREASE OF $15,162 IN THE OLDER AMERICANS ACT PROGRAM, AND A CORRECTING INCREASE TO THE REQUIRED LOCAL MATCH IN THE AMOUNT OF $85695 — AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY _ Item #16D5 CHAIRMAN TO SIGN CONTRACT #OAA 203.11 AMENDMENT AND ATTESTATION STATEMENT BETWEEN THE AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. DBA SENIOR CHOICES OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA AND COLLIER COUNTY TO EXTEND THE GRANT PERIOD NINETY DAYS, APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO REFLECT FUNDING ESTIMATES FOR THE FY12 OLDER AMERICANS ACT PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF $919,000, LOCAL MATCH FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $102,111.11 AND AUTHORIZE CONTINUED PAYMENT OF GRANT EXPENDITURES Item #16D6 Page 340 November 8, 2011 CHAIRMAN TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT, VERIFICATION OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PLAN AND ATTESTATION STATEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY'S BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND AREA AGENCY ON AGING OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. DBA SENIOR CHOICES OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA AND APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO ACCEPT A GRANT AWARD OF $43,602 IN ACCORDANCE WITH CONTRACT NO. 203.12 FOR THE NUTRITION SERVICES INCENTIVE PROGRAM (NSIP) — FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBER 1, 2011 THRU SEPTEMBER 30, 2012 Item #16D7 A BUDGET AMENDMENT OF $49,642.98 AND TO RECOGNIZE REVENUE AND APPROPRIATE EXPENDITURES GENERATED FROM CASE MANAGEMENT AND CASE AID FROM THE MEDICAID WAIVER PROGRAM — COLLECTED FROM MEDICAID FOR THE PERIOD FY08 THROUGH FYI 1 AND INCLUDES AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE AREA AGENCY FOR AGING OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA (AAA) DBA SENIOR CHOICES OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WHO OVERSEE CASE MANAGEMENT FOR THIS PROGRAM THAT HELPS ELDERLY PARTICIPANTS TO REMAIN INDEPENDENT AND AVOID NURSING HOMES Item #16D8 COLLIER COUNTY 4 -H FOUNDATION INC. GRANT APPLICATION REQUESTING $68,000 FOR 4 -H OUTREACH COORDINATORS AND ENHANCE OUTREACH ACTIVITIES MANAGED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY UNIVERSITY OF Page 341 November 8, 2011 FLORIDA/IFAS EXTENSION DEPARTMENT — USED TO OFFSET SALARIES FOR COORDINATORS OF 4H YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES IN SCHOOL, AFTER SCHOOL AND IN THE COMMUNITY Item # 16D9 — Moved to Item # l OH (Per Agenda Change Sheet) Item #16D 10 SUBMIT A FLORIDA SEA TURTLE LICENSE PLATE GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $141794 ADMINISTERED BY THE NON - PROFIT SEA TURTLE CONSERVANCY FOR COLLIER COUNTY' S SEA TURTLE PROTECTION PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAM — THE PARKS AND REC DEPARTMENT'S SEA TURTLE PROTECTION PROGRAM (STPP) WOULD LIKE TO SEEK FUNDING IN 2012 TO HAVE FOUR LOCAL ARTISTS DESIGN AND DEVELOP TWO MUSEUM QUALITY TRAVELING EXHIBITS: (1) TO FOCUS ON NATURAL EARTH LIGHT FOR SUCCESSFUL SEA TURTLE NESTING AND HATCHING AND (2) WILL EXAMINE "MARINE LEGEND" STORIES ALL TO SUPPORT RESEARCH, CONSERVATION AND SEA TURTLE EDUCATION Item # 16D 11— Moved to Item # 101 (Per Agenda Change Sheet) Item #I 6D 12 RELEASE OF LIEN TO SATISFY AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS LIEN INSTRUMENT RECORDED AGAINST A UNIT NO LONGER SUBJECT TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE AGREEMENT — PER A 2006 AGREEMENT THE PROPERTY AT 4430 BOTANICAL PLACE, UNIT 103, WAS Page 342 November 8, 2011 SOLD FOR LESS THAN THE ORIGINAL PURCHASE PRICE THEREFORE COLLIER COUNTY DOES NOT REQUIRE REPAYMENT Item #16D13 LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING WITH LARRY RAY, COLLIER COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR, OUTLINING TAX COLLECTOR AND LIBRARY JOINT USE FACILITY IN EVERGLADES CITY, FLORIDA — THE TAX COLLECTOR WILL BE RESPOSIBLE FOR THE EMPLOYEE WORKING IN THE EVERGLADES CITY SATELLITE OFFICE (INCLUDING TAXES & BENEFITS) FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBER 1, 2011 THRU SEPTEMBER 30.2012 Item #I 6D 14 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COASTAL PARTNERSHIP INITIATIVE (CPI) GRANT AGREEMENT NO. CM210 AND AUTHORIZE ALL NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO RECOGNIZE GRANT REVENUE OF $535000 FOR A DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT IN THE CLAM BAY PARK AREA — ALLOWS CZM STAFF AND THE CONTRACTED VENDOR TO REMOVE EXOTIC PLANTS FROM THE DUNE LINE LANDWARD 150 FEET, THROUGHOUT THE PARK AND TO REPLANT WITH NATIVE SPECIES FOR AN AGREEMENT ENDING NO LATER THAN APRIL, 2012 Item #16D15 PERMIT NUMBER SAJ -1987 -1080 (IP -SJF) FOR INTERIM MAINTENANCE DREDGING OF WIGGIN' S PASS CHANNEL — Page 343 November 8, 2011 A 5 -YEAR PERMIT FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF WIGGIN'S PASS THAT IS NOT CONNECTED WITH STRAIGHTENING OF THE CHANNEL Item # 16D 16 CONTINUED FROM THE SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 BCC MEETING. RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AND RATIFY STAFF'S UNAUTHORIZED ZERO DOLLAR TIME EXTENSION CHANGE ORDER FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES WITH ATKINS NORTH AMERICA, INC. (FORMERLY PBS &J) TO WORK ORDER NO. 4500100227 TO PROCESS THE FINAL INVOICE FOR WORK COMPLETED FOR "CLAM PASS /BAY ESTUARY," RATIFY STAFF'S UNAUTHORIZED ACTION OF REQUEST FOR SERVICES, AND MAKE A FINDING OF QUANTUM MERUIT BASED ON THE VALUE OF THE BENEFIT RECEIVED — AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item # 16D 17 — Moved to Item # l OE (Per Agenda Change Sheet) Item # 16D 18 — Moved to Item # l OF (Per Agenda Change Sheet) Item # 16D 19 — Moved to Item # l OJ (Per Agenda Change Sheet) Item # 16E 1 RECOGNIZING FYI I CARRYFORWARD FOR FREEDOM MEMORIAL FUND (620) IN THE AMOUNT OF $1335800 — TO CONTINUE CONSTRUCTION ON THE FREEDOM MEMORIAL Item # 16E2 — Moved to Item # 1 OG (Per Agenda Change Sheet) Page 344 November 8, 2011 Item #16E3 RATIFY PROPERTY, CASUALTY, AUTOMOBILE, WORKER' S COMPENSATION AND SUBROGATION CLAIMS SETTLED AND /OR CLOSED BY THE RISK MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR THE FOURTH QUARTER OF FY11— AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #I 6E4 AMENDING AN AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE A TIME EXTENSION TO ALLOW COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE COMMUNITY CENTER EXPANSION AT MAX HASSE COMMUNITY PARK & RE- ALLOCATE FUNDS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED IN FISCAL YEAR 2011 — EXTENDS THE AGREEMENT TWENTY -FOUR MONTHS PURSUANT TO THE A 1983 GAC LAND TRUST AGREEMENT WITH AVATAR PROPERTIES, INC. Item #16E5 — Continued to the December 13, 2011 BCC Meeting (Per Agenda Change Sheet) AMENDMENT #3 TO THE CONTRACT WITH MERITAIN, INC. FOR GROUP HEALTH THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATION RUN -OUT SERVICES IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT $88,425 Item #I 6E6 ACCEPT REPORTS AND RATIFY STAFF - APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS — FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 23 THROUGH OCTOBER 21, 2011 Page 345 November 8, 2011 Item #16171 COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO PREPARE AND SUBMIT APPLICATIONS TO RENEW SERVICE MARKS WITH THE STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS TO PRESERVE COUNTY ADVERTISING, LOGOS, PHRASES AND SLOGANS — INCORPORATING THE PHRASES "PARADISE COAST BLUEWAY," & "PARADISE COAST BLUEWAY — THE COLLIER COUNTY PADDLING TRAIL," IN PROMOTIONAL AND INFORMATIONAL MATERIAL USED BY THE TOURISM DEPARTMENT Item # 16F2 RECOGNIZE CARRY FORWARD IN TOURISM PROMOTION FUND 184 FOR A FALL & ENHANCED WINTER MARKETING PLAN AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN CHANGE ORDER #2 TO CONTRACT #10 -5541 WITH PARADISE ADVERTISING AND MARKETING, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $3501000 AND ALL NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS — FROM ADDITIONAL FORECASTED FYI I TOURIST TAX REVENUE AND PROCEEDS FROM A LEGAL SETTLEMENT FOR ONLINE SALES OF HOTEL ROOMS THAT WILL BE USED UP FOR A FALL TELEVISION, DIGITAL AND SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN IN FLORIDA MARKETS OF MIAMI /FT. LAUDERDALE, PALM BEACH AND ORLANDO, TO ENHANCE EXISTING TV, DIGITAL AND SOCIAL MEDIA ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION CAMPAIGNS IN NEW YORK AND CHICAGO AND FOR A NEW CAMPAIGN IN BOSTON, PHILADELPHIA AND WASHINGTON D.C. Page 346 November 8, 2011 Item #16173 RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SEPTEMBER 22, 2011 BOARD REQUEST THAT STAFF PROVIDE A REPORT ON A REQUEST BY THE GOLDEN GATE CIVIC ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT OF FUNDING ADDITIONAL WILDFIRE MITIGATION EFFORTS IN THE ESTATES AND SURROUNDING LANDS — AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #I 6F4 RESOLUTION 2011 -204: APPROVING AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO FY 11 -12 ADOPTED BUDGET Item #16175 — Continued to the December 13, 2011 BCC Meeting (Per Agenda Change Sheet) CHANGE ORDER #4 UNDER CONTRACT #11 -5616 FOR STATEMENTS OF WORK WITH METHOD FACTORY, INC. FOR ENHANCEMENTS AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES TO GOVMAX BUDGETING SOFTWARE FOR THE COST $80,750 Item #16F6 STAFF TO ADVERTISE AN ORDINANCE FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 04 -125 AS AMENDED, TO REVISE THE CLASS 2 CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE & NECESSITY FOR POST - HOSPITAL INTERFACILITY TRANSPORT SERVICES Item # 16G 1 — Continued to the December 13, 2011 BCC Meeting Page 347 November 8, 2011 (Per Agenda Change Sheet) RATIFY STAFF'S AUTHORIZATION OF CHANGE ORDER #1 TO CONTRACT #06 -3969 FOR A TIME EXTENSION TO WORK ORDER #4500116917 WITH Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES TO PROCESS INVOICES FOR PHASE 2 PERMITTING WORK AT THE IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT Item #16G2 — Continued to the December 13, 2011 BCC Meeting (Per Agenda Change Sheet) RATIFY STAFF'S AUTHORIZATION OF CHANGE ORDER #2 TO CONTRACT #07 -4168 WITH PASSARELLA AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR TIME EXTENSION TO WORK ORDER #4500116918 IN ORDER TO PROCESS INVOICES FOR THE PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING WORK AT THE IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT Item #16G3 CONTRACT #11 -5642 WITH HILLER GROUP, INC. FOR PURCHASE AND DELIVERY OF AVIATION FUEL TO THE MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT, IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT, AND EVERGLADES AIRPARK — FOR A TWO (2) YEAR PERIOD WITH THE POSSIBLE RENEWAL OF THREE (3) ADDITIONAL ONE (1) YEAR PERIODS Item #16H1 A PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER, 2011 AS PANCREATIC CANCER AWARENESS MONTH. SPONSORED BY COMMISSIONER COYLE AND WILL BE MAILED TO THE Page 348 November 8, 2011 REQUESTER — ADOPTED Item #16142 COMMISSIONER HILLER'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE — ATTENDED THE MEETING OF THE NAPLES VISITORS' BUREAU ON OCTOBER 14, 2011 AT THE BAY COLONY GOLF CLUB, NAPLES, FL, $13.95 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER HILLER'S TRAVEL BUDGET Item #16113 COMMISSIONER HILLER'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE — WILL ATTEND THE 2011 CITIZENS OF THE YEAR BANQUET NOVEMBER 10, 2011 AT THE VANDERBILT COUNTRY CLUB, NAPLES, FL, $35 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER HILLER'S TRAVEL BUDGET Item # 16144 COMMISSIONER HILLER'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE — ATTENDED THE CAMPAIGN FOR LEADERSHIP SEMINAR NOVEMBER 4TH AND 5TH, 2011 AT NAPLES BOTANICAL GARDENS LOCATED AT 4820 BAYSHORE DRIVE, NAPLES FL, $75 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER HILLER'S TRAVEL BUDGET Item # 16I Page 349 November 8, 2011 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 350 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE November 8, 2011 1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED: A. Miscellaneous Correspondence: 1) North Naples Fire Control and Rescue District: Resolution 11 -027 adopting the final Millage Rate for the fiscal year 2011 -2012; Resolution 11 -028 adopting the final Impact Fee Rates for the fiscal year 2011 -2012; Resolution 11 -029 adopting the Final Budget for the fiscal year 2011 -2012 for the General Fund and the Inspection Fee Fund; Resolution 11 -030 adopting the Final Budget for the Impact Fee Fund for the fiscal year 2011 -2012; Budgets for the fiscal year 2011 -2012 for the General Fund, the Impact Fee Fund and Inspection Fee Fund; Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ended 9.30.10; District's Audit for the fiscal year ended 9.30.10; District's Map; Registered office and agent form; Schedule of regular meetings of the Board of Fire Commissioners for the 2011- 2012 fiscal year; Public Facilities Report; and Five Year Strategic Plan. November 8, 2011 Item # 16J 1 DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF OCTOBER 8, 2011 THROUGH OCTOBER 14, 2011 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD Item #I 6J2 DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF OCTOBER 15, 2011 THROUGH OCTOBER 21, 2011 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD Item # 103 DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF OCTOBER 22, 2011 THROUGH OCTOBER 28, 2011 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD Item #I 6J4 A BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING FEDERAL HHS VOTE PROGRAM GRANT AWARD 2007 FUNDS FOR VOTING ACCESSIBILITY FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES — AWARDING $9,845.07 TO COLLIER COUNTY'S SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS Item # 16J5 ENDORSING THE US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY COMBINED EQUITABLE SHARING AGREEMENT AND CERTIFICATION THROUGH SEPTEMBER 2012 Page 351 November 8, 2011 Item # 16J6 THE USE OF CONFISCATED TRUST FUNDS AND A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $305000 TO SUPPORT THE VICTIMS AND SURVIVORS OF CRIME IN THE COMMUNITY THROUGH PHASES OF TRAUMATIC CRIME OR SUDDEN LOSS — APPROPRIATING FUNDS TO SUPPORT THE PROJECT HELP CRISIS & SEXUAL ASSAULT CENTER Item # 16J7 A LETTER APPOINTING THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA CRIME STOPPERS, INC., COLLIER COUNTY'S NON - PROFIT AGENCY TO RECEIVE MONIES FROM CRIME STOPPERS TRUST FUND Item #16K1 TAX DEED APPLICATIONS FOR FIFTY -FOUR (54) COUNTY HELD TAX CERTIFICATES, PURSUANT TO § 197.502(3), FLA. STAT., AND AUTHORIZE FORWARDING A WRITTEN NOTICE TO PROCEED TO THE TAX COLLECTOR — AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item # 16K2— Moved to Item # 11 A (Per Agenda Change Sheet) Item #I 7A RESOLUTION 2011 -205: PETITION VAC- PL2011 -1271, TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY AND THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN THAT ROADWAY EASEMENT AS ORIGINALLY RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK Page 352 November 8, 2011 1089, PAGES 1257 -1263 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS /EGRESS AS ORIGINALLY RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 14, PAGES 33 THROUGH 38 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ALSO BEING LOCATED IN PART OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA BEING MORE SPECIFICALLY SHOWN IN EXHIBIT "A" Item #17B RESOLUTION 2011 -206: APPROVING AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING CARRY FORWARD, TRANSFERS AND SUPPLEMENTAL REVENUE) TO THE FY 2011 -12 ADOPTED BUDGET Page 353 November 8, 2011 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 8:26 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL 'Iu� W. Fred W. Coyle, C ATTES.Ta�r- a ROCK, CLERK -f wc These minutes app oved by the Board onTe".Q3 l3 20 I t , as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE NOTTINGHAM, KELLEY NADOTTI, and TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 354