The URL can be used to link to this page

BCC Minutes 12/13-14/2011 RBCC REGULAR MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 13 -14, 2011 December 13 -14, 2011 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, December 13 -14, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board (s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Fred Coyle Jim Coletta Donna Fiala Georgia Hiller Tom Henning ALSO PRESENT: Leo Ochs, County Manager Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Crystal Kinzel, Office of the Clerk of Courts Ian Mitchell, BCC Executive Manager Mike Sheffield, Business Operations Manager — CMO Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB) Airport Authority AGENDA Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples FL 34112 December 13, 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 BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. Page 1 December 13, 2011 REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS." PUBLIC PETITIONS ARE LIMITED TO THE PRESENTER, WITH A MAXIMUM TIME OF TEN MINUTES. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3335 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, SUITE 1, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112 -5356, (239) 252 -8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M 1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE A. Dr. Edward Thompson - First Presbyterian Church of Naples 2. AGENDA AND MINUTES A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for the consent and summary agenda) B. October 11, 2011 - BCC /Regular Meeting C. October 25, 2011 - BCC /Regular Meeting Page 2 December 13, 2011 3. D. November 8, 2011 - BCC /Regular Meeting SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS) A. ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS 1) 2) 5 Year Attendees a) b) C) d) e) f) g) h) i) D William J. Varian, Development Services Advisory Committee Robert A. Miller, Tourist Development Council Marcia Breithaupt, Animal Services Advisory Board William Deyo, Immokalee Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee Dennis Vasey, Floodplain Management Planning Committee Pierre Bruno, Floodplain Management Planning Committee Philip Brougham, Floodplain Management Planning Committee Clarence Tears, Floodplain Management Planning Committee Joseph Gagnier, Floodplain Management Planning Committee Llewellyn Schmidt, Floodplain Management Planning Committee 10 Year Attendees a) Mark Strain, Collier County Planning Commission b) Paul Midney, Collier County Planning Commission c) Richard E. Lydon, Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee Page 3 December 13, 2011 3) 15 Year Attendees a) Richard E. Joslin, Jr., Contractor's Licensing Board 4. PROCLAMATIONS A. Proclamation designating December, 2011 as Make -A -Wish Foundation Month in Collier County. To be accepted by Reg and Sandra Buxton, Make -A -Wish Foundation President's Council of Collier County. Sponsored by Commissioner Coyle. B. Proclamation recognizing Naples Christian Academy for its continued efforts to promote waste reduction, reuse, recycling and environmental awareness. To be accepted by Trusha Barner, Director of Students & Parent Services and Barbara McWilliams, Art and Middle School Teacher. Sponsored by Commissioner Henning. 5. PRESENTATIONS A. Presentation of Collier County's Business of the Month for December, 2011 to Cruise Naples. Accepting the award are Harry and Lance Julian. B. Presentation recognizing winners of the Collier County Commuter Services Day Challenge and County's designation as a "Best Workplace for Commuters ". Accepting trophies are Dennis Linguidi, Facilities Manager, Facilities Management and Robert St. Cyr, Director of Community Outreach, Clerk of Court's Office. C. Recommendation to recognize Mario Garcia, SCADA Operator, Wastewater Department, as Employee of the Month for November, 2011. 6. PUBLIC PETITIONS A. Public Petition request from John Rogers regarding the termination of Emilio Rodriguez B. Public Petition request from Kathleen Pratt regarding water /sewer billing. Page 4 December 13, 2011 Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 pm unless otherwise noted. 7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. This item to be heard immediately following Item #10L CP- 2008 -55 Petition requesting amendments to the Immokalee Area Master Plan and Immokalee Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map, to make revisions to the entire Master Plan that includes: increases to commercial acreage, industrial acreage and allowable residential density; elimination of some existing designations; creation of a new designation for the Immokalee Regional Airport site; and re- designation of approximately 103 acres to the Immokalee Urban Area from Agricultural/Rural within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area as identified on the countywide Future Land Use Map. Additionally, staff requests amendments to the Future Land Use Map and Map Series of the Future Land Use Element to show the re- designation of the 103 acres to the Immokalee Urban Area. (Adoption Hearing) B. Recommendation to adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances (Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance) amending Schedules One, Three, Four, Seven, Eight and Nine of Appendix A, the Road, Parks and Recreation, Correctional Facilities, Emergency Medical Services, Library and General Government Building Impact Fee Rate Schedules in accordance with the adopted indexing methodology, utilizing a two -year average, that provides for reduction in rates; accepting calculation of the indexing percentage for the (Dependent) Fire Impact Fees (Isles of Capri & Ochopee) in accordance with the adopted indexing methodology, utilizing a two -year average, but providing current (Dependent) Fire Impact Fee rates remain in effect, provided in Schedule Five of Appendix A, rather than increasing the fees as calculated; accepting calculation of the indexing percentage for the Educational Facilities (School) Impact Fees in accordance with the adopted indexing methodology, utilizing a two -year average, but providing that current Educational Facilities (School) Impact Fee rates remain in effect, as set forth in Schedule Six of Appendix A, as those rates are lower than the rates that would be generated by the application of the index, based on the 50% reduction of fees that was implemented in October, 2010; accepting calculation of the indexing percentages for the Law Enforcement Impact Page 5 December 13, 2011 Fee in accordance with adopted indexing methodology, utilizing a two -year average, but providing that Phase II Law Enforcement Impact Fee rates will go into effect on December 20, 2011, as previously advertised and adopted, as Phase 11 rates are lower than those that would be generated by the application of the index; and providing for a delayed effective date of December 20, 2011, in order to provide time for filing with the Florida Department of State and to notify local municipalities of the new rates. 9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS A. Appointment of a member to the Consumer Advisory Board. B. Appointment of a member to the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee. C. Appointment of a member to the Radio Road East of Santa Barbara Boulevard to Davis Boulevard MSTU Advisory Committee. D. Appointment of a member to the Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency. E. Appointment of members to the Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisory Committee and consideration to add an alternate member to the committee. F. Appointment of members to the Emergency Medical Services Policy Advisory Board. G. Appointment of members to the Development Services Advisory Committee. H. Appointment of members to the Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee. I. Appointment of a member to the Collier County Planning Commission. J. Appointment of members to the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board. Page 6 December 13, 2011 K. This item was continued from the November 8, 2011 BCC Meetinz Recommendation to approve a Resolution acknowledging the Board of County Commissioners support of Senate Bill 192 pertaining to amending procedures for merger and dissolution of two or more independent special districts. (Commissioner Henning) L. Discussion regarding the mesh size of fishing nets for local fishermen and a proposal to write a letter of support to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission supporting the ability for fishermen to use whatever mesh necessary to harvest legal, marketable fish. (Commissioner Coletta) M. Discussion to consider the possibility of conducting a workshop in January, 2012 with the Collier County Board of County Commissioners, Emergency Medical Services, and the Fire Chiefs of the three Independent Fire Departments. (Commissioner Coletta and Commissioner Fiala) N. Request for the Board of County Commissioners to amend Ordinance No. 2009 -01, as amended, that created the Emergency Medical Services Policy Advisory Board by changing the category definition for one of the five members that compose the Advisory Board. (Ian Mitchell, Executive Manager to the BCC) O. Request for reconsideration of Item #16B3 from the October 25, 2011 BCC Meeting titled "Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve transfer of administrative and management duties for the Immokalee Beautification Municipal Service Taxing Unit from Growth Management staff to Immokalee Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) staff to become effective October 1, 2011; direct Budget Office to discontinue the annual transfer of funds from the Immokalee Beautification MSTU (Fund 162) to the MSTD General Fund (Fund 111), and that the Collier County Board of County Commissioners, acting as the Community Redevelopment Agency authorize the creation of a Full Time Employee position (MSTU Project Manager) for FY12; authorize the Executive Director to advertise the position; hire a qualified applicant; and approve necessary budget amendment. (Commissioner Henning) P. Request for reconsideration of Item #I 7B from the October 25, 2011 BCC Meeting titled "Recommendation to adopt an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2002 -52, which established the Immokalee Beautification Page 7 December 13, 2011 Advisory Committee, in order to allow the Immokalee Community Redevelopment Agency, through its Executive Director, to assume administrative and management duties of the Immokalee Beautification Municipal Service Taxing Unit such as employing staff to assist the Committee. (Commissioner Henning) Q. Advisory Board Vacancies. 10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT A. Recommendation to approve a Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) Strategy and associated implementation actions. (Marla Ramsey, Division Administrator, Public Services) B. This item to be heard at 10:45 a.m. Recommendation to accept findings of the independent legal review of the county's current purchasing policy and direct staff to return with an ordinance to adopt the proposed revisions. (Len Price, Administrative Services Administrator) C. Recommendation to direct the County Manager or his designee to advertise an Ordinance amending the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, Ordinance No. 2001 -13, as amended, to incorporate a provision clarifying the imposition of Water and Sewer Impact Fees on geographic areas within the Collier County Water -Sewer District until such time when connection to the regional water and/or sewer system is anticipated within a ten -year period as identified by the most current Public Utilities Water and Wastewater Master Plan Updates and the Annual Update and Inventory Report. (George Yilmaz, Public Utilities Interim Administrator) D. Recommendation to approve an exception to the Public Utilities Division's procedure for adjustments to customer accounts to correct existing reclaimed water billing items, and to direct the County Manager or his designee to implement staff's recommended actions. (George Yilmaz, Public Utilities Interim Administrator) E. Recommendation to for the Board of County Commissioners to accept the Watershed Management Plan (WMP) and direct the County Manager or Designee to implement the WMP Initiatives utilizing existing Staff and Page 8 December 13, 2011 Budget. (Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator, Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation) F. Recommendation to accept a project management plan for the development of a Surface Water Management Business Plan that will be the guiding document for the future County Surface Water Management Program and direct the County Manager or designee to execute the plan. (Gerald Kurtz, P.E. Principal Project Manager, Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation) G. Request that the Board of County Commissioners provide direction on moving forward with the proposed Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) amendments, as appropriated in the 2011 Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), adopted by the BCC January 31, 2011. (Mike Bosi, Comprehensive Planning Manager, Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation) H. This item to be heard at 1:00 p.m. A report to the Board of County Commissioners concerning the results of the Immokalee Mobile Home Park Assessment. (Ray Bellows, Planning Manager, Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation) I. This item to be heard immediately followinm Item #10H. Recommendation to accept the Code Enforcement Department's process for settlement agreements for Immokalee mobile home parks that have appropriate zoning. (Diane Flagg, Director, Code Enforcement, Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation) J. Recommendation to review the procurement of services of Suncoast Moving & Storage, Inc. for moving the County Property Appraiser's Office in July, 2010 and make a determination regarding request for final payment in the amount of $6,556.50. (Len Price, Administrative Services Administrator) K. Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute a Partial Release of Conservation Easement to the South Florida Water Management District in connection with the Vanderbilt Beach Restroom & Concession Project. (Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management Director) 11. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT Page 9 December 13, 2011 A. Recommendation to authorize the County Attorney to advertise amendments to two ordinances for future consideration, relating to public solicitation of contributions and the issuance of permits for charitable solicitation at road intersections. 12. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS A. This item to be heard at 4:00 p.m. Recommendation to consider the Sheriff's request to adopt a Resolution extending the one -year moratorium on the establishment of new pain management clinics within Collier County until December 20, 2012 while the County Attorney's Office and staff, working with the Sheriff and other community partners, analyze the need and bring back to the Board at a future advertised public meeting, an Ordinance that restricts or regulates pain management clinics. 13. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND /OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY A. AIRPORT AUTHORITY 1) Recommendation to approve utilizing $202,800 from Immokalee Development Fund 497 to purchase 3.38 Wetland Credits from Southwest Florida Wetlands JV (d/b /a Panther Island Mitigation Bank) required for the next phase of development at the Immokalee Regional Airport, and associated Budget Amendments. 2) Recommendation to approve a Collier County Airport Authority Standard Form Lease Agreement between the Collier County Airport Authority and Salazar Machine & Steel, Inc. for a parcel improved with a 20,000 square -foot building at Immokalee's Regional Airport. B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1) Request authorization to advertise an ordinance for future consideration which would amend Ordinance No. 2002 -38, as amended, "Collier County Redevelopment Grant Program Ordinance" by establishing a residential infrastructure grant program for the Immokalee Community Redevelopment Area. Page 10 December 13, 2011 2) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) to approve and execute a Commercial Building Improvement Grant Agreement between the CRA and a grant applicant in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle area. (2068 Davis Boulevard: $6,752.50) 14. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS 15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS 16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately. A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION 1) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and drainage improvements for the final plat of Classic Plantation Estates Phase Four with roadway and drainage improvements being privately maintained and authorize release of the maintenance security. 2) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and drainage improvements for the final plat of White Lake Corporate Park Phase Two with roadway and drainage improvements being privately maintained and authorize release of the maintenance security. 3) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway and drainage improvements for the final plat of City Gate Commerce Center, Phase Two, within Tract `A' of City Gate Commerce Center Phase One with the roadway and drainage improvements being privately maintained and authorize release of the maintenance security; and accept Plat Dedications. 4) Recommendation This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Page 11 December 13, 2011 Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Arthrex Commerce Park, approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security. 5) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners reinstate the Conditional Use for the Bethesda Corkscrew Seventh Day Adventist Church, Resolution Number 02 -161, which expired March 26, 2005 pursuant to Section 10.08.00.E.1 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) that provides a three year expiration date from the date the conditional use was granted if the use has not commenced. 6) This item is continued from the September 13, 2011 BCC Meeting. PMC- PL2011 -872: Heavenly PUD — Notification of staff's intent to approve a minor amendment to Heavenly Planned Unit Development in accordance with LDC Sections 10.02.13.E.6 and 8 to change location and type of plantings and to revise buffer standards to reduce the height of trees and plantings due to site conditions and conflicts with FPL lines, and to allow payment in lieu of sidewalks instead of construction of a sidewalk along Myrtle Road from North Trail Boulevard to the project entrance. The property is located at 6926 Trail Boulevard, and comprises the entire block bounded by Ridge Drive, West Street, Myrtle Road and Trail Boulevard in Section 3, Township 49 South, Range 25 East of Collier County, Florida. 7) Recommendation to reject an offer to settle a $59,281.15 Code Enforcement lien for a payment of $5,000. 8) Recommendation to award Bid #12 -5805 for "US 41 North (Tamiami Trail) from Seagate Drive to Immokalee Road Landscape Maintenance" to Commercial Land Maintenance. The annual expenditures are estimated to be $98,345.65. 9) Recommendation to approve an Amended Easement that incorporates additional terms into the Deed of Conservation to the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) that was approved by the Page 12 December 13, 2011 Board on October 9, 2007 for the Freedom Park. 10) Recommendation to approve an Amended Easement that incorporates additional terms into the Deed of Conservation Easement to the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) that was approved by the Board on September 23, 2008 for the Lely Mitigation Park. 11) Recommendation for Board approval of Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc. as the design professional for "Professional Design and Oversight Services for Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project: 1) County Barn Road, 2) Wingsouth, and 3) Project Close Out" pursuant to RFP #11 -5751, and authorize staff to enter into negotiations with Agnoli, Barber & Brundage Inc., LASIP Project #51101. 12) Recommendation to accept a State of Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Roadway Lighting System Maintenance Agreement for maintenance of FDOT owned Roadway Lighting Systems to be maintained by the Traffic Operations Section of the Transportation Engineering Department for the SR84Project (Davis Boulevard) from Santa Barbara Boulevard to just west of Radio Road. FDOT Financial Aid Project #195416- 4 -52 -01 and authorize the Chairman to execute the agreement. 13) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to authorize the Clerk of Courts to release a security which was posted as a development guaranty by Lely Development Corporation. 14) Recommendation to approve the release of lien in the Code Enforcement Action entitled Board of County Commissioners vs. James K. Towne and Deborah B. Towne, Code Enforcement Special Magistrate Case No. CEPM- 2008 - 0016337, relating to property located at 4419 18th Avenue SW, Collier County, Florida. 15) Recommendation to approve the release of lien in the Code Enforcement Action entitled Board of County Commissioners vs. Alba R. Licci, CEB Case No. CESD- 2009 - 0007768, relating to property at 2395 39th Avenue N.E., Collier County, Florida. Page 13 December 13, 2011 16) Recommendation to approve a release of lien in Code Enforcement Action entitled Board of County Commissioners vs. Jack and Emma Mae Barrs, CEB Case No. 2002 -008, relating to property at 2990 Sunset Boulevard, Collier County, Florida. 17) Recommendation to approve revisions to the Golden Gate City Roadway Beautification Master Plan. 18) Recommendation to award Bid #11-5700 for "Devonshire Boulevard Landscape & Irrigation Refurbishment Project" to Hannula Landscaping & Irrigation, Inc., in an 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. 19) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by- Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation the Board of County Commissioners (Board) accept a process to review past Staff Clarifications and Official Interpretations of the Land Development and Building Codes and to accept specific Staff Clarifications and Official Interpretations in this Executive Summary. (Official Interpretations are quasi-judicial.) 20) Recommendation to approve a Resolution authorizing submittal of Federal Transit Administration Section 5310 and 5311 FY 2012/13 grant applications and applicable documents in the amounts of $544,872 and $569,600 to the Florida Department of Transportation and execute the FDOT Certification and Assurance Exhibit. 21) Recommendation to approve issuance of a building permit prior to approval of a Planned Unit Development Rezone and Site Development Plan Amendment for a twenty -five thousand square -foot classroom and office addition to existing Community School of Naples, not to exceed the same existing upper school building height of thirty -two feet. 22) Recommendation to approve and execute Amendment No. 3 to Agreement #BDM59 (Medicaid Non - Emergency Transportation Services) between Collier County and the Commission for the Page 14 December 13, 2011 Transportation Disadvantaged to increase State FY 11/12 Medicaid funds in the amount $64,591, a Resolution in support of and authorize a budget amendment for the amount. 23) Recommendation to accept the offer to settle seven (7) foreclosure cases for payment of principal (waiving accrued interest) on Impact Fee Deferral Liens at the Botanical Place Condominium. 24) Recommendation to direct the County Manager, or his designee, to suspend collection of Affordable Housing Contributions, pending the Board's decision on a Land Development Code (LDC) Amendment to remove Affordable Housing Contribution commitments. 25) Recommendation to adopt an established policy of Florida Department of Transportation to allow placement of internationally recognized and accepted markers along County Roadways to memorialize people who have died in vehicle related crashes. 26) Recommendation to approve the third amendment to the cooperative agreement with the South Florida Water Management District, Agreement No. C- 11759, regarding operation and maintenance of designated primary watercourses in Collier County, modifying the agreement terms and extending the term until September 30, 2024. 27) Recommendation to reject Bid #12 -5801 for construction of the Collier Area Transit Intermodal Transfer Station. B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1) Recommendation that the Board recognize via budget amendment grant revenue in the amount of $2,709,150 for the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) to execute CDBG Grant Award # l ODB-D4-09-2 1 -01 -K09 in FF 12 for the Tertiary Stormwater System Improvement Project in the Gateway Triangle Residential Area. 2) Recommendation to approve a Resolution certifying Statutory dedication and acceptance of portions of South First Street through South Ninth Street, South Sixth Court, Boston, Colorado, Delaware Page 15 December 13, 2011 and West Eustis Avenues, all located in Immokalee, Florida, also being a part of Section 4, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, by virtue of the County's continuous and uninterrupted maintenance of the roadways in excess of seven years and authorize the filing of a right -of -way map more specifically shown in Resolution Exhibit "A ". (Fiscal Impact: $53.50) C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION 1) Recommendation to approve a Utility Easement from Collier County to Collier County's Water -Sewer District for Irrigation Quality (IQ) Water pipeline and associated infrastructure including electrical panel, meter assembly, electrical conduit and for access on, over and across a portion of Government Center property located off Palm Drive and Harrison Road in Naples, FL, an estimated cost not to exceed $20.00, Project #70062. 2) Recommendation to approve conveyance of a Utility Easement to the Collier County Water -Sewer District for construction and maintenance of water and wastewater utilities at the North Collier Recycling Drop -off Center, and approve a Corrective Easement to FP &L, at a cost not to exceed $166.00. 3) Recommendation to reject Bid #11 -5717, "Sewage Hauling" from Southern Sanitation, Inc., and authorize staff to issue a modified Invitation to Bid. 4) Recommendation to approve execution of a Utility Facilities Warranty Deed and Bill of Sale to convey the water utilities infrastructure at the Collier County Landfill to the Collier County Water -Sewer District, at a cost not to exceed $61.00. 5) Recommendation to approve a Settlement Agreement between the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the Board of County Commissioners to receive a $61,693.96 payment under a contract for the disposal of reclaimed waste from the Isles of Capri Park Project. Page 16 December 13, 2011 6) Recommendation to approve the Satisfaction of Lien for the 1995 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments where the County has received payment in full for satisfaction of the lien. (Fiscal Impact: $20.00 to record the Satisfaction of Lien) 7) Recommendation to approve, execute and record Satisfactions of Notice of Claim of Lien for Sanitary Sewer System Impact Fees. (Fiscal impact: $67.00 to record the Satisfactions of Lien) 8) Recommendation to approve the Satisfaction of a Notice of Promise to Pay and agreement to extend payment of water and/or sewer system impact fees. (Fiscal impact: $18.50 to record the Satisfaction of Lien) 9) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution requesting an Access Easement and Temporary Construction Easement from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) for the valid public purpose of providing access, facilitating upgrades and for the rehabilitation of Wastewater Master Pumping Station 312 (MPS 312), to accept the easements from FDOT, and approve an Access Easement from Collier County to FDOT to provide access to the FDOT -owned Stormwater Retention Pond lying contiguous to MPS 312, for a total cost not to exceed $150.00, Project Number 72549. 10) Recommendation to approve acquisition of a Temporary Construction Easement, for improvements to existing drainage, and a Utility Easement for installation of a new water line for fire protection, for and as part of the rehabilitation of Master Pumping Station 312, for a total cost not to exceed $3,646.00, Project Number 72549. 11) Recommendation to approve a Utility Easement from Collier County to the Collier County Water -Sewer District for Reclaimed Water pipeline and associated infrastructure including electrical panel, meter assembly, electrical conduit, telemetry tower and for access on, over and across a portion of Vineyards Park property located off Vanderbilt Beach Road along Vineyards Boulevard in Naples, Florida at an estimated cost not to exceed $40.00, Project Number 70062. 12) Recommendation to direct the County Manager or his designee to amend Ordinance No. 2003 -18, the Collier County Industrial Page 17 December 13, 2011 Pretreatment Ordinance, to conform with the US Environmental Protection Agency Model Pretreatment Ordinance as required by Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 13) Recommendation to approve an Agreement with Adam J. Piskadlo and Barbara K. Piskadlo for the purchase of property for relocation of Sub - Master Pumping Station 300.06 at a cost not to exceed $78,000, Project Number 70046. 14) Recommendation to ratify a Letter Agreement with Golf Club of the Everglades to defer payment of water and wastewater impact fees pending the Board of County Commissioner's review and decision on the proposed ordinance amendment to update areas exempt from payment of water and wastewater impact fees scheduled to go to the Board for direction to advertise on December 13, 2011. 15) Recommendation to waive competition and authorize use of non- standard sole - source vendor, Heyward, Inc., and approve a test application of Weatherford Sulfa - Clear, in the not to exceed amount of $80,210, for South County Regional Water Treatment Plant Odor Control Blow -down Disposal Project Number 70020. 16) Recommendation to approve and execute a Notice of Promise to Pay and Agreement to Extend Payment of Wastewater System Impact and associated fees with Kampgrounds of America, Inc., for a payment plan amount of $155,772.49. D. PUBLIC SERVICES DIVISION 1) To approve and authorize the Chairman to sign amendments to agreements between Collier County and Subrecipients for operation of the Criminal Justice, Mental Health and Substance Abuse Grant Program to change the term and expiration date to February 23, 2014 to coincide with the expiration date of the funding agreement between Collier County and FL Department of Children & Families. (DCF) 2) Recommendation to approve Collier County's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) and Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) Consolidated Annual Page 18 December 13, 2011 Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) for Fiscal Year 2010- 2011 as required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), approve the CAPER Resolution, authorize the Chairman to certify the CAPER for submission to HUD and to sign the resolution. 3) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign one (1) satisfaction of mortgage for an owner- occupied affordable housing unit in which repayment in full has been provided to Collier County. 4) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign two (2) releases of lien for deferral of Collier County impact fees for owner occupied affordable housing dwelling units that have been repaid and authorize refund of overpayment in the amount of $23.52 to Tropical Title Insurance Agency, Inc. 5) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign two (2) lien agreements for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for owner occupied affordable housing dwelling units located in Collier County. Approval of this item transfers previously approved deferral agreements from Habitat for Humanity of Collier County to owner occupants with a continuing fiscal impact of $28,572.93. 6) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a release of lien for the Disaster Recovery Initiative Single Family Rehabilitation Program for an applicant determined to be ineligible but for which no funds were disbursed. 7) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign Memorandums of Understanding with the Southwest Florida Workforce Development Board, Inc. for delivery of the Century Community Learning Centers programs "Miracle Plus 1 and Miracle Plus 2 Program." 8) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign one (1) Subrecipient Agreement for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) with City of Naples, previously approved for Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) funding in the Page 19 December 13, 2011 2011 -12 Action Plan, approved July 26, 2011. (Agenda Item #I OH) 9) Recommendation to authorize the Chairman to sign two (2) Subrecipient Agreements for Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funded Continuum of Care Grant (CoQ projects that were presented to and approved by the Board April 12, 2011. 10) Recommendation to award Bid #11-5778R to Cheney Brothers Inc., to provide concession food re -sale and food - related paper products at North Collier Regional Park at the estimated FYI 1 -12 cost $100,000. 11) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a contract amendment between the Collier County Board of County Commissioners and the Area Agency on Aging of Southwest Florida, Inc., d/b /a Senior Choices of Southwest Florida and approve a budget summary revision that reflects a level transfer of grant funding in the amount of $5,172 between budget categories for the FYI 1/12 Home Care for the Elderly (HCE) Program. 12) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign the "Certification for Implementation of Regulatory Reform Activities Required by S.H.I.P" and reports for fiscal years 2006/07, 2007/08, and 2008/09 and authorize submission to Florida Housing Finance Corporation to ensure compliance with program requirements 13) Recommendation to approve an amendment to the Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re- Housing Program (HPRP) Administrative Plan allowing participating agencies to provide short term assistance to individuals and families who are homeless or at risk of being homeless up to a maximum of $2,500.00. E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION 1) Recommendation to award contracts under RFP #11 -5735, "On Call IT Project Management," to Executive Alliance Group, Inc., EMA, Inc., RNR Consulting, and Golden Technologies, funded by appropriated operating funds from county departments to provide information technology (IT) skills and services as needed. Page 20 December 13, 2011 2) Recommendation to award contracts under RFP #11 -5606, "Telecommunications Voice and Data Services" to CenturyLink and US Metropolitan Telecom, LLC., at the annual estimated cost of $161,580, to provide voice and data communications services. 3) Recommendation to award a contract for RFP #11 -5689 Property and Casualty Brokerage and Insurance Services to Insurance and Risk Management Services Inc. (IRMS) in the estimated annual amount of $125,000 per year, a $63,375.00 reduction. 4) Recommendation to approve the Collier County Employee Benefit Plan Document and Resolution, effective January 1, 2012 to be used to administer Group Health Insurance and Flexible Spending Reimbursement Account Programs. 5) Recommendation to approve the purchase of Group Health Reinsurance coverage for Calendar Year 2012 in the amount of $638,387, a reduction of 7.7 %. 6) This item was continued from the November 8, 2011 BCC Meeting 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 $88,425.00. 7) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign an Assumption Agreement from Genuine Parts Company d/b /a NAPA Auto Parts to NAPA Auto Parts d/b /a Sunbelt Automotive, Inc., for parts and filters for fleet vehicles and equipment. 8) Recommendation to approve and execute a First Amendment to the Lease Agreement with Goodwill Industries of Southwest Florida, Inc., for continued use of the Robert's Center in Immokalee for the Housing, Human and Veterans Service's Senior Nutrition Program at an annual rent cost of $13,498.37. Funds for this rent will be paid from the Older American's Act grant funding. 9) Recommendation to approve waiver of competition based on a sole - source vendor and award a contract with eCivis, Inc., for a multi -year Page 21 December 13, 2011 subscription to eCivis Grants Network in an annual amount not to exceed $37,168.75. 10) Recommendation to accept the FY 2011 Grant Report providing an annual update of grant funding activity. 11) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign an Assumption Agreement from Parts Depot, Inc. to Uni- Select USA, Inc. d/b /a Auto -Plus for parts and filters for fleet vehicles and equipment. 12) Recommendation to accept Modification No. 7 to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS) Cooperative Agreement No. 401815J021, which revises the USFWS Project Officer on the agreement. 13) Recommendation to approve payment of invoice to Bonness, Inc., dated September 9, 2011, in the amount of $2,400 for safety improvements to a crossing at Shadowlawn Elementary School. 14) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign an Assumption Agreement from Kilpatrick Turf Equipment, Inc. to Horizon Distributors, Inc. for sublet /parts for Collier County. 15) Recommendation to accept reports and ratify staff - approved change orders and changes to work orders. F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS 1) This item continued from the November 8, 2011 BCC Meeting 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 a cost of $80,750.00. 2) Recommendation to approve invoice and the final reimbursement payment to the State of Florida in the amount of $108,684.42, representing dollars not expended from the Hurricane Charley total funding received of $1,882,777.68 and approve the necessary budget amendment. Page 22 December 13, 2011 3) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments (appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds) to the Fiscal Year 2011 -12 Adopted Budget. 4) Recommendation to approve award of Bid #11-5754 to Phase V of Southwest Florida, Inc. for Tourism Fulfillment Services and authorize the Chairman to sign Agreement #11-5754 to include a revised termination notification period of sixty (60) days following County Attorney Office approval. 5) Recommendation to approve the award of RFP #11-5725 to Lou Hammond and Associates, Inc. for Tourism Public Relations Services and authorize the Chairman to sign Agreement #11-5725 in an amount of $152,000 annually to include a revised termination notification period of sixty (60) days following County Attorney Office approval. 6) Recommendation to approve a Memorandum of Understanding between Collier County and First United Methodist Church of Immokalee in support of Emergency Management activities related to natural and man -made hazards emergency response. 7) Recommendation to authorize the County Manager or his designee to advertise an ordinance for future consideration that amends Ordinance No. 2004 -12, as amended, for the purpose of revising the Class 2 Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for post- hospital inter - facility transport services. 8) Request for authorization to advertise and bring back for future consideration an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 92 -60, as amended, the Collier County Tourist Development Tax Ordinance, to re- allocate until payment has been made to Marco Island Historical Society, Inc. $100,000, from TDC Category "C -2" Non County - Owned Museums Fund 193 to Category C -1 County -Owned Museums Fund 198 to reimburse the Marco Island Historical Society, Inc. for their FY 10 Grant. G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY Page 23 December 13, 2011 1) Authorized Budget Amendments in the amount of $16,500 for repairs to the fuel farm at Everglades Airpark required by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2) Recommendation to approve and ratify Staff s authorization of Change Order #I for a time extension to Q. Grady Minor and Associates, PA Work Order #4500116917 to process invoices for Phase 2 permitting work at the Immokalee Regional Airport. 3) Recommendation to approve and ratify Staff s authorization of Change Order #2 to Passarella and Associates, Inc. Work Order #4500116918 for a time extension to process invoices for Phase II environmental permitting work at the Immokalee Regional Airport. 4) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, acting in its capacity as the Collier County Airport Authority, approves and authorizes its Chairman to sign a First Amendment to the T- Hangar Lease Agreement with Exec. Air, Inc. of Naples, High Soaring Inc., and Aircraft Maintenance of Southwest Florida. H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1) Commissioner Hiller requests Board approval for reimbursement regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose. She attended the Ave Maria School of Law Annual Fall Gala on November 19, 2011 at the Ritz - Carlton, Naples, Florida; $130 to be paid from Commissioner Hiller's travel budget. 2) Commissioner Hiller requests Board approval for reimbursement regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose. She will attend the 7th Annual Gala and Auction for the Foundation for the Developmentally Disabled on February 11, 2012 at Hodges University, Naples, FL.; $50 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. She attended Wake Up Naples sponsored by the Chamber on Page 24 December 13, 2011 October 10, 2011 at the Naples Hilton, Naples, FL; $20 to be paid from Commissioner Hiller's travel budget. 4) Commissioner Henning requests Board approval for reimbursement regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose. He attended the Southwest Florida Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Networking Luncheon on November 9, 2011 at Senor Tequila's, 26801 South Tamiami Trail, Bonita Springs, FL; $16 to be paid from Commissioner Henning's travel budget. 5) Commissioner Henning requests Board approval for reimbursement regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose. He attended the Collier County President's Council Holiday Reception on December 9, 2011 at the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce. 2390 Tamiami Trail North, Naples, FL; $12 to be paid from Commissioner Henning's travel budget. 6) Commissioner Henning requests Board approval for reimbursement regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose. He attended the 2012 CBIA Installation Dinner on December 8, 2011 at Olde Cypress, 7165 Treeline Dr., Naples, FL; $30 to be paid from Commissioner Henning's travel budget. 7) Commissioner Henning requests Board approval for reimbursement regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose. He attended the Big Cypress Basin Holiday Lunch on December 9, 2011 at the Big Cypress Basin Training Center, Naples, FL; $10 to be paid from Commissioner Henning's travel budget. 8) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose. She attended the 29th Annual NAACP Freedom Fund Banquet on October 29, 2011 at the Naples Hilton Hotel in Naples, FL;. $75 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget. 9) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose. She attended the United Arts Council's Patriotic Salute to the Arts Page 25 December 13, 2011 on November 12, 2011 at the von Liebig Art Center in Naples, FL; $38 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget. 10) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose. She attended the Marco Island Area Association of Realtor's 36th Annual Installation Banquet on December 9, 2011 at the Hideaway Beach Club in Marco Island, FL; $35 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget. 11) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose. She attended the Naples Kiwanis Luncheon on November 22, 2011; $17 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget. 12) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose. She attended the United Arts Council's Holiday Party on December 3, 2011; $28 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget. 13) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose. He attended the 2011 Citizens of the Year Banquet on November 10, 2011 at the Vanderbilt Country Club, Naples, FL; $35 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget. 14) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose. He attended the Helen Bell Panel Discussion and Luncheon at The Ritz - Carlton Golf Resort, Naples, FL on November 9, 2011; $125 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget. 15) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose. He attended the 2011 Distinguished Public Service Awards Ceremony at the Naples Hilton on October 12, 2011; $20 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget. Page 26 December 13, 2011 16) Commissioner's request for Board approval to attend a function serving a Valid Public Purpose, the Florida Association of Counties Legislative Conference. 17) Commissioner's request for Board approval to attend a function serving a Valid Public Purpose, the Florida Association of Counties Legislative Day in Tallahassee. I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE 1) Miscellaneous Correspondence to File for Record with Action as Directed. 2) Advisory Board Minutes and Agendas to File for Record with Action as Directed. J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS 1) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign an agreement authorizing the Collier County Sheriff's Office to have Traffic Control Jurisdiction over Private Roads within the Ibis Cove Subdivision. 2) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of October 29, 2011 through November 4, 2011 and for submission into the official records for the Board. 3) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of November 5, 2011 through November 11, 2011 and for submission into the official records of the Board. 4) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of November 12, 2011 through November 18, 2011 and for submission into the official records of the Board. 5) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of November 19, 2011 through November 25, 2011 and for submission into the official records of the Board. Page 27 December 13, 2011 K. COUNTY ATTORNEY 1) Resolution to correct a scrivener's error resulting from a typographical error in Resolution Number 2011 -177 (Development Order 2011 -04), for the Tuscany Reserve Development of Regional Impact. 2) Approve an Agreed Order Awarding Expert Fees and Attorney Fees and Costs in connection with Parcel 27T in the lawsuit styled Board of County Commissioners v. Collier HMA, Inc., et al., Case No. 06- 0013-CA, CR -951 Water Transmission Mains Project #70152. (Fiscal Impact: $92,701) 3) Authorize the making of an Offer of Judgment to Respondent, Katheryn Moreno, for Parcel No. 140RDUE in the amount of $7,000 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Katheryn Moreno, et al., Case No. 10- 2741 -CA. (Collier Boulevard Project No. 68056) (Fiscal Impact $1,200) 4) Recommendation to Authorize the Making of an Offer of Judgment to Respondent, Naples Estates Limited Partnership, for Parcel 101 in the amount of $368,000 in the Lawsuit Styled Collier County v. Naples Estates Limited Partnership, et al., Case No. 06- 1213 -CA, County Barn Road Project #60101. (Fiscal Impact: $35,600 if accepted) 5) Recommendation to approve a Mediated Settlement Agreement and a Stipulated Final Judgment to be drafted incorporating the same terms and conditions as the Mediated Settlement Agreement in the amount of $301,000 for Parcels 110FEE and 110TCE in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. A L Subs, Inc., et al., Case No. 09- 3691 -CA, Collier Boulevard Project #60092. (Fiscal Impact: $253,023) 6) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment in the amount of $35,650 for Parcels 111FEE and I I ITCE in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. A L Subs, Inc., et al., Case No. 09- 3691 -CA, Collier Boulevard Project #60092. (Fiscal Impact: $0 at this time). 7) Recommendation to approve a Mediated Settlement Agreement in the sum of $65,000 and direct the County Attorney to file all documents necessary to end with prejudice the lawsuit styled Adonis Page 28 December 13, 2011 Martinez v. Collier County Board of County Commissioners, Case No. 2: 1 0-cv-599-JES-DNF, now pending in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division. (Fiscal Impact: $65,000) 8) Recommendation to authorize the County Attorney to file a lawsuit on behalf of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners, against Reginald Devose, in the County Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida, to recover damages incurred by the County for repair and /or replacement to a traffic sign and a light pole damaged by Reginald Devose in the amount of $3,038.40, plus costs of litigation. 9) Approve a request by the Collier County Tax Collector, pursuant to Section 197.323, F.S., to extend the Tax Roll before the completion of Value Adjustment Board Hearings for the 2011 Tax Year. 10) Recommendation to authorize the County Attorney to file a lawsuit on behalf of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners, against Jeffrey Lillard, in the County Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida, to recover damages incurred by the County for repair and/or replacement to a light pole damaged by Jeffrey Lillard, in the amount of $2,489.75 plus costs of litigation. 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. Recommendation to approve a resolution allowing the Collier County Page 29 December 13, 2011 Water -Sewer District to expand the water and wastewater service district boundaries to include portions of the development known as Hacienda Lakes, and surrounding areas, that are currently outside the existing boundaries. B. This item is requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by the Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve Petition VAC- PL2011 -1021, to disclaim, renounce and vacate the County and the Public interest in all or part of the 10, 15 and 30 -foot wide Roadway Easements as originally recorded in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, located in Sections 13, 145 23 and 24, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County Florida being more specifically shown in Exhibits "A -1 through A -12 ". C. This item_ requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. CU- PL2011 -0855, NABOR Building, a Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida providing for the establishment of a conditional use to allow a religious facility and/or civic, social and fraternal organization within a C -1 zoning district pursuant to Subsections 2.03.03.A. 1.c.4 and 2.03.03.A. 1.c.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code for property located north of Pine Ridge Road and east of Goodlette Frank Road in Section 10, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, RLA, Principal Planner] D. 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 30 December 13, 2011 December 13-14,2011 MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, the Board of County Commission meeting is now in session. Would you -all stand, please, for the invocation and Pledge of Allegiance. But first Commissioner Hiller will ask for recognition of the loss of one of our advisory board members recently. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you very much, Commissioner Coyle. I'd like to ask that all of us take a minute to remember Bud Martin who recently died. He served our community for ten years as a member of the Vanderbilt MSTU and was a tremendous volunteer to the county. He died tragically last week. Item #I INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE DR. THOMPSON: Let us pray. Oh, Holy and Majestic God, we gather today seeking the prompting of your spirit for the welfare of our county, its people, and all its life. Bless our commissioners charged to oversee the many and varied aspects of our life together, help them at all times to be wise stewards of our beautiful yet fragile environment, encourage them as they seek to be sure that we have the resources to provide for the health and the safety of all who live in our county. We give thanks for the safety and security of our county, especially the Emergency Medical Services and all such personnel. We give thanks for all in education, the learning from "Ph" to practice, from theory to experience, from pre- school to post - graduate school, and everything in between. Oh, Holy God, for the work of the county commissioners we pray for their day -to -day responsibility for wise governance, grant Page 2 December 13-14,2011 them energy, imagination, and a godly measure of good sense and good wit. In the mystery and the wonder of this holy season of advent, bless those who wait expectantly for your presence and bless all in our county who, in their own particular worship tradition, call upon your grace and goodness. Today, especially, we remember the life of Bud Martin for his involvement in the life of our county. We give you thanks. Bless us all in the ordinariness of our daily life and enable us at all times and in all places to care for our neighbor and to do the most as we watch out for the least. To you, oh, Holy God, we offer this our prayer. Amen. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Dr. Edward Thompson, of the Presbyterian Church of Naples. Thank you. Please join us in the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Item #2A APPROVAL OF TODAY'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA AS AMENDED - APPROVED AND /OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES County Manager, if you'll go through the agenda changes for us, please. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Good morning, Commissioners. These are the proposed agenda changes for the Board of County Commissioners' meeting of December 13, 2011. The first proposed change is to continue Item 9K to the January 101 2012, meeting. That continuance is at the request of Commissioner Henning. The next proposed change is to move Item 16A4 to become Item Page 3 December 13 -14, 2011 I OP on your regular agenda this morning. That change is made at Commissioner Hiller's request. The next proposed change is to move Item 16A16 from your consent agenda to become Item 100 on your regular agenda. That change is made at Commissioner Hiller's request. The next change proposed is to move Item 16A 19 to become Item l OL on your regular agenda. This move was requested by Commissioner Henning. Commissioner Hiller also had a separate recommendation on this item, and perhaps the board would like to discuss that before you finalize the changes to your agenda. The next proposed change is to move Item 16A21 to become Item ION on your regular agenda. That move is made at Commissioner Hiller's request. The next proposed change is to move Item 16A24 from your consent agenda to become Item 10M on your regular agenda. That change is requested by Commissioner Hiller. The next proposed change is to continue Item 16A26 from your consent agenda to be moved to the January 24, 2012, BCC meeting agenda, and that change is made at the staffs request in order to address concerns from property owners along the affected canals that are subjects of the agreement. The next proposed change is to move Item 16B2 from your consent agenda to become Item 13B3 on your regular agenda. That move is made at Commissioner Hiller's request. The next proposed change is to delete Item 16C 13 from the agenda. This request is made by the staff due to a reconsideration of a sale of property by the affected property owner. The next proposed change is to continue indefinitely Item 16D12, and that change is made at staff s request to allow additional time to collaborate with the Florida Housing Coalition, which is the county's SHIP technical advisor on report contents. That item will be rescheduled at a later date. Page 4 December 13 -14, 2011 The next proposed change is to move Item 16G2 from your consent agenda to become Item 13A3. It's a recommendation to approve and ratify staff s -- and this is a change in the title, Commissioners -- unauthorized approval of Change Order No. 1 for a time extension to Q. Grady Minor & Associates, PA, and make a finding of quantum meruit in order to process invoices for Phase 2 permitting work at the Immokalee Regional Airport. The move to the regular agenda is made at Commissioner Hiller's request. The revision in the language in the title of the item is made at the County Attorney's request. The next recommended move is to move Item 16G3 to become Item 13A4 on your regular agenda. That request to move that item is made by Commissioner Hiller. The County Attorney has suggested revised language in the title of this item to read as follows: It's a recommendation to approve and ratify staff s unauthorized approval of Change Order No. 2 to Passarella & Associates, Inc., work order and for a time extension and make a finding of quantum meruit in order to process invoices for Phase 2 environmental permitting work at the Immokalee Regional Airport. The next recommended change is to move Item 17A from your summary agenda to become Item 8C on your regular agenda. That change is requested by Commissioner Hiller. We have two agenda notes this morning, Commissioners. The first is that Items 13A3 and 13A4 on your agenda are requested to be heard prior to Item 13A1. These are all CRA items -- excuse me -- airport items, and that request is made by Commissioner Hiller. Second note is that it -- Item 16A6 requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members, and should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. And that change is made at the County Attorney's request. Finally you have a series of time - certain items scheduled this morning, Mr. Chairman. The first time certain is Item 9M, and that Page 5 December 13 -14, 2011 item will be heard at 5 p.m. this evening. Item 9L is scheduled to be heard at 5:15 this evening. Item IOB is scheduled to be heard at 10:45 a.m. Item IOH is scheduled to be heard at 1 p.m. immediately followed by Items l OL, 10I, and 8A, which is your Immokalee Area Master Plan item. Item 11A is scheduled to be heard at 4:30 p.m., and, finally, Item 12A, is to be heard at 4 p.m. And those are all the changes I have this morning. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. County Attorney, do you have any changes? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, I do, actually. We're in the process of finalizing the agreement related to the Vanderbilt Beach Municipal Service Taxing Unit. I expect to have that within hours, so I'd like to add the following: A recommendation to approve an escrow agreement between Florida Power and Light Company, the Collier County Clerk of Court, the Board of County Commissioners, and the Fifth Third Bank for Phase 1 of the Vanderbilt Beach Municipal Service Taxing Unit utility conversion project and to acknowledge that FP &L can construct a project without the need for competitive bidding as an allowable exception under Florida Statutes Section 255.201(1)(C). If this can go on the County Attorney's item, 11, by the time we get there, we have should have plenty of time to get you the documents for your review. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you. MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Mr. Chairman, that would be added then as Item 11 B on your agenda under County Attorney. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Commissioner Henning, do you have any changes? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, and I do have ex parte communication. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Please do either. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ex parte communication on 17C 0=1111 December 13 -14, 2011 on the summary agenda, I did receive the Planning Commission's report, and I also spoke to Bill Poteet. Mr. Chairman, I would like to move today's change orders, and that is Item 16E 15. I have one other thing. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. County Manager, what is that going to be? MR. OCHS: That would become Item IOQ on your regular agenda, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's 16E14? MR. OCHS: No, 16E15 -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Fifteen. MR. OCHS: -- would become Item IOQ on your regular agenda. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Anything else, Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. As far as discussion about today's agenda, Item 16A 19, which is the board's -- or the staff s official interpretation of the Land Development Code, in the executive summary it states and recommends that the board accept staff s interpretation; therefore, pulling one item out of that agenda will not preclude the board from approving it on today's consent agenda, so that's why I pulled the whole item. COMMISSIONER HILLER: If I may comment on that. May I? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, go ahead. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thanks. What I had actually requested was that the whole item be pulled and placed on general, and I did this timely, well before the agenda was published. And what I specifically requested in addition to that was that the item related to the official interpretation on the mobile -home park be its own separate general- agenda item. Since this matter has to be heard as a quasijudicial matter with disclosure and under oath, and that matter is a very important one, I want it to be a stand -alone matter, and that is what I had requested, but Page 7 December 13-14,2011 the County Manager did not do it, and so I'd like that done. So I have no problem with all of it being on the general, but as I requested, I want that item to be its own agenda item. And the other thing I'd like to ask is that when we do have special interpretations like this, that in the general agenda they be listed, or the consent, that they actually be listed out specifically as to the issue so that the public knows what interpretations are going to be voted on by the board because, quite frankly, reading the agenda as is, I mean, they would have to go back, look at all the backup and figure out if something does or doesn't apply to them, and we want to make it as simple and as clear as possible for them to know what's going on. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, we're mixing issues here. Let's deal first with the issue of segregating the mobile -home park interpretation as a separate item. Is there agreement among the commissioners that we should separate those two items? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let's ask the County Attorney if we can. Is that -- will that in any way -- MR. KLATZKOW: My understanding is that there's no issue with the other two items so that you'd only be talking about the one item anyway. I mean, however you want to approach it, it's almost six of one, half a dozen of the other. Typically what we do is, once the commissioner pulls an item, we say, you know, please state what your objection is, and the objection would then be given to the -- whatever part of it that needs to be discussed. It's sort of same thing here. Whatever the pleasure of the board is, really. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, we can't -- it is absolutely essential that this -- each of these issues be voted on independently. We can't vote on them together since they all require individual determinations and, therefore, they actually ought to be three separate actions brought forward standing in their own right. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I think in the future the County December 13 -14, 2011 Manager probably will be bringing these as separate agenda items for each issue to avoid this. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And it should be handled that way today to correct the -- these are quasijudicial matters. You can't blend the hearing; you can't blend the vote; you can't blend the testimony. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, this -- you're sponsoring this item. Does that meet your requirements? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, except for today's agenda, the executive summary explicitly states those three items on the agenda. I think in the future we can definitely have them separate. The only issue is staff s interpretation of the mobile homes and in my perspective -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: And again -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we are going to be discussing that, and we can take separate votes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: We have to have separate hearings on each of them. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, you haven't been recognized. He's still speaking. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we can take separate votes on the executive summary; however, there's not individual executive summaries for each of the items. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That leaves us with the choice then of continuing this to the next agenda so that it can be presented in a way that meets the requirements of the entire board, or we can try to bifurcate this thing and deal with it on the fly here. I have to point out that since it was on the consent agenda as information for the Board of County Commissioners, if there is an intent by any commissioner to have public testimony and debate on these things, that it should be continued and put in the regular agenda for the next meeting. MR. OCHS: Commissioner, I have no objection at all to that. I December 13 -14, 2011 would look to the County Attorney or to Mr. Casalanguida just to ask the question of whether the staff interpretation on the mobile -home park issue that's part of that executive summary has any specific bearing on the other discussion you'll have later in the day relative to the Immokalee Area Master Plan. If not, then certainly we ought to continue this item and bring it back as individual executive summaries for each item. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Does the County Attorney have an opinion on that? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. I think you're going to be giving us a policy decision on mobile -home parks that's going to, at the end of the day, end this issue anyway. So, you know, if we want to bring this back at a following meeting, I'm okay with this. CHAIRMAN COYLE: It will not interfere in any way with the decision that we have to make on any other agenda item today? MR. KLATZKOW: No. I'm expecting the board to give us a policy decision on the mobile -home parks. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And, Nick, you're here for some reason. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, Commissioners, for the record, Nick Casalanguida. Your item with -- regarding the code enforcement, the settlement action that we're recommending you to approve is based on this interpretation. So if that's going to be continued, then that item should be continued as well, too. Now, we can still provide you information on the mobile -home assessment, and we can discuss what's in the code in terms of the settlement process that exists today. But as you move those two items, or this item, which is tied to that item, then I think it gets a little convoluted. So, again -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. If you're taking it off the consent agenda and putting it on the regular agenda, what sequence is Page 10 December 13-14,2011 necessary in order to proceed expeditiously with the other decisions that are contingent upon this one? MR. CASALANGUIDA: The way the County Manager has laid out your agenda would work, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Then I suggest that we separate that particular interpretation by the staff from the consent agenda item as it is currently written and place it on the regular agenda for debate in sequence with the other items that are appropriate for this particular determination. Is that -- does that make sense? MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, and then I believe that I'm hearing the intent of the board would be -- to be then to continue the two other items or three other items that were part of that 16A 19 to another subsequent board meeting and have those brought back at separate agenda items so that they could be heard separately? CHAIRMAN COYLE: I understood that the only objection was to having the mobile -home interpretation lumped in with the others. If we remove that, it seems to satisfy Commissioner Hiller's objection, and we could move ahead with approving the other two on the consent agenda. Is that acceptable to you, Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, that's fine. MR. OCHS: Okay. Very good. COMMISSIONER HENNING: As long as we're recognizing that we're not approving it under the consent. MR. CASALANGUIDA: The mobile -home portion? MR. OCHS: No. We're moving that to 1 O for discussion. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Understood. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I'm a little bit concerned. One of the reasons why everything is on this agenda was to try to bring clarity to the whole issue. And I'm just a little bit concerned that if we all of a sudden put off the part having to do with the settlement Page 11 December 13 -14, 2011 and the -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're not putting it off. We're putting it on the regular agenda today in sequence with the other items dealing with the mobile -home parks and the Immokalee Master Plan. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So we're not continuing these items -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- till some other time? CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're merely separating that one item, we'll put it on the regular agenda in the proper sequence with the other issues that relate to it, and we will consider it today. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Let's talk about that for the moment, the proper sequence that we're talking about. In other words, this will come up prior to the Immokalee Area Master Plan or after? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Prior. MR.00HS: Prior. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm all for it. Go ahead. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And, Commissioner Hiller, does that satisfy your concerns? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. Thank you so much. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Very well. And, Commissioner Henning, were you finished with changes and discussions? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, I was. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm done, sir. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I have no further changes to the agenda, and I have only one item of ex parte disclosure, and that is on Summary Agenda Item 17C. I have received a staff report which, of course, is in my public file and is available for review. And Commissioner Coletta wants to reveal the same thing, I think. Page 12 December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir, that's correct. When you came back to me, I thought we were pertaining to the discussion that was taking place. But that's the only disclosure I have to make, too, is 17C and that I received a staff report. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have no changes or corrections to the agenda. And under consent agenda, I have no disclosures under summary agenda. I only have one, and that is the 17C. I've received the staff report and, actually, I talked with staff at a private meeting also just to get some clarification. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Hiller, anything? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I have a couple of things. The first is I had the opportunity to go to a women's power luncheon in Immokalee. And this was -- this is a last- minute thing that I'm going to request that be added. And I had the opportunity to hear an incredible woman sing -- if you want to stand up. And I looked at our agenda today, and I thought, oh, my God, it is just unbelievable, and I thought we needed something a little positive before we got into a very heated day. So I'm going to ask the board if you will allow me to indulge our guest here today and our staff to hear what I heard at this incredible meeting hosted by county government for women trying to do good for our community. Would you allow that? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think that would be great. COMMISSIONER HILLER: She would like to sing for you. And I let her pick the song of her choice, and I think she wants to sing what she sang to us at our meeting in Immokalee. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I hope it's "Hit the Road, Jack." COMMISSIONER HILLER: Anyone in the audience called Page 13 December 13 -14, 2011 Jack? Okay. In that case, that song doesn't work. Would that be all right with you? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure. COMMISSIONER HILLER: want to use the mic or -- MS. BERRY -LEE: Sure. Thank you. Would you -- do you CHAIRMAN COYLE: And would you like to introduce yourself? MS. BERRY -LEE: Yes, I would. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll need you at the mic so that we can get you on the record. We might even record this and sell it to make some money. MS. BERRY -LEE: Oh, please do, please do. It will be my pleasure. Good morning. My name is Mintzy Berry -Lee, and I can bring you seasons greetings from Greater Immokalee, south side, Front Porch in Immokalee. May you have a blessed Christmas, prosperity, wealth, health, and succeed all that you desire. (Ms. Berry -Lee sang "Silent Night. ") COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you so much. A very powerful woman with a very powerful voice. That was wonderful. MS. BERRY -LEE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you for being with us today. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have one other item that I'd like to ask the County Attorney add to his agenda section, and that is we have a little bit of a problem where North Naples Fire is being called by our EMS for support on calls outside of the boundaries of their CO and district. And what most jurisdictions do is they have a letter agreement with the CON district allowing them to provide support outside of their boundaries when called upon by the county, and we want to make sure that if EMS needs help that they can get it from these guys. Page 14 December 13 -14, 2011 So, Jeff, I was wondering if you could put that under your agenda and propose drafting the letter and us approving that. MR. KLATZKOW: I could do that, yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. Very well. Now, we have made substantial changes to the consent -- or to the agenda today. By the way, I think we should adopt a policy that for every item moved from the consent agenda to the regular agenda we must take one off of the regular agenda. That seems to be the policy that's being pushed in Washington, D.C., as far as expenditures are concerned, and I think it makes sense for our agenda, because it is definitely inflated. We have -- and, by the way, this is one of five books that I have for this agenda today. It is going to be a very, very long day, and I don't think we'll finish today. We'll probably carry it over to tomorrow. We don't know which items are likely to be carried over. We'll try to inform the audience as quickly as we can determine what we'll be able to get through today so that you don't have to hang around the whole time. So we'll try to give some consideration to making a decision a little later. But I think it appropriate that we tell you that because it's likely to go over to two days, we will be quitting at 6 p.m. tonight. So we'll try to keep you advised as to what items we'll be able to hear before we do that. Now, we've discussed a number of changes to the agenda. I will accept a motion to approve the changes discussed. If there -- if the court reporter or any of the members of the board wish to have the changes briefly restated, we'll attempt to do that. Is everybody okay with the discussion we've had about the items? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve the -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll make -- oh. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- agenda as discussed and Page 15 December 13 -14, 2011 amended. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second that and also say it's good to see Terri here. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Henning, seconded by Commissioner Fiala to approve the agenda as amended through discussions this morning. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Very well. It is approved. Page 16 Proposed Agenda Changes Board of County Commissioners Meeting December 13, 2011 Continue Item 91( to the January 10, 2012 BCC Meeting: This item continued from the November 8, 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) Move Item 16A4 to Item 10P: This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Arthrex Commerce Park, approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security. (Commissioner Hiller's request) Move Item 16A16 to Item 100: Recommendation to approve the release of lien in the Code Enforcement Action entitled Board of County Commissioners vs. Jack and Emma Mae Barrs, Code Enforcement Board Case No. 2002 -008, relating to property located at 2990 Sunset Boulevard, Collier County, Florida. (Commissioner Hiller's request) Move Item 16A19 to Item 10L: This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners (Board) to accept a process to review past Staff Clarifications and Official Interpretations of the Land Development and Building Codes and to accept specific Staff Clarifications and Official Interpretations attached to this Executive Summary. (Official Interpretations are quasi - judicial.) (Commissioner Henning's request) Move Item 16A21 to Item 10N: Recommendation to approve the issuance of a building permit prior to the approval of a Planned Unit Development Rezone and Site Development Plan Amendment, for a twenty five thousand square -foot classroom and office addition to the existing Community School of Naples, not to exceed the same existing upper school building height of thirty two feet. (Commissioner Hiller's request) Move Item 16A24 to Item 10M: Recommendation to direct the County Manager, or his designee, to suspend the collection of Affordable Housing Contributions, pending the Board's decision on a Land Development Code (LDC) Amendment to remove Affordable Housing Contribution commitments. (Commissioner Hiller's request) Continue Item 16A26 to the January 24.2012 BCC Meeting: Recommendation to approve the third amendment to the cooperative agreement with the South Florida Water Management District, Agreement No. C- 11759, regarding operation and maintenance of designated primary watercourses in Collier County, modifying the agreement terms and extending the term until September 30, 2024. (Sta)Ts request to address concerns with property owners along affected canals that are subjects of the agreement.) Move Item 16132 to Item 13133: Recommendation to approve a Resolution certifying the statutory dedication and acceptance of portions of South First Street through South Ninth Street, South Sixth Court, Boston, Colorado, Delaware and West Eustis Avenues, all located in Immokalee, Florida, also being a part of Section 4, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, by virtue of the County's continuous and uninterrupted maintenance of the roadway in excess of seven years and authorize the filing of a Right -of -Way map being more specifically shown in Exhibit "A" (Fiscal Impact: $53.50). (Commissioner Hiller's request) Proposed Agenda Changes Board of County Commissioners Meeting December 13, 2011 Page 2 Delete Item 16C13: Recommendation to approve an Agreement with Adam J. Piskadlo and Barbara K. Piskadlo for the purchase of property for the relocation of sub - master pumping station 300.06 at a cost not to exceed $78,000, Project Number 70046. (Staffs request due to reconsideration of sale by property owner) Continue Indefinitely Item 16D12: Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign the "Certification for Implementation of Regulatory Reform Activities Required by S.H.I.P" and reports for fiscal years 2006/07, 2007/08, and 2008/09 and authorize submission to Florida Housing Finance Corporation to ensure compliance with program requirements. (Staffs request Allow additional time to collaborate with the Florida Housing Coalition (FHC), the County's SHIP technical advisor, on report contents.) Move Item 16G2 to Item 13A3: Recommendation to approve and ratify Staffs authorization unauthorized approval of Change Order #1 for a time extension to Q. Grady Minor and Associates, PA (Work Order #4500116917) and make a finding of quantum meruit in order to process invoices for Phase 2 permitting work at the Immokalee Regional Airport. (Commissioner Hiller's request to move item /language revised at County Attorney's request) Move Item 16G3 to Item 13A4: Recommendation to approve and ratify Staffs unauthorized approval of Change Order #2 to Passarella and Associates, Inc. (Work Order #4500116918) for a time extension and make a finding of quantum meruit in order to process invoices for Phase II environmental permitting work at the Immokalee Regional Airport. (Commissioner Hiller's request to move item /language revised at County Attorney's request) Move Item 17A to Item 8C: Recommendation to approve a resolution allowing the Collier County Water -Sewer District to expand the water and wastewater service district boundaries to include portions of the development known as Hacienda Lakes, and surrounding areas, that are currently outside the existing boundaries. (Commissioner Hiller's request) Note: Items 13A3 and 13A4: Requested to be heard prior to Item 13A1. (Commissioner Hiller's request) Item 16A6 requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. (County Attorney's request) Time Certain Items: Item 9M to be heard at 5:00 p.m. Item 9L to be heard at 5:15 p.m. Item 10B to be heard at 10:45 a.m. Item 10H to be heard at 1:00 p.m., followed by Items 10L, 10I and 8A Item 11A to be heard at 4:30 p.m. Item 12A to be heard at 4:00 p.m. 12,13;2011 8:42 AM December 13 -14, 2011 Item #2B, #2C and #21) OCTOBER 11, 2011, BCC REGULAR MEETING MINUTES, OCTOBER 25, 2011, BCC REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AND NOVEMEBR 8, 2011 BCC REGULAR MEETING MINUTES — APPROVED AS AMENDED AND PRESENTED CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have the agenda and minutes of October 11th, but first let's back up. At the last meeting I had requested that the prior minutes be amended because a comment had been made in those minutes that was inappropriately attributed to me and was, in fact, made by Commissioner Henning, and Commissioner Henning was going to take a look at that and see if he agreed with me. And I'm wondering if that has happened. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That has happened, and it's reflected in today's -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- minute meeting -- meeting minutes -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- under Item 2B. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, I think that's the right one. Okay. Then in that case, I think we can take all three of these meeting minutes -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we approve Items 2B, C, and D. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Henning to approve the BCC regular meeting minutes for October 11, 2001 (sic), October 25, 2001 (sic), and November 8, 2001 (sic), as corrected, and seconded by Commissioner Coletta. Page 17 aye. December 13 -14, 2011 Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously. That brings us to service awards, County Manager. Item #3A ADVISORY BOARD SDERVICE AWARDS: 5 YEAR, 10 YEAR AND 15 YEAR ATTENDEES — PRESENTED MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we have a number of advisory board member service award recognition to present today. If the Board would please join us in front of the dais, we'll call recipients. Commissioners, we'll begin this morning by recognizing advisory board members with five years of service. Our first recipient is William Varian from your Development Services Advisory Committee. Mr. Varian? (Applause.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: This is yours. Congratulations. MR. VARIAN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: It must have your name engraved on it, Bill. Thank you some much. December 13 -14, 2011 MR. VARIAN: No problem. Thank you very much. MR. OCHS: Recognizing five years of service on your Tourist Development Council, Bob Miller. (Applause.) MR. OCHS: Is Bob here? (No response.) MR. OCHS: Five years of service with your Animal Services Advisory Board, Marcia Breithaupt. (Applause.) (Ms. Breithaupt is not present.) MR. OCHS: Five years of service on the Immokalee Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee, William Deyo. (Applause.) MR. OCHS: Is Mr. Deyo here? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: A guy from Immokalee made it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Congratulations. Thank you very much for your service. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you so much. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Congratulations. MR. OCHS: Thank you, sir. Commissioners, we have several citizen members of your Floodplain Management Planning Committee celebrating five years of service this morning. The first of those is Dennis Vasey. Dennis? (Applause.) MR. VASEY: I really wish you a Merry Christmas. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Merry Christmas to you, Dennis. Thank you for your great articles. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, thank you for your articles. They're very informative. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Page 19 December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. MR. VASEY: Merry Christmas. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Merry Christmas to you. MR. OCHS: Also celebrating five years of service on the Floodplain Management Planning Committee is Pierre Bruno. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Congratulations. Thank you very much for your service. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good morning. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Good morning. Thank you so much. COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's easy to remember the names now, right? MR. OCHS: Recognizing five years of service also on your Floodplain Management Planning Committee, Phil Brougham. Phil? (Applause.) MR. BROUGHAM: Five years. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Five years. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Congratulations. MR. BROUGHAM: Thank you very much, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Five wonderful years, right? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you so much. MR. BROUGHAM: Thank you. Is this oldest to youngest or -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Phil. MR. OCHS: Thanks so much for your service. Five years of service also with the Floodplain Management Planning Committee, Clarence Tears. Clarence? (Applause.) Page 20 December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Nice suit, sir. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Spiffy there. MR. TEARS: I think I look better on this side. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We can look up at you. All right, thank you. MR. OCHS: Recognizing five years of service also with your Floodplain Management Planning Committee, Joseph Gagnier. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you for your service. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. Nice to meet you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for your service. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you so much for everything. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm not handing any more of these out unless you stand beside me. MR. GAGNIER: Thank you. MR. OCHS: Our final five -year advisory board service award, also with the Floodplain Management Planning Committee, Llewellyn Schmidt. (Applause.) MR. SCHMIDT: How are you? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you for your service. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Congratulations. Thank you for your work. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good to see you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Merry Christmas. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Merry Christmas. MR. SCHMIDT: Same to you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You notice the smart ones. MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you. Thank you again. Appreciate it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Merry Christmas. Page 21 December 13 -14, 2011 (Applause.) MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we have three individuals celebrating ten years of service with your advisory boards. The first that we'd like to recognize with ten years of service to the Collier County Planning Commission is your chairman, Mark Strain. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mark, good to see you. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you for your service. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks for your service. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Hugs. MR. STRAIN: I'll wait for Ann. Thank you all. MR. OCHS: Also celebrating ten years of service on the Collier County Planning Commission this morning is Paul Midney. Paul? (Applause.) (Mr. Midney is not present.) MR. OCHS: Celebrating ten years of service on your Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee, Dick Lydon. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good work, Dick. Thank you very much. MR. LYDON: Take care of yourself. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you for your service. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There you go. CHAIRMAN COYLE: He's in the right place. MR. LYDON: Thanks, folks. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, Dick. MR. OCHS: Commissioners, our final service award this morning recognizes 15 years of service on your Contractor Licensing Board, Richard Joslin Jr. Richard? (Applause.) Page 22 December 13 -14, 2011 (Mr. Joslin is not present.) MR. OCHS: I don't see Mr. Joslin. That does conclude our service awards this morning. Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That brings us to the proclamations, County Manager. Item #4 PROCLAMATIONS (ONE MOTION TAKEN TO ADOPT THE PROCLAMATIONS) Item #4A PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING DECEMBER, 2011 AS MAKE -A -WISH FOUNDATION MONTH IN COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY REG AND SANDRA BUXTON, MAKE -A -WISH FOUNDATION PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL OF COLLIER COUNTY — ADOPTED MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. First proclamation this morning is a proclamation designating December of 2011 as Make a Wish Foundation Month in Collier County. To be accepted by Reg and Sandra Buxton, Make a Wish Foundation President's Council of Collier County. This item is sponsored by Commissioner Coyle. Please come forward and accept the proclamation. COMMISSIONER FIALA: This must be Reg? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yeah. I'm the cuter Reg. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We've got the better half here anyway. Thanks. There's one for each of you. (Applause.) MS. BUXTON: I'm Sandra Buxton, chair for the President's Page 23 December 13-14,2011 Council here in Collier County. We definitely appreciate receiving this proclamation which allows us to highlight the significant work that we do on behalf of the county's most vulnerable citizens. We take it upon ourselves and consider it a great privilege to serve both the children wish kids and their families, and by granting wishes, we definitely change lives forever. Thank you. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Item #4B PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING NAPLES CHRISTIAN ACADEMY FOR ITS CONTINUED EFFORTS TO PROMOTE WASTE REDUCTION, REUSE, RECYCLING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS. ACCEPTED BY TRUSHA BARNER, DIRECTOR OF STUDENTS & PARENT SERVICES AND BARBARA MCWILLIAMS, ART AND MIDDLE SCHOOL TEACHER — ADOPTED MR. OCHS: Item 4B is a proclamation recognizing Naples Christian Academy for its continued efforts to promote waste reduction, reuse, recycling, and environmental awareness. To be accepted by Trisha Barner, Director of Students and Parent Services, and Barbara McWilliams, Art and Middle - school Teacher, along with a host OF students, I see, and this item is sponsored by Commissioner Henning. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who's going to get this? (Applause.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Does someone want to say something at the podium? Go ahead, yeah. DR. TINGLE: Obviously, I'm not Trisha Barner. I'm Dr. Phillip Tingle. I'm theI Headmaster at Naples Christian Academy. And on Page 24 December 13 -14, 2011 behalf of Naples Christian Academy, I wish to express our appreciation to the Collier County Board of County Commissioners for this recognition. Our mission is to partner with Christian parents to develop students with hearts and passion, to love God, minds and discipline to think biblically, and hands prepared to serve. The tier (sic) recycle program at the academy has been a wonderful outlet for implementation of that third component of our mission statement. Our parent volunteers have been invaluable in the implementation of our recycle program. This year we're participating in the Dream Machine rally and currently rank third nationally among 500 schools. Waste Management has provided great support for the academy in this project, and the middle school green team has given tirelessly in this effort, and we are pleased to have many of those students with us today. Naples Christian is a nationally recognized blue- ribbon school in large part due to our exceptional students and teachers. Ms. Williams (sic) is certainly one of those employees who exemplifies that commitment to go above and beyond at Naples Christian. Members of the Board of the County Commissioners, we, again, thank you and are pleased to accept this honor. (Applause.) MR. OCHS: Commissioners, if I could get a motion to approve the proclamations. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve today's proclamations as read. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve the proclamations by Commissioner Henning, seconded by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Page 25 December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. MR. OCHS: Thank you. Item #5A PRESENTATION OF COLLIER COUNTY'S BUSINESS OF THE MONTH FOR DECEMBER, 2011 TO CRUISE NAPLES. ACCEPTING THE AWARD ARE HARRY AND LANCE JULIAN —PRESENTED MR. OCHS: That takes us to Item 5 on your agenda this morning, presentations. 5A is a presentation of the Collier County Business of the Month for December 2011 to Cruise Naples. Accepting the award are Harry and Lance Julian. Please come forward and accept your award. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Congratulations to you. Thank you very much for being in Naples. MR. JULIAN: Good morning. My name is Harry Julian. I'm the President of Cruise Naples. I'd first like to thank the commissioners and Naples Chamber of Commerce for this great award that we at Cruise Naples have received. It's a great honor when the community and the people around you recognize the hard work of all your employees and yourself. I'd like to recognize Lance Julian, Managing Director, my partner Page 26 December 13-14,2011 and my father, of the business; Christina Murphy who does our front of the office sales; Captain Sam Freeman; Robin, who does all the outside sales; and, of course, Naples Chamber of Commerce. It's said that innovation is a driving force for business in this community. I'm happy to announce we're going to continue to innovate. We have a new product coming next year, GF Boat Naples, unlike anything in North America, in fact, and hopefully it will put Southwest Florida on the map and continue to help drive tourism in the industry for the benefit of all. So thank you once again. Thank you for the reward, and I look forward to working with you -all in the future. Thank you. (Applause.) Item #5B PRESENTATION RECOGNIZING WINNERS OF COLLIER COUNTY'S COMMUTER SERVICE DAY CHALLENGE AND COUNTY'S DESIGNATION AS "BEST WORKPLACE FOR COMMUTERS ". ACCEPTING TROPHIES ARE DENNIS LINGUIDI, FACILITIES MANAGEMENT AND ROBERT ST. CYR, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY OUTREACH, CLERK OF COURT'S OFFICE — PRESENTED MR. OCHS: Item 5B is a presentation recognizing the winners of the Collier County Commuter Services Day Challenge and the county's designation as a Best Workplace for Commuters. Accepting the trophies are Dennis Linquidi, Facilities Manager with the county's Facility Management Department, and Robert St. Cyr, the Director of Community Outreach for the Clerk of Courts. Please come forward. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: Take a picture first. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Tall people in the back. Line up Page 27 December 13 -14, 2011 in alphabetical order. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Tall people in the back. MS. PARHAM: Okay. I didn't know we was going to do it like this, but I have some people to call up if that's okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure. MS. PARHAM: Brittany Fremont, is she here? Michelle Arnold, okay, and the HR Director. Amy. Is she here? Okay. And while I have the microphone, I wanted to recognize Norman Feder in the back, Growth Management Administrator, okay. And good morning. I'm Jan Parham with the Florida Department of Transportation, and I'm the program manager for the District 1 Commuter Services Program. I'm sorry. I apologize for the awkwardness. We had planned to do this differently, but I would like to recognize Leo Ochs and -- the County Manager and the assistant County Manager, Mike Sheffield, if they both would like to come up and be a part of the picture. (Applause.) MS. PARHAM: And last but not least, our commuter service ambassador for the program, Commissioner Coyle. We'd like to recognize you and thank you for your efforts with the program. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Should you go down there, too? CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. MS. PARHAM: County staff and the constitutional officers, too. All right. (Applause.) MS. PARHAM: So at this time I'd like to just allow Christine Diaz to come up. She's the program director for the commuter services program. She has a short presentation. MS. DIAZ: Just, like, a short PowerPoint. They uploaded it for me. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Three minutes. MS. DIAZ: Thank you. My name is Christine Diaz. I'm the December 13 -14, 2011 program director for the Commuter Services Program for District 1. And thank you for having us here today. Today we're just going to do a quick recap of what was done October 20th. We had a kickoff for Collier County, and Commissioner Coyle was the ambassador on that day. And I'm just going to kind of give you a quick glimpse of what happened on that day. We actually designated a proclamation on that day, and we united transit. We united all the different forms of transportation, all the green resources that the county has, on that date. We had a fantastic turnout. We had over 400 employees actually come and update their information, register with our program. Right now, after this event, we actually have over a thousand commuters in Collier that are participating with this program. Collier took the lead, and they went in and they did a huge kickoff, and now people are embracing the program. On that day we had speeches from elected officials, VIPs. We had the directors; Collier MPO was there, transportation modes; Brian Sullivan from the Public Transit Association was there; we had different speakers kind of promoting the program and endorsing it and really uniting the effort for the county. There's another photograph. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, no, you didn't. MS. DIAZ: Yes, Commissioner Coyle. He actually -- you have to practice what you preach, and that's what you did there. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's how I got to work that day. MS. DIAZ: And this is just an example of what different ambassadors do for our program. They really promoted. We actually have -- Leo is actually registering for the program right there, so you might get a car -pool match, so -- MR. OCHS: Good, great. MS. DIAZ: On that day a challenge was done. We had two offices compete -- well, actually two offices came in, one with the December 13 -14, 2011 highest percentage and one with the most employees registered. The goal was to get as many people and many employees involved with the program so they can get in and find out what the program's about, get them registered, and hopefully find a possibility of car -pool match, maybe some biking information, busing, just see if there's a van pool that they could go into, or just any other source of transportation. And on that day we actually had Collier County Clerk of Courts, who you just saw, that they came up a few second ago. They had the highest number of registrants on that day, so we want to thank you for your outstanding participation, and we really enjoyed working with your group and all the employees for -- fantastic to work with also. MR. ST. CYR: May I make a comment? MS. DIAZ: Yes, please do. MR. ST. CYR: Bob St. Cyr, director of community outreach for the Clerk's Office. And on behalf of the Clerk and the entire staff, it's a pleasure to accept this award for our organization, and it's a very special award because all of this participation was initiated by the individual employees themselves. And I think they were all about doing the right thing, and they should be receiving the congratulations for their efforts. Thank you. (Applause.) MS. DIAZ: Thank you. And then we had another organization. We actually had Collier County Facilities Management. That team, you can see those employees. They came in. They were very proactive on that day. They were excited to be there, and we've gotten a lot of positive feedback from them, and they actually had the highest percentage of registrants on that day. And do we have -- for facility management? Oh, come on up, say a few words. MR. LINGUIDI: Yes. On behalf of the Collier County Facilities Page 30 December 13 -14, 2011 Management, we'd like to thank you for the work. Thanks. (Applause.) MS. DIAZ: On that -- after that day we just had a lot of movement. Collier County really came in and said, you know what, we want to do a little bit more. We want to go to the next level. We want to go to the next step. What do we need to do? So at this time, Lauren, if you want to call the team that you worked with to get the Best Workplace for Commuters for Collier County. MS. LANE: Yeah. I would like to call up Brittney Mahon -- she's in human resource -- who really just is always on top of everything when it is -- when it comes to commuter benefits; and then, also, I believe we're presenting the award to the County Manager, Leo Ochs. So if you two would just like to come up and say a few words. And we're going to have Julie Bond; she's from the Center of Urban Transportation Research. She's the project manager on the Best Workplaces for Commuters program, and then she'll speak for just a few minutes about the program and what the recognition does. MS. PARHAM: And we also want to recognize our ambassador also for receiving this esteemed designation for Best Workplaces for Commuters. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. And FDOT deserves a lot of credit. You've done a wonderful job organizing these activities. MS. PARHAM: Thank you. MS. BOND: Hello. I'm Julie Bond with the Center for Urban Transportation Research at the University of South Florida in Tampa, and I'm honored to be here today to present Collier County with this Best Workplaces for Commuters Award. I have to say, this is a national award that you're receiving. We took over the program for the Environmental Protection Agency in 2007, and we honor employers nationally. And so it really is a big Page 31 December 13 -14, 2011 deal that you're receiving this award. Collier County had to meet the standard of excellence that was set by the EPA and U.S. DOT to receive this award. You have an excellent compressed workweek program and other benefits that you offer your employees. So congratulations, and it's my honor to present this award to you today. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Should we stand up? Leo's too tall. He's blocking us out. MR. OCHS: Commissioners, very briefly. I know we have a full agenda. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would you state your name, please. MR. OCHS: Leo Ochs, for the record, County Manager. We're honored to receive this award. We enjoyed working with the Florida Department of Transportation on this project. We certainly thank the Board of County Commissioners for their continuing support of our transportation program and alternative transportation modes. I'd like to thank the staff for the hard work that they've done day in and day out to promote this program throughout Collier County, and we look forward to working with you and taking this to the next level in the future. Thank you very much. (Applause.) MS. PARHAM: Thank you. We have one last one, and then we're going to turn it over to you guys. Sorry about this. But Christine Diaz and Lauren Lane, who is your Outreach Coordinator for Collier County that is responsible for a lot of this hard work -- I want to recognize her. So I'm going to turn it over to Christine, and we're going to ask Michelle Arnold to come back -- back up, please. Page 32 December 13-14,2011 COMMISSIONER HENNING: She's left. Oh. MS. DIAZ: What we also do is we honor different partners that go beyond the call, and what we wanted to do is, on behalf of Department of Transportation with the Commuter Services Program, we want to recognize the county for being the Best Workplaces for Commuters and one of our outstanding partners. So, Leo, there's another one up there. MS. PARHAM: So this award is actually from the department recognizing you. MS. DIAZ: This is from the Florida Department of Transportation. MS. PARHAM: Florida Department of Transportation and Commuter Services Program. MS. DIAZ: Thank you very much. (Applause.) Item #5C RECOGNIZING MARIO GARCIA, SCADA OPERATOR, WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT, AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR NOVEMBER, 2011 — PRESENTED MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes you to Item 5C on your agenda. It's a recommendation to recognize Mario Garcia, SCADA operator with our wastewater department, as the Employee of the Month for November 2011. Mario, if you'd please come forward, accept your award. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mario? MR. GARCIA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you for your hard work. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you for your service. Page 33 December 13 -14, 2011 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Here's a letter of appreciation and a little token of our appreciation. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Congratulations. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You guys do great work. MR. OCHS: Commissioners, I'm going to embarrass Mario and read a few things about his accomplishments here while he gets a photo with the board. Mario's been an employee with Collier County for over 15 years working with our wastewater department. He's a positive, dedicated employee who works in our power systems section in our wastewater department. And earlier this year that department had suffered the loss of several team members. Without hesitation, Mario jumped in to take over the workload of maintaining over 750 sewer pumping stations. He became the go -to guy on instrumentation and electrical technician work, all the while still responding to the trouble calls and repairs, ordering new materials, keeping the main wastewater pump stations and the communication system operational. He's certainly a team player, always finds time to assist anyone in need, is a valuable member of our team and a valued asset to county government. And, Commissioners, it gives me great pleasure to present Mario Garcia, Employee of the Month for November 2011. Congratulations, Mario. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Mario. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much. MR. SHEFFIELD: Congratulations. MR. OCHS: Thanks, appreciate your work. Item #6A Page 34 December 13 -14, 2011 PUBLIC PETITION BY JOHN ROGERS REGARDING THE TERMINATION OF EMILIO RODRIGUEZ — MOTION TO ACCEPT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION INTO THE RECORD — APPROVED; MOTION TO ACCEPT PETITION PACKET INTO THE RECORD — APPROVED; MOTION TO CONDUCT AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION, REQUEST THE CLERK TO PERFORM AN AUDIT AND TO BRING BACK AT A FUTURE BCC MEETING — FAILED; MOTION DIRECTING THE COUNTY MANAGER TO PROVIDE A FULL REPORT TO THE COMMISSIONERS — APPROVED MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 6 on your agenda this morning, public petitions. Your first public petition, Item 6A, is a request from John Rogers regarding the termination of Emilio Rodriguez. Mr. Rogers. (Applause.) MR. ROGERS: If I could ask before you start my -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have to get you on the mic. MR. ROGERS: Yes. MR. OCHS: You want the handheld. MR. ROGERS: This is fine. If I could just ask if I could distribute some information before the commissioners and for the record before you start my time. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You certainly can, but do you want us reading it -- trying to read it while you're making your presentation? MR. ROGERS: I've divided it up to make it very simple for you to look -- follow along with me in the presentation or look at it later, but I just want you to have it the way it's divided. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, okay. If you want to put one in front of each commissioner, and we'll need one for the court reporter for the record. Page 35 December 13 -14, 2011 MR. ROGERS: I have it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: We have to accept that by a motion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll make a motion that we accept the information from Mr. John Rogers. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I second that motion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to accept the information by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: (Absent.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. You know you have ten minutes. MR. ROGERS: I know. That's why I asked if you wouldn't count this against my time. CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, we will not. MR. ROGERS: Thank you very much. And, Mr. Chairman, if we could clear up one other thing before we start. Perhaps it's our confusion, but we have some speakers signed up, and I understand it's inappropriate. CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. MR. ROGERS: And they're supposed to speak at -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: If they want to speak, they'll have to speak at the time under public input at the end of the meeting, which is certainly out of the question, I think, for most of the people to sit here all the time to do that. Page 36 December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Till tomorrow. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Till tomorrow. But we'll certainly accommodate them at that point in time. But there is no public input accepted during public petitions. MR. ROGERS: Okay. We just wanted to let you know, because I did understand you may continue to tomorrow. So given that, I have one more thing to pass out. That was -- it's our petition. I'll give it to the Clerk. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you need a motion on that, per board's policy again? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Go ahead and make a motion just to be on the safe side. MR. ROGERS: These are going to be from different people, but COMMISSIONER HENNING: I already received the petition. I don't know why we have to receive it again. But I will make a motion that we not accept it. MR. ROGERS: I didn't -- I'm unaware that it was provided to you -- the complete packet of the petitions was provided. MR. SHEFFIELD: You need a microphone. MR. ROGERS: That's our complete packets of petitions that we just finished collecting yesterday, so I don't know what you were previously provided, but that is completed. It is not -- and it may be duplicative of what you received a couple days ago. I don't know what you received. I didn't deliver it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there -- Commissioner Henning has made a motion that it not be accepted. Is there a second? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a motion to accept it? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I'll make a motion to accept it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to accept the petition by Page 37 December 13-14,2011 Commissioner Fiala, seconded by Commissioner Coletta. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. MR. ROGERS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now your ten minutes starts. MR. ROGERS: And I'm going to go as fast as I can. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have three minutes left. MR. ROGERS: Don't count that against me. I have ten minutes to talk about a man who's served our community and our fire district for 16 years, and I have ten minutes to talk about a man who was terminated in a package that contains 78 pages, and I am going to do my absolute best to address that quickly. And I don't mean to give anything short stripped, but I really want to try to address it all. What I've done with the packet in front of you is simply staple sections together and label it in the upper left -hand corner A through I. And I did this so that I can move through the packet faster and you could reference anything if you need to. I did not alter, modify, remove, or add anything to this packet, and I want to make sure you understand that. Commissioners, the first page of the packet is the cover letter for Mr. Summers saying this is the packet for which your chief was fired. The only important thing about that letter, briefly, is that when Mr. Summers was asked at a meeting we held in November at our fire station, please explain to us why the chief was fired, Mr. Summers olm December 13 -14, 2011 said, this is the packet for which he was fired. Mr. Summers was asked again, is this, in its aggregate, the complete reason for the termination of our chief? And Mr. Summers stated, this is the packet. So he confirmed to us and we think it's important to address the items contained within this packet. Item B that I've marked -- and you don't need to look at it. You can certainly look at it now -- contains the first 14 pages after the cover letters -- after the cover letter. These 14 pages are all dated after Chief Rodriguez was terminated on November 4th. They begin on November 7th and continue to November the 18th. Well, I have absolutely no idea how a man can say you were terminated based on this packet, but I don't even have the information that's in this packet until after you were terminated. Mr. Ochs, maybe you should move this man to the finance department, and he can help us with our investments, because he's got some ability to foresee into the future that I don't understand. I don't understand it at all. But maybe, maybe I'm being too quick to judge here. I'll quote from Mr. Summers at another appearance in November of 2010. And Mr. Summers said, I quote, I'm not in any fashion interested in putting garbage in somebody's personnel folder. Later Mr. Summers stated, I -- he repeated that statement and he added, without investigation. So maybe I'm too quick to judge Mr. Summers and to judge HR with regard to these 14 pages received after termination, and maybe I should and we should look at all the investigation regarding these new allegations. So we'll go through them; it will take us less than a second. There are none. These 14 pages are an insult. The next item in your packet is Item C. Item C is my favorite one. It's the only one in the packet that is completely 100 percent honest. It says, Chief Rod, you're terminated. The interesting thing Page 39 December 13 -14, 2011 about it is, until I showed Chief Rod this letter, he had never seen it before. The next item in your packet is D. D is the behavior action plan which recommends termination of Chief Rod. I strongly encourage you, when you have time, to read this. Everything in this two -page document relates to a letter of concern dated July 23, 2010. It specifically states items in the July 23, 2010, letter of concern. It does not say the chief lied. It does not say the chief had a secret bank account. It does not say he stole money, he kept money, he improperly spent money. None of those are in this packet. What's the significance of that? Your packet is 78 pages long. Forty -eight of those pages deal with the bank account; 61 percent of the packet that fires our chief deals with a bank account that's never even mentioned in his termination. Somebody's got some plan here to do something. I don't know what it is yet. I hope we all find out. But I find it fascinating that on the day he was terminated, before he could return to the Isles of Capri, the news media was there, and what were they screaming about? And I don't fault them. It's what they were given. What were they screaming about? Improper bank accounts. Here we go again. The chiefs in trouble. Well, I say, please, please, look at the termination packet -- I mean, the termination letter, see what it's about, and you will see that it has absolutely nothing to do with these bank accounts. So if we go to Item E, you find that to be the actual transcript of the meeting that Chief Rod had with Amy Lyberg and Dan Summers on October 31 st of this year. It's 16 pages long, and please read it. It repeatedly and repeatedly and repeatedly has the chief stating, I don't have any control over or authority over this account. I'm not a signator on this account. It's not my tax ID number. It's not your tax ID number. What do you want me to do? He says in the interview, I've been telling you since 2005, I can't -- it's a volunteer fire account. I can't do anything about it. What, what, what do you want me to do? 1� December 13 -14, 2011 I specifically refer you to the bottom of Page 11 through Page 12 where the chief continues to repeat and, interestingly, says, I even asked you years ago, tell me why this is illegal so that I can stop these people. Give me some policy so that I can do something about it. And even at this meeting they can't tell him what the rule is, what the policy is. All they say is, we'll look into it. Item F is a summary of the informal investigation that Mr. Summers and Ms. Lyberg had with the chief on October 4th. Frankly, it's just a couple pages of their understanding of the meeting. Most interestingly about this, while it doesn't really contain anything different from the actual formal interview, is that the news media had ahold of it, and the news media was talking about it well before we knew anything about it and while they were -- excuse me -- and they were looking into it on the Monday of the Friday that the chief was fired. Item G is probably the most important document in the packet. Item G. Commissioners, is a memorandum from Dan Summers to Amy Lyberg, the Director of HR, in which he talks about a meeting he had on September the 27th of this year on a Saturday morning in a coffee shop with two firefighters of the Isles of Capri Fire Station and the administrative assistant. If you don't do anything else, read these three pages. It just stinks. The opening paragraph says, I was contacted and asked to come to a -- I was contacted about some concerns firefighters had, and I invited them to come see me at any time. And what did they say? No, we don't want to come to your office. You've got to meet us somewhere else. Mr. Summers says, fine. I'll bring David Molinaro from HR. What did they say? No, don't bring Mr. Molinaro. Why would they not want somebody from HR there if they're expressing concerns about the workplace? There's a reason. It's because Mr. Molinaro was aware that Chief Rod had a problem at his department, because Page 41 December 13 -14, 2011 somebody was walking around saying, Chief, I'm going to get you fired. Chief, I'm going to get you fired. And the chief had called Mr. Molinaro and informed him of this and was told to ignore it. That's why he couldn't attend. So let's look at what issues were brought up at this meeting. They called Mr. Summers names. None of us would have a job if we were fired for calling somebody a name. The CPR certificates are not proper; there's been no investigation on that. There's favoritism; no investigation on that. He reassigns personnel. That's a boss's job. He -- he's had advisory board members present at his accident scene. Absolutely false. That's not how it happened. His training records are inconsistent; no investigation on that. No follow -up. On -duty firefighter working at his home; no investigation on that, no follow -up. Unfairly mandating changes in the payroll. Come on. It all goes through HR. We're all smarter than that. But what's the important thing in there is that his administrative assistant found a bank statement. She says in the document, I just recently got this statement. This is September 27th meeting. She just recently got a statement. Look at the statement in the packet. It's dated April when the account was closed. Ooh, how exciting. She's got something she's so worried about in April that she doesn't even bring it to anybody's attention until September? This is -- this is ridiculous. Something's going on here. And if you look at the statement that she delivers to Mr. Summers on that day, what is it? It's two statements. She didn't just get one statement. It's the 2010 statement -- I mean, 2011 through April, and it's the entire 2010 statement. You -all have bank accounts. That just doesn't come in the mail out of the blue. There's some setup here. I strongly suggest that this document is problematic from any Page 42 December 13 -14, 2011 way you want to look at it; fairness, due process, your own Fair Compensation Act. Any way you look at it, this document problematic. And we conceded -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Your ten minutes has expired. MR. ROGERS: I see that. You have the rest of the packet. I have -- if I could have 30 seconds, just -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Fifteen. MR. ROGERS: Fifteen? Item "I" you can throw away. The largest document in the file, 20 pages, strictly related to a bank account the chief had nothing to do with. Item H is your letter of concern that our board -- our fire advisory board was told is of no further consequence. So since that date, there was not one further note put in the man's file. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Your 15 seconds are expired. MR. ROGERS: You see what we're asking for. I've put it in front of you. We would like a motion that you have this -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Your 30 seconds has expired now. MR. ROGERS: Thank you. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Okay. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We want an investigation. We want our chief. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We want him back. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We want him back. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I figured that. I really got that figured out. Okay. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We want you to do your job. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Look how many people are here. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Will you please conduct yourselves properly. Thank you very much. Commissioner Fiala? Page 43 December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. Obviously, we can't make any decisions today whatsoever. But what I would like to do is bring this back so that we can discuss it. But before we do that, I would like to call for an outside agency to do a thorough and complete investigation of this, a forensic investigation if they do such a thing. And then bring that report back to us on an agenda item when that is accomplished. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who was next? Was it Hiller? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Hiller, I think. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, go ahead. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I'd like to ask some questions and get some clarification. Leo, what is the process for termination? I mean, is it normal to have unofficial meetings in restaurants without the presence of HR when there is a concern about employment? Is it appropriate to have informal investigations? As a matter of process, is it appropriate to let the press know -- I think it was Karla. Karla, didn't you report on that? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Who told you about it? MS. BRUNING: I am not going to say that. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm sorry? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I am not going to say that. MR. OCHS: Commissioner, is this directed at me or -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Was it someone from staff, because I would like to know? CHAIRMAN COYLE: She says she's not going to reply, so she's not going to reply. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I'm going to -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: You can't interrogate her. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm going -- I'm going to ask Leo. N,:_ December 13 -14, 2011 Leo, I want to know who from county staff shared this information with the press. Is that protocol? When an employee is in the process of going through a termination, who would know other than HR about that, and would HR or any other staff member, any supervisor, give that information to the press so the press can be there with a camera and, you know, the microphone in the person's mouth as they're being escorted? I mean, is that the way things are done? I mean, I'm just -- my concern when I look at all of this -- and I don't know the facts. And I agree with Commissioner Fiala that we need to have an investigation, because there are a lot of questions here. There are questions about bank accounts, there are questions about payroll. All of those issues deserve to be investigated in part by the Clerk's Office, in part by somebody else, you know, regarding the other issues. But my concern is with the process. You know, I care that everything is done fairly, that there is due process in however we treat our employees with respect to any issue. And what I have heard today in the testimony presented by Mr. Rogers is that I see a process which seems to be fundamentally unfair and fundamentally unsound, and that leaves me very concerned. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Can we let the County Manager respond to those things? COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I will, but I want to add one more thing. Notwithstanding that I know that the county has the right to terminate at will, that is irrelevant to the issue of the process and the fairness of this issue. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning has a question. Do you want to ask your question before he answers Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm not sure where we Page 45 December 13 -14, 2011 want to go with an investigation. What do we want to do after that? Because the citizens want Chief Rodriguez back at Isle of Capri. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, if we do an investigation and if we find out it's contrary to the -- to what happened, is that the ultimate goal, Commissioner Fiala? I know this is a different -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: My ultimate goal is to find out exactly what went on. This is -- you know, there's a lot of things that leave unanswered questions in my mind, I'm sure in other people's minds, too. It's kind of like a "he said, she said" type of a thing, and I want to hear from an outside source who has nothing to do with the price of rice what actually happened, what actually took place. Is there other -- are there other things behind -- you know, even other things that led up to it that is -- are not revealed in here? I just want to know what's going on. And if, indeed -- if, indeed, this -- there were some discrepancies, I would want to know that too. I would want to know, if this is all correct and we're all wrong, I want to know that too. I just want to know the facts. I don't want to be -- I don't want to be led around because of emotion. I loved working with Chief Rod. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I mean, he was a great guy. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Still is. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: He's kind of like the mayor of Isles of Capri. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, if an outside investigation clears him, great. If it doesn't, well, then, you know, I would be -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: So be it. Page 46 December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, so be it. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Just do the right thing. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not done yet. The concern that I have -- and I understand, and I agree with you, the ultimate goal is to clear his name and, you know, bring him back as fire chief. The problem is, we're forbidden to interfere -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- with the day -to -day business. In fact, the County Manager -- and this is through not only our ordinance, but state statutes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I understand that. And the people understand that, too, you know. They -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I finish, please? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HENNING: He has a right to suspend, discharge, remove an employee under the jurisdiction of the board pursuant to the board's policies, okay. And then there is a penalty if the commissioners interfere with this process and, in fact, in the Florida Statutes, Section 4 of the Constitution -- I'm sorry, the Constitution, 7A, a violation of this section shall be a violation of a division and shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed $500 and imprisonment by -- the county jail not to exceed 60 days. But, however, in the Constitution -- this constitutes malfeasance under the Constitution. Mr. -- or the chief has other alternatives that he can, without the board interfering -- and get involved in those processes that's against the Constitution and the Florida Statute and our ordinance. And I would encourage the citizens and Chief Rodriguez to go through that process instead of us getting involved, because it's a slippery slope of getting -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What's the process? Page 47 December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- getting us involved. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I respond to that? CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, you're not up yet. Commissioner Hiller. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. That's all right. Go ahead. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are we going to continue to debate this issue, or are we going to ask the County Manager to respond? We've probably already forgotten the questions that were asked 20 minutes ago. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm happy to go through them again. And I'd just -- I'd like to comment on what Commissioner Henning has said before the County Manager begins. May I? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think Commissioner Henning is absolutely right, and I know that the public understands what our limitations are, which is exactly why I'm asking about the process. This is -- this goes to the issue of the system. This goes to the issue of the laws with respect to employment. This goes to public policy with respect to how, you know, we as a board want to see our staff respected, as we properly should. But ultimately there are just a whole host of issues about process that have to be answered. There is a whole host of issues unrelated to process but to about facts that have to be answered with respect to safeguarding county assets, with respect to wages. So those all have to be addressed. And that is separate and apart from the act of terminating Mr. -- Chief Rodriguez, as you have chosen to do, Leo. So we need answers on many different levels. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. County -- (Applause.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala, go ahead. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was just going to say in regards to what Commissioner Henning just said, this is why I know we cannot I' December 13 -14, 2011 enter into this. This is a decision made only by the County Manager, and we can't tell him what to do. But I could ask for an investigation, and then whatever the investigation reveals, the County Manager would act on it, we have -- and I realize that we can't get involved, but I think we can ask for an investigation, can't we, or can't we? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, we can. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have to ask the County Attorney. MR. KLATZKOW: If you're going to ask my opinion, there is a remedy, okay, and that remedy is the courts, and that remedy would be a wrongful- termination suit. The county's defending several of those at this present time. And, frankly, I would welcome, okay, that suit brought by Chief Rod rather than doing this show that we have here today, because -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Show. MR. KLATZKOW: -- quite frankly, okay, we do not put every reason why someone is terminated in one of those behavioral action plans. We do not want to destroy a person's career. We do not want to engage in defamation of character. We want somebody to be able to leave the county and get employment elsewhere. But if Chief Rod decides to go to the courts and attack the county on this, then it will all come out. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Good. MR. KLATZKOW: At that point in time, okay, there will be no problem with the county worried about slander or libel or defamation or anything like that. It will be in defense of a wrongful termination suit, all right. That's the process to do this, not this process, where you're asking this board to be in violation of state law and its own ordinance. That's what you're asking this board to do -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No, we're not. MR. KLATZKOW: Through political pressure, that's what you're asking this board to do -- December 13 -14, 2011 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No, we're not. MR. KLATZKOW: -- and it's not the right thing to do. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Investigate your practices. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we have order, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you want to clear the room? Do you really want to do that? Now, we do not need an unruly mob in here yelling from the audience. We seldom have that kind of behavior here. It does not further your cause, okay? So, please, conduct yourselves appropriately, and let us try to get to a solution. Leo? MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you can, very briefly, will you just -- MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. It will be brief in light of your County Attorney's remarks. Let me just begin by saying that I understand and I certainly appreciate the sincere interest shown by the Isle of Capri residents in their fire department, and I share that interest. In fact, by virtue of my position, I have the ultimate responsibility to ensure that the department operates efficiently and effectively, and just as importantly that those employees down there are properly led and managed. So it is that duty that ultimately has led me to support and conclude that a change in leadership was warranted at the Isles of Capri. It was not a decision that was entered into lightly or without close consultation with our human resources department and our County Attorney's Office. With regard to due process, the process used in this investigation for a position at this level was not inappropriate, not extraordinary, has been used many times in the past. I would also say, with respect to due process, in this case, unlike most other directors or administrators who work under Florida law at the will of the County Manager, are at -will employees and subject to termination without cause. Page 50 December 13 -14, 2011 Because of his position as a certified firefighter, the chief was also given a hearing under the Firefighters' Bill of Rights. He's also been offered and accepted a name - clearing hearing that's offered under Florida law. So I think due process has been achieved in this case. And if the board would like to order whatever investigation of any additional process that they'd like to know about, I'd be pleased to provide that information. But at the end of the day, as your County Attorney has advised, the law -- not only Florida Statute, as Commissioner Henning mentioned, but your local ordinance not only prohibits you from reinstating a terminated employee, but I believe it prohibits you from directing me to reinstate an employee who has been terminated, whether it's for cause or not for cause. So those are the facts as I know them, Mr. Chairman. I'll be happy to answer any questions or move forward with whatever action the board would like. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta is the one person who has wanted to speak that hasn't had the opportunity, so we're going to let him go. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, thank you, sir. Boy, the passion in this room. I wish I had this many friends. But I -- one of the things -- I really understand where you're coming from, and I -- your passion is great, but we're against some obstacles that were placed in our Florida Statutes and within our ordinances to prevent us from overruling the county administrator based upon political reasons. Now, there is remedies for this that are already in play. Leo, what is still in the works at this point in time? MR. OCHS: Well, as I mentioned, I believe Mr. Rodriguez has been offered and accepted an opportunity for a name - clearing hearing that will occur, I believe, in January. He also has whatever remedies the County Attorney indicated to you previously. Page 51 December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And at that point in time will we get a full report of the results of those additional hearings that are taking place? MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, they're public records available to anybody that wants to view them. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Well, I thank you very much, sir. One of the things, though, that I find disturbing, just as disturbing as you find the chief s integrity challenged -- I think we need to reflect back, too. We have a very good person on our staff who has served us very well, without question, for years, and that's the head of our Emergency Management Department, who is being dragged through the mud on this issue. I can tell you that my dealings with him over the many years that I've dealt with him have been beyond reproach. And so I'm a little bit put back by some of the comments that are made here today. So, I mean, it goes both ways. When we come to these proceedings, please, try to keep as civil as possible until we can sort out all the facts that are there and all the options that are available. This thing doesn't end here today. This is going to go on for a little while longer. And in the end everybody will have their say, and everything possible that can be done will be done, I'm sure. I mean, this many people just don't disappear into the woodwork. I'm sure there's going to probably end up being a long, lengthy court case that's going to proceed which will determine a final determination as to who was right and wrong on this. But, please, in the meantime be as civil as you possibly can with each other and those around you. And with that, the best of the holiday season to you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Ochs never said who called Page 52 December 13 -14, 2011 the meeting. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Please. Commissioner Henning, did you want to comment? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just real quick. I can be -- I am very sympathetic on this issue on somebody who's served that community very well according to what we heard and the emotion there. In recent past we had a paramedic that was alleged to be wrongfully disciplined. That paramedic went through the court system, and the Court made that determination of that discipline action. The court ruled in favor of the paramedic. The County Manager took action on that, and I'm glad he did because I had a little bit of information of that paramedic that was disciplined, and I thought he was wrongfully disciplined, and the Court proved it right. That's the proper process. So it has to go through that process, and -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- I would just hope that the County Manager, if it has shed it some new light, that he would take the proper action like he has done in the past, so -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: And it's not as if we haven't been given information by the County Manager about what has taken place here. We have not been entirely in the dark. That's not to say that we know everything that has happened. But bottom line, legally, is -- and there's a difference between what's legal and what's fair -- but, legally, he doesn't have to give a reason to fire anybody. He can just say -- fire an at -will employee. There is a process for other employees, but for an at -will employee, he can walk in the door one day and say, I want to fire you, and he's well within his rights to do that, and there's nothing we can do if he does that except to evaluate him on his handling of personnel affairs when it comes time for his annual evaluation. That's it. (Applause.) Page 53 December 13 -14, 2011 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, I understand the board's interest in getting the facts, but I would be reluctant to spend money on an investigation that would essentially be used for some sort of legal action against us. So I would be very concerned about doing that. I see no reason why any of the commissioners cannot get a full report from the County Manager about his position on all of the issues that have been -- that have been brought up here, and I think we should all insist on that, but I don't know that I would support an investigation into this issue, because once you get the report of the investigation, there's nothing you can do with it. Let's suppose the investigation says the County Manager was wrong. So what? If we try to tell him to reverse his actions, we can be imprisoned. So that's not going to happen. So there's little point in proceeding down that path, but nevertheless. Commissioner Hiller still has her light on. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. To begin, this was not a -- this was not really treated as an at -will termination. This was clearly treated as a termination for cause because of the volumes of material that were produced to show fault. Secondly, with respect to being informed, I asked the County Manager what happened, and to date I've been told nothing. So I don't know about the other commissioners, but I will tell you I was not told he was going to be terminated, and to date I have not been given any information as to what has happened. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Neither have we. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And let me just say this: There are significant issues at play here. Improper bank accounts, questions about safeguarding county assets, issues about pay, payroll, compensation pay. That is a board issue. We are fiduciaries of your tax dollar, and it is up to us to ensure that they are safeguarded, and we have that protection through the Page 54 December 13 -14, 2011 Clerk of Courts and his ability to audit. Now, I bring that up because going way back, going back years, Chief Rod was charged with mishandling public records related to a bank account, a volunteer bank account. And during his questioning, as I understand in a deposition, he pled the Fifth over and over and over again, and this board didn't have a problem with that, because this board did not want the Clerk of Courts to be able to audit the bank accounts, and they used Chief Rod to instigate a charge against the Clerk and say, no, you cannot audit. And, by the way, the higher courts of Florida said this board is wrong about that. What is going on here? I want to know. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Us, too. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I made a motion to call for an outside investigation. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A motion by Commissioner Fiala for an outside investigation. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seconded by Commissioner Hiller. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I want to qualify what this outside investigation is. This is an investigation as to the process. This is an investigation to make a determination that nobody, regardless of who it is, has been defamed in any way, that there aren't any false statements that have been made. This is an investigation which I think we should bring the Clerk in on with respect to the bank accounts and the payroll issues. This is something where we need an answer on process. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think also important is to investigate all of these -- all of the items in here and things that aren't in here, things that possibly are known but rather kept quiet just Page 55 December 13 -14, 2011 because they didn't want to in any way harm the reputation of Chief Rod. You know, we have to bring it all out. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I spoke with Dwight Brock, and Dwight would love to do an audit of this. And I told him I was going to be calling for an investigation, and he feels he has some things to add to this as far as, just as you said, bank accounts and so forth. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And when you talk about bank accounts, let me just go back a little bit with the Ochopee problem that we had a few years back, and that was the Clerk that discovered. Now, the account that Ochopee had was innocuous. I mean, it was, you know, a bunch of volunteers having bake sales and car washes and stuff in order to buy candy for the kids at Halloween, Christmas gifts for the children. Well, this is the same thing with Isles of Capri. It's just -- you know, it's just a pleasant thing. But the Clerk said, you can't have -- you can't have a bank account, checking account, and the volunteers that use the tax ID number from the county. If you want to do one on your own and it has nothing to do with county business at all, that's fine, but you were using the tax ID number, so you can't do that. And so that -- and this is what the Clerk is afraid of might be happening. And, of course, as he pointed out, he doesn't know, if there's one, how many more are there? Now, the problem with this is Chief Rod knew that account was there, and he should have said to the volunteers, as wonderful as they are -- and you can see there was nothing ever happening in the account except that the bank was taking out $15 a month because there is no activity in the account. But still in all, it was an outstanding account, and it shouldn't have been there, and the Clerk was absolutely right, and it shouldn't -- Page 56 December 13-14,2011 when Chief Rod saw what was happening in Ochopee, he should have just said, oh, I'm going to close that thing down and, you guys, you put it in somebody else's name, not in ours. But, anyway, so, you know, I think that the Clerk would be great to call in on this as well. But I just wanted to get down to the facts, because everybody's got -- you know, even us, we're not really privy to a lot of the information because you didn't want to in any way malign or -- you know, or attack somebody's reputation. So if that's okay with everyone and with the Clerk -- with the County Attorney, can we -- MR. KLATZKOW: You're mixing two different issues here. You have one issue with respect to whether or not Chief Rod was properly terminated. That issue brings out your County Manager's Office's state statutes. You have another issue whether or not Chief Rodriguez engaged in misfeasance or malfeasance while in that office, all right. We have given the Clerk all the records that we have. The Clerk is free to conduct whatever investigation he wishes to into what happened there. And if the Clerk needs additional cooperation from my office or the County Manager's Office, we will give him that. So I don't need -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: I don't think you need another investigation. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, good. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, but -- may I? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HILLER: We have an issue with process here. And I need to know what process is being used and how it's being used, because it's one thing to say, we can terminate at will and just terminate at will. We've got a very different situation here. We have informal investigations. We have clandestine meetings. We have communications with the press. We have all sorts of questions about Page 57 December 13-14,2011 safeguarding assets and, you know, the process and the protocol for that. There is a lot here. I'm not talking about investigating whether or not this man should be fired or re- hired. I'm questioning the entire process of what has happened. And, quite frankly, that concerns me from a public - policy standpoint, as well as from an employment -law standpoint, and that is an entirely different issue, and this has nothing to do with our directing the County Manager to hire or fire or re -hire or anything along those lines. I think there are a lot of unanswered questions. And I will tell you I have gotten a lot of emails from EMS in the past year from employees claiming harassment, intimidation, all sort of concerns about threats. Now, this has nothing to do with Chief Rod. There was a problem. I went to Leo, and I told him I've got real concerns. What's going on? We can't have that kind of thing happen, period. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could I make a suggestion? We're going to take a break in just a minute so -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: I want to finish my comment. I'd like to finish. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, please get there. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I will, I will. I want to address what this lady said over here, the question about, you know, the press and how they found out about it, okay. Again, an issue as to process. What I'm going to do is I'm going to help you get that information. I'm going to do a public- records request right here and right now with respect to any employee, any commissioner, any member of staff that made any communication, be it by email, by phone, whether they physically handed a record over. I want to see who communicated with Karla and gave her the information. If they made a phone call, I want the phone record to Karla regarding this matter. I want that phone record. If they sent an email to Karla, I want that. If they Page 58 December 13 -14, 2011 physically gave her the document, I want that. I want to know who leaked this information to the press ahead of any of us knowing it. And I also want to know how come other commissioners are getting information and I'm not, and why did you tell me -- (Applause.) COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- when I asked you that you would get back to me? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know if this is really necessary. MR. OCHS: Commissioner, I spoke to you last evening on the phone about this in detail. If you didn't choose to listen when I talked to you, then I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Mr. Ochs, you're being insubordinate. CHAIRMAN COYLE: He has no obligation to be subordinate. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know where this is productive. CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's not. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, there's a motion on the floor and a second. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And with that motion, she -- the second had said something about process, and I believe that should be an agenda item, not an investigation item. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well -- and that's what I want to clarify, if that's what it meant. I mean, employee policies and procedures, that can be reviewed independently, or the -- we can put it on our agenda, however -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: And use how this case was Page 59 December 13 -14, 2011 handled as an example? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm just talking about, in general, the policies of the employees of the Board of Commissioners can you put on a future agenda for the board to -- I mean, I have a copy of it in my office. I'm sure all the commissioners have a copy of it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Uh -huh. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But, anyways, I don't want to -- if this is going to be a court case, I don't want to further this discussion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right. Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Fiala, seconded by Commissioner Hiller. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All opposed, by like sign. Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It loses 3 -2 with Commissioners Henning, Coletta, and Coyle voting in the majority to oppose it. I will make a motion that we ask the County Manager to provide a complete report to every commissioner with all the details and justifications for the action taken just for information purposes. Despite what we have said on this board, I still believe that you don't understand that we don't have the authority to reinstate Chief Rod. You have asked us specifically, you said, that the board take action regarding termination so that he may be reinstated to his rightful position immediately. There is no way we can do that, okay. But the point of process is certainly a valid point. We should understand what procedure is being used for doing this but, quite frankly, by law, the County Manager doesn't have to have a procedure December 13 -14, 2011 for this particular case. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So -- okay. So that's the -- in my opinion, the best way to proceed with it. Okay. We have a motion by me, second by Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I ask a question before you call the vote? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, go ahead. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Isn't a report already prepared? CHAIRMAN COYLE: There have been questions raised here today that might need to be answered. You apparently have questions that need to be answered. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Did you -- have you prepared a report already? MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Have you given it to any of these commissioners already? MR. OCHS: No, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: No one has read it or seen it? MR. OCHS: No. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you've already complied with the request that we're going to be voting on? MR. OCHS: Well, as I understand the request, there's an element of it having to do with the review of process that I haven't addressed, so I'd be happy to do that as well. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you will supplement whatever you've already written with answers about how the process was applied in this particular instance? MR. OCHS: Certainly. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Great. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Page 61 December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER HENNING: That wasn't the motion. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And, by the way, that report that has been written as -is right now is a public record, and any of you who want it can simply ask to get it, and Leo will forward it to you, happily. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just want to recognize that wasn't the motion. I think the motion was clear. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, I think it was. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So we're going to take a ten - minute break. Do you need more time than that, Terri? THE COURT REPORTER: No. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. We'll be back here at 11:05. (A brief recess was had.) MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The Board of County Commission meeting is back in session. We're going to take up the last public- petition item now. Item #6B Page 62 December 13 -14, 2011 PUBLIC PETITION BY KATHLEEN PRATT REGARDING WATER/SEWER BILLING — DISCUSSED MR. OCHS: Sir, that's Item 6B. It's a public - petition request from Kathleen Pratt regarding water and sewer billing. MS. PRATT: Hello. My name is Kathleen Pratt. Thank you for having me speak here today. My husband and I live in Riverwood Estates. It's a 55 -plus manufactured -home community in East Naples. And in October we got a bill from the Collier County Water and Sewage Division stating that they had made a very large mistake on our billing and this went on for a period of four years; 44 months to be exact. And the bill was given to us that they thought that we owed and a recalculation schedule per month of everything that they felt that we owed, and it came to $1,309. So I decided to petition the board today to ask that maybe some compromise could be made in the bill and it could be looked at and possibly the months that there was zero consumption of water and sewage for the 44 months that the billing was, that it could be looked at and possibly a compromise could be made in the amount of the bill. CHAIRMAN COYLE: What kind of compromise are you looking at? MS. PRATT: Well, I don't feel that -- you know, it was their error that caused the billing to begin with and that the burden shouldn't be all on us. I mean, they should bear some burden for the mistake that they made. So it was just my suggestion that possibly the months where there was zero consumption water and sewage that possibly those months could be waived and we make a compromise on the amount. You know, that would alleviate some of the amount of the bill. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Very briefly, we have to make a decision on whether we bring it back. But, very briefly, can we get a Page 63 December 13 -14, 2011 statement from the staff -- MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- so that we understand this a little better? MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just have one question. Have you owned the property for 44 months or longer? MS. PRATT: Yes. This actually occurred from the onset of us owning the property. MR. OCHS: Sir, I'll ask Mr. Ballone to very briefly summarize his situation and what the county has offered to the customer. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right. He'll -- okay, you can use this mic. MR. BALLONE: I can use this one. Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Joe Ballone, Manager of Utility Billing Customer Service. Back in October we implemented a new GIS -based tool that just became available to us. And what it does is it matches customers that are adjacent to our sewer gravity lines to our utility billing database to match to sewer rate codes. We identified four properties within Riverwood Estates; No. 263 where Ms. Pratt lives, 296, 298, and 305 that were not being billed. We offered -- all of those are in the area of twelve to thirteen hundred dollars in terms of the charges for the period that they were receiving the service but not paying. And I will say it was a billing error. What we've done is we've offered each of those property owners an interest -free deferred payment plan. Three of those have signed and are paying on the deferred payment plan. Ms. Pratt, in her request, asked that you waive the availability charges. Those are the base charges that all of the ratepayers in the utility pay. Regardless of whether they're here or not, they cover the fixed charges of the utility. I think in her public - petition request she requested you waive those. O-.M December 13 -14, 2011 We did offer up to a 48 -month payment plan to the Pratts, which would add $27.26 to their utility bill over the next 48 months. And to this point they have declined and took the route of talking to the commission today. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can you tell the board why you feel you should be treated differently than the other three people who were in similar circumstances? MS. PRATT: Well, they had the same opportunity as I did to petition the board, and they obviously chose not to. My case should be looked at individually. I don't know why they didn't petition the board. They certainly had the opportunity to. I didn't know who the other people were. I didn't know how many other people were involved or who they were. I didn't know who they were. I did this as an individual. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. But now knowing that there were others who agreed to the time payment plan -- MS. PRATT: I did speak to Mr. Lund and -- before I decided to petition the board. I felt it was my right as a citizen to do this. CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is. MS. PRATT: And I did speak to him, and he was, you know, more than accommodating to, you know, work out the schedule. And at first, I said, well, you know, it's going to take four years to pay this back. And then I decided to go through the other stages of what was my right as a citizen, and I decided to do that, so -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. This was a noninterest -- was the interest free? MR. BALLONE: Yes. These plans are interest free, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm complete. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So let me just make sure I Page 65 December 13 -14, 2011 understand what went on. So, Mrs. Pratt, she and her husband were receiving water for these 44 months and sewer service, but they never got a bill; is that it? MR. BALLONE: They received a bill for water service only, not sewer service while they were connected to the sewer system and receiving that service for the period of time. They bought their home in January of 2008. And we've only -- we've done the calculation based on the time period that they've owned the property and received the service, 44 months. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did you happen to notice that you weren't being billed for this sewer service? MS. PRATT: No. I -- we're from Pennsylvania, and our billing system is totally different there. Our water is a complete separate company. Our sewage and refuge is with the township. So our billing system is totally different. When the bill came in from Collier County, I just paid it. I didn't realize it wasn't all grouped together. I had nothing to compare it to. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I can understand that. I've never figured out the utility bills in Collier County, or anywhere else for that matter, quite frankly. MS. PRATT: It's just unacceptable to me that this went on for four years without anybody discovering it, and now I'm the one that has to bear the burden for it? I think there ought to be some -- utility commission ought to have some responsibility here. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, you see, the way this works is that the people who would pay for that if you didn't are the other users of the service. It's not the county. The county doesn't get punished in this case, although you can make the argument that we should. But the point is that if we have a shortage in one account, that shortage has to be made up by charges in the other accounts. MS. PRATT: Well, I'm not asking that the whole amount of bill be alleviated. I'm only asking that since there was such a large ' . �' • • December 13-14,2011 mistake made that there are -- or were several months where there was absolutely no consumption -- it's a seasonal place and there was no consumption of water or sewage, that possibly that couldn't be waived. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Any further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there a motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The board has decided not to bring this back for a full hearing, so your request has been denied. MS. PRATT: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. But please get with our guys and look at that time payment plan. MS. PRATT: Okay. MR. BALLONE: Thank you, Commissioners. Item #I OB FINDINGS OF THE INDEPENDENT LEGAL REVIEW OF THE COUNTY'S CURRENT PURCHASING POLICY AND DIRECT STAFF TO RETURN WITH AN ORDINANCE TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED REVISIONS — MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSULTANT'S REPORT AND FOR STAFF TO WORK WITH THE CLERK' S OFFICE AND BRING BACK A PROPOSED ORDINANCE AT A FUTURE BOARD MEETING — APPROVED MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a 10:45 time - certain item scheduled for this morning's agenda, if you'd like to go to that, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. Let's go to that one. MR. OCHS: It's Item IOB on your agenda. It's a recommendation to accept the findings of the independent legal review of the county's current purchasing policy and direct staff to return to the board with an ordinance to adopt the proposed revisions. Page 67 December 13 -14, 2011 Ms. Price will present. MS. PRICE: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Len Price, Administrator of Administrative Services. On March the 8th of this year you directed us to obtain a -- to hire a firm, a legal firm, Becker & Polioff or Poliakoff -- I'm not sure I can pronounce that well -- to conduct an independent review and comprehensive review of the county's current purchasing policy. That review was done by Mr. Bill Cea, a principal of that firm, and he's here today to answer any of your questions and present his findings. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The -- I asked several questions concerning the wording in this document. Did you get a proper interpretation of what those things should have said? MR. CARNELL: For the record, Steve Carnell, Purchasing Director. I was aware of one question specifically, Commissioner Coyle. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. CARNELL: And, yes, we did get clarification. If you'd like me to address that now, I can. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. Please tell me what that sentence was supposed to say. MR. CARNELL: Commissioner Coyle had raised a question. I believe it was on Page 6 of the policy draft that Mr. Cea had commented on. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why don't you give us the packet page number so everybody can refer to it. MR. CARNELL: 675. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That's what I've got. MR. CARNELL: Okay. And in Section E of that paragraph, the existing language, Mr. Cea -- and Mr. Cea had gone through and made wording suggestions to tighten or -- tighten up, clarify, strengthen the meaning or intent. And in -- under the area of exceptions or waivers December 13 -14, 2011 of irregularity, the already existing language, existing practice of the board, he added some language. Essentially what he was just simply trying to convey in that one sentence was that this would be done at the discretion of the board, and I think it's worded slightly off. I think the intent was to say "at the discretion." CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Are you going to reword it that way, remove the word "and." MR. CARNELL: Yes, sir, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And maybe "and in" and just put "at the discretion of the board." MR. CARNELL: Yes. Just so we're clear, we're not adopting this today. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I understand, but you're going to use it for the purpose of adoption. If we don't make the correction today, I'll have to go through this again. MR. CARNELL: Oh, absolutely. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I want to go through it one time, okay? All right. MR. CARNELL: I hear you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: There are a couple of other similar ones like that, but they're not nearly as confusing, so I won't belabor those. MR. CARNELL: If you want to convey that to us after the meeting, we'll be happy to address it at a later date, bring it back. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Very well. And that's the end of your presentation. Oh, no. I'm sorry. The consultant's going to present it. MR. CEA: Good morning, members of the commission. William Cea, Becker & Poliakoff, 625 North Flagler Drive, West Palm Beach. I think the intent was to let me at least say hello -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. CEA: -- and tell you who I am and what we were asked to do. Essentially, I'm an attorney with Becker & Poliakoff. I know our .9--M December 13 -14, 2011 firm has appeared before, or members of our firm in our Fort Myers and Naples office have probably appeared before you. I'm in the West Palm Beach office. I'm an attorney that practices primarily in public procurement and construction law. I've handled public procurement matters since roughly 1993. I have represented and done work for numerous municipalities, a community redevelopment agency for a county, school district, housing authority, and then others on a case -by -case basis, and I also do a significant amount of work representing private entities who are doing business with government and have, for better or for worse over the years, a significant amount of litigation regarding award decisions and for what we all know and call bid protests. So, basically, we were asked to take a look at the existing policy. It was my understanding that staff was in the process of updating it. As you probably can imagine, just like any other area of the law, over time statutes change, statutes are amended, and those have to be factored in. And as we pointed out in our cover letter, local governments really, when you talk about a procurement policy, it's really a mix of policy and state law. There's -- just for clarification, for the commission's benefit, there is no state statute or state chapter that governs, from a general standpoint, a set of procurement procedures for local governments in Florida. What we have is, as you know, broad home rule, and when it applies to local governments, you may have on an individual basis a statute that makes it -- by its wording, is applicable to local government, such as what you may have heard from, over time to time, CCNA, Consultants Competitive Negotiation Act, and there's also some statutes in Chapter 255 that pertain to public construction projects that are also made applicable to counties and municipalities. But by and large, what you see statewide is a mix of some of these statutes that do apply to local governments, but primarily really policy decisions to tailor to suit the needs of individual counties. December 13 -14, 2011 So what we were asked to do is generally take a look at the policy and go through and comment on sections that we would -- we would recommend some revision or updating and to factor in changes that have occurred probably in some of these statutes that do apply, some case law. So, for example, Mr. Chairman, the section you were referring to -- I understand taking out the comment and the word "and." It will probably make that a little clearer. But the section after that was, for example, the one that, by case law, we thought would be worth commenting on and what is a minor irregularity so that it would give you guidance and it would give your staff guidance so that if the commission -- if there was an issue with a particular bid that you considered minor or a technicality, it wasn't a change in price, this would give you some guidance that's consistent with case law as to what is a minor technicality or a minor irregularity. So what we tried to do is when we made comment, we took those comments from -- I didn't essentially try and make policy recommendations or what I would consider policy decisions, but we tried to take comments from case law and from statutes that do apply and factor those into our comments. So that's really the embodiment of the redline comments. We were also asked to take a look at the -- at the policy from a general standpoint. And what I can tell you is, it's very consistent with how pretty much every county across the state does its business. To varying degrees, every policy that I'm aware of, charter and non - charter counties alike, have a distinction between formal competitive procurement, meaning at what monetary layer do we want to spend the time and money to advertise, to spend the time and money to have selection committees, to spend the time and money to have contracts that are complicated enough, for example, to require negotiations, such as with architects and engineers who might be designing any building, versus what most agencies consider routine day -to -day Page 71 December 13 -14, 2011 purchases which, by definition, the commissions generally don't, for example, want to approve each and every paper clip or binder clip, because they're trying to balance, as we pointed out in the letter, home -rule authority in Chapter 125, not interposing yourselves in the day -to -day minutiae of running the business of the county contrasted with your ultimate responsibility as the policy- making entity for the county. So what most counties have done, to varying extents -- I mean, some are as low as 25,000 for a competitive procurement, some are as high as a million. So there's really a wide degree. But one common theme across the state is that most policies have a threshold before, A, you get to competitive procurement, meaning advertised competition, et cetera, as opposed to a request for quotations, and, B, the other thing about the threshold is by and large the commissions usually provide instruction to staff that below those thresholds, whatever that threshold is, whatever the commission does decide from a policy standpoint that threshold is, below that threshold, that those purchases of goods and supplies and services can be done without formal advertisement and without formal approval. And by and large, like I said, those are your lesser expensive or your ordinary expenses or your things that you just, from a policy standpoint, want to tell staff what to do and how to do it but you don't want to have on an agenda item every binder clip. So that's -- that's generally -- and it also seems to be consistent with the one -- there's not much in the way of appellate case law on this subject primarily because courts don't really like the idea of telling government how to make award decisions, and they tell us that in numerous cases -- but based on the plain language of Chapter 125 that says the purpose -- what the purpose of the county form of government is, to have administration so that commissioners are not required to undertake the multitude of details necessary to run the business of government. Page 72 December 13-14,2011 So -- but on the other hand, the staff should not be making law, making policies. They should be implementing policy. So I think that's why I say your code is substantially consistent and similar to the ones you see statewide. So I think most, to varying degrees, as far as what those thresholds should be or what types, for example -- give you a quick example, design -build contracts. The state statute that does apply says you can do either a request for proposals for a design -build contract where price is a consideration, or it could be an evaluation of credentials, a qualifications base without pricing, so do it either way. It doesn't say you have to do one or the other. So my recommendations, I say, you know, you get to decide as the county which way you want on a particular -- on a particular job. But, basically, you have those sorts of policy decisions, and you want to spell those out how that should be done so you're providing guidance above and below these thresholds, but these are ultimately what the thresholds should be, what direction you want to give to staff, how the purchases should be made. You know, those are -- those are primarily policy decisions for you in adopting the ordinance. So, I mean, from a general standpoint, that's what I see and that's what our impressions are of this. And then from a specific standpoint, we went through and gave you redline comments to point you in directions that we would say consider additional changes. And the only caveat I'd give to any of that is we have several pieces of legislation pending at the state level right now which could impact our recommendations, you know, as early as March, for example, if there's a statute that modifies the CCNA, if there's a statute that creates what's pending now, House Bill 337, talking about private - public partnership program which permits a very new concept of bidding where developers can bid to you in the absence of an advertisement. Those sort of things, if enacted, you know, it's something that Page 73 December 13 -14, 2011 your legal counsel, staff will have to decide whether they further complement or change any of this, but that's why I'm saying we -- in the cover letter, over time you have changes in law or changes in statutes. So this is something that needs to be looked at every once in a while. It's not, you know, something you want to adopt and then never look at again. So in general that's, I think, a good overview. If you have specific questions, I'll be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Who was first? Had to be Commissioner Hiller. COMMISSIONER HILLER: It actually wasn't, but I'll take the first shot. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was me. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let Commissioner Henning speak first. I think he's anxious to speak, and then I'll speak after. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, go ahead. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You spoke about home rule. Who's that home rule afforded to? MR. CEA: The entity, the county, as opposed to the state. So when I -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: The entity. Who's the entity? MR. CEA: The county. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who's the county? MR. CEA: The county's a separate, independent political entity. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you believe in a representative form of government? MR. CEA: I mean, generally, I think we all do. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you aware of Statute 125.74? Page 74 December 13-14,2011 MR. CEA: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Now, in your cover letter you provided opinions on opinions by the state attorney general, correct? MR. CEA: We pointed to a couple. COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. What was the question under AGO 99 -75? MR. CEA: Well, the question was whether a purchasing policy which had various thresholds, monetary thresholds, so -- where the school board had to approve contracts over, for example, $25,000 but that staff and their superintendent staff could approve purchases under a certain level, that that was a policy decision for the school board to make to adopt the policy, but implementation of it was primarily administrative. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Maybe it's a different copy of 99 -75 that I have, but let me read it. Dear Ms. Prettyman: On behalf of the School Board of Palm Beach, you have asked for my opinion on substantially the following question: May the bidder or proposal on a school board district request for a proposal or a request for a bid lobby or communicate with the school board members who will vote to accept the bid or proposal for goods and services? Do I have a different one than you do? MR. CEA: No, sir, that's the right one. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there any other questions that the school board is asking? MR. CEA: I'm not sure if that's what they were asking or not. I mean, that is the question they answered. But in the discussion of the opinion, they talk about policy. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that was the question -- MR. CEA: Right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- that they asked. MR. CEA: I agree. Page 75 December 13-14,2011 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. You do agree. But in there they refer to a procurement policy that they have adopted. Nowhere in here could I see that they -- the State Attorney General, has stated whether this policy is legal or illegal. It's just a reference. MR. CEA: Right. The point -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The reference is there. MR. CEA: The point -- Commissioner, the point -- I just can clarify. The reason we cited it in the letter is because of the dialogue in the AGO for -- specifically on Page 3 where the attorney general comments that -- after describing the purchasing policy, it describes on Page 3, quote, in light of the nature of the decision - making being done and the clear strictures on how choices -- how such choices are made, it appears that this is primarily an administration of the board rather than quasi-judicial. So the point was that they've set a parameter in administering that policy. They're not making new -- they're not making a judicial determination, but that it's an administrative function to -- to implement a policy that had these purchasing thresholds. So we only -- we only point to it by analogy. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Anywhere in 125, which is governed by the Board of Commissioners, that you seen that the staff or County Manager can enter into contract? MR. CEA: Well, I think that -- I think that -- like I said, that what 125 does say is that it's the job -- in Chapter 125.7 1, that it's the job of -- the purpose of that portion of the statutes is to provide a framework whereby governmental and policy- making decisions are made by the commissioners, and the staff, as an administration, are to basically alleviate having to do the multitude of day -to -day work, so -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Specifically 125.74 says the county administrator shall administer the board's contracts, agreements, so on and so forth. Nowhere that I see, what you're saying is that staff can enter into contract. Page 76 December 13-14,2011 MR. CEA: Well -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Have you looked at -- I understand that you were asked to take a look at AGO 8861. MR. CEA: Yes. And I've seen that before and after this particular project. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And that's the second question, if -- so may the Clerk of Court, acting as county auditor, accept payment, claims for payments due on contracts or leases executed by the assistant county administrator with delegated authority from the county administrator? And what was the response to that? MR. CEA: They're not aware of authority for that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: There is no authority. MR. CEA: No. They said -- right. They said they were not aware of authority on that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It appears that the authority to execute contracts, which is obligated (sic) to the county involved an exercise of an independent discretion and judgment which may not be delegated, which may not be delegated -- so they did opine on that -- absent of statutory authority and have not been found, nor has it been brought to my attention any statutory authority to -- would allow the county administrator to delegate discretionary power. On the contrary, it says in the note above, the legislator (sic) specifically provides that the county administrator's powers are limited in ministerial duties. This is another avenue that I see that we're going down where we're going to fight a Clerk of Court under what his authority is, in this case pay for specific items; that is unlawful. It's another court action that I can see that we're going down, and I am not going to support something like that, nor am I going to delegate my authority as county commissioner to staff not prescribed under law. MR. CEA: Commissioner, as I started to say, as I said before, Page 77 December 13 -14, 2011 what amount of purchasing versus negotiation of contracts, I think there's a distinction. I think a court would ultimately find a distinction between the two. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why are we going down this, another lawsuit? MR. CEA: And that's not my role before you, Commissioners. Some of these things are policy decisions as to whether you want purchasing thresholds, how you want to instruct staff to make purchases. You know, if there's a contract to be, quote, negotiated, is that something that has to come before you? These are things that you will ultimately decide. My point is to just give you the benefit of my experience and opinions in what I think a court would do if this type of ordinance -- which I said is pretty well universally adopted into varying degrees -- would go before a court. I think a court would balance some of the specific language, including the one sentence. I mean, unfortunately for us, in 8861 they really didn't give any facts. They didn't say whether this delegation was pursuant to an ordinance, whether this delegation was just in an abstract, whether there was an ordinance that prescribed the purchasing methods. That's why we cited 9975 for a different variation on having thresholds, having a process as opposed to just saying, you go out and negotiate. They also cite to 125.74. They re -cite a section of the statute but then they leave out in their analysis one key word, "negotiate." In other words, I -- it would be my opinion and what I would do if I was sitting on an appellate court, which I'm not. But if I was before a court, I think a court would construe that as an express authority, not limitation on authority to a County Manager. Much like the president can go and negotiate a treaty, but the Senate still has to approve it. Here the county administrator is given the authority, he's given the express authority to negotiate on your behalf. But what if it's an interlocal agreement? What if it's a 99 -year December 13-14,2011 land lease? What if it's some large proposed land development or some -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: I could answer that question. MR. CEA: Those things have to come before you. But those things -- he doesn't have the authority to go negotiate it and sign it on his own. But on the other hand, is that -- is the restriction on what a county administrator can do one in the same with the board's authority to adopt purchasing procedures as recognized by the Florida Supreme Court in a case back in 1977? Is that one in the same with having a purchasing policy? It's just hard for me as a procurement attorney to imagine an appellate court saying that you don't have discretion to say, okay, when you need standardized services and supplies, you can't make those purchases as opposed to formal competitive procurement levels and formal contracting. I just have a difficult time believing that a court, in my opinion -- of course, you're the policy makers and you decide, ultimately, what you want in your ordinance, but -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, just one more comment, and I'll be quiet. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I'd like to hear what he has to say. He's trying to answer your questions. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm not sure. If -- and I think we can get closer to where we need to be. Instead of spending four to five million dollars fighting the Clerk on paying a payment of a staff contract, let's ask the attorney general, can county staff enter into a contract with a vendor. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, first help me a little bit. What section of this document are you objecting to? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: What does this -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: You mean the proposed ordinance? Page 79 December 13 -14, 2011 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, the proposed ordinance as annotated by the consultant. What sections are you objecting to so that I can understand and place this in the context? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I have to -- I have to take a look at my notes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: While you're looking, Commissioner Coyle, may I ask a -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's stay on this subject for a minute because it's important, and we need to understand what really is happening. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I need to go through -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and take a look at my notes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I would like to ask if -- the Clerk's attorney, Mr. Pires, tell us -- tells us what he finds objectionable in what is being proposed, in -- both in terms of what's included and what has not been included. MS. KINZEL: And, Commissioner Hiller, for the record, Crystal Kinzel. I can probably help with some of this on the 125. I mean, I think it's fairly simple in the purchasing process and what we are looking for. It has been this ongoing question of ministerial and discretionary authority and what authority can go to the board. Our position is that under the 125.74 it's very specific. It says the County Manager can negotiate leases, contracts, and agreements, and then it says, subject to approval of the board -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Black and white. MS. KINZEL: -- in Section M. AGO -- the reason we provided AGO 88 -61, and we provided it also to the county purchasing and attorney, is because we feel that's right on point. And you may not even need to go to another attorney general. It very specifically says that the board is the body that approves contracts, and that would be one thing that we are looking for. m December 13 -14, 2011 We've been working very closely with county staff, county purchasing administration, and we do seem to come to a point of departure on what they can enter into or what not. And we're not arguing that every paper clip needs to come back to the board. What we're looking for is the underlying contractual structure that then allows county to go out and purchase under thresholds. They can do thresholds, but the underlying rates, bids, contracts need to be approved by this body and the board. And that's been our position consistently. It isn't nit - picking to a level. It is trying to look for a competitive nature in the marketplace. It's going back to the authority that's articulated in the statute specifically. And we believe as the Clerk's Office in our operations and process would be that; the contracts, leases, those things can only be approved by the Board of County Commissioners as the authoritative body. Now, that can be on consent, it can be articulated differently to the board, but once those underlying contracts are in place, then county staff can go out and issue the purchase orders or work orders in conjunction with those contracts that you've already approved, and that would be how we would envision the process. Not to be cumbersome and not to be unusual, but that you would get the best product and process and under the board's authority to the statute, if that helps. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, that helps a lot. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I'm not sure it does. But let's take this contract with this consultant. Was something done wrong with this contract in getting these consulting services? MR. CEA: I think the commission approved that, Mr. Chair. COMMISSIONER HILLER: We did. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MS. KINZEL: Yes, you did. MR. CEA: I haven't looked at any -- I mean, I know about that Page 81 December 13 -14, 2011 procurement because I reviewed the agreement that was on your agenda, but I can't speak to any other particular procurement because I haven't reviewed it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You see, what I would like for somebody to do is to take a specific procurement circumstance and tell us what it is that we're not doing right. Can somebody do that, rather than speaking in generalities? MS. KINZEL: Well, I can probably give a couple of examples, Commissioner. We've got several pending where contracts have been awarded by the board and there is purchasing staff perceived authority to go off contract where the board has actually approved the contract. Now, admittedly, small- dollar amount. One of them was a recent concrete purchase. We've gone back and gotten some additional information. There might be justification, but those kind of issues are what create peculiarities in the purchasing system or red flags for finance to make payments to those. If the board has as a -- as a contract, for example -- and I think you've got one coming up later, Suncoast Movers. You had a contract for moving services. Staff went out and negotiated a different contract. That contract didn't come back to the board. It was at higher rates eventually than what we're paying, and I think we'll get into that discussion when we come to that agenda item. But it's a particular example of what we're talking about. The second contract that was entered into in March did not come back for board approval. Had it come back, we may have identified earlier that there was an overlapping situation of two contracts in existence with varying rates. So we do have specific examples where it has been an ongoing problem. And I didn't bring an entire list to go over with you, but it has been problematic. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Can you point to something in Item 1013, this procedure that's being recommended -- December 13 -14, 2011 MS. KINZEL: Yes, I think there are several -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- that either fails to correct the problem or creates a problem? MS. KINZEL: I think that several sections specifically provide for the purchasing director to have the authority to enter into agreements at certain thresholds, and our concern is, without the underlying authority of the Board of County Commissioners having approved those contracts, that the director should not have those authorities, or the county staff or project managers. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So then there are no dollar -value considerations on those at all? If it's a dollar expenditure, it still comes back to the commissioners or if it's a million - dollar expenditure, it comes to the commissioners? MS. KINZEL: Well, Commissioner, theoretically, as I said -- and getting into the issue of office supplies, okay. The county spends hundreds and hundreds of thousands on office supplies. You routinely go out for a bid and you get a contract with a specialty there. You have that contract in place. They then do not have to come back for every purchase. That contract outlines the rates that you intend to be paid, it outlines the competitive nature of the purchase, and then they can issue purchase orders within their budgetary guidelines under that contract that's already approved. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, that -- and that procedure is not permitted under this document in I OB or it is? MS. KINZEL: I think it would be permitted, but our concern, based on the things that we have been seeing, is that this document goes a step further and provides for a discretionary authority that staff has taken advantage of to get things done. Not, you know, unnecessarily -- you know, we're not saying a particular purchase might not have been necessary at the time, but certainly it is a different authority, whether your director can do it or the Board of olm December 13 -14, 2011 County Commissioners. It's the underlying authority. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So if we -- if the board approves a contract and the contract identifies the prices we will pay for the materials that we expect to get, the staff will continue to be able to purchase under that contract? MS. KINZEL: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Subject to what limitations? MS. KINZEL: That's where you establish the limitations within your purchasing policy as to what levels the staff can do. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We establish the limitations. MS. KINZEL: That's how they complement. CHAIRMAN COYLE: If we established the limitations of, say, 5 percent of the total purchase order value, that would be acceptable? MS. KINZEL: In other words, the contract's already going to have the rates established -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right. MS. KINZEL: -- for the items, and then they're going to issue a purchase order for items under those contracts. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. MS. KINZEL: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. MS. KINZEL: Then they would issue a purchase order for those items, and it would be presented to us to pay. We would pay for those items according to the contract. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MS. KINZEL: You're saying if the item exceeds the contract amount, then we would have to do either a budget amendment or an amendment to the contract to compensate those rates, because remember -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: We have to do both. MS. KINZEL: -- your initial process was competitive. So if you alter your pricing and your structure down the road, what's the I' December 13 -14, 2011 integrity of your underlying bid or competition? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Or if we buy more materials than you anticipated at the time. MS. KINZEL: Right. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So if we anticipated a thousand yards of concrete to do a construction project and we had to get 1,010 yards of concrete, under that logic we would come back to the board; the board would approve the additional charge. It might not exceed the total contract value because you might have decreased the cost in some other area, but -- MS. KINZEL: And that would be a portion of your original underlying contract, because you can do a lump -sum contract, you can do different types of contracts that you can award, and so the variety of a particular line item within, for example, a milestone payment or a percent -of- completion payment, the integrity of each individual line or material, we do just review those to the totality of the contract. So your underlying contract or agreement is really what dictates the process by which we monitor, validate, and pay. But I don't think it's a hindrance -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's not. MS. KINZEL: -- in the amount and how we process. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, if -- what -- let's get specific. What would we change about this document to accomplish that? MS. KINZEL: I will tell you, Commissioner, we have already provided them numerous markups for every page in detail on some of the concerns that we had with theirs. I've shared that with all of purchasing. Those have not been indicated on the copy that you have, but I'd be glad to give you that. We have gone through that exercise, but it -- and my understanding at this point in time was to get the general direction that we would go back with purchasing. I spoke with Steve before this agenda item came up, and he said that this was not intended to December 13 -14, 2011 incorporate all the changes that we have suggested or recommended, but to discuss the generalities of what you're looking for in the policy to come back. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, here's my problem. How can we -- how can we approve a document or accept the findings if we really don't have all of the information that is necessary to create a new document? That's my concern. And that doesn't mean that we're rejecting anything that you have done in your work. I just don't understand where we're going here at the present time. Can you help us out, Steve, or County Manager, somebody? Tell us what it is you expect us to do here with this. MR. CARNELL: What I expect you to do is -- and the original intent was to bring in an objective, independent voice to take a look at our purchasing policy, because we've had this recurring question about the legality of the existing policy brought up on and off for many years. Mr. Cea has opined in my reading that our policy is generally legal. Now, I say "generally" only because no attorney can tell you with absolute certainly what a court will do on any given day of the week. But he's telling you that our practice is consistent with other counties across the State of Florida, and what he's also telling you is you have to read the phrase that Commissioner Henning has quoted and that the Clerk has quoted about the board approving County Manager negotiating contracts subject to the approval of the board. We glossed right past a couple of really important points there. Most of our purchases are not negotiated. Most of them are straight -price competition or informal -price competition. Some are not competed at all, purchases of less than $3,000. Again, go back to what Mr. Cea told you. Across Florida that's the way other people do it as well. The actual individual dollar amounts may vary county to county. No county is bringing all their purchases to their Board of County Commissioners. 0: December 13 -14, 2011 Now, Crystal laid a phrase out there I think you -all need to understand, because if I understand it the way she's articulating it, the impact will be dramatic, unmanageable, and untenable on the operation of this county. Now, you correct me if I'm stating this wrong, Crystal. But what I believe you are saying is that the Board has to approve the use of any vendor, any and all vendors, not necessarily any and all purchases. But if I want to -- if the facilities management department is going to buy a $600 widget, and let's say parks and rec's going to buy a widget of similar -- maybe not the identical widget, but something similar to it a week later, already we're in the question, well, is it the same contract or different contract? Well, the first time we buy, the Board has to somehow authorize that, regardless of the dollar amount, that staff cannot create any relationships on its own. That is not what is the practice in 66 other counties in this state. The -- what Mr. Cea, I think, is trying to tell you is, that the clear answer is not -- there's not a state statute that says, okay, county government, here's how to purchase. Here's a ministerial, here's a governmental decision. It's not spelled out in black and white. But what -- the practice of the other counties is to authorize staff to make purchases up to certain- dollar thresholds without further board approval and without even taking the initial trip to the board. In our case, our informal quotation process is between $3,000 and $50,000. Staff is authorized to go seek three price quotes. It's not as Mr. Cea said, formal competition where everybody competes, there's a public announcement. We'd go to three. And in those instances, staff makes the award decision. For purchases of three thou- -- and that's board policy and has been board policy -- give or take the dollar amounts changing, that's been the practice since I got here 26 years ago, all right, and that's been the practice in other counties without -- almost without December 13 -14, 2011 exception. I know of no county that says the board must approve all purchases or all underlying contracts. Part of the confusion here is the word "contracts" versus the word "purchases." And I'll admit, you can -- it is confusing, because in a sense a purchase order is a contract, but on the other hand, as Mr. Cea referenced, in one or more of those AGOs, it talks about purchases, the idea of creating a policy of purchases and thresholds where the staff is authorized to purchase as being administrative. So the point we're trying -- I think he's trying to say to you, and staff, I think, reads it similarly, and it's been our practice -- and the Clerk's been paying under this for many years -- is that the act of creating a policy creates the boundaries. That's what limits the staff discretion. That's what tells me what I can and cannot do. It's not the approval of every single purchase. If we go to some setup where -- and let me give you a simple example. There are many vendors I'll never be able to reach a contract with, American Airlines. If one of you, one of the staff wants to buy a plane ticket to go somewhere, if I'm understanding Crystal correctly, there would have to be a board - approved contract with American Airlines before I can order a $250 plane flight. MS. KINZEL: Steve, you're taking this to the point of exception and ridiculous natures, and we talked about very specific agenda -- there's statutes on travel. There are other statutes that provide for different issues, okay. And at the same point that you talk about the 50,000, whether or not you can do it, you and I've gone back and forth. It isn't just 50,000, because your perception is that that is each little purchase. So transportation could do fifty, parks could do fifty, you know, stormwater can do fifty. All these people could do fifty, fifty, fifty off contract under total staff discretion; you're in millions of dollars that's never been in front of the board to have purchased. So they're extreme logic on both situations. December 13 -14, 2011 And I would just appreciate -- because we have had a lot of reasonable and rational conversations, and those extremes of the minute energy that would be required, you know -- and we can agree to disagree, but also -- it isn't that we're being picky on those. There are different statutory elements that can guide things of reasonableness. And the Clerk hasn't been unreasonable. And I'll go back to something else that you say, and it comes up very frequently, Commissioners, well, the Clerk paid them in the past. Well, you know, we have tried to work with staff and we've tried to watch the parameters of purchases, and we've tried to come back over and over, and we've worked, I think, pretty diligently and pretty well with everyone, but we have to draw a line in the sand and get some finite agreement on these issues so that we do not keep going back and forth on the ability to pay. I think we're all in agreement there. I think that was the purpose of trying to get an independent person to look at this. And I think I've even asked the question -- I don't think you went to every 67 county and said, is there an underlying agreement with the board and that's the authority upon which those staff bases their purchases. Yes, it's been general practice with thresholds. I'm familiar with those, too, but there's usually an underlying agreement or basis for those decisions to have been made. MR. CARNELL: Mr. Chairman, if I could, briefly. Crystal, I'm glad to hear you talking about being reasonable, because that's where we need to be ultimately. I'm glad to hear that. MS. KINZEL: We agree. MR. CARNELL: And all I want to say, if I could, Mr. Chairman, is just one thing, that what we -- there are -- I'll just say again, if the board has to approve every purchase, the ability of your staff to provide service and the "gotcha" factor in the pre -audit process is going to grow exponentially. And I don't believe it's going to be for good policy reasons or good reasons that serve the board. Olm December 13 -14, 2011 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I've had just about enough of this back and forth. It doesn't sound like we've got two people that are going to reach anything that's rational, and it's getting so clouded now I can't even follow what you're talking about. Let's get back to square one. It's just simply a matter of coming up with a way to be able to conduct business without having to enter the personalities into it. I might suggest something that's going to be offensive to a couple people but, you know, at this point in time the only thing I want to do is to see if we can come up with something that meets legal test. Like Commissioner Henning, I don't want to end up back into court over some minute type of item that really doesn't have any strong bearing upon what we're trying to accomplish. Possibly what we need to do is come up with two fresh faces to be able to come up with some language to get this going. This has been ongoing. It hasn't stopped. It's been continuous from -- for how long now have we been dealing with this issue? MS. KINZEL: But, Commissioner, I do -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thirty years. MS. KINZEL: For the record, this is Crystal. Steve and I get along fine. This is not personal. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It doesn't sound like it. MS. KINZEL: No, no, no. These are issues. This is not personal. I'm friends with Len. This is not a staff personality issue. This is a very specific issue in purchasing. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then my direction would be to put the two of you together in a room and get this thing worked out and bring it back to us in final form. MS. KINZEL: We tried. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'll make a motion. I make a motion that we accept this report by our consultant and direct the staff to return to m December 13-14,2011 us with a proposed ordinance that includes the recommendations of our consultant and the Clerk's Office as to how we can improve and solve -- improve the procurement process and solve the disagreements between Collier County Government and the Clerk's Office. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I can support that motion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. And my motion was seconded by both Commissioner Coletta and Commissioner Henning. Are there any further comments? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yep. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have concerns, besides the fact that I completely agree with the Clerk's opinion. And, quite frankly, sir, as you were discussing, you know, your viewpoint, what you conveniently and consistently did was you stopped the sentence right before the term "subject to approval of the board," and, really, I have a problem with that. But I don't want to discuss that further. We're going to be voting on that. I have -- I have a problem with how we do bidding. I have a problem with our selection committee. I have a problem with change orders. With respect to bidding, we have a situation where an RFP went out, a number of proposals came in. The proposal that was selected had terms and conditions that did not match the RFP. In other words, it was nonconforming. And then ultimately the contract that came forward had terms and conditions which didn't match the RFP or the proposal. And this was all under a bidding scenario. So what ultimately happened was -- and I voted no on this particular contract, and it was a multi - million - dollar contract, so I put it in context. And what the County Attorney said, oh, we'll solve this problem. What we'll do is we'll put a provision in the contract that says, in the event of a conflict between the terms of the RFP and the Page 91 December 13 -14, 2011 proposal, the REP will govern, the proposal will govern. I don't remember which one he picked. And that in the event of a conflict in the terms between the RFP, the proposal, and the contract, the contract will govern. So essentially what happened as a result is the whole bidding process just went out the door, okay. And everybody else who bid on that did not have a chance to bid, because ultimately what was approved by the Board was in no way the same as what went out as the RFP. I don't think that's acceptable. I think that needs to be addressed. I think that needs to be eliminated. You know, it needs to follow best practices for bidding with respect to RFP -- you know, proposals conforming to RFP or being nonconforming and being thrown out and with respect to the contract matching and everything, you know, following suit. The other problem I have is with respect to our selection committees. We have selection committees that are made up of members of staff that actually work with these contractors, have established relationships. There is a bias, if you will. There is a conflict, if you will, because of these relationships. I don't know that we are getting the best selections if staff is selecting the vendors on our behalf. I want to know what can be done to eliminate that problem, okay. And then let me address my last point, and that is change orders. We have a significant problem with change orders. I have a multi - million- dollar contract that's put out to bid. What happens is that contract that was put out to bid really isn't a $2- million contract. It's really a $4- million contract. Now, the lowest bidder gets selected, and he knows he's going to put in change orders, and he's going to get those change orders approved. The others came in at higher dollar amounts because they knew the work couldn't realistically be done for the amounts being proposed. They're out the door. Page 92 December 13-14,2011 Or, alternatively, they make the job so small that only the smaller providers of the service look at the contracts and the larger providers of that service that could maybe give us more bang for the buck don't look at it because it's under a threshold, and now the county is out the support -- or the provision of services that we otherwise would be able to get. I have a real problem with that. So I would like you to address the bidding, the selection committees, and change orders. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I want to just add one last thing. I want to give you an example. You know, Commissioner Coyle asked for an example of how, you know, discretionary spending authority was being delegated to staff and where contracts were not coming back by way of, say, for example, formal amendment, if you will, to get ratification for the changes in what the board originally approved. I just sat on a TDC board where contracts came to me -- and I think they're included; maybe one or some of them are included in today's packet. And one of the provisions in that contract to that particular service provider we're hiring provides that there's -- the provision specifically states that staff will be able to go out and amend the terms and what's going to be done with respect to this contract after it's approved by the board. And that same, like, standard boilerplate language is showing up in all these contracts. Well, guess what? Now all of a sudden we have delegated discretionary spending authority to the board, and that decision making with respect to spending of public funds is being made without board review, without board approval. That also goes to the issue of after- the -fact ratifications where staff goes out, contracts, signs a contract that we have not approved beforehand, that we have not approved the negotiation of, and then Page 93 December 13 -14, 2011 they come back and they ask for basically, you know, ex post facto ratifications. That's not acceptable either. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, it's Commissioner Fiala's time to talk. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I've listened to all of this, and a curious question pops up into my head. We're talking taxpayer dollars. These taxpayer dollars that we as a county collect also are distributed to other offices. For instance, the Elections Office or the Sheriffs Office, we pay for that out of our budget, or the Clerk's Office, or even taxpayer dollars go to Mosquito Control or South Florida Water Management District. Now, how do they handle their purchasing policy? I mean, they don't come before us to be able to buy paper clips or anything. Yes, we build the buildings for these places, but, I mean, how do they handle their general practices? How do they flow smoothly, and what is happening with ours? I don't know if there's a way to analyze that even a little bit, because we don't want to make this so cumbersome and so micromanaging that we can never do anything, that we're just stuck in place. We -- maybe we ought to take a look at how effective other people are and what they do and why it works for them and not for us. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, there is no secret about why Collier County is substantially different from anybody else in the state. There is no secret to that, and we know the answer. But nevertheless, let's call the question. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. Page 94 December 13 -14, 2011 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes unanimously. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we going to call speakers now? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Wait a minute. I want my questions answered. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're breaking for lunch. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are you -- you're going to stay and you're going to answer my questions? MR. CEA: If you'd like me to. CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you can talk with him and get whatever questions you want -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: I want it on the record, yeah. Go ahead, if you can provide the answers. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to lunch. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm sorry. Then will you stay and answer my questions? Are you preventing his answers on the record? CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, I'm not preventing his records (sic). You have been talking for about 30 minutes, and you didn't stop a time to let anybody answer your questions. You're not going to do it on the lunch hour. So we're breaking for lunch, and we've already taken the vote. So this item is finished. If you want the answers, you go get the answers. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like the answers, so if you could provide me the answers by written response to all my questions. And what I would like to do is I'll introduce -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wait till after lunch. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. We can wait till after lunch, that's fine. CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, no. We're finished with that item. (A luncheon recess was had.) December 13 -14, 2011 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, the Board of County Commission meeting is back in session. We're going to Item IOH. Item #1 OH A REPORT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CONCERNING THE RESULTS OF THE IMMOKALEE MOBILE HOME PARK ASSESSMENT — MOTION TO ACCEPT REPORT — APPROVED MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. That item is time certain at 1 p.m. It's a report to the Board of County Commissioners concerning the results of the Immokalee mobile -home park assessment. Mr. Casalanguida and Mr. Bellows will present. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Mr. Casalanguida? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Chairman. For the record, Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator of the Growth Management Division. Members of the Board, you've asked me either collectively or separately how our comfort level with the Immokalee mobile -home analysis as part of the Immokalee Area Master Plan and some of the code cases that have been going on. And I've spoken to you all and said, I'm not that comfortable at the beginning as I look at some of the information. So I sat down with staff and the County Attorney's Office and said, let's take a real good look at this. And one of the comments Commissioner Henning made with regard to David Weeks in his apolitical views and the way he handled himself is one of the things I had mentioned to staff, that we need to look at this from an unbiased perspective and we need to figure out what's going on out there in terms of the zoning and compliance. Page 96 December 13 -14, 2011 CHAIRMAN COYLE: So this is a change in policy, huh? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Change in policy. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That you look at it in an unbiased manner. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And so that's what we've done. So I'm going to put a couple things on the viewer and then take you into the maps that we have. And one is definitions, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. The first one is in the middle of that, which is nonconforming. And people put a lot of adjectives in front of the word "nonconforming." Legally nonconforming, illegally nonconforming, and basically nonconforming by our Land Development Code is specific. And it's -- and I want to read it and then explain it a little bit and have some discussion if we need to. It refers to uses, buildings, lots, or structures that are in existence at the time of the adoption of this code or any amendments which were in compliance with applicable laws at the time of establishment or construction but which do not comply with the regulations and requirements of this LDC. Basically known as grandfathered. So we put words in front of the word "nonconforming ". Legal non - conforming, illegal non - conforming. Basically non - conforming means grandfathered. Then above that we have conforming, exactly what it means. A structure, a site, a lot, anything that is consistent with our codes today, and then the other spectrum -- end of the spectrum is illegal. It doesn't meet our codes today; it never met our codes. So when we look at that, that's what we're kind of basing our analysis on. Okay? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And when we talk about nonconformance and conformance and illegal, we talk about three different areas: Structures, zoning, site standards. So, obviously, structures are in relation to the Florida Building Code; zoning is by Page 97 December 13 -14, 2011 actions this board sets; and site standards is by actions this board sets as well, too. So something could be nonconforming or illegal to the Florida Building Code but could be conforming or nonconforming to the zoning and site standards we have in Collier County. So we kind of look at it all. This is an eye chart, but I'll take you through it. We put together what we call a logic diagram, and we basically said, okay, let's take a look at these mobile -homes areas in Immokalee, and we're referencing the section of the code 2.03.07 with regard to zoning overlay districts, and I want to read the beginning of it and the first part of that as well. 2.03.07G, Immokalee Urban Overlay District, to create the Immokalee Urban Overlay District with distinct sub - districts for the purpose of establishing development criteria suitable for unique land -use needs of the Immokalee community. The boundaries of the Immokalee Urban Overlay District are delineated on the maps below, and I have one of the maps, but it's pretty much the Immokalee area boundary as we have it now. In Section 6 of this code -- and I'll try and read slow -- nonconforming mobile park (sic) overlay sub - district, establishment of the special conditions for these properties which, by virtue of actions preceding the adoption of Ordinance 91 -102 on October 30, 1991, were deemed to be nonconforming as a result of the inconsistencies -- and this is important -- with the Land Development Code and are located within the Immokalee urban boundary as depicted in the Immokalee Area Master Plan. So they're saying that you have to be inconsistent with the Land Development Code. They're not talking about the Florida Building Code, which is somewhat incorporated into the Land Development Code, but they're -- I think they're talking more about site standards. They're trying to clean up the Immokalee area here. So I'm going to take us, if I can, County Manager, to the viewer. December 13 -14, 2011 MR.00HS: Sure. MR. CASALANGUIDA: So what we've done in our findings, 53 mobile -home parks were analyzed by staff, 45 mobile -home parks located in the zoning district currently zoned for mobile -home parks, and eight mobile -home parks not located in the current zoning district for permanent (sic) and mobile -home parks. Of the eight that were not located, six were previously zoned to allow these, and I struck out the word "preexisting," because it was in the staff slide. But, again, we have a definition of nonconforming. It means at some point in time they were allowed to take place under the current code. So I struck that out, but I left it up there because we keep using it, and even in the staff report when we met before this was -- after this was published, I said we have to stop putting adjectives in front of the word "non- conforming ". It confuses people, staff as well. So one mobile -home park was consistent with the Growth Management Plan but not consistent with the current zoning, so they were, in essence, not able to go through this process even though somewhere along the line they did, which is the SIP process, which I'll get into in a second. And one mobile -home park was inconsistent with both the Growth Management Plan and the zoning and would require a rezone. And here's a map that kind of takes you through that. Here's the one that needs a rezone, Jesse Ayala's park over here. And this is the Collier Trailer -- named the Collier Trailer Park over here that's not consistent with the Comp Plan or Zoning. So questions came up is, how were they allowed to go through some of these parks and SIP process? And I'm going to go back to that section of the code that I read from, and I'm going to get into the purpose and intent in Section A and B. Purpose and intent: Purpose of these provisions is to recognize that there are nonconforming mobile -home parks in the Immokalee urban area, to provide incentives to upgrade these parks while December 13 -14, 2011 requiring the elimination of substandard units and to allow park owners to take advantage of alternative development standards in order to cause some upgrading of conditions that would normally be required of conforming mobile -home parks. Travel trailers, regardless of square footage, are not permitted as permanent habitable structures. Now, before I continue to the next paragraph, Section B, I want to state that as I know today, and the County Attorney and our folks in zoning will tell you, if you are -- if you not conforming or nonconforming, if you don't have one of those preexisting statuses and you're considered illegal by that table I showed you before, you cannot take advantage of anything in the Land Development Code. So there are two mobile -home parks that should not be able to participate in the SIP process because they just -- they don't qualify. One did, and there were -- which was the park over here. They submitted an SIP. And part of your staff determination that's going to be coming up a little later in this discussion was for us to clear that up. When someone comes in with a mobile home in Immokalee, we wanted to put together, similar to what we do in the Building Department, what we call building blocks, a set of rules and guidelines that are consistent so we treat everybody the same. Now, I've been told by staff as I reviewed and looked into this that the recodification of the Land Development Code played into this because things got shuffled around a little bit. But as I read Section 2.03.071 I think it's pretty clear to me. And the last paragraph I'm going to read is Section B, required Site Improvement Plan application: The property owners of all non- conforming mobile -home development parks that were in existence before November 13, 1991, i.e., they predate Ordinance 91 -102, the Land Development Code, shall be required to submit a Site Improvement Plan meeting the standards set forth by January 9, 2003. So they had to do it by January 9, 2003. Then they give you a Page 100 December 13-14,2011 couple "ors ". And I think they related to date. Or, thereafter, within the time frame set forth in the order of the Code Enforcement Board finding in violation of this section. So you had to do it by January 9, 2003, or if you were in the process of a Code Enforcement Board action, by some date the Code Enforcement Board gave you. Then they give you another "or ". Or by the date set forth in the compliance or settlement agreement entered into between Collier County and the property owner acknowledging such violation and also establishing the date by which such violation will be cured through the SIP submittal process set forth below. So the third "or" says, if it wasn't done by that date, if you weren't in front of the Code Enforcement Board making a -- in process and you didn't submit, you have to go in front of the Board of County Commissioners and get some sort of settlement agreement to do that. So those are basically the rules that you have to go by in terms of the SIP process. So our study, when you looked at it, basically said, anybody can go through this process by board settlement except for those two, No. 1 and No. 5. One needs a rezone and one needs a comp plan and a rezone. Those are the findings of the study pretty much in a nutshell. I have Ray Bellows here, Carolina Valera, and Diane Flagg, and we'll answer some questions that you have. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure. Okay. Thank you very much. As you know -- or I'll let the board know -- I did meet with staff on several occasions to review the information in here, and I found that a lot of the information that I needed in order to determine the validity of the information presented here today was not included, and I still haven't received it to date, and I'm still waiting on it. Secondly, when I reviewed this chart, there were some things that Page 101 December 13-14,2011 popped out that, obviously, are of concern, and staff has acknowledged there are problems and they're going to review what I've identified and bring it back, and I'll let the board know some of the examples of the issues that I discovered. With respect to what Nick just said regarding the SIP application process, and it -- going -- being applied for before January of 2003, alternatively being approved by the Code Enforcement Board or the BCC, it appears there are a whole host of SIP applications which were submitted subsequent to 203 -- or 2003, I should say, that were not approved as pursuant to a settlement agreement with the board and do not seem to have been approved by the Code Enforcement Board. So we're trying to figure out how they came about and under whose authority they were decided. So that's just an example of one problem. Now, the other problem that I see is the conclusions that staff has come to with respect to whether something is conforming or non- conforming or, as Nick would like to narrow it to, illegal versus non- conforming because, quite frankly, conventionally, it is typically prescribed as illegally or legally conforming, and staff has consistently used that terminology in its -- in its reports. And, quite frankly, I just want to ask you a couple of questions to begin, Nick. If something was developed -- if a piece of property was developed before a particular zoning provision or comp plan provision was enacted and there is no other law on that, that would be grandfathered in as legally conforming or -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Non- conformin!. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Or legally non - conforming, correct? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Nonconforming, that's correct. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. And you can't turn around and say that a piece of property that is legally non - conforming now Page 102 December 13 -14, 2011 has to comply with a new law in order to be conforming or you will tear it down; is that correct? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's -- typically if something's non- conforming, ma'am, that's correct. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. And it's also true that for purposes of a code enforcement action, the state statute with respect to code enforcement requires that government must allow the property owner the opportunity to voluntarily remediate. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And I think that -- that allows, but what's required, ma'am, in our codes is you can't go through any of the site development standards or applications if you're illegal, if you don't have that proper zoning. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But we're talking about -- I mean, you basically said that if the property was zoned or structured in a certain way under either a pre- existing set of laws or regulations, as the case may be, or where no law or regulation existed and then subsequently a law or regulation was enacted that changes the use of that property or how that structure is situated on that property or how that structure is built, that they would be grandfathered? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm trying to follow your words. But if you're asking me if something -- by the definitions I put up there, if something's nonconforming, if they're allowed to stay, they are allowed to stay. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. And there's no reason for them to have to submit an SIP in order for them to be legally grandfathered; is that correct? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not according to this section of the code. I mean, this section of the code that's written in here -- and it doesn't say that you're legally grandfathered. That's not what this is saying. This is saying in conformance with the Land Development Code. If you had something on there, not in terms of land use -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. But we're talking about a Page 103 December 13 -14, 2011 nonconforming property. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Now, I've got a nonconforming property and I have a code which provides something other than what that property is, be it use or structure. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, you have to be clear, ma'am, because I -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: I am being clear. MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- I don't want me or the staff to answer -- are you referring to zoning, structure, or site standards? Because they're different. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I mean -- well, let's take it one step at a time. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. COMMISSIONER HILLER: We've got a case right now that involves code enforcement where you're, for example, suing the Blockers and wherefore -- you've got liens against the Blockers, right? And those liens are, as I understand, for failure to do what? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, I believe they're for failure to comply with the use. COMMISSIONER HILLER: With the SIP? MR. CASALANGUIDA: With the use. COMMISSIONER HILLER: With the use? MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, no. The Blockers are a unique situation. The Blocker situation, they're located in an industrial -zoned area, and that industrial zoning is also part of the comp plan. They're unique. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And so let me -- let's address those two facts. They -- the property was used as a trailer park before that use was changed to industrial? MR. KLATZKOW: No. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. Page 104 December 13 -14, 2011 MR. KLATZKOW: No. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: The problem -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: According to -- according to the study -- can you -- show me the chart. MR. KLATZKOW: The problem -- the problem with the Blocker's is that as far back as we can go, it's been an unlawful use. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you produce your study? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I have the whole study here, ma'am. I don't know what section you're -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's listen to the attorney's answer. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let's let him answer. MR. KLATZKOW: The problem with the Blockers, as best as we can determine, as far back as you want to go it's been an unlawful use. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Uh -uh. Not according to -- in fact, we have a bigger problem than that. Can you pull out the study that you did on the Blockers? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, I have the whole -- there's hundreds of pages. COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no. There's one page specifically on the Blocker's property, and you did this for all these properties when you were addressing, you know, the nonconforming uses, and you identified what the historical zoning was. And, in fact, not only did you find that they were permitted as a trailer park, but that Pam Brown's property had the same historical zoning, so did Mr. Alessie (sic) or Jesus. I'm forgetting the names. I don't have that -- the book in front of me. Actually, maybe I do. Oh, I do. Oh, my goodness. Lucky you. I got the book, too. Did you find it? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. I believe you -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you've got the history? MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- referred to the table, ma'am? Page 105 December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no, not that table. I don't want the table. I want the -- here it is. Let me show it to you. I'm not sure if this is -- is this the Blockers? Hang on. Let me just show it to you. I'll pull it out. And, by the way, if anybody wants a copy of this book, you know, please let me know. This is the backup material here. Do you want to -- thank you. Thank you so much. This over here, the zoning history, just put that all up there. I think that's the right schedule. But let me -- before we jump into that schedule, if I can say one thing. I just want to clarify one thing with Jeff, and help me out, Nick. You're addressing the use with respect to the Blockers' property. You're telling me the litigation in the code - enforcement action is about the use; is that correct? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am, as far as I know. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is that correct? Okay. Well, you know, code - enforcement actions cannot be about use. A zoning action can be about use. MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, no, no. COMMISSIONER HILLER: You can't sue -- MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, no. CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Attorney? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Help me out on this, because I'm trying to reconcile this whole study. MR. KLATZKOW: If it's code enforcement -- if you're an unlawful use, you're against our code. It's code enforcement. COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no, no, no. Code enforcement is not about use. The code is not about use. It is a zoning matter. And you have to -- in the case of a code - enforcement action, you have to provide the opportunity to voluntarily remediate, to remediate at will. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am. Page 106 December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. What we've got with the Blockers, while you're suing as a code - enforcement action, is, in fact, a zoning action. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, if I -- if our code folks find someone doing a use that's not allowed by the zoning, code enforcement goes in there and files a complaint. We take them to the Code Enforcement Board. That's a zoning case. COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's a zoning issue. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HILLER: It is a zoning issue. It is not a code issue. MR. KLATZKOW: Your zoning code is part of your Code of Laws and Ordinances. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, let me continue. The concern I have is the history that your study has presented shows clearly that not only the Blocker's property, but a number of other properties up to the time the zoning was changed to industrial, which, according to your chart, changed in 1973, was a permitted use. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, it says so right here. 1970, transient lodging -- and, by the way, there's a definition of transient lodging as being these trailers, yes. 1965, yes. And it goes on and on and on. On the other page it shows historically. In 1973, the zoning was changed to industrial, okay. So you've got a nonconforming use. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am -- and I'm going to let staff speak to you as to the study, but my understanding -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: And not only do you have a nonconforming use, but that -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Will you let him finish, Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure. Okay. I actually wanted to finish first. Page 107 December 13-14,2011 CHAIRMAN COYLE: You always want your questions answered. Please give the staff a chance to answer your question before you start talking over them. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Good point. Thank you. Go ahead. MS. VALERA: Carolina Valera, principal planner with the Comprehensive Planning Section. And, yes, the use up until '72 was a non - conforming, but it was changed in '72. The property owner at the time went to the Board of County Commissioners and requested a rezone from C3 to industrial. So from that point on the uses allowed in that property are industrial. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, I see. And you have evidence that this petitioner came before the board in '73 and voluntarily -- MS. VALERA: We have the zoning maps that showed the changes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no, no. No, no. I don't want you to show me a zoning map. You need to show me the zoning petition where the owner of the property voluntarily requested this board up zone that property, or change the zoning to that property, if you will, to industrial, and that that trailer park was no longer allowed to be there. And then my next question to you is, why is it from 1970 to the present, which is 40 years, that you've done nothing about it? Now, I will also say this. While they're busy looking for that evidence, let me just share one thing with you all. You know, why we're sitting here focusing on a few properties that this study is trying to show as being, you know, worthy of being torn down, let me just let all of you know who owned trailer parks out in Immokalee, and there are a whole bunch of you that have not submitted by 2003 -- okay, which was I don't know how many years ago, seven years ago -- that basically they have a provision on the books there that say, if you -all haven't submitted, okay, they're required to go out and find you in December 13 -14, 2011 violation, and you have to tear your trailer down in one year. So according to the law that they all have established, okay, which, quite frankly, makes it virtually impossible for anyone to voluntarily comply unless they give you permission, unless it's at their discretion, your trailers all have to be torn down. And let me tell you what the law says. The state law says you can't rezone to clean up an area, okay. You can't change, you can't engage in a regulatory taking for redevelopment or to get rid of blight, and that's exactly what these code provisions are doing. And if you read that code provision carefully, it will constantly say, if permitted by law, if permitted by law. Do you know why they have that in there? Because it isn't. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now we have an answer to your question, Commissioner Hiller. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would you please go ahead and present the information you have. MS. VALERA: On the visualizer you'll see the minutes from 1972. As stated down below in that page it says 11 -- I cannot read from here. But it says the date. And the petition number and what was requested, and the property owner that requested it was the property owner at the time that petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning from I -C -3 to industrial, to allow the industrial uses -- as I guess as stated on the minutes, to allow the industrial uses he had on the property. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And this is with respect to -- MS. VALERA: This will be the Blocker's property that we're talking about. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And who is Mr. Johnson? Is he the owner of the Blockers' property? MS. VALERA: He was the property owner at the time -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: He was? Page 109 December 13 -14, 2011 MS. VALERA: -- in 1972, yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So according to -- and I actually would be very interested to hear from the Blockers on this, because I would like to know why, you know, this hasn't been addressed all along, because very clearly if it was voluntarily upzoned and if that zoning does not allow for trailer and they knew it, then, absolutely, it would be an illegal use; however, I would like a response on this from them. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll get to the public speakers. Anything more you need to do? Okay. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. The charts within the executive summary that we're talking about right now, the first one you say that it requires rezoning? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Now, would they require rezoning under the present zoning map or if -- I should say if the board adopts the new map, would it have to come under the zoning of the present -- or the future map? MS. VALERA: Yes, it will have to be consistent with the Future Land Use Map, whatever -- if it's adopted at this instant today or they want to be adopted, hopefully. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do we know -- do we know what that zoning category would be? MS. VALERA: Absolutely, yes. It's industrial and commercial. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So it's going to change to industrial to commercial from RMF6. MS. VALERA: Right now it is commercial and industrial. It allows both, and it's proposed to the same thing, industrial and commercial. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no, no. The first one, Jesus Ayala. Page 110 December 13 -14, 2011 MS. VALERA: Oh. If it will allow the zoning, yes, sir. Yes, it will allow both the existing Future Land Use Map, and the proposed Future Land Use Map will allow the rezoning of Mr. Jesus Ayala. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What is the proposed zoning for that piece of property? MS. VALERA: He hasn't proposed any zoning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no, no. We are, we, the government. We're going to change the -- MS. VALERA: We're not changing the zoning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me try to clarify my question. MS. VALERA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're going to change the land -use map under the petition. Do we know under that land -use map what the zoning is, and if so, what is it? MS. VALERA: Let me verify that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Current zoning is RMF6. MS. VALERA: Current zoning is RMF6, yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It says it right there on the visualizer. MS. VALERA: The current zoning is RMF6. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MS. VALERA: The proposed plan doesn't intend to change anybody's zoning, so it will remain RMF6, and it will be low residential, which will allow the rezoning of up to -- I believe its eight units per acre. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no, not low residential uses. MS. VALERA: Someone was confirming for me. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You have to ask Mr. Mulhere. Is he here? He's the consultant. I think I have it here. I don't. Low residential is not eight units per acre. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We're confirming it right now, sir. Page 111 December 13-14,2011 MS. VALERA: The plan -- the plan will allow additional density. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Low residential. MS. VALERA: And the density? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, if we're going to adopt these maps, then I think that we want to know the effects of any property that needs to be rezoned, because it has to comply with the -- for that zoning. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, if you give us a minute, we're trying to scale off two maps. I want to make sure we're giving you the right -- it's either going to be low residential or mid residential, but it will definitely be residential. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know it was an eye chart for me last night. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Henning, is this proposed zoning or existing zoning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Proposed. The existing zoning is RMF6 today. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Then what's being proposed? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, what is being proposed? What is the density? Well, you've got a base density. MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. For the record, my name is Bob Mulhere. Really, this isn't my item, but there's two issues. There's the future land -use designation and the zoning. We're not -- as far as the Immokalee Area Master Plan goes, we're not changing anybody's zoning. We are changing the Future Land Use Map. But in this case, in the case that you asked about, we don't have a map that shows these trailer parks on the proposed. We're eyeballing it right now. But it appears to me that in both the existing and the proposed, they're both low residential. So we're not changing the future land -use designation on that property, and we're not changing zoning on any property. Page 112 December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're changing the uses through the map. You have low residential, medium residential, and high residential. MR. MUDD: Right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: All those we are changing the existing map. This property is RMF6. MR. MULHERE: Right, that's the zoning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That is the zoning. MR. MULHERE: That will be the zoning -- that is the zoning now, and that will be the zoning -- if the Immokalee Area Master Plan is approved, that will still be the zoning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, please educate me why we have a land -use map that shows low residential -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- medium residential, and high residential and language to go along with that map. MR. MULHERE: Those are future land -use maps. Those are part of the Comprehensive Plan. They're not zoning. Zoning -- zoning implements the future land -use map. So let me -- let me just give you an example, and I think it would illustrate that for you. If we look at this -- if we look at this map here, just think about all the yellow. All the yellow on the outskirts of the Immokalee urban area is low residential. The zoning, the underlying zoning, is a mixture of different zoning, but mostly it's agricultural zoning which allows a density of one unit per five acres. A property owner, because they have the low- residential designation in this urban area, can come in and ask to rezone their property to a zoning district or to a PUD that would allow the density that the future land use prescribes in the written text. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MR. MULHERE: So that's the difference between zoning and Page 113 December 13-14,2011 future land use. The Future Land Use Map identifies what the county ultimately expects to see in an urban area -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well -- MR. MULHERE: -- in this urban area. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- this is a zoning map then? MR. MULHERE: No. This is the Future Land Use Map. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. MULHERE: So the zoning is completely different. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the zoning is different -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- by text? MR. MULHERE: It's by -- there are PUDs, there's RMF6, there's commercial zoning. There's all different kind of zoning in Immokalee, just like this is in the coastal area. That zoning has to be consistent with what the future land use allows. It doesn't have to be as intense. It can be less intense, but it can't be more intense. So your Future Land Use Map sets forth, we want residential here, we want commercial here, we want mixed -use here, and here's the maximum levels of intensity and density that you can ask for. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What's the maximum use of intensity and density for -- MR. MULHERE: For LR? COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- for this person's property? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think we're on the same page now. MR. MULHERE: The base density in low residential is four units per gross acre. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. MULHERE: There are bonuses that you can ask for, but the maximum density you can achieve through bonuses and base is Page 114 December 13 -14, 2011 eight units per acre. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, what is the basis for the density bonuses? MR. MULHERE: Well, there are a number of them. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Affordable housing. MR. MULHERE: Yes, that's one. And there are some other ones. There's infill development, if you qualify. This property probably doesn't look like it would qualify, but there are properties that would qualify for infill bonuses. So there are a number of different bonuses. There's probably four or five different bonuses -- that might not apply in all areas. Affordable housing bonuses, at least you can ask for those pretty much everywhere. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Similar to what we have in our code today? MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So he is low residential? MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's one unit per acre, correct? MR. MULHERE: No. You can -- under the -- it's a base of four. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Four. I'm sorry, okay. MR. MULHERE: He's got zoning that allows him up to six, RMF 6. COMMISSIONER HENNING: He has present zoning that would allow him. MR. MULHERE: Right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you're saying if we adopt this -- the policies proposed and the map, that zoning is not going to change? MR. MULHERE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Page 115 December 13-14,2011 MR. MULHERE: Yep. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But he has to rezone it. MR. MULHERE: No. COMMISSIONER HENNING: He's an existing -- well, this is -- it says -- MR. MULHERE: He has to rezone it to allow the mobile -home use. MS. VALERA: Yes. MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. Somebody else can -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. MS. VALERA: Yes, to allow the use, RMF6. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But he's existing today. MS. VALERA: Correct, but the RMF6 does not allow mobile -home use, and that's what the issue is. MR. BELLOWS: He never was zoned. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, but somehow it got there; must have been in the middle of the night. Okay. We have -- on No. 4 it says Blocker, Curtis, and Brenda. Well, actually I need to move up. Number 2, Barnhart, it said -- it has a phrase in there, expired under the SIP 2003. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's right, not to do with zoning, sir, just to do with the SIP. They submitted and it expired. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So, that one is expired. It probably submitted at -- according to the Land Development Code. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But it's expired? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. And what I said to you as part of this original study is I'm not quite sure that staff from 2003 till today followed the correct SIP process. That's why I'd asked staff to bring a clarification forward on how to do this. Because I think when they re- codified the Land Development Code, they were going from different sections of the LDC in saying, are we using the general SIP Page 116 December 13 -14, 2011 process, the Immokalee over home -- mobile -home overlay process, and I said, folks, let's run a building block to it, let's get it blessed by the Board and make sure we're all following the same process from now on. I don't know what was done back then, but I can tell you that from my research some were going different processes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. But -- and the next one expired, too. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And we go down to Curtis Blocker. He is zoned C5. He has a SDP -- SIP from 2008. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Past the 2003 time frame, and it is expired. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is mobile homes allowed in C5? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. So what -- my issue -- because he's industrial right now. He's -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: He's proposed being industrial. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Four, Item No. 4. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm sorry. I'm thinking you were referring to the other Blocker. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, sorry. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Number 4, Curtis Blocker, he is zoned C5. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I looked at the Future Land Use Map, and he's proposed to do industrial, go to industrial. So my first question is, I don't believe this is true, mobile homes are not allowed in C5, but he has a mobile -home park there. Page 117 December 13 -14, 2011 MS. VALERA: Part of the study was to find out what the current zoning allows but also to research, historically, what had been allowed for every property that we looked at. And in this specific property, that zoning allowed the mobile home at one point in time and, therefore, they're nonconforming. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the diagram that Commissioner Hiller was talking about stated the other Blockers' property was zoned C3, which allowed for -- MS. VALERA: Correct, but remember that the property owner chose to change that use. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And now that's the new onset to this issue is a previous owner required -- requested it to be rezoned but continued the use. MS. VALERA: (Witness nods head.) COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What I see is a lot of these, all of them hasn't complied to the Board's Zoning or Land Development Code. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. Most, if not all. Some have. MR. BELLOWS: This was preexisting. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Some have. And we'll have to go through -- to give you that answer, I'd have to go through that. But some have. But most would have to go through some sort of SIP process. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's too late, because we said by 2003. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. That section of the code said by 2003 or Code Enforcement Board, which is now gone, because none of them are there anymore back from 2003, or by a date set by the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's what -- but the Page 118 December 13 -14, 2011 recommendation is not that. But what you're really saying is we need to set a date? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Or they could come at you one at a time. And we could -- in other words, as Diane Flagg's group says, you're in violation of this section of the code, a person could submit an SIP; we could take the SIP to the board. That's the next item that we'll be talking about, sir, actually two later. We come up with a process to bring them to the board, and say okay, they're in violation of that section of the code. Give us a date they want to comply. The board would extend a date to them, 12 months, 18 months, two years, and then they would comply. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there any prohibition for the board, Jeff -- and I may need your help -- for the board to recognize that we have trailer parks within the Immokalee area that the county has not enforced the zoning and we allow them to continue under nonconformity? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think both Jeff and I tell you, as part of the Immokalee Area Master Plan -- MR. KLATZKOW: You can do that if you want to do that. We may have to implement that through a change in the ordinances, but you can do that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Because all these moble -home parks, it's going to cost them to do what they have been doing, in other words, a fee to come to the board to do what they have been for decades. Do you see where I'm coming from? And I understand there is a desire by some to do away with those, and that is fine. That's how they become nonconforming. They can't expand or they can't replace in case of fire or hurricane; however, we are in hard economic times, and I would hope that government will be lenient in recognizing that there is a -- there's a process of change that needs to take place, and I think it has to do to -- tied to economic or when the land is ripe to do so. Page 119 December 13 -14, 2011 But, however, the existing mobile homes, parks -- not just these. There are several of them out there. If the board adopts the language of the future land use -- Immokalee Future Land Use Map and zoning, do they become nonconforming, some of those, if their density exceeds what's in the written text? MR. CASALANGUIDA: They could be nonconforming, but that's okay. That means that they were vested rights, they would have that ability to be the way they were before. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But nonconforming means if that unit -- if they -- let's say they exceed that base density and we have a hurricane or a fire; that means they can't replace that unit. MR. BELLOWS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Ray Bellows. I'm with the Department of Land Development Services. The nonconforming section of the Land Development Code specifically allows residential zoning districts, including mobile homes, if destroyed by hurricane, fire, or natural disaster, to be rebuilt to its previous density, so they would not be losing density. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What section of the code are you speaking about? MR. BELLOWS: I believe that's within 9.03.00. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I do have that. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I'll look for that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: While you're looking for that, can you tell us why some of these SIPs are expired? MR. BELLOWS: My understanding, the property owner's failed to implement the improvements shown in the SIP. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So the SIPs were -- MR. BELLOWS: And they did not get CO. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So the SIPs were approved? MR. BELLOWS: In some cases -- in some they applied but they were never completed. Page 120 December 13 -14, 2011 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So it's not the result of some failure by government to act? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, in the written text of what's being proposed, it says that single mobile homes can go through the Land Development Code spelled out in Section 9. It doesn't say mobile -home parks. It actually says, you have a process -- yeah, you have a process for mobile -home parks under the interpretation. MR. BELLOWS: Under the nonconforming section of the Land Development Code, it talks about residential structures which, for the purpose of this section, shall mean to include detached single- family dwellings, duplexes, or mobile homes in existence at the effective date of the zoning code or its relevant amendment. Residential uses thereafter may be altered, expanded, or placed upon approval of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Oh, that's in regards to -- MR. MULHERE: Next paragraph. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. In the next paragraph, notwithstanding the foregoing restrictions, if there is a -- notwithstanding the foregoing restrictions to -- as to reconstruction, any residential structure or structures in any residential -zoned district may be rebuilt after the destruction to the prior extent, height and density. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. But in the proposed text, Mr. Mulhere, it only addresses it in the proposed text for a single mobile home, not a mobile -home park, and a mobile -home park clearly states it has to go under the Policy No. 6.1. MR. MULHERE: No. I think -- Commissioner, I think you're talking about the section of the proposed Immokalee Area Master Plan that talks about new mobile homes; is that what you're talking about right now? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe that's what it is. And Page 121 December 13-14,2011 you know what, I'm maybe getting ahead of myself, and we can discuss this under -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah, that's -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: You want to do that? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll just make myself a note. MR. MULHERE: But I would just add, though, that there is a section -- and maybe Carolina can verify this -- I'm sorry. But there is a section of the code that deals with uses that don't -- that aren't consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and those are deemed to be consistent if they existed. So that's how they would also be able to -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, see, the -- the Immokalee area -- the proposed area master plan is going to have its own code. It's going to have its own code, so it's going to be -- unless it's referred to in the policy, then it's silent. MS. VALERA: Correct, Policy 619 -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: 619. MS. VALERA: -- of the proposed Immokalee Area Master Plan does reference to the Land Development Code, the vested rights that are in the Land Development Code, and we're not changing those. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But it's the policy under the interpretation. I have so much documents. I apologize. MS. VALERA: I do, too. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And it only applies to -- it doesn't apply to Section 9 of the Land Development Code. So that may be a proposal that we want to do. MS. VALERA: Actually, it does say -- Policy 6.19(B), it says, any property owner who believes that they have been adversely affected by this Immokalee Area Master Plan may utilize the procedures set forth in Chapter 9 of the Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, okay. Thanks for your clarification. Page 122 December 13 -14, 2011 So, anyways, we're going to possibly take -- make a policy on what to do with these existing uses. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And I only have one other thing to add, Commissioner, just to answer the other commissioner's question. She brought up a good point, Commissioner Hiller did, and this is where staff s being apolitical in trying to tell this Board one thing. If in 1973 they adopted it to industrial and then for 40 years we took no action, that's where this becomes a board decision in terms of what you want to do in terms of the Blocker case or any other case that's been there, because at that point in time they did become illegal. It was voluntarily by the property owner, and that yet nothing happened for approximately 40 years, or I should say 30 years; we started taking action probably about eight to ten years ago. So that's where you wrestle with this issue in terms of a Board, not staff. And that's the end of our presentation, and we can take more questions if you want, but I think the rest is -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Going back to the 40 years. You know, if something doesn't change in a period of time, does that mean it should remain the same forever? Of course not. I mean, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to give you a loaded question like that, Nick. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, thank you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: A couple of things we need to put into the balance of this whole thing. This board was extremely proactive when it started up in 2000. Remember that, Immokalee, the many times we took the trips down there, substandard housing? And the many changes that have been enacted have been absolutely tremendous. I mean, substandard housing has been reduced by a tremendous amount where over 50 percent was substandard. The amount now is in the teens or lower. Page 123 December 13 -14, 2011 It's being corrected as we speak only because this board didn't want to accept a status quo for 40 years. And there again, too, it was a community will. There was a civic association together that pushed this thing through. This was something that took place numerous times within Immokalee meetings, and we asked them, what do you want? And they said, we don't want to accept the standard (sic) quo. We want this to be a better community for everybody to live. We want it to be an affordable community, we want it to be a safe community, and we want it to meet the basic standards that everyone would expect to find in living conditions. So while -- we're getting into a whole bunch of issues, and we're losing the main point of what the argument was all about to begin with. And the main point of the argument is to provide a community for Immokalee, one, that is to their liking, and that's what the master plan was designed to do. That's what all the meetings even predating the master plan were all about in Immokalee, and they were the driving force that took us where we are today. So to go back and say, if it's been there for 40 years, then it should be able to continue in perpetuity is absolutely insane. What I would suggest at this point in time, there's a number of people here that I see in the audience that want to probably speak on this subject. At least I presume there are. Are there? How many speakers? MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we've only two speakers registered. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm absolutely floored with the fact there's only two, but I think they're most going to address the master plan. But why don't we hear from those two people and then take it from there. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It's all right with me. Let's call the public speakers. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I ask two questions before? I just have two quick questions. Page 124 December 13 -14, 2011 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Of Nick? COMMISSIONER HILLER: One of Nick and one of Jim. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead. MR. MITCHELL: This is IOH. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to just ask Jim. Jim, I really appreciate your history, and I was just listening to what you were saying, you know, about, you know, what your goals were for the community. So if I understand correctly, when you developed this SIP program, the whole idea was to redevelop the community and get rid of blight. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that -- and, briefly, it was to be able to bring the community up to the standards that were acceptable. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So to -- basically to redevelop it and basically get rid of the blight and change the condition -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, that's correct. COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- of the existing trailer parks. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And even though -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that was the -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- a lot of people haven't completed their process yet, it's still been very successful. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. And that was -- and that was the whole objective of that SIP regulation that we adopted in the Land Development Code? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It was one part of the whole thing, yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Nick, let me just ask this question. I have a nonconforming mobile -home park in Immokalee. MR. CASALANGUIDA: With which -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have a nonconforming mobile -home park. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Zoning, land use, or structure? Page 125 December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER HILLER: It doesn't matter. I have a nonconforming mobile -home park. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do I have to participate -- because it doesn't matter, because it's -- according to you it's either non- conforming or illegal. So I have a conforming (sic) mobile -home park. Do I have to participate in the SIP program, and do I have to make the improvements to my property required by the county? MR. CASALANGUIDA: If you are illegal, you can't participate. COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. I asked a question. I am a nonconforming mobile -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, you have to participate in the SIP process. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. I'm not looking to expand my project. I'm not looking to change it in any way physically, but you're telling me I, nonetheless, have to participate in that SIP program, and I have to come up to code notwithstanding the fact that I am grandfathered or come up to whatever the county, at its discretion, has decided the standard I'm going to come up to? MR. CASALANGUIDA: And that's typical, Commissioners, with your Land Development Code, is you come up to the best you can possible. And the idea behind the SIP process -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: But I'm grandfathered. I'm grandfathered. Let's take it to a structure. Let's look at the structural side. I'm grandfathered. I'm grandfathered under the old building code, or I'm grandfathered because there was no building code that existed when I was built. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right now -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do I have to participate in the SIP? MR. CASALANGUIDA: According to the Land Development Code, you do. And the issue there is, ma'am, to get a building permit, Page 126 December 13 -14, 2011 you have to have a site plan. If someone doesn't have a site plan and they were nonconforming -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: But I don't need a building permit. I'm not doing anything to my building. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Most all do or will, and that was part of the process. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But I don't need to. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Most all do or will at some point in time, so -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: But let's focus on my question. I don't need to do anything that requires a permit. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do I need to participate in the SIP plan? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am, you do. Under the Land Development Code that was adopted by the board, you have to comply. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And so based on Jim's response and based on your response, my conclusion, notwithstanding any other specifics, fact regarding any other property, is that this SIP regulation is unconstitutional. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, ma'am, I'll tell you what; you don't have to improve the lot. That's the thing about -- the way this SIP process was written -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. I'm good. I'm good. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would like to hear the rest of what you were going to say. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, because you asked me to -- you asked me a question. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, but you said you were done. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We want you to complete it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'd like to try at least. The intent of the Page 127 December 13 -14, 2011 SIP process is to define what's out there because nobody knew what was out there, to bring it up to the best extent possible the way the code is written. And if you couldn't comply -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. The SIP is a burden of proof? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, no, ma'am. It's to define what's out there, site - improvement process. And the way -- the intent of it, as the code was written, was that everybody would say, here's what I have. I've done the best I can to make it comply with the standards that are there or were there, are going to be there, and we'll document this once and for all so -- because it says -- and I'm going to have to dig it up. But it says, once it's done, it shall set the standard of what you have. So it was an incentive for people to do that so there wouldn't be an argument later as to what was complying or not. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I respond to your comment about being an incentive? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Absolutely, it is. COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's hardly an incentive when you're told, you must do this, and if you don't, we're going to tear you down in one year. Not the kind of incentive that I think incentivizes people. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Call the first speaker, please. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Positively. MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker is Pam Brown. MS. BROWN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Pam Brown. My family has the Chaney's Trailer Park in Immokalee, and we've had a trailer park there since the late 1940's. I don't think that what the mobile -home park owners are trying to say here today is that we want to have substandard housing in Immokalee, but also to be able to work with us financially to be able to comply to some of these rules. Page 128 December 13 -14, 2011 I have been investigated now, I think, for four or five months by code enforcement. They kept on calling our family wanting to know what kind of evidence that we had in the past, but there was no evidence that they could give us at the time. And I've been scrambling around for that. And about a month ago I called Mr. Bellows, and I never received an answer back, and I got the draft of this the first time, and it said that I needed to be rezoned. And from what I can understand, the zoning only, I think, was in the 1950s, 1952 or'53. So now I came over and talked to Ms. Valera and Mr. Bosi, which were very nice. I showed them some of the tax collector's pages that I had, that I had collected, and at that time they said, okay, we don't need to rezone you now. But I'm looking, and there's only 13 mobile homes that are on this piece of paper here on Page 2. My mother has been paying property taxes, and she's been paying for an occupational license for 25 units. And that is -- we don't own any of the mobile homes. They're owned by the people that live there. And then one of my concerns is, what happens if you go in, say this is substandard housing, and what's the plan of action? Do I tell those people they have to move out of their houses? They can't afford anything else. What do I do there? Also, Mr. Bellows had mentioned 9.03.00 about replacement of mobile homes. County staff had allowed one mobile home to be replaced in a hurricane that we had that came through through Mr. Heers' group, IHOPE, and then we had another mobile home in the area that needed to be replaced, and we weren't able to replace that one, and I don't know what the difference would have been in those two mobiles homes. Mr. Ayala here, he's having a problem where he did a Site Improvement Plan. What happens if you do go and do the Site Improvement Plan and then you're finding out you need to be Page 129 December 13 -14, 2011 rezoned? Because that's going to be costing a lot of the property owners over here a lot of money, and I would hope that we would have a little bit more meat to this as a plan of action before you decide to vote on this today. Thank you. MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Robert from 9064 The Lane. Could you speak your last name for record, please. MR. DAVENPORT: Yes. My name is Robert Davenport, and I live at 9064 The Lane. I own Davenport's Mobile Home Park in Immokalee. I own Davenport's Mobile Home Park Ter -- Meriham Terrace, and the mobile -home park on Titus Lane. What I'd like to speak to you today about is that in 1991 when this thing was -- the initiative was started back in 1991, they condemned one of my places simply because we didn't have enough square footage. I since went through a Site Development Plan, and that's SDP 91 -28. On the Meriham Terrace plan, I put it in according to the Collier County requirements at the time, which were illegal, because they did not require me to plant or do a -- they let me put it in with 60 -by- 100 - square -feet lots -- or 6,000- square -feet lots because it was in a VR district. In 2000, I went through and got an SIP and completed mine to bring it to code. But it's a tough deal when every ten years or so you guys come and give us a new set of rules. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, and that's not the way the law works. MR. DAVENPORT: And this is a fact. I don't have all the paperwork with me today, but I do have it. There's a lot of things that went on. I moved to Immokalee in 1965, actually December of '64. In '65, I moved there seven months a year, and I worked up north five Page 130 December 13 -14, 2011 months. So I've been there a long time. Most of the mobile -home parks on this sheet, of the 53, have some semblance of legality, and it appears that we went for 30 years or 40 years and nobody cared, but -- and you're right, the 2000 initiative did clean a lot of places up, but you still have a long ways to go, and you need to be open to the SIPs that were started so they can complete them. Thank you. MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your last speaker. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, go ahead. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Mr. -- sir? Mr. Davenport? I agree with you. Before when we had the process going forward, we gave all sorts of extensions on time and dealt with it, and I -- when it comes up again and we start going forward again, we'll do the same thing. Would the chair please recognize Paul Midney? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, he submitted a -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I saw him submit. CHAIRMAN COYLE: He submitted, but I think it's for another item. MR. MITCHELL: He submitted -- if you want to -- I mean, he wants to speak, but he -- he submitted a speaker slip to speak to the Immokalee Area Master Plan, which he's -- and he didn't -- there was no number on it, and my assumption was that was 8A. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Midney, did you want to address this item? MR. MIDNEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would ask the chair's indulgence. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Don't forget to give him his award, by the way. Page 131 December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, yeah. You didn't pick that up, ten -year award for the Planning Commission, sir. MR. MIDNEY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you for your service. MR. MIDNEY: Thank you very much. (Applause.) MR. MIDNEY: My name is Paul Midney. I'm a resident of Immokalee for about 27 years, and I work at the clinic. And a lot of my patients live in the housing that we're talking about, and it's very necessary to have such a thing as trailer parks and, you know, substandard housing. Because it would be great if everybody could live in Farm Worker Village or live in a Habitat for Humanity house, but it's just not possible, because a lot of people, since they follow the crops, they're only here seven or eight months of the year or sometimes even less, you know, at the height of the season. And so for a landlord to be able to rent something and only get money for it for five or six months of the year, it's hard to, you know, put up a really nice place. So the trailer parks, even though they're not, you know, ideal housing, they do serve a useful purpose in Immokalee, and they house people who otherwise wouldn't have anyplace else to live. So I'm just hoping that this board can see its way to find some sort of a compromise to allow the rest of the Immokalee Master Plan to go forward and not be sort of held up by this one issue, because there's a lot of really good things in the master plan. So I hope you can figure out a way to continue to allow trailer parks and the housing where the poorest of the poor people in Immokalee live right now, to go on, but at the same time, yes, try to bring it up slowly and gradually but to not kill the whole rest of the master plan just because of that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Midney, would you come up here, please. Page 132 December 13-14,2011 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There we go, Mr. Midney. Your pin for ten years of service. Thank you. (Applause.) MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Chair, I had inadvertently listed Item 8A instead of 10I on my speaker slip also, as did Jerry Blocker, because he foolishly listened to me. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's the problem of listening, but -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: This is H, not 1. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I know, but -- MR. HANCOCK: My comments were intended to pertain to this item, and I listed 8A on my speaker slip, for which I apologize. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, you're not going to come back and speak on one of the others, are you? MR. HANCOCK: We're bargaining now, aren't we? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, we are. MR. HANCOCK: No, sir. I believe what I have to say can be contained here. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thanks. MR. HANCOCK: For 12 years this amendment has languished. There are a lot of positive things in the plan regarding vision and goals, and I think we all would like to see a way for those to be retained. The difficultly is that placing detailed land -use regulations in a Growth Management Plan amendment which has no deviation process, no flexibility and for which it can take over two years to amend is coming to bear today. We have people that don't really know what this means to them. Ms. Brown was told one thing as recently as two months ago only to find out that she has to go another route, and she doesn't know what that route means or what it will cost or whether it will affect the density on her existing business. The way in which we've handled these things in the past -- and Page 133 December 13 -14, 2011 I'll use the Golden Gate Master Plan as an example. When the people of Golden Gate decided that conditional uses needed to have further controls, the amendment process was through the master plan. And what they did is they looked at it and they said, you know what, what's done is done, but all future development needs to look a certain way. We need to look to the future and make sure that as we go forward we do things properly. They knew they weren't going to reach back and tell a church that they had to tear their church down just because that's not what they wanted anymore. They looked to the future. In 1991 and 1992, we had zoning reevaluation. All commercial zoning that was not at nodes was told, you're no more. You've lost it. But wait a second. In order to be fair, if you've put some investment into your property, if you've installed infrastructure, if you have an approved SDP, or if you're next to commercial zoning where you could be compatible, we're going to set up a process called "zoning reevaluation" where you can make your case, and that was for vacant land. Here we're talking about existing businesses. Ms. Brown said it so clearly. There since the '40s. Now she's being told she has to come back before you and ask to keep what she has. We've never done that. Even when we changed sign ordinances in Marco Island, we gave people five years to tear down a sign. We're talking about existing viable businesses that at one time were legal and permitted and obtained building permits over the decades for what's there today. This is unprecedented, and this is why there's angst. And what I ask you to do is, look at -- if we don't understand the repercussions of what we're adopting to existing viable businesses that provide a much - needed service in that community, why should we adopt it? Thank you. MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Jerry Blocker. Page 134 December 13 -14, 2011 MR. BLOCKER: Good afternoon. Commissioner Hiller asked a question about the property zoned, you know, the -- getting zoned. First of all, the property owner that owned it back then was Frank and Shell -- Frank and June Shell. Dick Johnson never owned the property during them times in 1972. He owned the property adjacent to it. And I've got an affidavit from Dick Johnson saying that he never -- you know, he didn't -- he's the one that had the zoning changed on his property, not Frank and June Shell. And he also stated that he didn't get permission from that property owner. Besides that, there's a lot more issues in this master plan that we need to look at. I mean, I've got a lot of support on the mobile -home issues, over 800 signatures. I would just ask you guys to reevaluate and look at this thing very, very hard and come up with a reasonable plan for everybody that works for everybody. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. Well, based on what you're saying, if those are the facts, then, in fact, you are a nonconforming property, and as a nonconforming property, you don't have a problem, because the intent of the law is to protect existing uses. No business could make a business decision if every time they make an investment they have to worry that the next law that comes along is going to wipe out that existing investment. That is why the law recognizes grandfathering and why it is important. And, quite frankly, this government has two choices. They can either grandfather you or they can compensate you, because the effect of this SIP program from everything I have heard today and everything I have learned from staff is that it is a regulatory taking. And I have a real problem with it. So I think what we need to do is re- evaluate this whole SIP process and make sure that we are acting legally, constitutionally, fairly, and not using it to arbitrarily target a single property owner because someone doesn't like them there or Page 135 December 13-14,2011 doesn't like the way they look or doesn't like them. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I'm sorry. The argument is -- just isn't quite true. Jeff, as the County Attorney, what you just heard here as far as being this is the only person that's being targeted, as far as this being grandfathered in and we're not honoring it -- or possibly I should address it to Nick. He's the one that's been putting this all together. I don't know, but I can't let this go by where this goes unchallenged. I mean, these kind of -- MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, if I may. I'm not going to litigate the Blocker case here. We have a forum for that. What I am looking for, this board, is a declaration, what do you want the policy to be for your mobile -home parks in Immokalee. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's the next item. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Why don't we go to that item. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And this is merely a report on the staff s analysis. So you're not asking for a decision on anything. It is for information. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So is there a motion to accept the report? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to accept the staff report. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to accept a staff report -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- by Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. Page 136 December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes 4 -1 with Commissioner Hiller dissenting. And just to put everybody on notice, we're going to be taking a break in 20 minutes, okay. Let's go to the next item, County Manager. Item #1 OL RECOMMENDATION THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACCEPT A PROCESS TO REVIEW PAST STAFF CLARIFICATIONS AND OFFICIAL INTERPRETATIONS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING CODES AND TO ACCEPT SPECIFIC STAFF CLARIFICATIONS AND OFFICIAL INTERPRETATIONS IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY — MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF' S RECOMMENDED POLICY — APPROVED MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. The next item is what we're referring to on your change sheet as 10L. It's a portion of what was Item 16A19. It's the portion of that item having to do with past staff official interpretations relating to mobile -home parks. Mr. Bellows will present. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. Staff clarification was done to help staff within the Growth Management Division deal with questions from mobile -home property owners in Immokalee and how they can participate under the nonconforming mobile -home park overlay. And it was unclear to staff which provisions provide -- due to the recodification of the code, it was broken up, which was one time in a Page 137 December 13 -14, 2011 single section of the LDC, then it was split up into three different areas of the LDC. So the purpose of this staff clarification was to clearly state how property owners in Immokalee can participate after the expiration of the program in 2003. And working with the County Attorney's Office and in reviewing the language in the LDC, it was clear to staff that the only way now to participate, utilizing the reduced standards and setbacks allowed in the nonconforming mobile -home park overlay, is to get a settlement agreement with the Board of County Commissioners. I'd be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta, you -- that was on from before, right? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My light was on before. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I'm trying to get to the -- trying to get to the item. But your interpretation -- your interpretation is a little bit different than what it says in the Land Development Code, and we recognize there are different nonconforming uses. MR. BELLOWS: There are three types of non - conformities, basically, in use and development standards, and lot areas is another type of nonconformity. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And there's another type of nonconformity? What are the three? MR. BELLOWS: You can have nonconforming use, nonconforming structures, and also site standards and also -- you can also have a nonconforming lot, meaning your lot isn't the required size. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Nonconforming use would mean what? MR. BELLOWS: The property was zoned, say, industrial and you have a mobile -home park in there. That's a nonconforming -- illegal use. Page 138 December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you. You recognize under B of the existing language -- I can put this on the viewer. Required Site Improvement Plan application, the property owner of all nonconforming mobile -home development parks that are -- existed before November 13, 1991. The key word is "all." MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And you said on nonconforming, the last -- or the nonconforming -- the first one is also a mobile -home park that is within the industrial area. MR. BELLOWS: In regards to the staff clarification, it applied universally, not just to a particular site. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. It was -- we can have the court reporter read it back. You just stated that nonconformity means a mobile home in industrial area. MR. BELLOWS: That's one type of nonconforming. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And that's the key. Why are we fighting this fight in the courts if it says in the board's Land Development Code ordinance that all nonconforming, including what you said is mobile -home parks in industrial properties? And Mr. Blocker was denied to submit an SIP by staff. MR. BELLOWS: But that's not a nonconforming use. That's an illegal use. That's the difference. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You just said previously, one of the nonconforming is having a mobile -home park in industrial. MR. BELLOWS: It can be. You can have a use that the zoning previously allowed. That's the definition of nonconforming. If the zoning allowed for the use and then the zoning is changed and that use is no longer allowed, then you're nonconforming in use. But if you were never zoned to allow for the use and the use was allowed for some other reasons, it's deemed to be an illegal use, and that's the clarification I think Nick wanted to make. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But in the report that Page 139 December 13 -14, 2011 Commissioner Hiller said, had, showed the property that had a commercial use of C3. MR. BELLOWS: And mobile homes weren't allowed in C3. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I think your argument was that Mr. Johnson came and rezoned the property. That's your argument that you had. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Mr. Johnson, the property owner, came in '72, was it, or '3, and our records show during the research that the property was rezoned to industrial at that time. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Again, the material that Commissioner Hiller submitted showed that it was a legal use. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. The staff analysis in that regard goes back to the early zoning where -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: It had transient lounging (sic). MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: In 1970, it was "I," Immokalee, dash 3 -- dash C-3. And this is -- this is the staff s own interpretation. MR. BELLOWS: I prepared that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So, again, the only defense that you have is the Blockers' previous owner, Mr. Johnson, rezoned the property; therefore, it's not the right use. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. MR. KLATZKOW: That's not correct, Ray, okay. And I've been litigating this case for years, okay, and I've been told that going back to the '50s, the 1950s zoning code that you were not allowed the present use. MR. BELLOWS: I think if you read that fine print at the bottom, it's basically saying the mobile -home parks are not permitted in the previous zoning; however, transient lodging, which could include a mobile -home unit in my opinion, but that's not a mobile -home park. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What is it? And I've got a bunch of monkey swings there as a playground. I mean, I went by it. Page 140 December 13 -14, 2011 It looked like mobile homes to me. MR. BELLOWS: That's the definition of illegal. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mobile -home parks are illegal? MR. BELLOWS: If the zoning doesn't allow for it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But the zoning, according to this table, shows that it does. MR. BELLOWS: If you look at the table, the commercial and industrial never allowed for mobile -home parks, as the County Attorney has mentioned. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But it allowed trailer camps or courts. MR. BELLOWS: Yes, trailer camps or courts, and those are not mobile homes. It's a separate defined type of structure that it doesn't -- those aren't classified as residential units, transient lodging. COMMISSIONER HENNING: We don't have existing language for trailer camps or trailer courts; is that correct? MR. BELLOWS: At the time this property was done -- if you can repeat the question. I want to make sure I understand it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Our existing ordinance has no language for trailer camps or trailer courts. MR. BELLOWS: The current code allows for trailers as -- in the TTRVC zoning district. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Do you -- anywhere in the board's ordinances do you find the words "trailer camp "? MR. BELLOWS: There's -- trailer camps are allowed in TTRVC zoning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And we do have language in our ordinance that says "trailer camps." MR. BELLOWS: I don't know if it's -- exactly "trailer camp" is the word, but trailer camps, per se, are allowed in the TTRVC Zoning Districts. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, they have wheels on Page 141 December 13 -14, 2011 them. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Unless you remove them, and then they become mobile homes. How long have you been with the county? MR. BELLOWS: Twenty -two years. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Twenty -two years. I've been in the county for approximately 40 years, and I remember trailer courts in East Naples. And, in fact, my former in -laws' family owned trailer courts, and there were mobile homes in there. MR. BELLOWS: There may have been. COMMISSIONER HENNING: There was. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: In fact, I bet you I can get you a picture of it, and even the sign, and I think if we even look through the record, I bet you will find the identification of it. MR. BELLOWS: There may be instances where other camps may have had some illegal uses in them. By definition, a trailer park would not include mobile homes. Now, there may have been some other zoning districts in the past that may allow for a mix of both. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. We're not talking about trailer parks. We're talking about trailer camps and trailer courts. And that was the use -- and that was the use in 1959. And they existed in the '70s, sir. MR. BELLOWS: Well -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: So -- I know we can argue this all day, and we're still not going to get anywhere. MR. BELLOWS: I just want to -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: But I do think the Board, what they need to do instead of going through a process where these landowners that have been doing historical business, shall be recognized by government instead of having to have an application. Page 142 December 13 -14, 2011 Mr. Davenport articulated it very well. Why am I having to come back here every ten years when you change the rules? You shouldn't have to do that. We should have to recognize units and the particulars on there that you put on an SIP such as landscaping, dumpsters, and so on and so forth, and allow those to happen until the property is ripe to change, okay. That's what I -- how I feel the board should do under this particular item. Of course, I'm not the commissioner of the district. I do recognize property rights, and these existing people have property rights in my opinion, and we ought to recognize them. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Nick, one more time. How many trailer parks are there in the Immokalee area? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Fifty -four, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And how many of them are basically in compliance? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Forty -five located in the district currently zoned for mobile -home parks, and there are eight that are nonconforming. And out of those two, two were found to be illegal. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So the vast majority of people have gone out of their way to comply over time, right? MR. CASALANGUIDA: They have, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And what we're talking about is how do we address the process from this point forward; am I correct? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. And let me elaborate. In this item, sir, that you have in front of you today, what we're asking the board is to give us some direction, because we've given you a staff interpretation based on 2.03.07(G)(6), which is what we've been talking about, and if you want us to continue to do that, we can, and if the board wants us to modify that, we can do that as well, too. But this is in code right now, so your interpretation is based on this code right now. Page 143 December 13-14,2011 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Okay. I'll tell you what my own personal -- I mean, Commissioner Henning just referred to the commissioner of the district, and he said, of course, I'm not the commissioner of the district, and, you know, he's not, but he does have an interest, a little bit different than my own. But the truth of the matter is we're here to serve people. I got -- that's one of the things we've gone out of our way to do. And the last time this came up and there was a big push in the early, you know, 20021 2003, in that particular point in time, I remember we came up with all sorts of ways to extend time to give people all sorts of time to be able to comply to be able to make things work. Now, these were people that were legally -- legal and legal nonconforming. They weren't illegal. Thank you, God, it's down to what, two people that are basically illegal that have to address the zoning issues? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir, two. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Two separate -- that's a different issue from everything else. I do agree with Commissioner Henning that you've got to be able to come up with something that has meaning over a period of time that will give some certainty to what's taking place and that everybody has to uphold to whatever direction it's going to go in a reasonable fashion as far as time goes. Everybody should be able to, in time, comply. We went through this before and, of course, I think what happened is we ran out of time and energy and money or whatever, and the initiative was dropped, to the most part, to one side as we went on to other ventures. I think we need to be able to bring this forward to be able to come up with something that's both humane, economically feasible, and the other two people, the two people that are left out there that are purely illegal because of the zoning, get them to -- well, of course, the court case is ongoing with the Blockers. I don't know if they're going Page 144 December 13 -14, 2011 to ever want to give up on it. But I offered this several times just about changing the zoning to be able to comply with what the use is that's -- they're using for the area, for the trailer park, make the zoning -- if the zoning complied, how far would they be out of compliance? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't know specifically for each particular lot. We'd have to go through that SIP process. But like I said earlier, Commissioner, this board has been very lenient in accepting what's there. So I -- MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If you're looking -- I'm sorry. Somebody's talking to me. MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, the Blocker's problem isn't just a question of zoning. They're in violation of your Growth Management Plan. They can't rezone. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You have to do that first. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Then the Blockers have to be set to one side and we deal with the rest of the issue until the Blocker's issue can be dealt with at the court level, I would take it. The other one that's non - conforming, he can go through a process, right? MR. CASALANGUIDA: A rezone, sir, that's correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: A rezone. Okay. So let's deal with what we can do, and let's do it in a fair and equitable way so we get to the end results that we need to get to. That's what I would like to see done. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And, Commissioner, in front of you there are two options. One is continue on, you know, with this interpretation of the existing code, or direct staff as part of the LDC to come back and maybe update the dates that are in this and give people another opportunity to come back. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would recommend updating the dates and going through a process that involves the public out Page 145 December 13 -14, 2011 there in a meaningful way, everything from people like Paul Midney who recognizes the need from affordable housing to the owners of the trailer parks that are out there. But the whole thing is, if some people complied, why should others not have to? But once again, we have to do this in a way that's going to be fair and equitable across the board, to be able to provide for not only compliance with our laws that exist, or else we have to scrap the whole thing and say, okay, it's the Wild West all over again. Don't worry about code enforcement. Don't worry about where you set the trailers. Don't worry about any of those issues. But do it in a reasonable way. I would like to see it come back through the process. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So do you want to make a motion to that effect? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I'll make that a motion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion is to approve the staff s recommended policy. MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we do have two speakers. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that -- that isn't what I heard. I'd like to get some clarification on the motion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: What is your motion? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The motion is to be able to come back through the process to be able to deal with the legal and the legal nonconforming lots out there to be able to get them in a way to be able to help them comply as far as time elements go and when everything's going to be put together and working with them in a way that will be advantageous for them and everyone else in Immokalee. Page 146 December 13-14,2011 COMMISSIONER FIALA: And is that something that can be done, Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, I think with the way your code reads now, it has certain dates that they had to submit an SIP under the prior development standards. If you want us to look at meeting a new date and meeting with the homeowners out there or the Immokalee -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Absolutely. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Then I think we can do that as part of the Land Development cycle. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Then I'll second that motion. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think you'd have to add to that, Commissioner, that you want a Stay in the compliance of this for the non - conforming while we're doing that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then I add that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let me make sure I've got this. The motion is to approve the staff s recommendation concerning how to deal with mobile homes, but hold it in abeyance for enforcement until such time as you have met with the people who are not in compliance to help them get in compliance. Is that a fair statement of the motion? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, it's also, yes, to extend the dates, too, and be able to make it in a way that will work for them. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, you're holding in abeyance the enforcement process -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- until such time as you can help the people, but that's fine. And if that's the motion, we've got a second by Commissioner Fiala. Now, I would merely suggest one thing. There are a number of people who've gone through the SIP process or maybe even started it, Page 147 December 13 -14, 2011 and it's expired or they haven't followed through with it. If the purpose of the SIP process is merely to establish a baseline of what they've got there, why not go out there and take a picture, count the number of mobile homes and say, okay, now we know what you've got. We've put it on record. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that amendment. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, it's not only to establish the baseline, but do the best you can to come into compliance with the current code. Your initiative, as I read through this code, was to say, do the best you can. You know that you have an existing mobile -home park. You probably can't meet all the development standards, and they had a -- we have its own set of standards for Immokalee overlay. So do the best you can. Come up with a site plan. If we believe you've done the best you can, the board does, then we're done. That's your baseline standard right there. And that was the intent of it based on what I read in here. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you think you can help the people work through that process so it's not going to be overly burdensome for them either from the standpoint of time expenditure and money? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I believe so. We can get it to the point where it's -- you're probably not going to be able to please everybody, but we can make it as convenient as possible for them, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Once again, not so much enforcement, but compliance. Compliance is what you're looking for. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Compassionate compliance. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We've got some speakers. MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we've two speakers. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker is Charles Griffin. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't think he's here. Oh, is he here? December 13-14,2011 Who's the second speaker? MR. MITCHELL: The second speaker is Robert Davenport. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question on this, after the speaker. MR. GRIFFIN: Hello. My name is Charles Griffin. I'm speaking for the mobile -home park, No. 7. The hurricane hit. The economy went down. You all have added a bunch of housing to Immokalee, Crestview and other places. There's less demand for housing now. And I've done some of the things. I've put fire hydrants in. And at that one park I put one fire hydrant in. That was $8,000. And I wish you -all would let me go ahead and give me permission to start moving trailers in before I get -- as I've been told by Jackie Williams, that unless I put in landscaping and the fire hydrant, which I've done, that I can't put anything in. If I could go ahead and start putting trailers in, I could start making a little more money and look more feasible, but -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I mean -- MR. GRIFFIN: But I don't want to put money into a losing thing. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand. And if I may address? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, I agree with you. If that was at all possible -- I'm not too sure how they could structure it. But if they could allow you to start down the process with a minimum amount of landscaping with a firm understanding that you would provide the rest of it by some given date in the future, I personally -- but I'm not -- I'm just one commissioner up here, and I -- it's a little different than anything we've ever dealt with before. I understand where you're coming from. It's very expensive. In Page 149 December 13-14,2011 fact, if I'm not mistaken, the new master plan addresses a much scaled -back type of landscape needs for Immokalee. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And so that would be to your advantage, you know, possibly to wait. If it's approved today, maybe that might make a difference in what the cost would be. Yeah, that's one of the things. I'd like to add to my motion the fact that we give consideration to these type of items and then bring it back to the commission and say, this is what we think's workable for this particular reason. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sir, the code allows for what he's asking for. Your Section 2.03.07 allows for him to phase in improvements as he does it. So you're saying put a stay in abeyance, but you're not saying if someone voluntarily wants to go through this, that we can still do it. So what he's asking for we can do. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure. I think you're getting the drift of what I'm looking for. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure am. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And the code allows him to do that, so we'll meet with him, and we'll get him started. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That was easy. MR. GRIFFIN: All right, thanks. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I'm sorry. MR. DAVENPORT: My name is Robert Davenport. The -- once you have an SIP approved and the time elapsed, you've got -- the county staff has stopped all movement of mobile homes in. Serious problem. As Nick says, there's a time for phasing in, but the staff has not been allowing us to put mobile homes in. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that's because they didn't have this interpretation. Once they've got this interpretation of this motion, they Page 150 December 13-14,2011 can begin working on that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, this motion covers pretty much that. And I think we can add that to give some more clarity as you're working through this. Yeah, why not? I mean, you're saying you've got your -- you've got your basic infrastructure in place, you're ready -- just about ready to go, and you haven't finished the whole process, but you would like to be able to pick up some mobile homes as you're going forward. MR. DAVENPORT: Yes. My son has a mobile -home park that has an approved SIP that was never completed because of a death in, not his family, but the previous owner, and they -- he bought the property thinking that he could go forward, but now he can't go forward. He can't put anything in there. The county staff has, from the 2000 initiative, every mobile -home park, every density and everything. And I think if -- I heard the thing about drawing a little map and saying all of you approved. This is what should have happened in 2000. Some of these improvements are necessary. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, great. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. DAVENPORT: But the cost has been prohibitive. It cost me $8,000 for one fire hydrant, $45,000 for the roads. And when you're trying to keep affordable housing -- and every time I would suggest that, Mr. Griffin will have a $100,000 bill on his property to put the roads in according to what you are asking, which -- you know, I have paved roads in all of mine, but -- my son, he has paved roads, but there's one that they don't have paved roads, and they went -- this is G & J Rentals. They had -- they went through the process twice and missed the deadline with the engineer, and it was no tolerance when the deadline went by for the approval of the SIP. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Mr. Davenport, if I may suggest, we'll get -- we'll ask staff -- we'll ask Nick to pull his staff Page 151 December 13 -14, 2011 together and meet with you and the other homeowners in Immokalee. Of course, once again, we're dealing with the legal and the legal nonconforming -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Nonconforming. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- trailers. That's the beginning and end of it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. You're not authorized to deal with anything else. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's right, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And -- but to work with these people. I'd like to attend that meeting, if at all possible, just to see the drift it's going. Then come back to the commission. We'll see what's doable, what we can make to make happen. These are tough economic times. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do we have any more speakers? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. May I continue? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do we have any more speakers? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: For just one second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This is tough economic times. The population in Immokalee is down substantially from what it has been in the past. I don't know what the numbers are. But they tell me it's down, like, about 40 percent. I hope it's not that bad. Well, it's just the nature of the beast. MR. DAVENPORT: There's a significant amount of drop, yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. And, meanwhile, you know, we have the issue of how do you maintain a business as you're going through these hard times. MR. CASALANGUIDA: So I'm clear, Commissioner, I will follow the procedures that it allows here, and I'll bring these back to the board as settlements one at a time. But we will stay enforcement Page 152 December 13-14,2011 until we can clean this up a little bit on the back end if no one's complying. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. But once again, we get to be able to view the whole thing over, see how it's structured to make sure it's not going to be something that's going to become an economic hindrance to these people to be able to comply. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You got it. It's clear. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Got it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's clear. CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many more speakers? MR. MITCHELL: Two, I believe. The next speaker is Pam Brown. MS. BROWN: Good afternoon, again. I'm looking at the Section 2.2.29 that was originally done in the Ordinance 91 -102, October the 30th of 1991, and in there -there was no illegal or legal non - conforming. This was all mobile -home parks that were in the Immokalee urban boundary and the Immokalee Area Master Plan. And I thought that a part of this initiative, Commissioner Coletta, was that we were trying to get rid of, like, what you were talking about, like, houses that were attached, somebody had built a little home or there was a travel trailer in somebody's backyard, and we were trying to clean up that type of area. And at the time, going through the process, the Collins were being allowed to do a Site Improvement Plan. And from what I'm listening to about the history of that property, there's not been a change of zoning since the time that they were allowed in 1991 to do that. For Mr. Ayala, he did the Site Improvement Plan. I go back to this again. It costs us money to do this. I've been able -- I've not been able to put a couple mobile homes in because I didn't have my Site Improvement Plan. So I'm missing it, and I'm hoping that Mr. Casalanguida will work with us also. But I really would like to see Page 153 December 13 -14, 2011 this be fair for everybody. Thank you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Just because you're a fire commissioner doesn't mean we're going to ignore you. MS. BROWN: And did I say anything about that? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, but we're very proud of the fact you are one. MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Mr. Blocker. MR. BLOCKER: I'd like to clear up a few items. The -- I mean, you can see, as the history shows, that this park was existing and being -- legally being used. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Your park? MR. BLOCKER: Yes, my park. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And your name? MR. BLOCKER: Jerry Blocker. When I was told it wasn't legal, I tried to go to the Immokalee Master Plan, as my commissioner suggested me to. And I'd like to put this on the screen up there what I did as far as a proposal. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Get the portable mic. MR. BLOCKER: I went to -- I went to the CRA Master Plan and asked for them to put this -- you know, to have my proposed property changed to CMU, because that was the only way that my commissioner said that I would be able to go through the process. So I did that. I went and asked for that to be done, and you can see that clearly from Mr. Bob Mulhere. He prepared this. Also -- they also went as far as changing the color on the map to color me in as commercial mixed use, which is right here. You can see it there clearly. Before this meeting took place, they called an emergency meeting, wanted to talk about why do I want to go from industrial to commercial mixed use. I says, well, that's what I was suggested to do to try to come into compliance, okay. They said, no, don't change Page 154 December 13 -14, 2011 your zoning. We'll make you right in the master plan. That's not what happened. All along this has been clearly, clearly, clearly a target on this piece of property. For whatever reason, I don't know. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Maybe it's because you're next to the airport. MR. BLOCKER: Whatever it may be. But I've tried to comply and comply and comply. Shouldn't be in a legal battle with the county with this issue. It's ridiculous, which both parties have spent piles and piles of money on this issue, and it should have been resolved way before now. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I ask you a question, Jerry? MR. BLOCKER: Uh -huh. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Did you just say that your commissioner -- you mean Coletta -- MR. BLOCKER: Uh -huh. COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- told you that this is what you should do and he would make sure it would get into the master plan? MR. BLOCKER: He asked me to go get my property rezoned, and this is what I done. I went through the process through the Immokalee Master Plan. Went to them, even got a letter of approval when Fred Thomas was the chairman on the board that they had no problems with this. Before I went to the meeting, before it was going to get voted on at the CRA, I had a meeting with Ms. Penny Phillippi, Fred Thomas, a few other people that was there in the room. They says, don't change -- don't downzone your property. We'll make you fine in the master plan, in the Land Development Code, or whatever, to keep industrial use on the property. That is the highest and best use on that property, is what I was told. Keep it the way it is. You'll be allowed to stay in the master plan. That is exactly what they told me, and that is exactly what did not happen. Page 155 December 13 -14, 2011 So now I'm in the jam that I'm in today because of that process. I was given misinformation, and we're here -- I'm in -- I'm where I'm at today because of that situation. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm just having a hard time understanding. What do you mean they said you would be put in the master plan and that that's how it would all get fixed? MR. BLOCKER: The language -- they said the language in the master plan will be -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: You wouldn't have to go through a rezoning; that in the process of doing the master plan, they would make sure that use would -- you know, that the use to allow for your trailers would be considered for that site? MR. BLOCKER: Exactly. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is that true, Mr. Mulhere? MR. MULHERE: Bob Mulhere, for the record. I was not in the meeting. I have no idea. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, I thought you said something about Mulhere. MR. MULHERE: Nope, he didn't. MR. BLOCKER: Well, Mr. Mulhere was involved in and was asking the Board to make the change from industrial to commercial mixed use in the designation of the master plan, and he did that. Bob did everything that was asked, because that's what my commissioner asked me to do. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I did not. I refudiate (sic) that. You're absolutely correct, you got -- whatever you got, you got it down wrong. MR. BLOCKER: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And you're in a lawsuit with the county, and I really don't think we should be carrying on conversation together right now. MR. BLOCKER: Anyway, we know what the targets are, so Page 156 December 13 -14, 2011 we'll see what happens. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is that the last speaker? MR. MITCHELL: That was the last speaker. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor of the motion, please COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no, no. I have a question on the motion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead. Who's going to pay for this? It's a -- a $1,000 base fee. Is the landowner going to pay for this? MR. CASALANGUIDA: If they want to voluntarily come forward now while there's an abeyance or stay on this, they can do that, and if they don't want to, they can wait till we update the Land Development Code and bring something back as an alternative. So that's the direction I've received so far. CHAIRMAN COYLE: How does that affect payment? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN COYLE: How does that affect payment? MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the ones that voluntarily would go through it, they would pay. And if they wanted to wait till the Land Development Code changed to see if the board wanted to offer some COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't we get the CRA to pay for this? They're the ones -- that's where the problem is, is the CRA, and the county hasn't done anything about this -- these parks for years. So why are we demanding the landowners do it? We're going to have the same thing that we have historically. You had one that came through, got his SIP on time but, you know, he needs a rezone. Everybody else was late on their SIPs. And, furthermore, why would we want these parks that are nonconforming -- Penny Phillippi and others want them to go away -- why would you make anybody make improvements such as put in Page 157 December 13 -14, 2011 roads or paved roads or landscaping? By the way, landscaping's not in the Growth Management Plan, Commissioner Coletta. It has to be developed through the Land Development Code for the Immokalee, okay? Why would we do that? Just doesn't make sense. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Nick, again, this -- and this goes to the issue of the motion. You know, we're talking about nonconforming, but you've got all these properties identified as conforming, but that's only as to use. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Conforming as to use, zoning, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, I understand. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So none of these have been inspected with respect to conformity as to structure. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Some have. Some are in code right now for issues -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: But this schedule doesn't identify who is nonconforming as to structure. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am. As your code enforcement group does not do, it does not go out and do inspections on individual properties. It goes out if someone calls something in, but if -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: So the question is, you know, with respect to the non - conforming, you've only identified non - conforming as to use. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's right, ma'am, land use. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But this SIP program is with respect to non - conforming properties whether it's use or structure. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right, to the Land Development Code, not to the use. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, the SIP program -- Page 158 December 13-14,2011 MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am, to the Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- is use and structure. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. Not use; it's Land Development Code and building -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, that's structure, nonconforming structure. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or setbacks. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Setback, lots. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, that's part of structure. I mean, if the structure is ahead of the setback line or behind the setback line. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right, in site standards, yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. So as to this motion, you have to go and make a determination who is non - conforming, which you haven't done. MR. CASALANGUIDA: What -- the way I understand this motion to read is that I will update the Land Development Code to give some consideration to what the people want out there -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we're going to change the Land Development Code? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's what the motion is on the table right now, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And if anybody wants to at the same time come forward and voluntarily comply right now while we're doing that and they have a phased development, like that gentleman said, while we're doing this, that I can bring it to the board as a settlement agreement and that he can phase in, bring some units online. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And when you're -- and you're talking now about someone who is non - conforming structurally who is Page 159 December 13 -14, 2011 coming forward with a settlement proposal, but this guy doesn't want to increase, you know, the number of units he has or anything like that. You're forcing this guy who wouldn't otherwise be pulling a permit to come up to the current code even though he's grandfathered. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am, because what we -- I have a stay on enforcement based on what this board has told me, so I will meet with the folks in Immokalee. And if someone has something in place that can come into compliance and they want to proceed while this stay is going forward, they can. In the meantime, I'll meet with -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: But if they're grandfathered, why do they have to come in compliance? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, because this section of the code, unless -- until I rewrite it working with the community, ma'am, says they have to. They have to submit something. But it's not in compliance. It's to the best that they can under the alternative standards of the Immokalee nonconforming overlay district. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we're ignoring grandfathering. We're saying grandfathering doesn't exist. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, that's what you're saying, because you're telling me that you are telling these people who are legally grandfathered that they have to come in compliance with a code which postdates their structure. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I help you? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's the site planning improvements, such as paved roads, a fire hydrant, landscaping that they don't comply with. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, it's only those things. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's one example. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So it has nothing to do with the structure, the physical structure. Page 160 December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER HENNING: I believe it was -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Like any other issues related to the structure. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Setbacks. COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're only looking at those kind of things. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Setbacks, things like that. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And if they've grandfathered in, you're still requiring them to come up to the current code notwithstanding that they are legally grandfathered. MR. CASALANGUIDA: To the best extent possible, ma'am. If they showed -- and one of the things, my understanding, that's come up quite a bit is the proximity of these structures to each other in cases of fire or to neighboring property owners. So if there's a health, safety, welfare issue, your staff would be less tolerant. COMMISSIONER HILLER: How does landscaping have anything to do with health and safety? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER HILLER: How does -- what does -- this poor guy was talking about landscaping. What does landscaping have to do with public health and safety? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's where your priorities would come into, Commissioner. In other words, you would say -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I think that's where the law comes in. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, ma'am, I'm trying to explain where they came -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to take a ten - minute break for the court reporter. It's been an hour -- or two hours since we last had a break. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can we end this? CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, no. It won't end. Page 161 December 13-14,2011 (A brief recess was had.) MR. SHEFFIELD: You have a live mic. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We are in session again. We have a motion on the table. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have one quick question. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Quick question? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Quick question. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you going to listen to the answer? COMMISSIONER HILLER: I promise. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Okay. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll be a good girl. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller. One quick question, and you get to answer, Nick. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Actually, I don't want to ask you, Nick. I'm going to leave you off the hook. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Jeff, one quick question. I want to go back to the issue of zoning. If the property owner did not rezone the property, is that legal zoning? If the property owner did not request the rezoning of this board, is that zoning a voluntary -- MR. KLATZKOW: If you're asking me from hypothetical, on a hypothetical and not case related -- because there are more facts than COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. I'm talking specifically (sic). Just a hypothetical. MR. KLATZKOW: But from a hypothetical -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. MR. KLATZKOW: -- somebody else cannot rezone another person's property. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So you have to be the owner of the property. If you want to voluntarily upzone your property, you request an upzone. Page 162 December 13-14,2011 MR. KLATZKOW: Owner or authorized agent. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Owner or authorized agent? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But, otherwise, it's not legal zoning? MR. KLATZKOW: You wouldn't have had the authority to do it. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Got it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor of the motion, please signify saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The motion passes 3 -2 with Commissioners Hiller and Henning dissenting. That takes us to what item now, Commissioner? MR. THOMAS: Excuse me. Excuse me, please. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Actually, Mr. -- or I should say Fred. May I call Fred? MR. THOMAS: Call me whatever you want to call me. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Handsome? MR. THOMAS: That will work, too. CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you want to lie. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Never. MR. THOMAS: Now, we're going to deal with some miscommunication, very quickly, deal with miscommunication. Jerry Blocker said something earlier today, a little while ago, that Coletta said, okay. What Coletta did was told me to help the Blockers Page 163 December 13 -14, 2011 work out their problem years ago, okay. And I went and worked it out and came up with a solution that would have solved their problem. Now, some of the people that are coming to you today are affected by that same problem, but they were against it back in those days. If we had done it then, it would have been all out of the way. Now we've got to mix the problem. Now, you all know that I spent over 40 years of my life in housing redevelopment. You cannot change a neighborhood -- you cannot change a neighborhood unless you give people a chance to change, okay. In the old days what we used to do when we wanted to get rid of blight was relocate people, the businesses and whatnot, to another spot so they didn't go out of business or what have you. Then you go clean it out, let it air out, and start all over again. But here we want to -- you know, why does he have to become an industrial use when the infrastructure's not even in place for him to take advantage of it? So he loses his money in the meantime? Doesn't make sense. And some of these other trailer parks and whatnot are the same way. We can make it happen in Immokalee. Just leave us alone, and don't try to put coastal standards on us. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I agree with his statement. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. Item #101 RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT'S PROCESS FOR SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS FOR IMMOKALEE MOBILE HOME PARKS THAT HAVE APPROPRIATE ZONING — MOTION TO WITHDRAW ITEM — APPROVED Page 164 December 13-14,2011 MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, we would be going next to 10I, but given the Board's direction on the last item, staff would now request that we withdraw that, because it's essentially a moot item having to do with settlements on -- and forthcoming SIPS that has been overcome by the last decision, so -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. OCHS: -- so we would withdraw Item 10I. And that would take -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to withdraw 10I. MR. OCHS: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're withdrawing 10I. Okay. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: I guess it's gone. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Item #1 OJ RECOMMENDATION TO REVIEW THE PROCUREMENT OF SERVICES OF SUNCOAST MOVING & STORAGE, INC. FOR MOVING THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE IN JULY, 2010 AND MAKE A DETERMINATION REGARDING REQUEST FOR FINAL PAYMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $65556.50 — Page 165 December 13-14,2011 MOTION TO CONTINUE TO JANUARY 10, 2012 BCC MEETING — APPROVED MR. OCHS: Commissioner, also before we move on to 8A, Mr. Dethlefsen, who is the owner of Suncoast Moving & Storage, the subject of the discussion on Item l OJ, approached me during the break and said that he had an appointment as the CRA member out of town at another board and was wondering if the board would be willing to move his item to the January 10, 2012, meeting. Staff has no objection. I'll ask Ms. Kinzel if she has any objection to that. MS. KINZEL: We have no objection to that. MR. OCHS: Okay. So, again, we would just -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to -- MR. OCHS: -- allow him to move on -- if we could get a motion to withdraw -- or continue, I should say, Item l OJ to the January 10, 2012, Board of Commissioners' meeting. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to move IOJ to the next BCC meeting. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Henning to move Item IOJ to the next Board of Commissioner's meeting, seconded by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion carries unanimously. Page 166 December 13 -14, 2011 MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners. Item #8A PETITION CP- 2008 -5, REQUESTING AMENDMENTS TO THE IMMOKALEE AREA MASTER PLAN AND IMMOKALEE AREA MASTER PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP, TO MAKE REVISIONS TO THE ENTIRE MASTER PLAN THAT INCLUDES: INCREASES TO COMMERCIAL ACREAGE, INDUSTRIAL ACREAGE AND ALLOWABLE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY; ELIMINATION OF SOME EXISTING DESIGNATIONS; CREATION OF A NEW DESIGNATION FOR THE IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT SITE; AND RE- DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 103 ACRES TO THE IMMOKALEE URBAN AREA FROM AGRICULTURAL /RURAL WITHIN THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA AS IDENTIFIED ON THE COUNTYWIDE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. ADDITIONALLY, STAFF REQUESTS AMENDMENTS TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT TO SHOW RE- DESIGNATION OF THE 103 ACRES TO THE IMMOKALEE URBAN AREA — MOTION TO APPROVE — FAILED That takes us now to Item 8A on your agenda. It's advertised public hearings. This is CP2008 -5, petition requesting amendments to the Immokalee Area Master Plan and Immokalee Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map, to make revisions to the entire master plan to include increases to commercial acreage, industrial acreage, and allowable residential density, elimination of some existing designations, creating of a new designation for the Immokalee Regional Airport site, and re- designation of approximately 103 acres Page 167 December 13 -14, 2011 to Immokalee urban area from agricultural rural within the Rural Land Stewardship Area as identified on the countywide Future Land Use Map. Additionally, staff requests amendments to the Future Land Use Map and Map Series of the Future Land Use Element to show the re- designation of 103 acres to the Immokalee urban area. And this is an adoption hearing, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'd just like to make an announcement. It is highly doubtful that we will get anything more completed this afternoon than what we have listed as time - certain items. I -- we have 8A now. We will then go to 12A, 11 A, 9M, and hopefully 9L. There is no way we will get beyond those four items, four additional items, before 6 o'clock tonight. So anybody who has something that is not included in those time - certain items, if you wish, you can take a break and come back tomorrow morning, and we'll start at 9 o'clock. So I just don't want you to be sitting around here all afternoon in anticipation of something that's not going to happen. Okay. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioners, under this item, phone call from my personal attorney last night questioning about the Immokalee Area Master Plan and my involvement. I am a property owner. Talking with the County Attorney, there's an appearance of impropriety on my vote today, so I will participate in the discussion today; however, I will have to abstain from the vote. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I don't understand that. I don't think his personal interest is inordinate, but nevertheless -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I got to raise issue with it. We voted on the Golden Gate Master Plan, and we live in Golden Gate. So the issue is extremely moot, and I think it's just trying to avoid the issue at hand and not facing up to it squarely rather than -- December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you're just plain wrong again. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sure I am. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have -- if this passes, I have a substantial gain in value in property. Now, the Statute is very clear when you are voting on items of personal gain or loss. The Golden Gate Area Master Plan did not give anybody any substantial loss or gain. I did not own property in Golden Gate Estates that was upzoned. And the only thing that we did was put in commercial nodes in Golden Gate Estates. So, again, Commissioner, you don't know what you're talking about. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, you know, may I make a suggestion? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Why don't we ask for a brief summary of what the Golden Gate Master Plan (sic) is and just put it to a vote rather than putting a lot of people through a lot of agony. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's not on the agenda. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I mean, excuse me, the master plan, the Immokalee Master Plan, to deal with that to be able to get it up and over with. I don't think we stand a chance in the world at this point in time. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'd like an attorney's interpretation concerning this. The law -- ethics law seems to be quite clear, and I think the limit is something like a 3 or 5 percent special personal gain would exempt him from that unless he owns half of Golden Gate Estates -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Immokalee. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- or Immokalee, I'm sorry. MR. KLATZKOW: There are two Statutes that fall within this analysis, and one of them is 286.012 which says if the commissioner believes that there's a possible conflict of interest under his ownership, Page 169 December 13 -14, 2011 he may abstain. And, Commissioner Henning, after consultation with his attorney, believes that he has a conflict of interest, and that's his determination. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: So then a supermajority of the voting members? MR. KLATZKOW: You need four - fifths. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Four -fifths period. MR. KLATZKOW: You need four votes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Whether they're here or not? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, which is why when we only have three of you here we don't do LDC amendments. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, there is a resolution to this, I believe. Due to the courts, I have to sell that property. We can continue this item -- we have an EAR -based amendment coming up -- and maybe put it in that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: The opportunity for the Immokalee Area Master Plan is going to expire on December the 31 st. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Twenty- eighth. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Twenty- eighth of December, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But the analysis is already done. You can still put it into the County's EAR -based amendments. Oh, Mr. Bosi is -- MR. BOSI: Correct. Mike Bosi, Comprehensive Planning Manager. We have received notification from the Department of Economic Opportunity, the former DCA, that the 28th would be the expiration date for the application if we don't take action upon it. As far as the suggestion of including the Immokalee Area Master Plan as part of the EAR -based report, we had indicated that it was a separate tract within the EAR report. We recognized Immokalee Area Master Plan amendment as was currently going on as -- and being Page 170 December 13 -14, 2011 submitted to the DEO. I don't believe that that recognition would allow us to exceed that 28th date that DEO has provided for us. What that simply would mean, that if that date passes, we will have to start the application process over again. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And what does that mean? MR. BOSI: It means that they will have to submit another application to amend the -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Meaning time and money. MR. BOSI: Time and money, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: How much does it mean in time and money? MR. BOSI: That would be -- estimating between the consultant and the CRA as to how much data and analysis refreshing would be needed. I'm not sure that there would be much difference within the plan that would be submitted, but I would have to defer to Penny as to the -- her estimates as to the time -- the costs associated with the consultants. MR. OCHS: What about the time frame? MR. BOSI: Time frame? It would follow the expedited- review frame, meaning that we could probably have it -- we could probably accept the application, reschedule it for a hearing within a relatively quick, short period of time, meaning that we could probably wrap the entire issue up in five to six months. But if the same issues are presented, I'm not sure that it would be worth any time, effort, or expenditures until we resolved the issue that seems to be preventing the master plan from moving forward. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: What amazes me, I got criticized in the newspaper recently because I was interviewed by a television company and they were asking me about the Vanderbilt bathrooms, and I gave my opinion, and I was criticized, it's not even her district. Page 171 December 13 -14, 2011 What right does she have to weigh in on our district? It's interesting because here we have people that it isn't their interest, it isn't their district. And the people in Immokalee -- and I would have to say 90 percent or more -- have been working hard to put this thing together, years and years and half a million dollars, and their commissioner is fully supportive and, yet, we have others that are not and for reasons -- not because it's for the good of the community, not for its -- because it's for the betterment of the community, not for this community to improve -- because that's what they've been trying to do all along. They've been working hard to improve their image, to improve their appearance, and it's going to be dashed to the ground by commissioners who don't even live there. And it's just so sad, because it's -- to turn your back on an entire community for a few is -- is to me unforgivable. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much, Commissioner Fiala. I think you summed it up quite well. Question, County Attorney, if it's a conflict with the master plan, wouldn't it be a conflict with any other direction that we go, EAR -based amendments, or whatever? And even then we might not be able to do it; is that what you've been telling us? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Again, he wasn't listening to what I said. MR. BOSI: No. I don't believe we can process the Immokalee Area Master Plan changes as part of the EAR -based amendment. We -- in the report, we did not call them out, specify them out. We said it was a separate process that was going through. It would be a stretch to be able to try to convince DEO that we should somehow negate the current process that we're going and advance it forward, the EAR -based -- the EAR -based amendments. Page 172 December 13-14,2011 But like I said, it could be relatively quickly processed under a new application, but that's time, money, and consideration, and I'm not sure if that's the route that the CRA would like to go. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're still going to have to go through the motions about the master plan here and take it to a vote. I don't expect that we're going to come up much different than 3 -1. I'm really not excited about starting the whole process over knowing that what exists could continue on. It's extremely disheartening, to say the least. If we could, maybe what we could do, we know what the Golden Gate Master -- we know what the Immokalee Master Plan is all about. I'm pretty sure we could listen to it for an hour, no problem at all, or we can could go right to the speakers and then ask questions and put it to a vote and move on with the rest of our agenda and the rest of our lives. CHAIRMAN COYLE: If the plan fails, what are the legal ramifications of resurrecting it and starting all over again immediately? MR. KLATZKOW: None. It's a cost issue. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Why? Why would you want to do it? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, you have a chance, perhaps, of getting it approved sometime next year maybe. Remember, it's got to go all the way to Tallahassee, doesn't it? MR. BOSI: Yes, it would still be required to go to Tallahassee on an expatiated review. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you have no idea how long that's going to take, quite frankly. MR. BOSI: Well, actually, the expatiated review has been, you know, five to six months that we could -- with relatively no continuances of hearings, we could get it done in six months, but that would be the discretion of the CRA if they want to initiate. Page 173 December 13 -14, 2011 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you think you will get anything through this board without considerable debate and disagreement? MR. BOSI: That's not my determination. I'm just trying to simply say what the process could be without extenuating circumstances. We all know the extenuating circumstances. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, yeah. Okay. Why don't we -- how many speakers do we have? MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have nine speakers. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's start with nine speakers, and then take a vote. MR. MITCHELL: Okay. We'll use both podiums, so I'll call two names. The first speaker is Pam Brown, and she'll be followed by Richard Rice. MS. BROWN: Good afternoon, again, today, Commissioners. I -- as you all know, I participate in the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee, I also participated in the 2001 Immokalee Master Plan, and I worked with the Main Street as a coordinator for that. What I'm seeing here today -- I think this is really a good master plan altogether, but I think there's some things in there that we need to tweak. I have -- I know that we've spent money here, but what I've also seen is we spent money on Oil Well Road for our impact fees for the next 15 or 20 years. We spent money on debating Jackson Labs. We spent money with Dwight Brock's office to see if we had to audit the books. So I feel like this -- that is important that we get this right when we do do it eventually. I have a concern about the bypass going around Immokalee. Nick Casalanguida and I have had this conversation. He mentioned one place in Cape Cod that did well after a bypass. I don't know of any other ones, and I really have a concern that if this bypass goes through, Immokalee will be just cut off from a lot of economic incentives for us. Page 174 December 13 -14, 2011 I feel like also, with involving the 103 acres around the Immokalee Airport, that's going to take away from people's property rights in Immokalee. It will directly compete with us, and there's no property taxes that are paid on the Immokalee airport at this time, so we will not reap any of those benefits. As -- also the element of affordable housing. We have talked about this at our CRA meetings. We have a lot of affordable housing right now. We need to have housing for middle income and for people to come to Immokalee and stay, and those are my concerns. Thank you. MR. MITCHELL: Following Mr. Rice will be Pedro -Jesus Romero. Excuse my pronunciation. MS. PHILIPPE: He had to leave. MR. RICE: Thank you, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Richard Rice. And before presenting these petitions and signatures, let me answer a question that often arises. When you look around you don't see an awful lot of Immokaleeans here, and there's a reason for that, and the reason for that is that so many of the people that are in Immokalee are paid by the hour or by the bucket and cannot afford to give up the opportunity to earn an income to come to a meeting that's some 35 miles away. So that's one of the reasons why you won't see a lot of the people here. Consequently, we started this petition drive, and we went to the places where they would be. We went to the parks, we went to the churches, we went to the restaurants, we went to football games, and we had an overwhelming response of people that said, yes, we think that we should be moving forward. We'll sign that petition. I came over here today and was given additional petitions. I had a phone call from someone, said, I've got the petitions. How can I get them to you. I said, bring them over to the County Commission meeting because that's where I am right now. I don't have time to come back to Immokalee to pick them up. Page 175 December 13 -14, 2011 But I have before me, or before you, 900, roughly 900 signatures that said we think the time is right that Immokalee should be able to set its own future. Ms. Brown brought up the bypass. It's my understanding that the bypass, according to the Florida Department of Transportation, is not even scheduled until 2040. We talk about property taxes at the airport. We have no say in that. That property is owned by the federal government. It's only leased or loaned to Collier County. So we're never going to get any property taxes, but we will be able to provide jobs. We will be able to provide employment for people who will be paying taxes. So give us the opportunity. Let us -- let us say what we want to do in the future. Thank you. (Applause.) MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Michael Facundo, and he'll be followed by Carrie Williams. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: So Carrie Williams. And Ms. Williams will be followed by Tim Nance. MS. WILLIAMS: Hi, I'm Carrie Williams, and I was on the Immokalee Master Plan Visioning Committee and also am involved in the CRA. And I hope that this plan passes today because it's a start. It may not be perfect in everyone's eyes, but it's a start, and we spent a lot of money and a lot of time on this plan, and we can always go back and tweak it. But let's pass it today, and have a starting point, and then we can come back and make some changes if we need to. But anyway, that's -- thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Nance will be followed by Robert Davenport. MR. NANCE: Yes, Commissioners and attendees from Immokalee, I'd like to just -- my name's Tim Nance. I'd just like to Page 176 December 13 -14, 2011 make a couple remarks, and certainly the situation has changed a little bit. But I do believe that the Immokalee Master Plan is ultimately moving toward passage. It's ambitious; it's a road map to the future. I have a close tie to Immokalee, although I'm not a resident there and I've never lived there, I've worked there for most of my adult life after I moved here to Collier County in 1980, and I recreated there most of my young life growing up in Fort Lauderdale. I know today the community leaders and citizens are to be commended for their hard work, and I can see that they have a lot of mixed feelings of pride, excitement, and concern. But the goal of everybody -- and I think everybody on the dais wants to make things better and more prosperous for all in Immokalee to build on the strengths and improve on the weaknesses. Much work's been done to evaluate where Immokalee is today, and the plan, of course, outlines what Immokalee would like to become in the future. The hardest work ahead, though, is obviously going to be in the transition. And the practical application, how do we overcome these shortcomings, what does the plan mean to each citizen, and how does Immokalee move from where it is today to where it wants to go. It's difficult because the plan is complex, but I think if we examine what's been done with the larger landowners, the people that have had the benefit of consultants, engineers, and land -use attorneys to represent their needs, they've come up with new ideas and innovative solutions to old problems that both stimulate development and protect the environment and solve problems. I implore the County Commission to re- examine what each of you can do to compromise to make it possible to move this forward, because I think that the four of you there can still do that. What's needed for help with changes, of course, are not only to work on the opportunity but to work on protections. That's going to be the roughest part for you, it seems, to put in protections for existing Page 177 December 13 -14, 2011 business, historic land use, and vested property rights, evenly apply them so that they're fair and equitable for all. Equal protection under the law is central to our nation, and I think that you all ought to be able to come to terms to get this done today. And here is the good news -- and I implore you to let me complete my remarks. With the closing of the Department of the Community Affairs, there will be little state oversight, and Collier County is, indeed, responsible for its growth management. Immokalee is still truly in control of its own destiny. I do believe that. But the implementation (sic) of the plan seems like it's going to be a long process. It won't happen overnight. The plan itself is going to change and evolve over time, so I don't think we should trip over the little roadblocks that we have today. Details are always going to be debated. I'm sure all of you are going to be in this room many times. Each commissioner, regardless of their own district, has a final responsibility to approve the best plan for the future of both Immokalee and Collier County, and I hope you will examine each of your positions and see if you can compromise and make that happen for Immokalee. Thank you very much. (Applause.) MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Davenport? MR. DAVENPORT: I'm going to pass. MR. MITCHELL: Okay. The next speaker will be Paul Midney, and he'll be followed by Duane Billington. MR. MIDNEY: Yes, Paul Midney again. I just want to speak to one aspect of the plan that I think is very positive. And the plan isn't perfect, but I think the process was good. There were a lot of public meetings. There was a lot of public input, and I think that the end product is worthy of being passed. Page 178 December 13-14,2011 I just want to talk about the density- blending provisions, which is a voluntary landowner program where the environmentally sensitive wetlands that -- I don't know if you can see it very well on that visualizer, but it's the green area, the slough that runs to the south of Immokalee that takes all our stormwater and that cleanses it and makes the stormwater flow into the Lake Trafford at a -- easily at the same pace so that we don't have wildly fluctuating shorelines. This is something that will protect the environmentally sensitive land between Immokalee and Lake Trafford, and it won't cost the county anything. We won't have to start any expensive programs like Transfer of Development Rights. And it's just one of the many good things that's in the plan, and I'm hoping that we can approve it maybe by a 4 -0 vote today. So thank you. MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Billington wasn't scheduled to speak, so the last two speakers will be Jerry Blocker, and he'll be followed by Randy Johns. MR. BLOCKER: Jerry Blocker, for the record. The master plan seems like it's all about me. I've never tried to hold up the master plan. I think the master plan needs to be done fairly for all. There's not a reason why this plan cannot be resolved. You can come together and allow everyone to benefit out of it. Now, there's -- I understand there was a petition taken for -- to vote no on the master plan, some -odd 800 to 1,000 signatures, because of property rights' issues that they had. That's not saying no for good. That's saying no because the way it is, it's not -- doesn't protect our property rights out there. So I suggest that everybody look at this plan very hard and go through the plan, make it feasible for everyone, and everyone will benefit and let Immokalee grow and prosper as needed. We're in an economical downfall right now. We need all the help we can get to move and prosper. And I thank you for your time. Page 179 December 13 -14, 2011 (Applause.) MR. BLOCKER, SR: I'm his dad. MR. JOHNS: Not this one. Randy Johns, for the record. It was mentioned earlier that 90 percent of the people participated in this Immokalee Master Plan. I'm -- I wasn't lucky to be at any of those meetings because I've never yet seen 90 percent. We have had -- we've got over 800 signatures from the public. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't say 90 percent participated. I said 90 percent were pleased with it. MR. JOHNS: Well, I don't know how you came up with those recommendations, but we also went back for three years through the CRA meetings and looked at all the sign -in sheets throughout. What you find in there is you find that the Collier employees signed in there, you find that the -- all the land -use attorneys and the Colliers and those types of people signed there. You don't find the community over there signing up for this thing and saying, oh, yeah, we want this. This is something we really want to do. What we've got is three commissioners that want to shove it down our throats, and I don't think it's right. Thank you. MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your last speaker. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning, was your light from before, or is this a new light? COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's a new light. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the lady was first. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know. I was going to make a quick comment. Maybe Richard Rice could show him that there's more than three commissioners who would like to see this. You could show him your 900 signatures, I mean, in case he thinks we're trying Page 180 December 13-14,2011 to shove it down anybody's throat. That's all I had to say right now. I have plenty more later. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning, were you next? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are you avoiding me? CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm trying to. I've never been successful, however. COMMISSIONER HILLER: He's trying to avoid me. My light has been on for quite some time. So I just want you to know my silence isn't that I'm not going to speak. I just need permission. CHAIRMAN COYLE: See, she doesn't stop. Go ahead, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Maybe someday you'll be successful at that, Commissioner Coyle. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I doubt it. I don't think so. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Well, we're still a member of five. This master plan was transmitted to DCA by five votes, okay. I did have and still have a concern about property rights, and I know that some don't, but some day it's coming to you. When government takes away somebody's property rights, you're next. So I would hope that the commissioners, the three, would compromise to see it work. There also is concern about the county purchasing property once it is rezoned for the expansion of the Immokalee Airport. Now, is that the best thing to do, to pay more for the property? I guess three commissioners are in favor of that, of spending more money for properties by upzoning it. Those are the issues that I hear. Commissioner Coyle had an issue about the property in the RLSA and bringing it into Immokalee. So there are concerns out there, and they should be addressed and Page 181 December 13 -14, 2011 compromised and recognize property rights and recognize that property -- or taxes are everybody's taxes, and we should get a bang for our buck. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's pursue the business of upzoning land for the airport and paying more money for it. I know this is an allegation that has been made by Commissioner Hiller which, of course, is absolutely completely and totally false, but it makes a good accusation if you want to try to accuse people of doing things. That is something that is not contemplated. It is not reflected in any of our documents. We fully intend to purchase any land for the expansion of the airport at its current agricultural zoning. We will have to rezone it ourselves in order to use it appropriately for the airport, but that doesn't mean that we're going to rezone it before we buy it. So that is not a valid concern, and I think alleging that that is the plan misleads the people in Collier County for purposes that you can only imagine. So that is not an issue, and nobody should be led to believe that Collier County would do that sort of thing. So, Commissioner Hiller, go ahead now. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you so much. Well, sorry to disagree with you, Commissioner Coyle, but it's on the record and, in fact, it was given in testimony at an MPO Meeting by Chris Curry, and he was the one who actually disclosed it. I asked a question, and he made it very clear that was the case as to documents. There is a clear paper trail that that is what is -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Identify the documents for us. COMMISSIONER HILLER: The JSIPs. CHAIRMAN COYLE: The whats? COMMISSIONER HILLER: We're not here to talk about that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, you're not here to provide the facts. You're trying to -- Page 182 December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER HILLER: I am here to provide the facts, and you're here to manipulate the facts. CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, I'm -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: And you're here to cover the issues up. We are here to address the Immokalee Area Master Plan, and that is what we're going to talk about. And I will tell you, your facts are wrong. It's on the record as represented by Mr. Curry at the MPO Meeting, and there are documents that show it. That being said -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: That isn't true. And he's in the back of the room, and he'll tell you that. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, we have it on the record. Fortunately that's a tape. It's on the county's website, and you're all able to watch it, and I can get the date for you. And any time anybody would like to see that tape, please email me. I will get you the tape date, and I look forward to your comments as to what you think Mr. Curry said. In fact, he went on to say, and what's wrong with getting the money out of the federal government. I'm paraphrasing, but essentially that was more or less his words. Okay. Let's talk about the Immokalee Area Master Plan, because that's what we're here to discuss today. And, quite frankly, I can agree with the citizens of Immokalee that it is time for Immokalee to move forward. That's not what's at issue with this Immokalee Area Master Plan. In fact, this Immokalee Area Master Plan never had to cost the citizens of Immokalee, the citizens of the CRA as much as it costs you but for one thing. What this master plan is really all about is not about making your community better. It's about making your community different, and it's all wrapped up in one section, and that section, I believe, is Section 6, and it's all about upzoning of properties, of undeveloped properties, that will serve to devalue your existing properties tremendously, and Page 183 December 13 -14, 2011 that's what's at risk here. You guys stand to be hurt. This is -- in land -use speak, in real estate speak, this is what's known as a density grab, and that's not fair. And I cannot support something that devalues your properties, that's going to serve to make your downtown suffer, because they're going to open commercial centers that will draw business away from your downtown that you want to improve and that you want to beautify. The purpose of this CRA is to make your community better, not different, and that's not happening. I heard the speakers, and the speakers are right. It has to be fair. Nobody can be hurt. I respect what this gentleman was talking about when he talked about affordable housing and protecting the interests of those who are low- income citizens who need shelter. I respect the comments that were made about property rights, that we have to protect property rights. We have a master plan that, according to the DCA, has internal -- inconsistencies with our own Comprehensive Plan. What will the impact of all this development have on infrastructure? What will the cost to the taxpayers be to develop this additional infrastructure that will be necessitated by all these additional units that will be approved as a result of this plan? Not only is there a density grab, but there are density bonuses on top of the density grab. It's like a triple dip, double dip. I want to see this plan go forward in a fair and equitable way in a way that does not devalue your properties, in a way that does not marginalize Immokalee as a community and serve to, instead, develop everything around it while hurting who you are and what you are today. And once I see those changes in this plan, I will support it. But under what's being proposed today, I can't, because I believe you are being materially hurt by it in a way you can't see. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER COLETTA: December 13 -14, 2011 Commissioner Coletta? Thank you, Commissioner Hiller. To all you people that worked so long on this master plan, to all the money that you spent from your own treasury to get to the point that you could finally bring it forward to the Collier County Commission, according to Commissioner Hiller, you're dead wrong. You don't know what in the hell you're doing. You're just wasting everybody's time, and you're out to cheat your neighbors. Does that sound correct? Absolutely not. Everybody that was in plan -- and I attended a number of those meetings, was there for the greatest of intentions, and it wasn't to degrade the neighborhoods. I mean, if I ever heard anything more ridiculous than what just came from Commissioner Hiller, I don't know, I've never heard anything that quite topped that. So I guess if you're going to do a master plan in the future you don't want to have local people doing it. You'll have to have somebody from outside that can see the vision of the community that you could never see. You know, God help us. God help us. We're not going to get there this way. Obviously this plan is going to be dashed to the rocks in a few minutes. Obviously, all the work that you put into it and all the blood, sweat, tears, and money has been for nothing. Well, maybe not quite so. We still have a vision of Immokalee, and we know where to pick up when the time is right. And the time will come back to being right. You heard all sorts of innuendos about dishonest people cheating the government with land grabs that is going to buy land in Immokalee for the airport at ridiculously high prices. You heard all sorts of things. Why would people be so devious to try to undermine the goodwill of the Immokalee Page 185 December 13 -14, 2011 community? They don't. This is all fiction. There is nothing to this. It's nothing but smoke and mirrors. And with that, I'm going to make a motion to approve the Immokalee Master Plan as it is before us here today. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I will second that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Call the question. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that the ordinance in our agenda? . CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Coletta to approve the Immokalee Master Plan, seconded by Commissioner Fiala. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that the ordinance within our agenda and the exhibits? MS. PHILIPPE: With the recommended changes from -- there were three recommended changes from the advisory committee. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And to incorporate the three changes as recommended by the advisory committee. What else do we need to be able to bring this to an end? CHAIRMAN COYLE: We need -- Chris Curry, will you please come up here? MS. PHILIPPE: Mr. Chairman, would it be all right if Bob Mulhere addressed some of the issues that Commissioner Hiller brought up? CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'd like Chris Curry to say something first, please. Chris, would you -- MR. CURRY: Chris Curry, Executive Director of your Airport Authority. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would you please address the allegations made by Commissioner Hiller about your comments? Page 186 December 13 -14, 2011 MR. CURRY: Well, those allegations are false. The airport has in its JSIP a plan to purchase the property. It's been in the prop- -- it's been in the JSIP for years, but it's to purchase the property at agricultural value, and we've been discussing that with the Colliers for months. So, you're right, I said there's no problem getting money from the federal government because that's how most airports expand, but the intent has also been to purchase it at agricultural value, not for urban - industrial use. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, absolutely. Okay. And there's never been any question about that. And I want -- I called you up to clarify that, because I want the public to understand one thing. These are the kinds of things that people say to justify their own decisions, and I want you to weigh these false assertions and wild accusations to determine who is really trying to act in the best interest of Immokalee and who is merely trying to play political games. So I will continue to expose these kinds of fabrications that are designed to undermine the confidence in Collier County Government. So with that, Penny, if you want Bob Mulhere to say something briefly, that's fine. Thank you very much, Chris. MR. CURRY: Thanks. MR. MULHERE: For the record, Bob Mulhere. This spreadsheet right here identifies the changes in density under the master plan, and it does it in two ways. The first spreadsheet identifies changes of base density or, excuse me, the first column here. The second column identifies changes in density if all of the bonuses were achieved, so that includes all bonuses. If you'll look at the numbers, in base density there is an increase in overall density in the Immokalee urban area of 3.45 percent; 2,366.5 units. Page 187 December 13 -14, 2011 If you look at the total increase in density, including all potential bonuses, there is a decrease from the existing plan -- I said a decrease from the existing plan -- of 42,690.5 units, or 25.36 percent. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So there was no density grab, was there? MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Now, having said that, there are increased densities in certain areas where good planning would suggest increased densities would go in the urban core. With respect to the airport, I do want to make it clear on the record, that then airport director Theresa Cook came to Penny, and Penny asked us to include the 103 acres in the master plan under the airport designation, which we did do. We hoped and assumed saving the county some forty or fifty thousand dollars from having to do that at some subsequent change. If that is an issue that that 103 acres is in the plan, it would be very simple to just remove it from the plan. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. We have a motion -- Commissioner Fiala or Hiller, which was first? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think Hiller was first. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. You know, I was thinking about how we move forward on this, and, quite frankly, if it wasn't for all the land -use issues, the changes in the various uses and the changes in the densities that are being proposed, this, quite frankly, would not have been that much of a cost to the CRA. So what I was thinking, since this plan proposes to enrich certain people who are going to see their uses change from ag to commercial, industry and residential, and for those whose densities are going to be increased above their current densities, you know, they stand to profit while those of you who don't get that benefit, obviously, are not going .. December 13 -14, 2011 to benefit financially. So why not have them pay for what needs to be done to host public meetings to bring this to the community? Because the gentleman who talked about who attended these meetings on this plan is absolutely correct. I actually also looked at the list of who attended these meetings on this Immokalee Area Master Plan, and it wasn't the public. And I would wager that these people who signed that petition that they support this master plan have no idea what's in it. So we need open public meetings where people are given all the information, not just the change but who is profiting, who is benefitting, who isn't, who's being hurt, what can we do to make this place better? Not different. So there is a way to get the money, and it's to get the money from those people who would have had to go through Comp Plan amendments to get their change in use on their property because, quite frankly, what's going on is you, the citizens of the CRA, through your CRA, are paying for what private citizens would otherwise be paying for themselves, which is a Comp Plan amendment. Let them pay for it. You don't have to pay for it. So let them now pay for the continuation of this so you don't have to pay for it, and this process can continue and can be done correctly. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, could you identify who those people are so we'll know who to go to to ask them? COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, staff can do that. That's their job. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, wait a minute. How can staff do it if they don't know who the people are who are profiting? You apparently know who is profiting. Why don't you tell us, and we can go to them and ask them if they'll pay for it. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think the answer is obvious. And let me just say this, Fred, I know that your goal is to try to needle me December 13 -14, 2011 and antagonize me and put me down and be rude to me and expect that somehow I'm going to respond and react. It ain't going to happen, all right? I am not going to play your game, and I would really appreciate for the benefit of this community that you just stop. CHAIRMAN COYLE: In the interest of transparency, if you have information that indicates who is going to profit for (sic) this, please share that with us so that we can go to them and try your suggestion, see if they're willing to pay for the reconsideration. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, thank you for asking in such a sweet and sincere way. Let me answer you by saying, again, anyone whose property is going to be changed in use where the use is going to increase their ability to do things on their property over what they have now. Like, for example, ag to commercial or ag to industrial certainly would have had to accomplish that through their own Comp Plan amendment application. They would have had to do that on their own. Let them make a contribution. You know, these people who are getting their properties upzoned, or I should say the use change -- because I want to use the correct terminology -- from ag to, you know, commercial, industrial, or residential don't even pay taxes. They're ag exempt. So all these people in the CRA who are paying taxes are paying towards this plan, and the people who are getting their property upzoned, for example, from ag don't even pay taxes. Let them make a contribution to the CRA. I think it would show goodwill. I think it would add to the process. It would show that they're, you know, good citizens and good participants. And, again, staff can address who that is. And that's my last comment on this subject. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That's a promise, I hope. MR. MULHERE: May I make a comment? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, go ahead. MR. MULHERE: Again, for the record, Bob Mulhere. There's nobody upzoned, not one property being upzoned. Page 190 December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER HILLER: We're not talking about upzoning. Change in use. MR. MULHERE: I thought you used the term "upzone ". COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I corrected myself, as you -- and, in fact, I looked at you when I corrected myself because you were so kind to make it clear for all of us what the distinguishment between zoning and use is. MR. MULHERE: So -- fine. So, land use. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But let me just say this. I have made my decision. MR. MULHERE: I know that. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And, I will tell you that Commissioner Coyle's badgering me in the manner he has, certainly hasn't helped me change my mind. MR. MULHERE: And, certainly, obviously, every one of the Board of County Commissioners as well as everybody here is entitled to their opinion. I feel I just have to set a couple things straight on the record. I'm not sure -- I'm not sure who particularly is -- it is suggested would benefit from this other than the entire community, because if you look at Immokalee urban area, there are thousands of landowners in the Immokalee urban area, and there's lots of ag -zoned property, but it's all zoned LR, low residential, for most part, or designated LR. And as a result, all of those property owners that have LR zoning designations, land -use designation, would benefit from the changes in this plan. No one particular property owner is going to benefit. They'll all benefit. So, again, I just -- there's nothing in this plan -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Then you can spread the love. Then just -- MR. MULHERE: That's exactly what we're doing. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Then get them to contribute. But Page 191 December 13 -14, 2011 what you have just showed also has the effect -- and let me give you an example. If I have a hundred houses, okay, those houses have a value based on a market of a hundred houses. If I suddenly add a thousand houses around those hundred houses, guess what happens to the value of those hundred houses? They go down. You've increased the supply to 1,100. And, suddenly, those people at the center who are not seeing any change in their use are not getting any of the benefit that all these other people are. And you know what, if these other people are benefitting -- because, again, don't talk to me about nets. You have to look at the individual property, okay. Don't talk to me about the net. You have to look at the pluses and the minuses. MR. MULHERE: And you will look at those in the rezone process on every case -by -case basis. That's the way the -- that's the way it works. This doesn't upzone anybody. COMMISSIONER HILLER: We're looking at use. We're not talking about zoning. MR. MULHERE: Well, like you said, you've made up your mind. I'm sorry, I just had a few things I had to get on the record that I believe are accurate. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did you finish before you were interrupted? MR. MULHERE: Yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. First of all, I wanted to say, about upgrading or devaluing or whatever it is, in my personal opinion, I think by cleaning up an area, by upgrading it, by fixing things by improving it that, to me, upgrades it, and it makes it look better. A lot of that can be done just with paint and -- you know, and Page 192 December 13 -14, 2011 rolling up your sleeves. And if it inspires other people to clean up their properties, that's great. I don't see any devaluing of that. I see an improvement in that, and I see maybe encouraging people to start another business there or to notice that something isn't represented as far as the business community and in the area and bring it to that area. I think that's a good thing. And when it comes to the airport, the National Guard's going to be coming in there pretty soon. And, you know, that's another great thing that's going to happen there, the National Guard coming in. And they bring people, and those people want to go out and eat and they want to -- you know, they want to go bowling or, you know, whatever It is. They're going to be shopping there and patronizing some of the restaurants and whatnot, as well as -- way back in the '80s and '90s we used to vision -- I was in the airline industry for part of the '80s, and we used to envision that the Immokalee Airport -- if they could only improve it, the Immokalee airport could be the recipient, the major airport when it comes to cargo business. And it's just such a perfect location. And that would be -- this would be a great asset. And I think that the Immokaleeans know that, and they can see the assets that could be coming to be with this airport. You know, they have to extend a -- they have to extend a runway, surely, but that's all right. You know, they're willing to do that and they're willing to try and move forward with that. And, of course, this master plan would encourage that. And, finally, Pam Brown mentioned something about we don't need any more affordable housing. What we need is middle income, and I'm with her on that. I think that you have to have -- you have to have a balanced community. I've been saying that for years now. You have to do that. You can't just put low- income housing, because you want teachers to live there, you want firemen to live there, you want police Page 193 December 13 -14, 2011 officers to live there, and the way to do it is to build housing to accommodate them as well, and they'll bring their families and get them into the schools as well. So I totally agree. I think there's -- yes, is there room for improvement, for tweaking, for working together as a community to better this plan? Absolutely. Can you go back to the drawing board here and there? Absolutely. But we have to start someplace. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Call the motion. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I got -- no. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta needs to talk, and then I certainly will. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, thank you. Bob Mulhere, could you come forward again. MR. MULHERE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, I can't allow certain statements to be made and go unchallenged. There was a question made as far as the open meetings. Were -- are -- you've been -- you've been through a good part of the process with it and you know what they went through to reach out. Could you explain some of the effort that was made to reach out to the community to bring them to the meetings? MR. MULHERE: Well, I do know that we went beyond the -- just the normal advertising. We did do the normal advertising. Each of the CRA meetings were advertised, they had notices on the CRA website. They were posted in the community. There were articles written. There were four hearings at transmittal before the Planning Commission, four. So, we've had advertised public hearings. We've probably had ten meetings between the EAC, the Planning Commission, and the Board in transmittal and adoption, and dozens of CRA meetings and several public meetings that weren't official CRA meetings but were just public meetings to unveil the plan. Page 194 December 13 -14, 2011 You know, I mean, it's true that people work and you have to make it convenient. We had some of the meetings at night in order to do that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know. I attended some of those meetings. And, Fred Thomas, would you care to comment on the meeting schedule? MR. THOMAS: You need to remember the uniqueness of Immokalee. You've got several organizations that do various things in Immokalee, the Chamber of Commerce, the CRA, Empowerment Alliance, all of those. And there's a lot of people that serve on several boards and commissions. So the information is getting generated throughout the community because of the kind of community that we live in and the people working together to make things happen, you understand. We've got to start someplace, okay? The longer we put this off, the harder it's going to be, because this county, every community needs -- unless they can produce everything they need in their own community, they've got to have something growing in their community, produced in their community where they can buy their needs from other places. And we need to get this out of the way so we can begin to develop the kind of industry that's necessary, so we can begin to sell things to the world so that it allows us to buy the things we need. And you -all sitting around here back and forth on nothing does not make sense. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It doesn't. MR. THOMAS: It just does not make sense, folks. You understand? We need to be working as a group to get that loop road in before 2040 so that industry can come. Remember this, remember this: Everybody pays taxes. You talk about ag exemption. Everybody pays taxes. On ag land they don't Page 195 December 13 -14, 2011 need fire, they don't need police, parks and recreation. They only want 37 cents back in services. Industry needs police, little bit of fire, no parks and recreation. They want 75 cents back in services. So, if you want the community to be a strong community, we in Immokalee want to be it for you -all. You understand? We want to be the hub of the SoFlo mega- region if you'd just let us. Please let us so we can move ahead. Thank you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Fred, I want to thank you and Cherryle for the wonderful parade that we had in Immokalee last Saturday and the great Christmas Around the World that Parks and Rec put on for the residents there. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion on the table -- (Applause.) MR. THOMAS: Excuse me, excuse me, excuse me. He just made a mistake. That was Cherryle's program, not mine. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I mean, she gave you direction. I seen you driving all over the place picking up people and doing traffic. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The motions fails. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Abstention. CHAIRMAN COYLE: 3 -1. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Henning abstains. MR. THOMAS: Wait a minute. Who abstained? Page 196 December 13-14,2011 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning. MR. THOMAS: I'll talk to you after the meeting, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Be gentle. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So the motion fails 3 -1 with one abstention, and the dissenter was Commissioner Hiller, who has Immokalee's interests at heart. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Let's try to have a decorum and respect. Everybody has opinions. It's not productive for the community as a whole. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, thank you, Commissioner Coletta (sic). I appreciate that. We're going to 12A now. Item #I 2A RESOLUTION 2011 -226: RECOMMENDATION TO CONSIDER THE SHERIFF'S REQUEST, ADOPTING A RESOLUTION TO EXTEND THE 1 -YEAR MORATORIUM ON ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW PAIN MANAGEMENT CLINICS IN COLLIER COUNTY UNTIL DECEMBER 20, 2012 WHILE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND STAFF WORK WITH THE SHERIFF AND OTHER COMMUNITY PARTNERS TO ANALYZE NEEDS AND BRING BACK AN ORDINANCE TO THE BOARD THAT RESTRICTS OR REGULATES PAIN MANAGEMENT CLINICS — ADOPTED MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. It's a 4 o'clock time - certain. It's a recommendation -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: How about a break? MR. OCHS: You okay? THE COURT REPORTER: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. MR. OCHS: -- to consider the sheriff s request to adopt a Page 197 December 13 -14, 2011 resolution extending the one -year moratorium on the establishment of new pain- management clinics within Collier County until December 201 2012, while the County Attorney's Office and the county staff, working with the sheriff and other community partners, analyze the needs and bring back to the board at a future advertised public meeting an ordinance that restricts or regulates pain- management clinics. Sheriff Rambosk is here. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to approve today's resolution as presented. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I second it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'd like to ask a question. Is there anybody here who is in opposition to extending the moratorium on pain- management clinics? Anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many people are here to support the extension of the moratorium? Please stand up, raise your hand. Do anything, okay. It seems very clear to me. Sheriff Rambosk, I'll call the question if you ask -- if you wish to, but do you want to make an opening statement? MR. RAMBOSK: I've learned a long time ago to not get involved when you're headed down that road. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You don't want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, right? MR. RAMBOSK: Absolutely, absolutely. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor of the motion to extend the moratorium, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. It passes unanimously. (Applause.) MR. RAMBOSK: Thank you. I did want to say thank you for all of your support. This is an important thing for Collier County, and we want to continue to keep Collier County safe. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. Thank you very much. You're doing a great job. And thank you, Representative Kathleen Passidomo, for being here to support this motion. Now, how about -- are you still okay? We'll break in seven minutes. Okay, okay. MR. OCHS: You have a time - certain in seven minutes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We do? MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do we have anything right now? MR. OCHS: Not -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to have a break right now, and we'll come back at 4:33. MR. OCHS: Thank you. (A brief recess was had.) MR. SHEFFIELD: You have a live mic. Item #1 I A RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE AMENDMENTS TO TWO ORDINANCES FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION, RELATING Page 199 December 13 -14, 2011 TO PUBLIC SOLICITATION OF CONTRIBUTIONS AND THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS FOR CHARITABLE SOLICITATION AT ROAD INTERSECTIONS — APPROVED CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Manager, are we going to 1 lA now? MR. OCHS: That's correct, sir. It's a 4:30 time - certain item. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. OCHS: It's a recommendation to authorize the County Attorney to advertise amendments of two ordinances for future consideration relating to public solicitation of contributions and the issuance of permits for charitable solicitation at road intersections. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Do we have any public speakers? MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have two speakers. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is anybody going to make a presentation, or are we just going to start -- do you want to start with the speakers? Okay. Let's go with the speakers. MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker will be Duane Billington. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Mr. Billington. MR. BILLINGTON: For the record, Duane Billington. I just wanted to thank you all for working on this. I think jointly we've all come up with a very good document, and I would like to see it go forward. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve. MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Nick Hale. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. HALE: For the record, Nick Hale. I'm a member of a very, very small committee that worked on this change to the solicitation ordinance so we could keep people from other parts of the state, other parts of the nation, from coming here to collect money on medians and Page 200 December 13 -14, 2011 street corners at busy intersections and, essentially, do what they wish with the money. We've looked into what they do with it, and we find it's not so easy. We had a problem before. The solicitation ordinance was intended to solve that problem. We've now modified it to require that at every intersection or anyplace else where solicitors are performing on public property that they not only get the required permits, but they also have an emergency vehicle manned by someone who is an emergency technician, such as a fireman or a policeman on site, and they -- the people collecting the money will pay for this. That's the major change to the ordinance. We have discussed it with a number of Chiefs in the Sheriffs Office, and we've also satisfied whatever cautions have been brought by the County Attorney. So I think we have all the relevant people in agreement on this, and I would hope that you would pass it 5 -0. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your last speaker. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nick, this one's easy. It should be a no- brainer. I can't imagine why anybody would not vote for it, so I make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We already had a motion to approve, didn't we? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I made a motion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, did you? Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning made a motion to approve, so you seconded -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- the motion. Yes, there are other changes to this ordinance, Nick, that will Page 201 December 13 -14, 2011 help, but I can assure you that it will not solve the problem. I have looked at the financial documents filed by these people, I've looked at the county's review of all the application and qualification processes in the past. The vetting process has been very thorough with, perhaps, one exception where they have certified that they have had training, safety training, to be in the streets. I haven't found any evidence that we've tried to verify that. So staff is going to try to make sure that they get a certificate signed by some national safety organization that represents that people who are soliciting have, in fact, received appropriate safety training. So if we keep tightening the screws, one day we might be able to stop this. And, by the way, the financial records that I have seen indicate that most of the organizations who are soliciting spend 60 to 70 percent of all their collections on salaries and rent and operating expenses. There's no way these are legitimate veteran support organizations. The state has thus far refused to perform an audit on any of them. So we'll see how that process goes. We have asked them to do so. But anyway, I'll call the question. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. Let's go on to the next item. Item #8B Page 202 December 13 -14, 2011 ORDINANCE 2011 -44: RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 74 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES (COLLIER COUNTY CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE) AMENDING SCHEDULE ONE, THREE, FOUR, SEVEN, EIGHT AND NINE OF APPENDIX A, ROAD, PARKS AND REC, CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES, EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES, LIBRARY & GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUILDING IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADOPTED INDEXING METHODOLOGY, UTILIZING A TWO -YEAR AVERAGE THAT PROVIDES FOR REDUCTION IN RATES; ACCEPTING CALCULATION OF THE INDEXING PERCENTAGE FOR THE (DEPENDENT) FIRE IMPACT FEES (ISLES OF CAPRI & OCHOPEE) IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADOPTED INDEXING METHODOLOGY, UTILIZING A TWO - YEAR AVERAGE, BUT PROVIDING CURRENT (DEPENDENT) FIRE IMPACT FEE RATES REMAIN IN EFFECT, PROVIDED IN SCHEDULE FIVE, APPENDIX A, RATHER THAN INCREASING FEES AS CALCULATED; ACCEPTING CALCULATION OF THE INDEXING PERCENTAGE FOR EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES (SCHOOL) IMPACT FEES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADOPTED INDEXING METHODOLOGY, UTILIZING A TWO -YEAR AVERAGE, BUT PROVIDING CURRENT EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES (SCHOOL) IMPACT FEE RATES REMAIN IN EFFECT, SET FORTH IN SCHEDULE SIX, APPENDIX A, AS THOSE RATES ARE LOWER THAN RATES THAT WOULD BE GENERATED BY APPLICATION OF THE INDEX, BASED ON THE 50% REDUCTION OF FEES THAT WAS IMPLEMENTED IN OCTOBER, 2010; ACCEPTING CALCULATION OF INDEXING PERCENTAGES FOR THE LAW ENFORCEMENT IMPACT FEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADOPTED INDEXING METHODOLOGY, UTILIZING A TWO- Page 203 December 13 -14, 2011 YEAR AVERAGE, BUT PROVIDING THAT PHASE II LAW ENFORCEMENT IMPACT FEE RATES WILL GO INTO EFFECT DECEMBER 20,2011 9 AS PREVIOUSLY ADVERTISED AND ADOPTED, AS PHASE II RATES ARE LOWER THAN THOSE THAT WOULD BE GENERATED BY APPLICATION OF THE INDEX; AND PROVIDING THE DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE DECEMBER 20, 20111 IN ORDER TO PROVIDE TIME TO FILE WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND TO NOTIFY LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES OF THE NEW RATES — ADOPTED MR. OCHS: Commissioner, that brings you back to Item 8B on your agenda this afternoon. It's a recommendation to adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Laws and Ordinances, the Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance providing for -- and I'm not going to read the whole thing, but providing for the annual indexing of all of your impact fees, and Ms. Amy Patterson will present. MS. PATTERSON: Good afternoon. Amy Patterson, for the record. Before I go to any statements or questions, I have just something to put on the record for the Development Services Advisory Committee. Due to the timing of the preparation of this executive summary and their meeting, I need to read into the record their recommendation on this item. On December 7th, by majority vote, the Development Services Advisory Committee recommended to accept the report on indexing and staff recommendations on the rate changes. With that, the executive summary is pretty explanatory on our indexing process. This is a requirement of our Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance; however, I can entertain any questions. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve. Page 204 December 13-14,2011 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Coletta. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. And, by the way, I think you've -- you really should say that it results in an additional decrease in impact fees, average, which brings us up probably close to 50 percent total reduction of impact fees over the past couple of years. MS. PATTERSON: It does. We have had tremendous decreases in rates over the past two years, big decreases last year, and again, in most categories, decreases resulting out of this indexing. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And for those people who believe that impact fees caused the great recession, having reduced them and cut them in half hasn't done anything to improve our economy, has it? MS. PATTERSON: No. There's not been any substantial upturn in activity. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. MS. PATTERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Item #8C Page 205 December 13 -14, 2011 RESOLUTION 2011 -227: RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION ALLOWING THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER - SEWER DISTRICT TO EXPAND WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICE DISTRICT BOUNDARIES TO INCLUDE PORTIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS HACIENDA LAKES, AND SURROUNDING AREAS THAT ARE CURRENTLY OUTSIDE EXISTING BOUNDARIES — ADOPTED MR. OCHS: Commissioner that would take you to Item 8C, which was one of your change -sheet items this morning. It was formerly on your summary agenda as 17A. It's a recommendation to approve a resolution allowing the Collier County Water /Sewer District to expand the water and wastewater service district boundaries to include portions of the development known as Hacienda Lakes and surrounding areas that are currently outside the existing boundaries. This item was moved at Commissioner Hiller's request. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yep. I think it's important for us to have a presentation on this to ensure that there is no cost to the county as a result of this. So I would like to know -- all right. Where is staff? MR. OCHS: We're right here, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like staff to go ahead and explain exactly what's being done and how it's going to be paid for and to provide assurances on the record that there will be no cost to Collier County and that, you know, whatever cost there is will be borne 100 percent by the developer. MR. YILMAZ: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, George Yilmaz, Interim Public Utilities Administrator. To answer your -- my understanding of three -part question, one is, the cost to Collier County Water /Sewer District by this developer is none in terms of infrastructure. The developer is obligated to build Page 206 December 13 -14, 2011 their internal infrastructure including water /sewer and then go through conveyance process which has a two -step process. One is it comes before the Board as a preliminary acceptance. Before that even happens, it has to meet our utility standards. Next step is it comes before the Board for final acceptance if they meet all the requirements for the utility standards. That's our PAQC (sic) quality control and quality check in terms of if we cannot weigh and accept what is built by the developer will meet our standards. So all that internal infrastructure is going to be built by the developer to the point where they will be able to connect to our existing infrastructure in terms of wastewater collection and water distribution system. The second part is capacity. Yes, we do have the capacity. We are positioned to accommodate any development coming our way in our water /sewer district as indicated in the AUIR for the next ten -year horizon. And the part three to your question -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Will they be paying for the replacement capacity? MR. YILMAZ: In the form of impact fees, yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And this was contemplated -- the addition of this project on our system was contemplated in the AUIR? MR. YILMAZ: Yes, ma'am, in terms of population growth and population numbers it was inclusive. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Great, super. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yep. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Motion to approve by Commissioner Fiala. Seconded by? Page 207 December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. MR. YILMAZ: Thank you. Item #9A RESOLUTION 2011 -228: APPOINTING ROBERT WHITAKER TO THE CONSUMER ADVISORY BOARD — ADOPTED MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 9 on your agenda. 9A is appointment of member to the Consumer Advisory Board. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Didn't we have some other time - certain issues? MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, 5 o'clock and 5:15. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve Robert Whitaker to fill the vacant position on the Consumer Advisory Board. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We've got two seconds. Commissioner -- motion by Commissioner Fiala, seconded by me. December 13 -14, 2011 All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. Item #9B RESOLUTION 2011 -229: APPOINTING W. JAMES FLANAGAN TO THE GOLDEN GATE ESTATES LAND TRUST COMMITTEE — ADOPTED MR. OCHS: 9B is appointment of member to the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve James Flanagan. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve James Flanagan by Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously. Page 209 December 13 -14, 2011 Item #9C RESOLUTION 2011 -230: APPOINTING JANICE BUNDY TO THE RADIO ROAD EAST OF SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD TO DAVIS BOULEVARD MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE — A DnPTF,D MR. OCHS: 5C (sic) is appointment of member to the Radio Road East of Santa Barbara Boulevard to Davis Boulevard MSTU Advisory Committee. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to appoint Janice Bundy. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Henning to appoint the committee's recommendation, Janice Bundy, seconded by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. Item #9D RESOLUTION 2011 -231: APPOINTING ANGEL MADERA, JR., (BUSINESS OWNER CATEGORY W /THE TERM EXPIRING Page 210 December 13 -14, 2011 APRIL 4, 2013) TO THE IMMOKALEE ENTERPRISE ZONE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY — ADOPTED MR. OCHS: 9D is appointment of member to the Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Make a motion to approve the committee's recommendation of Angel Madera, Jr. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Coletta to approve the committee recommendation of Angel Madera, seconded by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. Item #9E RESOLUTION 2011 -232: RE- APPOINTING JAMES GAULT AND APPOINTING JAMES HUGHES TO THE ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND CONSIDERATION TO ADD AN ALTERNATE MEMBER TO THE COMMITTEE — ADOPTED MR. OCHS: 9E is appointment of members to the Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisory Committee and consideration to adding an alternate member to the committee. Page 211 December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'd like to make a motion to approve James Gault and Jim Hughes for the positions. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to appoint James Gault and James Hughes, the committee recommendation, for -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh -huh. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- appointment to two vacant positions, and -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Then if we want an alternate -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seconded by -- well, we'll do it in two steps, if you'd like. And that was seconded by Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, we want to direct the County Attorney to make an alternate member position for the committee. And what will we do at that point in time once we complete that? Will we bring this list back to appoint an alternate member, or how are we going to work that? MR. MITCHELL: No, sir. We'd advertise the position as an alternate. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You'll advertise it again, okay. MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Very well. Then all in favor of creating an alternate member position to the committee, please signify by saying aye. Page 212 December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: That passes unanimously. Item #9F RESOLUTION 2011 -233: RE- APPOINTING ROSEMARY LEBAILLY (ER NURSE CATEGORY W /TERM EXPIRING SEPTEMBER 25, 2015) AND APPOINTING TABITHA BUTCHER (EMS CATEGORY W /TERM EXPIRING SEPTEMBER 25, 2013) TO THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL qF.R VICKI; POLICY ADVISORY BOARD — ADOPTED MR. OCHS: 9F is appointment of members to the Emergency Medical Services Policy Advisory Board. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve Rosemary Lebailly and Tabitha Butcher. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's take those individually, if you don't mind, because terms are different. Rose Labailly's term expires on 9/25/2015. Could we -- could we agree to appoint her for a term that will expire on that date? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Fiala, seconded by me. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.) Page 213 December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. Now with respect to Tabitha Butcher, she is eligible for appointment to a term that will expire on 9/25/2013. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And we received a letter from CCMES Policy Advisory Board saying that she would be their designee. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep, and we're ratifying that by motion by Commissioner Fiala, and second by Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yep. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. Item #9G RESOLUTION 2011 -234: RE- APPOINTING RAY ALLAIN, (GC CATEGORY) LAURA DEJOHN, (LAND CATEGORY) BLAIR FOLEY, (PE CATEGORY) MARCO ESPINAR, (ENVIRONMENTAL BIOLOGIST CATEGORY) MARIO VALLE, (GC CATEGORY) AND APPOINTING RONALD WALDROP Page 214 December 13-14,2011 (PE CATEGORY) TO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE — ADOPTED MR. OCHS: 9G is appointment of members to the Development Services Advisory Committee. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve committee recommendation to reappoint Ray Allain, Laura DeJohn, Blair Foley, Marco Espinar, and Mario Valle, and to appoint Ronald Waldrop. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Coletta to accept the committee's recommendations for appointment, seconded by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. It passes unanimously. Item #9H RESOLUTION 2011 -235: RE- APPOINTING DARREN BROOKS, MARGARET E. HARRIS AND WILLIAM E. ARTHUR TO THE GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMUTEE — ADOPTED MR. OCHS: 9H is appointment of members to the Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve the Page 215 December 13-14,2011 appointment -- reappointment of Darren Brooks; Peggy Harris, a /k/a Margaret E. Harris; and William E. Arthur, Bill Arthur. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Henning to appoint Mr. Brooks, Ms. Harris, and Mr. Arthur, seconded by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. Item #9I RESOLUTION 2011 -236: APPOINTING WILLIAM H. VONIER (DISTRICT 2) TO THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — ADOPTED MR. OCHS: 9I is appointment of a member to the Collier County Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Motion to approve Bill Vonier to the Collier County Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Hiller to appoint William Vonier to the Collier County Planning Commission, seconded by Commissioner Henning. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Page 216 December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. Item #9J RESOLUTION 2011 -237: APPOINTING ALBERT BATISTA, (W /TERM EXPIRING JUNE 255 2013) AND J. WALTER CALL (W /TERM EXPIRING JUNE 25, 2015) TO THE HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD — ADOPTED MR. OCHS: IOJ is appointment of members to the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve Albert Batista and Walter Call. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to appoint -- MR. KLATZKOW: You have different terms. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, okay. Albert Batista -- which one do you want to serve the longest term, Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Walter Call. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Walter Call, okay. The motion is to appoint Walter Call to a position expiring June 25, 2015, and to appoint Albert Batista to a term which will expire June 25, 2013. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. Page 217 December 13 -14, 2011 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. MR. OCHS: Commissioners, 9K was continued to your next meeting. 9L and 9M are time - certain items. Item #9N REQUEST BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 2009 -01, AS AMENDED, THAT CREATED THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES POLICY ADVISORY BOARD BY CHANGING THE CATEGORY DEFINITION FOR ONE OF THE FIVE MEMBERS THAT COMPOSE THE BOARD — MOTION TO APPROVE — APPROVED That would take you then to 9N on your agenda, and that is to request that the Board of County Commissioners amend Ordinance No. 2009 -01, as amended, which created the Emergency Medical Services Policy Advisory Board by changing the category definition of one of the five members that composed the advisory board. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner Henning, seconded by -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: --Commissioner Fiala. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. Page 218 December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes 4 -1, with Commissioner Hiller dissenting. Item #90 REQUEST RECONSIDERATION OF ITEM #16133 FROM THE OCTOBER 25, 2011 BCC MEETING TITLED "RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVE TRANSFER OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND MANAGEMENT DUTIES FOR THE IMMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT FROM GROWTH MANAGEMENT STAFF TO IMMOKALEE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) STAFF TO BECOME EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 2011; DIRECT BUDGET OFFICE TO DISCONTINUE THE ANNUAL TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM THE IMMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION MSTU (FUND 162) TO THE MSTD GENERAL FUND (FUND 111), AND COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTING AS THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AUTHORIZE CREATION OF A FULL TIME EMPLOYEE POSITION (MSTU PROJECT MANAGER) FOR FYI 2; AUTHORIZE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO ADVERTISE THE POSITION; HIRE A QUALIFIED APPLICANT; AND APPROVE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT — MOTION TO APPROVE — FAILED Item #9P REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ITEM #1713 FROM THE Page 219 December 13 -14, 2011 OCTOBER 25, 2011 BCC MEETING TITLED "RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2002-52, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE IMMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE, IN ORDER TO ALLOW THE IMMOKALEE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TO ASSUME ADMINISTRATIVE AND MANAGEMENT DUTIES OF THE IMMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT SUCH AS EMPLOYING STAFF TO ASSIST THE COMMITTEE - REFERENCED AS A COMPANION TO ITEM #90 MR. OCHS: 90 is a request for reconsideration of Item 16133 from the October 25, 2011, BCC Meeting, the item titled, recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves a transfer of administrative and management duties for the Immokalee Beautification Municipal Services Taxing Unit from growth management staff to Immokalee Community Redevelopment Agency staff to become effective October 1, 2011, direct the budget office to discontinue the annual transfer of funds from the Immokalee Beautification MSTU to the MSTD General Fund, and that the Collier County Board of County Commissioners, acting as the Community Development Agency, authorize the creation of a full- time - employee position for FY12, authorize the executive director to advertise the position, hire qualified applicant, and approve the necessary budget amendments. Commissioners, Item P is a companion item to this, both brought by Commissioner Henning. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Did you say this was request for reconsideration? MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So it's not a request for approval? Page 220 December 13-14,2011 MR. OCHS: Request for reconsideration of both Item O and P. Commissioner Henning brought these on. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I just don't have an executive summary that says that. That's the only problem I have here, but nevertheless. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I make a motion to reconsider those and direct the County Attorney to bring it back for a full discussion per the Board's ordinance. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seconded by Commissioner Hiller. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead, Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think we're missing somebody here, aren't we? COMMISSIONER HENNING: You need a sixth commissioner? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no, no. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sometimes we do, yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But when it comes to CRA, I was kind of hoping we'd have Penny here. Jeff, could you check out in the hall and see if she's out there. COMMISSIONER HENNING: This is -- there should be no discussion under items of reconsideration; am I correct, Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: They could ask you for your reasons why you want the reconsideration, but that's -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Then I'll ask the question, why do you want the reconsideration? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, correspondence, some that the Board has received, this -- item will increase the cost to the CR -- or to the MSTU, and I'm very concerned about capital improvements Page 221 December 13-14,2011 that they want to make and repairs for this one mile of roadway. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta, go ahead. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I'm not going to vote for it, sir. I think we did enough damage to Immokalee today. I think that the direction the CRA's going is fine. They need an extra person, they're going to make it work. Cut them a little bit of slack. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. And for me, the money is coming from the CRA, and the CRA has met and said this is what they want to do, and the MSTU has met, and they have said this is what they want to do. This is their money that they're committing to these things, and I'm inclined to let them spend their money the way they think they should spend their money, and -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, actually, they haven't decided that. Viewing the minutes and the correspondence received from Penny Phillippi, they are creating jobs and duties for this full -time position and then adding, through her emails, stating that the CRA employees are going to actually assist the -- one FTE to do what a third FTE has been doing all along. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. I understand your concerns, but the executive summary clearly indicates, clearly states that the committee voted unanimously to recommend to the BCC that the Immokalee CRA assume the administrative management duties of the Immokalee MSTU. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner, except for during the discussion under that, Penny Phillippi clearly stated on the record that she would get me more information what the duties of that full -time person was and made indications that some of those -- that -- some of the duties that that person would do would be under the CRA. And, in fact, what has transpired, the CRA employees are going to be helping this full -time employee manage one mile of beautification in Immokalee. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that's not what I get out of the list Page 222 December 13 -14, 2011 of times and hours that is contained in our executive summary, so -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's the list that the staff was doing. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Our staff, not the CRA staff. If you -- if you look at it, provided by the staff, our staff was providing, per week, 16.3 8 hours. Now what is being proposed -- and I believe you might have received a copy of what Ms. Phillippi was proposing -- is not only a full -time position, but also some assistance from the CRA members, CRA employees. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So -- okay. I'll call the question. All in -- I'm sorry, go ahead, Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wanted to say something. I must not have received that same item. I know I've talked to Penny many times, and she felt that they desperately needed this position for the MSTU. And one of the things I've always felt, we have many MSTUs around this county. They tax themselves, you know. They don't take taxpayer money to pay for their MSTUs. They have their own Board in their own community to make decisions for their own community, not for anybody else, on how to spend the money that the MSTU has collected from themselves. This MSTU Board has met, they've discussed it thoroughly, they voted on it and unanimously recommended that we spend this money to hire this person. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, again, that's not true, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I think I clearly stated -- and going back to the item, which was a few minutes ago -- Ms. Phillippi did not have the job description. Page 223 December 13 -14, 2011 Leo, is that true? MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So she was going to get me that information. MR. OCHS: I know there was recent communication to all the Board members from Ms. Phillippi on this subject. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. All the Board members received it. I know you're jammed up with emails, but your statement that the CRA approved that -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not the CRA, the MSTU. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- MSTU approved it is just not true. So if you want to, you know, vote against it, just vote against it, but don't make up something that is not true. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I didn't make it up. This is what I -- what I understood, to be honest with you, is that they voted for this and they needed this person, and that's why it was brought to us in the first place, and that's why we voted on it in the first place. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But the job description was never voted on by the CRA because Penny Phillippi did not provide the detailed information what the job description was, and she copied all the Commissioners, and Leo and I had communications on that. So, again, just vote against it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I would vote against it, but I would also like to hear from Penny Phillippi. You know, I'm so sorry -- she probably is just so destroyed inside that she left. But I would love to hear from her, because the last I spoke to her, which was a very short time ago -- and I heard -- she was giving me all kinds of things, and I wish I could remember them now. Go ahead, Jim. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Penny Phillippi does an excellent job of running that CRA. COMMISSIONER FIALA: MSTU. Page 224 December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We get a chance to take a look at the reports every now and then. We're going to be able to, when the budget time comes, reassess what everything's happening. But she's always taken the dollars that she's got, just like David Jackson, and applied them in the most efficient way. And so I say we don't micromanage this darn thing and make her jump through more hoops, make her life more difficult. Let's keep her working in Immokalee, and then when it comes time to be able to evaluate how that money is coming down, make sure it's following the lines that it was supposed to. You can handle it -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'm going to call the question. All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Those opposed, by like sign. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion fails 2 -3 with Commissioners Fiala, Coyle, and Coletta dissenting. Item #9M DISCUSSION TO CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY OF CONDUCTING A WORKSHOP IN JANUARY, 2012 WITH COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AND FIRE CHIEFS OF THE THREE INDEPENDENT FIRE DEPARTMENTS — MOTION DIRECTING STAFF TO COORDINATE A WORKSHOP WITH ALL PARTIES ATTENDING AT THE EARLIEST 2012 OPPORTUNITY — APPROVED Page 225 December 13 -14, 2011 MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes you to your 5 p.m. time - certain. It's Item 9M on your agenda. It's a discussion to 12 consider the possibility of conducting a workshop in January of 20 with the Collier County Board of County Commissioners, Emergency Medical Services, and the fire chiefs with the three independent fire departments. This item was placed on the agenda by Commissioners Coletta and Fiala. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you have any introductory remarks? MR. SAUNDERS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do. First of all, I want to thank all of you for giving us a time certain on this and for placing this on the commission agenda. And, for the record, my name is Burt Saunders with the Gray Robinson Law Firm. And I've been working with the City of Naples Fire Department, the City of Marco Island, and the North Naples Fire Control and Rescue District on a proposal to be submitted to the county commission dealing with pre - hospital emergency medical treatment and transport. With me today are Chief Stolts of the North Naples Fire Control and Rescue District, Chief MacInerney of the City of Naples Fire Department, Chief Murphy of the Marco Island Fire Department, and representing the City of Marco Island are Counselor Larry Magel and City Manager, Dr. Jim Riviere. Members, last January your Blue Ribbon Panel presented this report to the County Commission regarding pre- hospital emergency medical treatment and transport, and they refer to that as PEMTT in that report, and I'm going to refer to that that way also. The panel and its contributors consist of a who's who of individuals involved in pre- hospital emergency medical treatment and transport, healthcare in general, and emergency medicine. There are several significant findings in that report that was presented to you in January that are relevant to this request for a workshop. On Page 18 of the report -- and this is just the short quote Page 226 December 13 -14, 2011 -- the start of a refreshed PEMTT model needs to focus on who arrives quickest with the highest level of training and expertise in order to begin treatment that will quickly prepare the patient for transport. Your Blue Ribbon Panel goes on to recommend that the county coordinate and regionalize PEMTT services under a unified public - safety concept, and this way all pre - hospital care services would be under one management structure. The report concludes that and, again, quoting, placing all PEMTT services eventually under a well- managed and highly professional public - safety authority could have many positive service enhancement results for the citizens of Collier County. The report then makes a specific recommendation. The panel suggests the following steps towards developing a regionalized pre- hospital care system. Collier County EMS personnel could be integrated within the fire departments. The report recommends initiation of a pilot program with the fire district for integration of these types of ALS, advanced life support, medical services, including ALS transport. The report further recommends -- and, again, I'm quoting from your report -- EMS services would be managed by the fire district including, among other things, personnel and equipment; the fire district would integrate existing EMS equipment and staff; the district would report quarterly to the PEMTT council on specific measurement criteria developed by the designated public safety authority and the medical director as well as the fire district. Now, your report notes that Collier County is not the only county in Florida that is looking at the potential merger of fire and rescue. The report points out that there was a study done in Volusia County, and the Volusia County report recommended this very same process, and they concluded in Volusia County that the merger of fire and rescue would save Volusia County about $5.7 million per year in tax dollars. Page 227 December 13 -14, 2011 Commissioners, the purpose of this request for a workshop is to present to the County Commission a proposal to provide EMS transport services throughout Collier County by the three departments. The proposed concept is that the City of Marco Island would have its own Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Marco Island, the City of Naples would have its own certificate for the City of Naples, and the North Naples Fire Control and Rescue District would have a certificate for the remainder of the county. s of the There's not an effort to carve out the well - financed area county. This would include the entire county. So there wouldn't be any disparity in the quality of service. In this way all areas of the county will see improved and more efficient PEMTT services. staff and Commissioners, you have a distinguished group of EMS personnel. And this is -- this request is in no way a reflection on the quality of the personnel that you have in your EMS staff. The chiefs will present a plan of action for pre - hospital emergency medical transport that will provide more efficient and better services to the citizens of Collier County and to our visitors. Your current employees under the proposal that would be presented to you would be protected because they would become employees of the fire -- of the various fire districts. The three fire departments would enter into interlocal agreements with the other fire departments and with the county to make sure that there would be seamless transition and to make sure that all areas of the county receive the high quality of services that our citizens deserve. Mr. Chairman, we would anticipate needing approximately 90 minutes to conduct a full study of this and to answer all the questions that the commissioners certainly would have on this very critical item. Mr. Chairman, if the members of the commission are willing to proceed with a workshop, we would also ask that you direct your staff to work with us with the three fire departments to make sure that we Page 228 December 13 -14, 2011 have all of the relevant information, all the accurate information that we would need to come back before you. Again, Mr. Chairman, the three fire chiefs are here and, I believe, would like to make some very brief comments, if you would permit them, and also Councilor Magel from the Marco Island City Council is here, and he may want to make some comments. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Whose item is this? CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's Commissioner Coletta and Commissioner Fiala's item. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who was first on asking questions on the board? Was it you? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just a statement. Go consolidate, okay. I think that was very clear. We said to the fire departments, consolidate and we will turn over EMS. I don't think -- for me that hasn't changed one bit. I don't want to waste anybody's time on a workshop. Go consolidate, and then we can join EMS within the consolidated fire departments, not the coastal fire department. No, they're not even consolidating because its going to be three different -- they're going to be doing their different things, except for North Naples is going to be running for -- you're carving out the gravy for Naples and Marco. Go consolidate, period. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta . COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, you got a good point, Commissioner Henning. The whole thing is, is we have a movement underfoot to be able to break up the EMS into many different sections. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not from me. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, but you're hearing it from certain elements of the community. But, you know, if we did a workshop, possibly one of the things in the workshop that we could be also discussing is consolidation and how it would work at that point in time when we see a consolidation effort taking place, how the Page 229 December 13 -14, 2011 operation would get turned over. I haven't changed my mind on that, and you're absolutely correct. I'm glad that you reinforced that. But somewheres along the line we've got to start some sort of discussion, and there's nothing taking place right now. quick MR. SAUNDERS: And, Mr. Chair, if I might, dust a q comment on the issue of consolidation. This is not an issue of consolidation in terms of what three departments are proposing to the County Commission in terms of the workshop. Consolidation is an issue that has been debated ever since I remember coming here in 1982 and serving as the County Attorney and then serving on the commission. Those were issues that were -- had been debated for 25 years or more, and that is an issue that perhaps the County Commission needs to grapple with. But what we're talking about is trying to develop a more efficient and more cost - effective system to deliver PEMTT services to our citizens. And we already know that the fire departments, their sole fob is to get vehicles and personnel to the scenes of emergencies. They're almost always there first. They have trained -- trained personnel. And I think by consolidating your fire services with your rescue services here would not only provide more efficient service to the citizens but would save taxpayer dollars. And that's what we're talking about. We're not talking about consolidation. I understand the need to for the commission, perhaps, to consider that, but that's not what were talking about. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Why not, Burt? MR. SAUNDERS: Well, that's a political decision for the County Commission. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I mean, why couldn't we, as part of the discussion, talk about consolidation? I mean, it cant hurt anything. We hear the numbers and everything that come forward. And that's one of the things, you make evaluations. r the We know it's good for North Naples, we know its good fo Page 230 December 13 -14, 2011 City of Naples, we know it's good for Marco Island, but do we know it's good for the whole of Collier County? And that's one of the reasons why I'd like to get some sort of dialogue going so we can come up with a more efficient type of emergency services. And so part of that dialogue should enter into it is why not consolidate, I mean, as part of it. MR. SAUNDERS : Yeah. And, certainly, there's no obj ection to the County Commission, obviously, going in whatever direction you want to go in. I just didn't want to start a war between the different fire departments this afternoon. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no war. MR. SAUNDERS: So that's where we are. But, obviously, the County Commission can go in whatever direction you want to go in. CHAIRMAN COYLE: The -- you know, I'd be happy to sit down and talk again about whatever it is you want to talk about, but there is nothing that you're going to tell me that I haven't heard a dozen times before. We've had meetings upon meetings upon fire meetings. We've had a Blue Ribbon Committee who met with the districts and our EMS people, and they came with up with recommendations. We have participated in supporting consolidation legislation in Tallahassee. We have done everything we can to try to encourage the fire districts to get together, and they won't do it. And now the proposal is that we fragment it and just turn it over to everybody, and maybe that's the way it has to go. I certainly believe that we will encounter nothing, absolutely nothing but controversy and bad outcomes on providing emergency medical care as long as we don't do what the fire districts want us to do, which is give them EMS. We will be the target for every criticism that can be leveled for forever until we give them what they want to have. And if there is ever a proposal which is tailor made for a referendum, this is it. It's Page 231 December 13 -14, 2011 clear -cut, you know who's going to be doing what. You know what the responsibilities are, and you -- I think we need to ask the people who will be impacted the most, and they're the people of Collier County. And it's their health and safety that will be either positively or negatively impacted, and I would be quite happy to participate in a discussion of how we can craft a referendum question to be put on the ballot. But I just don't see anything happening here that we haven't talked about a dozen times before. MR. SAUNDERS: I think, Mr. Chairman, one of the differences is that you now have three public - safety entities that would like to come to the County Commission with a proposal. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. MR. SAUNDERS: And I think that, you know, you've raised a lot of issues. The referendum issue is certainly an issue that can be discussed at the workshop. That may be the way to go. The consolidation issue can certainly be discussed. Those are big policy issues that need to be addressed. But, I think, again, the difference is that we now have some real folks that are putting together a proposal to present to you, and the workshop format is just a better way to have that at least aired by -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. MR. SAUNDERS: -- three districts and County Commission. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I'm not opposed to a workshop. I'll sit down and talk with anybody. But the questions I'm going to ask are, if it is good for North Naples to take over the rest of Collier County, why isn't it good for them to take over Naples and Marco? Why do Naples and Marco want their own certificates? Why not dust let North Naples take over the whole thing? And if Naples and Marco insist on having their own, the question is why? Do you think you can do it better than North Naples? If so, why don't you bid on the whole Page 232 December 13 -14, 2011 thing? You know, there's some really tough questions here that I don't think we're going to get the right answers to no matter how many times we sit down. But if you want to sit down, I'm ready to sit down and talk. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. And I do think a workshop is necessary. There are other things that I would also have concern for. For those areas that aren't covered -- that right now have strictly EMS service aren't covered by anything because we've taken off all of the ALS equipment and medications off of the fire trucks, so nobody gets anything. And so those people -- like, for instance, in Golden Gate Estates, for goodness sake, or in Immokalee, so who's going to take care of that Marco or North Naples or who? Or is EMS going to still operate there? And then who pays for that? Taxpayers. Taxpayers will pay for that because, you know, North Naples certainly can -- is very flush and they can handle anything that they have. But what about people out there who don't have insurance? I'm very concerned with that. Also, I feel it's about time we discuss putting the ALS equipment and ALS medications back on the fire trucks and maybe discuss that at our workshop as far as a better service goes. I fear fragmenting the services, and -- but I want to hear what everybody says. I will go into it with an open mind. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I think the idea of a workshop is a good idea, and I think what's important is to, you know, do a presentation, bring back your proposals, you know, quantify your proposal, and show how it works. There's no harm in addressing it and being open minded to it. I mean, if you want to divide it between the three of you and you're able to improve the level of service and/or reduce the cost to Page 233 December 13 -14, 2011 the taxpayer in the process, why wouldn't anyone want to do it? And that's ultimately the goal. By the way, between the three organizations, what's the total population that you would cover? MR. SAUNDERS: Between -- what they're proposing is that the entire county would be covered. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, they would -- by the three? MR. SAUNDERS: Initially, at least in terms of getting to the workshop, the City of Marco would potentially cover the City of Marco, and the city council has not officially voted to do that, but they have discussed it and they are interested in that concept. The City of Naples, the city council hasn't taken a position, official position on this either, but the concept would be the City of Naples would provide service within the City of Naples, and then the North Naples Fire Control and Rescue District would provide services throughout the rest of the county. They're permitted to do that under their special acts. It would not take any legislative action to permit that. And so that would address Commissioner Fiala's concern about areas that may be underserved right now we believe would be better served with this unified -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: So it's not just the City of -- it's not just North Naples? MR. SAUNDERS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. MR. SAUNDERS: It would be the entire county, everything outside those cities. CHAIRMAN COYLE: What assurance do we have that if we agree to a workshop that the City of Naples and Marco Island will actually show up for the workshop and participate if they haven't approved it? MR. SAUNDERS: Well, it's a very significant public - policy issue. There have been some unfortunate incidents with EMS, Page 234 December 13 -14, 2011 especially in the city, in terms of some late arrivals of ambulances. And so I think that the city council would certainly take an interest in this. They may simply say to the County Commission, we believe that North Naples Fire District could provide the services within the city. They may not be interested in doing that. I'm only pointing out that there's been no official decision by the city to do that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, the danger -- the danger is that by us agreeing to meet to discuss all three entities without the city councils having voted on it and expressed an interest in doing so, it's going to leave the impression to the -- with those counties that we're trying to make decisions by going around them on this process, and I feel very uncomfortable doing that. I thought that the cities had already taken a position that they wanted to explore this. So that's sort of important. MR. SAUNDERS: That is true with of the City of Marco Island. Chief MacInerney is here from the City of Naples and may be able to comment on where the City of Naples is in terms of -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. CHIEF MacINERNEY: Good evening. Steve MacInerney, Fire Chief, City of Naples. Your question, Mr. Chairman, is well taken. The city has discussed this and just simply explored what options are available in improving the level of service within the city boundaries. But until we have some framework or design and cost, if any, to take back, we're trying to just get to the point to formulate a plan that we're all in agreement, that we're working together with all the stakeholders. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Do you have the city council's approval to participate in such a meeting to discuss those kinds of things? CHIEF MacINERNEY: Yes. The city council has discussed -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. Do you have the approval of the Page 235 December 13-14,2011 city council to participate in a meeting with us to discuss your taking over the transport? CHIEF MacINERNEY: I don't believe that I probably have it myself, other than being the fire chief of the city. CHAIRMAN COYLE: How can we get that resolved? Because I don't want to offend the city council. CHIEF MacINERNEY: Right, I agree with you. We could possibly take it up -- I'd take it up with the city manager, Mr. Bill Moss, and take it to a city council meeting and make sure that we're on board before that workshop takes place. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That would be appropriate, and I would suggest that any decision we make to participate in such a meeting be conditioned upon the approvals of the city councils of Marco and City of Naples to participate. CHIEF MacINERNEY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that fair? I mean, doesn't that seem like the appropriate way to proceed? MR. SAUNDERS : Mr. Chairman, I think what we could do, if the commission is willing to set up the workshop -- we understand the condition -- we would go back to the city council, both City of Naples and the City of Marco Island, with the simple request to permit their respective fire chiefs and staff to participate in a workshop on this issue. It's not a commitment on anybody's part to do anything. It's simply an opportunity for these three departments to present what they believe will be in the best interest of the citizens, and we'll go back and make sure that they are authorized by their respective bodies to make that presentation. But I think what we would ask is that you go ahead and set up the workshop today and then have it contingent upon verification that the two city councils have authorized their respective chiefs to participate in the workshop. And I think it will be clear to everyone that the County Page 236 December 13 -14, 2011 Commission is not trying to go behind anybody's back or to force them into anything. They understand that this will be simply a workshop to discuss what the options are and what these three departments can provide to the citizens of Collier County. I think that would be a very healthy discussion. And then, of course, you get into the issues of consolidation, the issue of a referendum. That would all be part of a -- part of the conclusions from that type of a workshop. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala? Who else wants to -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, just -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala, go ahead. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know. Just in case, say, for instance, Marco -- I'm going to just say Marco because they're mine. Say, for instance, Marco Islanders went to referendum and they didn't want to pay for a new EMS service there, because there's a lot of money involved in that. I wonder if they instead want to have two ambulances located there -- and they need two, especially in the season -- two ambulances located there, and then, of course, down the street on 951 there would be a support system to send people out just in case, and that they would want ALS equipment on their fire engines, and they figure that that's all they really need. Now, I know North Naples had said time and again when I questioned them as they -- as I was the deciding vote on the COPCN, you're not going to transport anybody? No, ma'am. You're not going to try and transport? No, ma'am, we're not going to do that. But now here we see this coming forward, and that concerns me as well. I trusted them, and that's disheartening for me. I don't know about the City of Naples, but just possibly the City of Naples would say, well, as long as we had our own ambulance right here, so -- or, you know, however they want to, and as long as we had, Page 237 December 13 -14, 2011 again, emergency equipment, ALS equipment right on their fire trucks, maybe that would be all that they would really want to do. And, you know -- but if we don't -- I'm going to withhold what I was going to say because that -- I'll just stop there. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Does anybody want to make a motion about the -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I'd like to make -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- workshop? COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- a motion that we plan a workshop, and if we can do it sometime in January, that would be good. MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we do have some public speakers. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And it's contingent upon the city councils of Marco and Naples agreeing to participate? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. OCHS: Commissioner, with respect, January's just around the corner, and if we don't have these commitments fairly soon -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're not going to do it in January. MR. OCHS: -- from the city councils, with your calendars and your regular board meetings and workshops, this may push a little beyond January. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, Leo. That's good, but then I would like to see -- and now I'm just speaking for Marco, and I hope I'm not speaking out of turn. I would like to see that we have two ambulances stationed on Marco Island right away, I mean, before -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's a different matter. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- a workshop or anything, just because they really need that, and also I would like to have conversations, or I'd like to see what you can do about getting these fire engines, these ALS fire engines equipped again so that they can help with this rescue process. We wouldn't be going into all of this Page 238 December 13 -14, 2011 stuff if those things weren't stripped from the ALS engines. MR. OCHS: Well, yes, ma'am, I'd be happy to do that. Those discussions are underway with Marco officials. I do have to just correct you that Marco Island, at least, medications have not been stripped away. There's request for additional medications, but ALS engines are operating every day very well, I might add, in Marco Island. COMMISSIONER FIALA: They're not operating many other places, are they? MR. OCHS: Not as many as we might like, yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good answer. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor of the motion? MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we do have public speakers. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. How many? MR. MITCHELL: Two. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker is Pam Brown, and she'll be followed by Duane Billington. MS. BROWN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I am a Fire Commissioner in Immokalee, and the only thing that I would like to inject in this, I would like to have you -all invite fire commissioners and councilmen to this workshop. You're talking about consolidation, and nobody seems to even care about what the other fire commissioners think or what they do. And they keep on saying that we're not working together, and I think that our chiefs are doing a wonderful job. And we are working with the individual fire departments. I think Chief Stolts can tell you that. We do have a good relationship, and I think you are just -- you're assuming something that's not happening. And I would appreciate if you do include all the board members. Thank you. MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Duane Billington. Page 239 December 13 -14, 2011 MR. BILLINGTON: For the record, Duane Billington. This is premature. North Naples Fire Department, as a condition of their COPCN, called for a one -year review. That hasn't happened yet. I don't see any sense in having a workshop prior to that review being conducted. The Blue Ribbon Committee also advised that one medical director should be common protocol. What's being suggested here is you'd end up with four medical directors between North, Marco Island, City of Naples, and our current EMS director. I echo Pam's comments. I'm sure it's going to be a shock to the people of Golden Gate, East Naples, Big Corkscrew, Immokalee, Isle of Capri, and Ochopee that all of a sudden North Naples by, I call it arrogance, has decided that they're going to take that all over as far as services. I feel kind of insulted, really. If anything is being held, everybody should be at the table. There was a referendum they called that stipulated that if money can be proven to be saved, are you in favor consolidation. That was passed by a large majority vote. Unless and until these departments can show what kind of savings are being proposed, why are we getting ready to jump off the edge of a new cliff with multiple medical directors, no assurance of savings? Yeah, there needs to be discussions, but I think that there's a whole lot of arrogance involved here. There needs to be -- whatever happens, it ought to be publicly advertised. The other districts should have a seat at the table if and when it happens. This horse is way in front of the cart. And as an active member and participant in the Golden Gate Fire District meetings, I feel put out by it all. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. What is the motion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I'll add to my motion and say that maybe a -- because this wasn't actually to do with all of the other Page 240 December 13-14,2011 fire departments, but it seems like it might -- it might grow into that. And if that is the case, we should have one fire commissioner from each fire district just to make sure that there is fair representation. So I'll add that to my motion. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I'll second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: The minute that you say that North Naples is going to take over responsibilities for the rest of Collier County, it certainly is going to affect every single fire district in this -- in the county. So you're absolutely right. Okay. We've got that motion that staff will set it up as soon as possible. It's not possible in January -- MR. OCHS: Contingent on those communications from the municipalities, sir? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, dependent upon those, and be sure that we -- well, you'll bring it back to us when you tell us when it's going to be -- MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and we'll tell you to invite everybody that's supposed to be invited. MR. OCHS: Very good. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Right? So all in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning is opposed. It passes 4 -1 to have the meeting, okay. Okay. Chief Stolts. CHIEF STOLTS: Commissioner, thank you for the vote, by the Page 241 December 13 -14, 2011 way. I think it's time for us to come to the table and talk. Out of that may come nothing, but out of that may come something. I know I've lived in this community and worked for the North Naples Fire District for 23 years. I've been active in the agency since I went to work there. I've been on numerous consolidation groups. We've talked about consolidation. We wrote a consolidation study. It's still sitting on the shelf. Probably got a lot of dust on it right now. We've participated and helped out with the Blue Ribbon report. There's been a lot of look at it and a lot of talk about consolidation. One of the things that we're going to propose at this workshop is, our proposal is to consolidate two -- the two largest fire and rescue agencies in Collier County. North Naples Fire Control and Rescue Direct and the Collier County EMS fire. Our proposal is to consolidate those two agencies into one. Now, that's a pretty good step in -- towards what you're talking about in consolidation. That brings the two biggest agencies, probably 80 percent of employees that respond to calls here within Collier County, together under one roof working as a team. So I appreciate your support to at least move forward in a workshop. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you. Item #9L DISCUSSION REGARDING MESH SIZE OF FISHING NETS FOR LOCAL FISHERMEN AND A PROPOSAL TO WRITE A LETTER OF SUPPORT TO FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION SUPPORTING THE ABILITY FOR FISHERMEN TO USE WHATEVER MESH NECESSARY TO HARVEST LEGAL, MARKETABLE FISH — MOTION TO APPROVE AND STAFF TO GATHER INFORMATION TO BE BROUGHT BACK Page 242 December 13-14,2011 AT THE JANUARY 24 2012 BCC MEETING — APPROVED MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 9L on your agenda. It was a 5:15 p.m. time - certain item, discussion regarding the issue of mesh size for nets for local fishermen and a proposal to write a letter of support to the south -- excuse me -- the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission supporting the ability of fishermen to use whatever mesh necessary to harvest legal, marketable fish. And this was brought to the agenda by Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Thank you very much. This is -- one thing I got to make clear right off the bat, this has nothing at all to do about doing away with the net ban, and that's some misinformation that was put out there by someone who didn't take a little time to research it. This has only to do about the mesh size of the net. And with that, Christina, are you going to make the presentation or -- MS. JOHNSON: I'm happy to. Can I come forward? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, please, come forward. Bring your props up here, and we'll demonstrate to my fellow commissioners what we're talking about, how this will save the fish stock. MS. JOHNSON: Okay. My husband has the net, so -- and he also has a net display. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: For the record, say your name, and your husband can also introduce himself. MS. JOHNSON: My name's Christina Johnson. I'm from Everglades City, and I am representing the commercial fishing community in Collier County. MR. JOHNSON: My name is Grady Johnson. I'm from Everglades City. I'm also representing the area and other fishermen in the county. We appreciate your time on this issue. And, again, I would like Page 243 December 13 -14, 2011 to second everything Mr. Coletta said. We're not here about overturning the Net Limitation Act. All we're simply asking is for your support in a letter to the FWC and help us create and fix a problem that's been created by them with science. And right now we've been told that we're going to be ruled by politics by this agency. So given that fact, that's why we're here today to bring it to you guy's attention as our representatives in the local area. We're one of the biggest counties in the State of Florida, have pretty much, as far as I know, the majority of the coastline. We have more coastline than any other county in the state. That being said, we have a tremendous amount of fishing families and people in this county that depend on the fisheries, you know, for their livings. Right now we would like to let you know that there's several people actively working right now out on the stone crab boats and stuff like that that couldn't be here today that asked for us to bring that to your attention. Due to their work schedule, they weren't able to be here. But what we'd like to bring to your attention is -- if I may approach, if you would like to see this closer. This represents a juvenile fish. It's illegal to harvest in the State of Florida. For instance, a mullet, legally harvested in Florida, has to be 11 inches or bigger. The problem we have is the FWC has mandated us to use the 2 -inch stretch mesh maximum, okay. Well, as you can see, the juvenile fish gets hung up and gilled in the 2 -inch mesh. What we're asking is to do away with this mandate and allow the expertise to go back to the fishermen and to go back to the existing laws that still exist on the books for each fisheries. For instance, mullet has anything from a 3- and -a- half -inch mesh stretch on up to bigger to harvest. Different times of the year dictates a different hole in the mesh. Just by simply going up an inch in size, as you can see, the juvenile is able to go right through the holes and escape unharmed. Page 244 December 13 -14, 2011 So what we're asking is for your support. And, again, we realize that you -all don't have the power to overturn this, but you do have the power to show the commission that there is more involved than just a handful of people asking for this big problem to be corrected. These nets right here, the 2 -inch mesh, have a 98- percent by- catch. We have a study that was conducted by the study in two thousand and -- MS. JOHNSON: 2005. MR. JOHNSON: -- and five by a friend of mine in North Florida, along with FWC, they went out with a 2 -inch mesh and a 3 -inch mesh, which is represented here, deployed them simultaneously, and by their study, a two -day study that was paid for by the taxpayers, I might add, they proved that these nets that are mandated today for us to use have a 98- percent by -catch which, translated, means for every two fish that we take to market out of the 2 -inch mesh, we're killing 98 juveniles. Now, that's not selective. That could be redfish, that could be trout, that could be snook, that can be any of our sports fish, which is very important to the State of Florida, I might add, because as we all know we do have a tremendous amount of people -- Everglades City, that Mr. Coletta represents, is the snook capital of the world. We're proud of that. We want to maintain that. So we're asking for your support to help us correct a problem that's been created by government bureaucracy, if I might say, and they're failing to recognize the science of it and choosing to rule this industry by politics which, given the current circumstances today with the economy and the things that are going on, I truly believe that politics have changed a lot since 1994, '95 range. There's people out here that are hurting. These nets -- I have one in that bucket over there. If I might, I might approach the bench so I can show you what a legal net is and how big and do away with some of the myths that you see these photographs of piles of net. We don't Page 245 December 13 -14, 2011 have that anymore. What we're allowed is -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Go ahead and get the net and show them. MR. JOHNSON: If I may. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And do you have some suggestive wording that you might give the commission to be able to incorporate in the letter? MS. JOHNSON: I would suggest that you would ask the FWC to use the science and not the politics. You know, they're actually required by the Magnuson- Stevens Act to use the best science available, and they refuse to do so. In a meeting, just like we're all sitting here today, they have refused several times. They have said, we're not going to rule your industry by science. We're going to use politics. We think it's politically unpopular to fix your net, so we're not going to fix it. So our solution is to come home, come to our county, city, and state leaders, and say, "help us ". They will not -- the FWC refuses to help us. Where do we turn? The commercial fisheries are a vital component of the economy here. MR. JOHNSON: If I -- I would like to point out, too, as I know your time -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to have to get you on the mic in order to satisfy our requirements, okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We'll bring you one. Stay right there. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. What I'd like to point out with this, as you can see by their mandate, we're a strictly inshore fishery. We are forced to deploy these nets in our estuaries because -- just the fact of how deep they are right now. Without going deeply into it, common sense tells you that all juvenile fish -- the Everglades is one of the biggest estuaries in the Page 246 December 13 -14, 2011 State of Florida, and I'm proud of that, and I'm tired of being forced by a government mandate to destroy it. It's my home. It's where I make my living. It's where I've raised my family. It's where I've been raised. I'm sixth - generation native commercial fisherman, and I'm proud of that. You know, I got family that homesteaded, you know, not too far north of here, a little island in Estero Bay called Mound Key. So we've been here for hundreds of years, and we're probably some of the best stewards of the environment. And as Commissioner Coletta has pointed out, there's been a tremendous amount of false propaganda, demagoguery, and whatever else you want to label it, to put on us. And what we're asking is -- we're not asking for anybody to support overturning the Net Limitation Act. We're asking to be able to live within the means of it. Florida Supreme Court in 1998 -- MS. JOHNSON: No, '93. MR. JOHNSON: --'93, excuse me -- MS. JOHNSON: -- before it went on the ballot. MR. JOHNSON: -- before the -- before the amendment went to the ballot, it had to be described by the Supreme Court as what the sole purpose of the voter intent would be. The Florida Supreme Court ruled that the sole purpose of the intent of the amendment was to stop the unnecessary killing, waste, and overharvest. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let me tell you what you can do to help us. I don't think you're going to get any opposition from us in writing a letter of support for you. MR. JOHNSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, what we need to do is prepare a good letter of support. MR. JOHNSON: Yes, okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, we're not experts in this area, but your presentation that was contained in our packet was very Page 247 December 13 -14, 2011 convincing. MR. JOHNSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: The photographs that you had were very convincing. But you've mentioned that the science has proved that the bycatch is increased by small mesh sizes. MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So help us craft something relatively brief. Bureaucrats don't read voluminous documents. MS. JOHNSON: Right. MR. JOHNSON: Right. CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you don't get it on one page -- MR. JOHNSON: You don't get it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- you probably don't get it. MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So if we can reduce our statement of support and our reason why and identify the scientific studies that have been conducted and their results; that would be very, very helpful for us. MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So I personally will support you in this effort, but I can't write the letter for you because I don't know enough about it to make a convincing statement. MR. JOHNSON: And that's no problem. We'll work with whoever we need to work with. The documents are available. Christina, my wife, has brought some with her today. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. JOHNSON: The easiest way would be to refer back to the net test that was conducted. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. JOHNSON: And it's in black and white. It's right there. It's available in public record. MS. JOHNSON: And I would be willing to, you know, sit down Page 248 December 13 -14, 2011 with any of you. You know, I don't know what the protocol is. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, we'll have the County Manager identify -- I mean, assuming we approve it. I've got to get to Commissioner Henning because his light's been on for a while, but -- MS. JOHNSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- let us do our deliberations here and then see if we can't agree on a course of action and then we'll try to bring it to a conclusion here. MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I thought that Commissioner Coletta's aide was working with the County Attorney's Office -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's what I was going to suggest. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- for a resolution. Jeff, do you know anything about -- has your office coordinated with Commissioner Coletta's aide? MR. KLATZKOW: I'm not aware of it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Don't you think a resolution would be the best form of action? I'm making a, you know, statement, a real good statement. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. And we can do that, certainly. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you can incorporate all of the evidence in a resolution, that would be good. MR. KLATZKOW: We can do that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: But if you can't, we're going to have to go with a letter. I mean, you might be better off going to the legislative delegation, frankly, because they've got more sway over the FWC than even you do. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And Christina has been working with Senator Richter. Page 249 December 13 -14, 2011 MR. KLATZKOW: Exactly. COMMISSIONER HENNING: We should get something to our legislation delegation also. Senator Richter, as I understand, is very supportive. MS. JOHNSON: I am going to be meeting with him Thursday. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ah, what time? MS. JOHNSON: I have been -- 10:30, I believe. I have been, you know, emailing with his aide and sending information. So we have not yet gotten to sit down and speak, you know, one -on -one. COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I join you in that meeting? MS. JOHNSON: Yes, absolutely. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I -- it's quite ironic. I have two cast nets. MR. JOHNSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a bait net, smaller mesh, that I throw out there for bait, and I get mullet in there with it. MR. JOHNSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But if I throw my mullet net out, I never get any bait in there because the mesh is so big, so -- MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what you're saying is just common sense, and it works. MR. JOHNSON: Yes. MS. JOHNSON: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the bottom line, these people just want to improve the economy on what they have done historically for generations. MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I've been up to Mound Key where your great grandfather -- MR. JOHNSON: My great -- my great, great grandmother, sixth generation, grandmother and grandfather homesteaded that island. Page 250 December 13 -14, 2011 And I have a copy of the deed. The date escapes me, but it was signed by the President of the United States. So we've been here a day or two. And we just appreciate your efforts on this. Also, too, I'd like to bring your attention, too, that we do have a United States representative, too, that's on board with us from the Panhandle region. Steve Sutherlin is his name. He has been very active and very vocal in helping us and is a very good support system for us on the federal. And he's well versed on everything that's going on, too. So just to give you guys a taste that this is not just a local isolated issue. It has made its own way up to the federal level. CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's got legs. Okay. Commissioner -- MR. MITCHELL: Sir, you do have public speakers as well. CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many speakers do we have? MR. MITCHELL: One, two, three -- three. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's go to Commissioner Coletta first. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, no. Let's go to the public speakers. I'll wait until after. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I was going to ask them, if we're going to vote in favor of them, what is it you need to tell us. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, yeah, exactly. MR. ROBINSON: I want to tell them one more thing. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd also like to say -- I can't get my button on, by the way, Leo. Could you have somebody check this out tonight? CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, I've got it cut off over here. COMMISSIONER FIALA: What I'd also like to do is -- you know, we should make sure that we send this letter to all of our legislative delegation, as well as the Florida Association of Counties. And I am the representative for Collier County with that -- with the Page 251 December 13 -14, 2011 Florida Association of Counties. So I'd like to send it there and see if we can't get them to work on our behalf as well as your behalf, because I think that this is -- it's not only important to the fishing industry; it's important to the restaurant industry -- MS. JOHNSON: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and it's important to the tourism industry, as well as our winter residents who come down and join us. This is -- you know, this little subject here is enormous. MS. JOHNSON: Yes, it is. It really is. MR. JOHNSON: Yes, ma'am. One of the things I'd like to point out -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let us get a motion here and get this thing moving ahead. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make the motion that we can go ahead and direct -- MR. MITCHELL: Sir, do you -- the public speakers. I think some of them still want to speak. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. How many of you still want to speak if we're voting to -- MR. JOHNSON: We have one, Mr. Robert Robertson. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. MITCHELL: And Duane Billington wants to speak. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Duane Billington, okay. Go ahead, sir. MR. ROBINSON: Good Evening, Commissioners. Robert Robinson. I also am like Grady. My father came from Corkscrew. So I was born on Marco. I've always fished. And all I want to say is fishermen have always fished net - specific. Every -- during the year you have to change from this size to this size to this size simply because that's the economics of the way you fish. You catch small fish. Later in the year you catch bigger fish. So these meshes get bigger as the year goes on. Page 252 December 13 -14, 2011 Right now if you were row fishing, you would be fishing a mesh nearly twice as big as this. So the economics of it requires the fishermen to have to have three nets. One size don't fit all. And so that's something that should be put into this that was not in the net ban and all of this. And there's -- then there's several other things, but that's the primary thing I wanted to tell you is, a net is -- used to be for that -- specific to that time of year. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We've got it, okay. MR. MITCHELL: Sir, the next -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. MR. MITCHELL: The speaker will be Duane Billington, and he'll be followed by Denise Reppa. MR. BILLINGTON: For the record, Duane Billington. I understand and empathize with the people in the fishing industry, and perhaps some more research is necessary. I don't know what's out there. There wasn't -- the only thing in the supporting documents on the website was a mock -up done in a driveway, which is hardly scientific evidence. There are studies that have been done, studies that are going on. If we're going to write a letter, I think we ought to be citing independent studies. We have local talent on board, county staff; Mac Hatcher did a lot of research on the fisheries down on Marco Island. You might want to talk to him for information on this. But whatever is proposed, one, should not conflict with the net ban, the gill net ban, and two, it should be science - based, and by science that means independent review, not somebody with a stake in the matter. Some university study or something like that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you. Is it okay if I take a -- take a vote on this? Does anybody want to tell us anything before we approve it and we get you moving? (No response.) Page 253 December 13 -14, 2011 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor? MR. KLATZKOW: Did you want a resolution or a letter? COMMISSIONER HENNING: A resolution is stronger than a letter. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And it's more uniform. It can reach more people. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are we equipped to issue a resolution? Do we know enough, and what exactly are we resolving? COMMISSIONER HENNING: First it has to come back to the Board. CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's got to come back to us anyway for approval. We'll -- why don't we focus on getting the information together and getting something written up about this, and then we'll decide what format to put it in, okay. MR. KLATZKOW: I think we're bringing this back then. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Oh, yeah. We'll bring it back as quickly as possible. COMMISSIONER FIALA: When do we need it by? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, we'll bring it back -- can we get it back on the next meeting, or is that going to be too quick? MR. OCHS: That's not too quick. CHAIRMAN COYLE: The second meeting in January? MR. OCHS: Do it -- yes, 24th of January. All right. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's try the 24th of January. Okay. All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) Page 254 December 13 -14, 2011 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes unanimously. We'll get on it. We need your help. We'll contact you, and get this thing put together for you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I'm going up to Florida Association of Counties on the 31 st of January. So if we have this in hand -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: So -- I think we'll have it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, good. Will that help you? MR. JOHNSON: Yes, ma'am. MS. JOHNSON: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER FIALA: All righty. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. And we'll send copies to all of our legislative representatives both in Washington and Tallahassee. MR. JOHNSON: And we're going to be working independently also, too, trying to find out who we need to be in contact with. My wife and I are going to try and get it introduced walking the halls in the legislative session this January. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, good luck to you, and I commend your activism. It's a good cause. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And keep up the good work, okay. MR. OCHS: Commissioner? CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is time for a commissioners' break. MR. OCHS: You've got -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: We are finished. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good to see you, Bobby. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We said we were going to quit at 6 o'clock. MR. OCHS: No, that's fine. You just had one item under 9, your advertised vacancies. I didn't know if you wanted to get that out of the way in 30 seconds, or if that's a long lengthy list to read, so -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why does he need to read it? Why can't Page 255 December 13 -14, 2011 he just display it? MR. MITCHELL: It is displayed. Sir, it is displayed. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then -- MR. OCHS: Tomorrow? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, tomorrow. MR. OCHS: Sir, Commissioners, we've had a request from Mr. Curry to -- if the board approved, to begin with his items tomorrow at 9 a.m. He has an important meeting with federal officials at noon, I believe, out in Immokalee. So if we could take his four items at the beginning of the meeting, that would be very much appreciated by Mr. Curry. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, there's no way we can get them finished by 12 noon, but we'll do our best. Okay? MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Then we are adjourned. MR. KLATZKOW: And, for the record, that's 9 o'clock we're recommencing? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Nine o'clock tomorrow morning we will -- we are in recess, and we're going to reconvene tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock in this room. MR. OCHS: Thank you. There being no further business for the good of the County, the Page 256 December 13 -14, 2011 meeting was recessed by order of the Chair at 6:00 p.m. until it is reconvened on December 14, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. Page 257 December 13 -14, 2011 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, December 13 -14, 2011 Day 2 (December 14, 2011) LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board (s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Fred Coyle Jim Coletta Donna Fiala Georgia Hiller Tom Henning ALSO PRESENT: Leo Ochs, County Manager Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Crystal Kinzel, Office of the Clerk of Courts Ian Mitchell, BCC Executive Manager Mike Sheffield, Business Operations Manager — CMO Page 258 December 13-14,2011 MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, the Board of County Commission meeting is back in session. Where do we go for the first item? MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. We are going to the Airport Authority items this morning. (Cell phone rang.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is this it? MR. OCHS: That was it, that was it. Mr. Curry's got an interesting -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's for Chris Curry's entrance. MR. OCHS: That's right. Commissioner, we actually have four items for your Airport Authority this morning. On your change sheet yesterday there was an agenda note from Commissioner Hiller requesting that the Items 13A3 and A4 be heard prior to 13AL Item #13A3 RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AND RATIFY STAFF'S n T TT1.-TO IZ n TION UNAUTHORIZED APPROVAL OF CHANGE 1 1 1 1 V 1 � ORDER #1 FOR A TIME EXTENSION TO Q. GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, PA (WORK ORDER #4500116917) AND MAKE A FINDING OF QUANTUM MERUIT IN ORDER TO PROCESS INVOICES FOR PHASE 2 PERMITTING WORK AT THE IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT — MOTION TO APPROVE UNDER CONTRACT #09 -5262 — APPROVED So I believe we'll begin with what was 16G2, which is now Item 13A3 on your agenda. And that is a recommendation to approve and ratify staff s unauthorized approval of Change Order No. 1 for a time extension to Q. Grady Minor & Associates P.A., and make a finding Page 259 December 13 -14, 2011 of quantum meruit in order to process invoices for Phase 2 permitting work at the Immokalee Regional Airport. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that's 13A3 now, right? MR. OCHS: Yes, sir; yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Very well. MS. KINZEL: And, Commissioner Coyle, for the record, this is Crystal Kinzel. We would recommend -- the Clerk's Office is uncomfortable with the quantum meruit argument, but there was an existing agreement for similar services that the director could have availed himself for these services. So we're willing to pretty much say that that -- you know, he should have used the other contract, but that was an existing board contract, and we'll pay under that, but not the quantum meruit theory. COMMISSIONER HILLER: For Q. Grady? MS. KINZEL: The Q. Grady. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So the action that we should take today is to approve the payment under the previous contract; is that correct? Can we identify that contract more clearly? MS. KINZEL: Yes. The new contract's 09 -5262, which was in existence for similarly situated service. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So we're going -- I make a motion that we approve this contract over 09 -5662 (sic), is it? Did I get that right? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I'll second it, but I'd like to hear if there's any repercussions with that. Are we going to be spending more money or the same cost? Is there any other repercussions we don't know of, Mr. Curry? MR. CURRY: Chris Curry, Executive Director, Airport Authority. As far as I know, it's the same cost. The work was done, and it was just a matter of the change orders or work orders occurring after Page 260 December 13-14,2011 the contract initially expired. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Then my second stands. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller, do you have questions? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Chris -- yeah, I do. Can you explain to me what this work is for and why this permit is held up? MR. CURRY: Is this for -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, both of them, from -- my understanding is the work for -- the work being done by Q. Grady and the work being done by Passarella are for the same thing; are they not for the same permit? MR. CURRY: Yes. They relate to the permit for Phase 2 at the Immokalee Airport. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And can you tell me about that? What exactly is Phase 2 and what specifically is this permit for? MR. CURRY: Okay. I'll explain that, but I'll also introduce Shane with Passarella. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Great. Actually, Passarella is the next item, but the permit that we're going to -- I mean, the permit that Passarella is working on is the same one that Q. Grady Minor is working on -- MR. CURRY: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- that we're referring to in this agenda item? MR. CURRY: It encompasses the same area. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you confirm that? MR. JOHNSON: Shane Johnson with Passarella & Associates, environmental consultants representing the Collier County Airport Authority. Your question again, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: My question is, what exactly is going on here? What is this permit application for? What are you Page 261 December 13 -14, 2011 doing? And, you know, what are we permitting and why? And, by the way, in addition to that, as I was reading the executive summary, it said that there are all these holdups and this permit has been languishing at Fish and Wildlife for over a year now. So what's happening here? And, you know, how long will it take to get the permit? What is the permit for? What's going on? And what work are you doing? The whole nine yards. MR. JOHNSON: Well, we do environmental at Passarella. We're not specifically involved with the site planning, per se. But what I do understand about the site plan, it is for setting up infrastructure within Phase 2 for future development pods. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So there's no imminent development? This is for prospective development to be determined? MR. JOHNSON: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. MR. CURRY: Well, let me just step in for a minute. The development that we know is related to the Army National Guard. Throughout our meetings with the guard, they have indicated that they should be ready to build in less than a year and a half at the site that's been reserved for them. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I thought it was no sooner than a year and a half from now. MR. CURRY: No. They gave me a timeline of three years when we met about six months ago, and I actually have an updated meeting with them today. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Good. MR. CURRY: But the reality of Phase 2 is that the airport has built out of Phase 1. Actually, 40 percent of the National Guard's facility falls within Phase 2; therefore, they cannot build a complete facility. At the airport we always have tenants that are coming into the airport looking to build. And most of the time when they come Page 262 December 13 -14, 2011 looking to build, they want to build now, and we do not want to be held up because we have not prepared to build into Phase 2 where most of the non - aviation or aviation - related businesses would be located. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let's continue with the discussion on the permit. MR. CURRY: So your next question was why the delay? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Uh -huh. MR. CURRY: Well, if you're not familiar with the permitting process for this particular phase, we had to obtain a South Florida Water Management District permit as well as U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit. We have secured the South Florida Water Management District permit for the project. We're still in the process of obtaining the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit. And with the Corps permit process, the Corps had to initiate consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding federally listed species. And it took the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approximately eight months to get engaged in the project. I can't speak on their behalf as to why that was, but I know that in my history of dealing with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, it's a very slow- moving agency. They've got a lot on their plate. They've got a lot of projects to work with. And it's just -- it's about eight months that we -- it took for them to fully get engaged and focused on Phase 2 of the airport facility. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So where are they now in the process? MR. JOHNSON: I've been in communication with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and we seem to be in agreement with a number of different items related to the species issues with Phase 2, and I think that we're pretty close to wrapping things up. We had to get the contract issue resolved with the Airport Page 263 December 13 -14, 2011 Authority to get back on board and proceed with the Corps permit process. But from my communication with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, we're in pretty good shape, I think, to hopefully secure the Corps permit in, I would say, three to four months. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And what are the environmental issues? MR. JOHNSON: The environmental issues, both at the state and federal level, are wetland impacts. We had to impact wetlands in order to build the proposed development within Phase 2. There's also listed - species issues, specifically wood stork, which is a federally endangered bird. So any impacts that you have to wetlands -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Isn't -- wasn't there another bird that was impacted; the -- MR. JOHNSON: The shrub jay was -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- shrub jay? MR. JOHNSON: -- was brought up by the U.S -- by the Corp's of Engineers as a potential issue, but there was a biological opinion issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1999 for the Florida scrub jay, which basically set aside this large tract of preserve area on the western side of the airport as mitigation for everything else within the airport facility, and so there's no preserve within that Phase 2. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And within Phase 2, are there any other endangered species that will be affected? MR. JOHNSON: Other than wood stork -- Florida panther issue isn't completely resolved from my communication with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I don't anticipate the project needing Florida panther mitigation; however, that's -- that remains to be seen. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand -- and this is my -- probably my last question on the subject depending on your answer. My understanding is Florida Water Management -- South Florida Water Management had -- and maybe it's not on the permit you're speaking of, but I think it maybe -- and you can correct me if I'm Page 264 December 13 -14, 2011 mistaken -- had returned a request for additional information to the county, and it's been quite some time that the county has been sitting on that and hasn't responded. Is that -- that permit? And what is the permit regarding Phase 2 that the county has not responded? And why are they sitting on it? Because my understanding, from talking -- and I can't remember who I spoke to there -- told me that the county claimed that there was no money to develop further and, as a result, they were not going to expend the money to respond to the RAI from South Florida Water Management District. Maybe you can clarify that. MR. JOHNSON: I'm not familiar with that, the communication back and forth between South Florida and the county. I'm not familiar with that. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh. Has the RAI been answered with respect to the South Florida Water Management District permit? MR. JOHNSON: I'm not sure what -- do you have a copy of that RAI? I'm not familiar with that. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Actually, I think we have -- I think I got a copy of the -- I can see what I have. I did pull some of the permits, so I can -- I think I -- I don't know if I have a copy of the RAI, but I do have a copy of the permit. MR. JOHNSON: Of the district, South Florida Water Management District permit? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. My aide probably can -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, what we're here to do today is determine whether or not we're going to approve the payment for the work you've already done, right? COMMISSIONER HILLER: And -- well, we also need to know what it is.. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, it's spelled out very clearly in the packet, Commissioner Hiller. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, it also spells out very clearly Page 265 December 13-14,2011 in the packet there are problems with what's going on with the work -- not with your work as a professional, but with the state's response and the fed's response to the work being done. So to me it looks like this is not the end of the story, in answer to Commissioner Coletta's question. I think, obviously, we're -- you know, there's a ways to go before we get there. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, there are two issues here. Number one, we're considering Item G2, which has nothing to do with reimbursement of Passarella. COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I understand. But Chris Curry offered him to speak on behalf of Q. Grady, since it was one and the same permit, to answer my questions. CHAIRMAN COYLE: But it's not -- MR. CURRY: Well, I offered him to speak on behalf of -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- Passarella. MR. CURRY: -- the Phase 2 process. But Shane is not involved from the financial side. That's unrelated to Shane. He was just here to give you information and answer your questions. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So let's deal with Item No. G3, 16G3, which was previously 13A4 (sic), which relates to an authorization to pay Q. Grady Minor & Associates for their work in Phase 2 permitting Immokalee Regional Airport, correct? MR. OCHS: Commissioner, I'm sorry, excuse me. Sixteen -- excuse me. 13A3 is the item that we started on. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry. You're right. 13A3 is the item we started on, and that's the item I'm on -- MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- which is -- MR. OCHS: Q. Grady Minor. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's correct, yes. I was reading the tab for the next item, but the executive summary title was exactly what I Page 266 December 13 -14, 2011 stated it to be. MR.00HS: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So the issue, as I understand it, is that the Clerk is willing to recognize the payment of these invoices under a different contract, which was valid at least at one point in time; is that correct? MS. KINZEL: And, Commissioner Coyle -- yeah, let me make it clear, though. This isn't the ordinary course of business, and this isn't how we want to do it in the future. And I think we've worked with Mr. Curry to work out some of these, because the reason this is on the agenda and before you is the work order and the contract had all expired, and work continued to be done. So that's an error, and we're trying to work to make it a viable payment option under the contract -- a different contract that was existing, not to exceed limits of what you can do on different contracts. So we're trying to come up with a reasonable remedy. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I appreciate that. And we should acknowledge that there are a number of these issues that have to be cleaned up because, apparently, sometime in the past it was acceptable to both the Clerk and the government that if you had a contract, you could issue work orders against it until it was completed even though the contract date has expired. MS. KINZEL: But, Commissioner Coyle, I have to correct one thing there. This had expired work orders and contracts. There was nothing that was viable or ongoing. We have a number of items that both the work orders and the contract all expired and work continued to be done -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MS. KINZEL: -- and those created different problems. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And we have a number of those still remaining to be worked through; is that not correct? MS. KINZEL: Yeah. This and the next item, but I think we've Page 267 December 13 -14, 2011 resolved the majority of the ones identified as early as March and April to you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: But I'm not just talking about the airport now. MS. KINZEL: No. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm talking about all Collier County activities. MS. KINZEL: Well, I wouldn't say to all, but the initial list that was identified, about 18 or 20 items -- and Steve can -- he might have a better headcount than I do, but there were 18 or 20 identified in March and April, and these are the last two from that initial list. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That good news then. All right. MR. CURRY: We do not plan to do that as a way of business going forward. We have put in safeguards to ensure that that doesn't happen to us again. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Very well. Then the motion -- Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll wait till -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: --other items. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. The -- okay. Give me that contract number again, Crystal. MS. KINZEL: 09 -5262 for this item. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I make a motion that we -- we authorize payment to Q. Grady Minor under Contract 09 -5262 as suggested by the Clerk's Office to resolve this issue. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So the motion is by me, seconded by Commissioner Fiala. Do you want to speak at this point in time, Commissioner Henning, or on the next item? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I'll wait on PHUs -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: airport. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. December 13 -14, 2011 -- which is on the regular Then all in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then it is approved. That brings us to the next item. Item #13A4 RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AND RATIFY STAFF'S n T TT1.TO IZ n TION UNAUTHORIZED APPROVAL OF CHANGE L 1 1 1 V 1 � ORDER #2 TO PASSARELLA AND ASSOCIATES, INC. (WORK ORDER #4500116918) FOR A TIME EXTENSION AND MAKE A FINDING OF QUANTUM MERUIT IN ORDER TO PROCESS INVOICES FOR PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING WORK AT IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT — MOTION TO APPROVE INVOICES FOR WORK PERFORMED ON JUNE 135 AUGUST 15 AND OCTOBER 12, 2011 UNDER CONTRACT #10- 5571 AND WORK WITH CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THE INVOICE FOR WORK PERFORMED MAY 195 2011 — APPROVED MR. OCHS: Which is 13A4. This is a recommendation to approve and ratify staff s unauthorized approval of Change Order No. 2 to Passarella & Associates, Incorporated. Page 269 December 13 -14, 2011 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now we're on the Passarella contract. MS. KINZEL: Okay. Commissioners, this one has one item that remains problematic. Again, under quantum meruit, we're not paying under that any longer. That was a one -time solution to an issue. We -- there is also an -- a different contract that was viable but, unfortunately, it was not approved or put in place until April 26th. So the first three items going from August to September, July, and May could fall under that similarly situated contract, which is No. 10 -5571, for environmental services. It's a continuing contract. Again, just a different agreement, even though the agreement that this work was originally referenced, they -- I believe it was 07 -4168, had expired. We can process those first three under the new contract if the board approves the -- obviously, the other legal sufficiency's relating to that. The last item -- and it is the larger of the items -- we are looking at still, it was billed through April 30th, but the new contract that we are availing ourselves of, the 10 -5571, did not begin until April 26th. So we're trying to look -- I have staff pulling the dates. We could -- there's going to be a gap of time for the first part of the work done in April that you have nothing I can attach to to pay that invoice and that amount at this time. Now, we'll be willing to work through that, but we want to advise the board only the first three items were during the period of a time that there was another contract available. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, let me make sure I understand that it's a May 19, 2011 invoice the Clerk cannot approve at this time, but they're continuing to work toward a solution; is that correct? MS. KINZEL: Correct. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. But for the invoices received on October the 12th, August 15th, and June the 13th can be approved Page 270 December 13 -14, 2011 under contract 10 -5571; is that correct? MS. KINZEL: Correct. We're -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You see any problems, Chris? MR. CURRY: No. I would rather get the three that you can approve right now. We'll continue to work -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. CURRY: -- with the Clerk's Office to resolve the other issue. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning, it's not this item you want to talk about? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I do. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, Passarella, if I recall, they're under a professional contract with the Board of Commissioners in general. I don't know why we can't use that contract to make payment. MS. KINZEL: They are, but for the period covered of that one invoice, that contract was not in place to my knowledge. If you have another viable contract that has a relationship to environmental services, then we can review that. But we've asked, and we weren't aware there are any other outstanding contracts that could be used. But, certainly, if you have another viable number, we would be willing to look at it. It is not -- and I want to repeat on the record, this is not the way we should do business, but we are trying to work a solution for the vendor, understanding that he did do some work under an expired agreement. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then we'll separate these. MR. CURRY: That's fine. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll take a vote on approval of invoices for October the 12th, August 15th, and June the 13th, I think that's roughly $4,000 or so, and we'll carry over the May 19, 2011 invoice for further research in coordination with the Clerk's Office, okay. Page 271 December 13-14,2011 MR. CURRY: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Does that meet your requirements? MR. CURRY: Yes, it does. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then that is a motion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'll second it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, let Commissioner Henning second it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion was made by me, seconded by Commissioner Henning. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then that one is done. That brings us next to - Item #13A1 RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE UTILIZING $202,800 FROM IMMOKALEE DEVELOPMENT FUND 497 TO PURCHASE 3.38 WETLAND CREDITS FROM SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WETLANDS JV (D /B /A PANTHER ISLAND MITIGATION BANK) REQUIRED FOR THE NEXT PHASE OF DEVELOPMENT AT THE IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT, AND ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENTS — APPROVED MR. OCHS: 13A1, sir. It's a recommendation to approve Page 272 December 13 -14, 2011 utilizing $202,800 for Immokalee Development -- from Immokalee Development Fund 497 to purchase 3.38 wetland credits from Southwest Florida Wetlands N, doing business as Panther Island Mitigation Bank, required for the next phase of development at the Immokalee Regional Airport, and associated budget amendment. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We've heard this before. MR. CURRY: Yes. This is a continuing item. I believe in October it was first introduced to the board. At that time it was continued because it was believed that the Airport Authority could get a letter of reservation from the district. A subsequent meeting with the Board of County Commissioners was held in November whereby the district basically said that we could not get a letter of reservation. So I'm bringing this item back to you now because it's the airport's desire to move forward with the purchase of these mitigation credits to satisfy the requirements of the district so that we could get our Phase 2 development for the Immokalee Regional Airport. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner Henning, seconded by Commissioner Fiala. Okay. We have discussion. Commissioner Henning, is that -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. The -- and I appreciate everybody's cooperation to try to save money by using our land. The issue is, it's on the existing airport property, and we have received several correspondence of interest on companies locating on the airport property. This will be a huge benefit if that comes through, that these companies do go to the airport. It would be a huge benefit for the community of Immokalee. And I hope that we move forward with this permit so we have the groundwork for these companies and Page 273 December 13 -14, 2011 potential future tenants. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I think we've worked this issue over enough. We're here today because of some misinformation we got in the past that delayed this whole process. So let's get this vote moving forward. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Leo, what's the status of the application to Southwest Florida Water Management District? MR. OCHS: With regard to what project, ma'am? COMMISSIONER HILLER: To all these preservation mitigation bank projects that would have to be submitted to Southwest Florida. MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. As I think we explained the last time we talked about this, we have a consultant on board who has filed an application for a public- mitigation bank at Pepper Ranch with the Army Corps of Engineers. I believe it was explained to the board at that time that that was believed to be the first step, and that the follow -on step would be to file that. Once you get that approval of that prospectus from the Army Corps of Engineer, the South Florida Water Management District approval will follow form, and we will -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: I spoke to Clarence Tears about that, and he said that's not the case. MR. OCHS: No, Commissioner. We can bring them all back here -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're not going down that road anymore. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like that addressed, and I would like to know, by written communication with Southwest Florida, if we can submit that application to them now. And, by the way, yeah, I spoke to someone there at their Page 274 December 13-14,2011 Christmas party, and they said, oh, well, the problem is is that you have cattle grazing on there. And I said no, no, no. We have a clear agreement with the cattle- grazing rancher or the cattle rancher, as the case may be -- I'm not sure there's a grazing rancher -- that his lease would be immediately discontinued once we want to use this for mitigation. MR. OCHS: That's correct, ma'am. If there's any conflict, we have provisions in that lease agreement to -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: And so I would like to know -- I would like written correspondence with them that questions -- can we submit it right now? Because according to my conversation with Clarence, you can't, and it's not pending the Army Corps. In fact, he said it was supposed to go to him first. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We've gone down this road, Commissioner Hiller, and Clarence has been here and said clearly -- MR. OCHS: I'll get you that -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you very much, Leo. I appreciate it. MR. OCHS: Be happy to -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thanks a lot. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- that that is not the case. So do we have public speakers, Ian? MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we've just got one speaker. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. MITCHELL: And I don't actually see her in the audience. It's Pam Brown. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. MITCHELL: She was here yesterday. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then I'll call the question. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. Page 275 December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes 4 -1 with Commissioner Hiller dissenting. Item #13A2 RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY STANDARD FORM LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND SALAZAR MACHINE & STEEL, INC. FOR A PARCEL IMPROVED WITH A 209000 SQUARE -FOOT BUILDING AT IMMOKALEE' S REGIONAL AIRPORT — APPROVED MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to 13A2 on your agenda. It's a recommendation to approve the Collier County Airport Authority Standard Form Lease Agreement between the Collier County Airport Authority and Salazar Machine & Steel, Incorporated, for parcel improved with a 200,000 -- excuse me, 20,000- square -foot building at the Immokalee Regional Airport. Mr. Curry will present. MR. CURRY: Yes, Commissioners. In 2008, the airport applied for a grant with the USDA to construct a 20,000 -foot manufacturing facility at the airport. Part of the grant application was to identify a qualified tenant to occupy the building, and that tenant is Pete Salazar of Salazar Machinery that's here today. Over the past couple years, the airport has gone through the necessary paperwork with the USDA, and the building has been complete at this time as far as the exterior. Page 276 December 13 -14, 2011 The initial specs for the building did not include a build -out to include bathrooms, effective lighting, and other items that would be necessary for that type of business. So, therefore, we have signed a lease with Pete Salazar. The lease is before you. After that lease is signed, it's the intention of the airport to move forward with other build -out that's necessary for the airport -- for the building to function as designed. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This is, indeed, good news. Would it be proper to_ address some questions to Mr. Salazar? Is he available to speak? MR. SALAZAR: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would you come forward, sir? MR. SALAZAR: Good morning. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could you give us a brief history of your operation and the employment factor and where you're planning to go in the future. MR. SALAZAR: Okay. When the first -- the first time the incubator opened in -- at the Immokalee Airport, we were very small business. It was just me and a helper working out of a service truck. And I had goals and dreams of what I wanted to do and how I wanted to grow my business. And so we moved into the incubator there with 2,000 square feet, and I thought that was just way too much room, 2,000 square feet. I says, that's -- I felt like I was just -- I didn't know what to do with it. I was afraid of it. But then things started going and -- good for us, and we started doing things and changing, growing, buying equipment, creating jobs for people, and we -- I had a hard time finding skilled labor in that area, but I also learned that just like anyone, you know, you need to teach them. You need to teach -- you know, duplicate yourself and instill in them the skill. Page 277 December 13 -14, 2011 So I started creating jobs, but I also realized that I was also making an impact and changing lives for these young men that were coming in and applying for work, and that was very rewarding for me as a business owner. Not only are you creating jobs, but you're also changing lives. And it became very successful for us to do that, because typically nobody wants to drive to Immokalee from Fort Myers to Naples to be a machinist or a welder or anything like that. So I said, you know what? I can teach these young men how to -- how to do that. So anyway, this is -- it just start avalanching, just -- our business has just grown tremendously. I mean, we have outgrown our facility. Back in 20071 was just bursting out at the seams. I didn't -- and I just patiently was waiting for our building to be built, hopefully, that, you know, we're using our business plan for getting a USDA grant. And, anyway, it came to a point that we were -- just didn't know what else to do, because we just needed some more room. So I was able to acquire a 20,000- square -foot facility in Hendry County. That helped us tremendously to do -- to continue moving forward. We are still excited. We're still growing. And it's been just wonderful for us, and we just can't wait for this building. I mean, this -- something that just -- I can envision it just opening and just creating more jobs in that area, and having a positive impact in Immokalee. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And how many people do you hire now, and what do you anticipate you'll be having a couple years from now? MR. SALAZAR: Right now we have, like, 15 people working for us. I anticipate, with the new innovation and designs that we are coming up with and the possibility of what may happen -- that I know is going to happen, I envision probably another 50 to 60 people we're going to be hiring in the next few years. I believe that, because I have great plans and big plans for our company to continue growing. Page 278 December 13 -14, 2011 And we want to -- we want to stay in Immokalee. Immokalee is our corporate office. And we have machinery throughout the whole nation, as far west as Oregon, as far north as Canada, and we continue to service, you know, out of this -- out of Immokalee. People ask us, where you from? I say, we're from Immokalee, Florida. They say, where's Immokalee, Florida? That's the first thing they ask. And we show them. They say, really? I say, yeah. So anyway, that's basically what we're doing. We're just excited and we just want to continue growing. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I tell you, we're equally proud of you and what you've accomplished as a local boy made good and offered all sorts of opportunities for many people in Immokalee. And with that, I'd like to make a motion for approval. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second it, but my button doesn't work, so I'd like to just say -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller was first. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh. CHAIRMAN COYLE: But -- okay. We have to do this in sequence. But -- okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Coletta to approve, seconded by Commissioner Fiala. And now we have discussion. Commissioner Hiller, go ahead. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, thank you. A couple of things. It's really commendable, and I want to congratulate you -- MR. SALAZAR: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- you know, for your success. With respect to the build -out, USDA has provided that they're okay with using some of the grant monies to do the build -out, and the county is supposed to provide a match for that build -out. What is the county's contribution towards the build -out costs? Page 279 December 13 -14, 2011 MR. CURRY: Well, the initial money that was put aside for this project was approximately $1.5 million with the USDA funding 495,000 and the county, out of the Immokalee Development Fund, putting up the million. The initial bid for the project came in at about 852,000 minus any of the interior build -out. What we have discussed as far as the interior build -out is that the county and USDA portion would be somewhere around an estimated cost of $340,000. The USDA supplies a third of it; the county supplies two - thirds. In addition to that there's another 200,000 worth of enhancements that Mr. Salazar has indicated that he would like to do for his own personal benefit. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So he's going to make a contribution of 200,000 in tenant improvements? MR. CURRY: Yes. He wished to make additional modifications beyond what the county and USDA has determined we will invest that's good for the airport in general, not specific to any one tenant. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. And that is provided by the USDA that -- the tenant improvement. So you're going to actually invest 200,000 of your own money in that building? MR. SALAZAR: Pretty much, yes. We need to put a lot of offices in our building, and we're -- you know, we envision, I mean, obviously, doing things like that, and maybe -- we need to have storage facility, like a second floor, and we can also build that ourselves, so we -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: How does that affect the requirement by the USDA that this -- that the tenant improvements remain general improvements and that the building not be specifically improved for any tenant and can be usable by future tenants? I mean, I think it's really great he wants to make these improvements, but from what I'm reading what the USDA says, it has to improve the functionality for any current or future tenants. And ff_t December 13-14,2011 regardless of who's making the improvement, I mean, you know, I just want to make sure we're not running afoul of what they're providing. MR. CURRY: We're not. The USDA has approved initially of the enhancements that the airport and the USDA will make for the building. The airport lease requires any modifications that Mr. Salazar would like to be approved by the authority themselves. That's not an interest of the USDA in the case of Mr. Salazar. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. The other question I have is, the USDA, for any tenant that qualifies, requires that current financial statements and income tax returns be provided to the county to ensure that you have the financial wherewithal to pay the lease that you're agreeing to today. I didn't see current financials. I didn't receive them. The ones that I saw dated back to 2004 and 2005, and they were drafts, and there were no tax returns. MR. CURRY: Mr. Salazar qualified as a qualified tenant in 2008; therefore, he supplied those documents at that time to the USDA. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you've already provided all that information? MR. CURRY: What the USDA -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: I didn't see any -- if you can give me -- go ahead and -- MR. CURRY: What the USDA was trying to determine is that he met the qualifications at that time to be eligible for a grant, not necessarily the qualifications to pay the rent, because they had no idea at that time what the rent -- rental rate would be. The Airport Authority established a rental rate for that facility. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And when we qualify tenants for facilities at the airport, do we do any background investigation to make a determination that they have the financial wherewithal to carry the lease? How much are you paying a year, 140,000? Page 281 December 13 -14, 2011 MR. SALAZAR: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER HILLER: 140,000. MR. SALAZAR: For the -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: A year for the property. I mean, normally anyone who leases property, you know, confirms the financial wherewithal of the tenant. Have we done that? MR. CURRY: Yeah, the -- well, the airport has been working through a standardized process to do that. I have not personally done that with Mr. Salazar being that he is a current tenant on the airport that pays rent, and he also has a very large facility in Hendry County. The great thing about this project is that he's able to bring all of those businesses together at Immokalee. So I'm not really concerned about his ability to make the rental payments to the Airport Authority. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Jeff, do we need -- I mean, normally, you know, we usually get financials, or we should get financials and returns on any prospective tenant of a county building. I mean, I don't know what your practice is. Do you do that? I don't know. Crystal, do you have any -- are you familiar with anything regarding -- MS. KINZEL: No. Commissioner, usually that's a program issue that we would reply on the agency or the Airport Authority, and then we would audit that subsequently at a later date. But we do not validate that on a lease agreement for the director of the airport. COMMISSIONER HILLER: What do you do? MR. KLATZKOW: I don't validate that. That's -- it's staff who normally brings a lease with a proposed tenant to the board. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And so we don't have any procedure to validate the creditworthiness of the tenant or -- MR. KLATZKOW: I don't look at the creditworthiness. My office is reviewing the lease for legal sufficiency. COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's it? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. Page 282 December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER HILLER: And as far as legal sufficiency, did you make a determination that there has to be no compliance with any statutory requirement for selecting tenants for any kind of buildings? MR. KLATZKOW: This is a unique situation with the grant. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the grant exempts us from the statutory requirement for -- MR. KLATZKOW: Even if there was that requirement back in 20089 I can't unscramble an egg at this point in time. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So -- MR. KLATZKOW: So if you're raising the issue, should -- back in 2008 or 2007 or 2006, whenever this process started, should we have done some sort of bid process? I'm not going to say yes; I'm not going to say no. I'm just going to say I can't go back in time and do that now. I mean, I can't unscramble an egg. So if that was a requirement back then -- MR. CURRY: We have somewhat of a loose process for new tenants. But for an existing tenant with a proven history, that's not a big issue for the Airport Authority. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Well, I don't agree that that's how business should be done, but it seems to me that you have procedures that need working on. MR. CURRY: I got here in 2010, so -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: I know. So that -- the beautiful thing is you have opportunity. And I'm still not sure about the statutory requirements, that we're not running afoul of it, but that's another issue, and legal has to make that determination. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just want to say that first of all, you're the American Dream, and we are so proud of what you've done. We've watched you grow right from the start. MR. SALAZAR: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And one of the things we really Page 283 December 13 -14, 2011 want to try and accomplish here in Collier County is to move on to be a more business - friendly community, encouraging people to start businesses and to grow and doing what we can to help that along. And you're exactly it, and I'm delighted to see that the airport and the CRA has been working with you in order to further that goal and your goals, and we're just going to keep watching and rooting for you. Thank you, Pete. MR. SALAZAR: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Commissioner Coletta, was that on before? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm done. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion passes unanimously. MR. CURRY: Before I leave, I wanted to issue Commissioner Hiller a brief apology for the misunderstanding that occurred yesterday based on the MPO meeting held in September. I did go back to check the minutes, and the source that Commissioner Hiller was looking at was the Immokalee Area Master Plan, and I was looking at a resolution that dealt with the PUD for the airport. But at the end of the day, the issue with the Colliers has always been, and the conversation has always been to eventually purchase the property at agricultural value, so -- thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Page 284 December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may comment on that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, go ahead. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Back a number of years ago when this came before the Airport Authority, I personally worked with the Colliers, and they made it clear at that point in time that they weren't looking for a gift. They were going to work with the land at agricultural prices. Of course, a lot of water's gone under the bridge there, but I don't think there's ever been any -- any deviation from that particular course. And when it comes back, I'm sure that -- they've got everything to gain by it taking place and everything to lose if it never takes place. So I don't expect they're ever going to change their minds. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I make a comment? CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Manager, where do we go? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Mr. -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Mr. Coyle, may I make a comment? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. May I make a comment? Chris? MR. CURRY: Yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you very much for acknowledging that. I appreciate you coming forward. Could you do me a favor, could you get me a copy of the appraisal that supports the agricultural value of that property at 15,000 an acre as it stands now? Can you get me the copy of the appraisal -- MR. CURRY: I will. COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- that valued it at 15,000 an acre for agriculture? Page 285 December 13-14,2011 MR. CURRY: It was at 12,500. COMMISSIONER HILLER: 12,000, okay. MR. CURRY: And that's the cost that we continue to carry in the JSIP based on agricultural value. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. And with that I think there -- you've got mitigation of another $2 million because of panthers on there -- MR. CURRY: Yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- panther telemetry? MR. CURRY: But the -- you know, the appraisal, really, at this point in time is invalid. I mean, it's too old to really be considered. But the value that we carry is active agricultural. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Maybe we need -- maybe we should get an updated appraisal and change the value on the JSIP and ask for less money from the federal government. MR. CURRY: Well, I think at the time we do an appraisal we need to be prepared to move forward; otherwise, we're spending money on an appraisal that will sit and not be used for any good purpose. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, we've got in -house appraisals -- appraisers. MR. CURRY: We still pay for it. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. County Manager? Item #9Q ADVISORY BOARD VACANCIES — READ INTO THE RECORD MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. That takes us back to Item 9Q on your agenda. It's advisory board vacancies. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Ian. December 13 -14, 2011 MR. MITCHELL: Sir, with the advisory board vacancies, we issued a new press release on December the 7th, and the closing date for this particular press release is on December 28th. Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee has one vacancy; the Collier County Code Enforcement Board has four terms that are expiring in February, so they're classed as vacancies; the Collier County Government Productivity Committee, again, has terms that are expiring in February, so that committee has six vacancies; the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee has one vacancy; the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Committee has two vacancies; the Land Acquisition Advisory Committee has, again, two terms expiring in February, so they're classed as vacancies, and the Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee has one vacancy, and those are the current vacancies. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Where do we go next? Item #I OA RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PROGRAM (NSP) STRATEGY AND ASSOCIATED IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS — MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS — APPROVED MR. OCHS: Next we go to IOA on your agenda. It's a recommendation to approve a Neighborhood Stabilization Program strategy and associated implementation actions, and Ms. Ramsey will present. MS. RAMSEY: Good morning. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning. MS. RAMSEY: The intent of why we're here today is to exit the NSP program by partnering with Habitat for Humanity of Collier Page 287 December 13-14,2011 County to divest the county of ownership of real property that we required during NSP -1, and to operate and execute the NSP -3 program to eliminate Collier County from a hands -on responsibility of the rehabilitation and, further, to ensure that Collier County, through Habitat, fulfills the obligations imposed with the NSP contracts which were executed by the Board of County Commissioners and Housing Urban Development, and disassociate -- we cannot disassociate ourselves from the responsibility, so we have some slides that we want to share with you, if you're ready. As you know, there are two programs. And let's talk a little bit about NSP -1 first. There are four strategies that we have underneath NSP -1. The first is that Collier County has 13 completed or close -to- completed homes. And we've got a number of qualified buyers who we want to work with to see if we can continue to sell those homes to those qualified buyers. And if we can't, then we'll be looking to go out to the MLS listing in order to have some realtors and brokers help us to sell those properties. With those properties, then we will have some program income, which we'll talk about later. The second thing is to transfer the title of the non - rehabilitated homes to Habitat for Humanity, and there are 42 homes that we're talking about here. And why would we want to partner with Habitat? Well, first of all, Habitat has currently been working the NSP -2 program, so they already are familiar with the reporting that goes along with an NSP program. They have staff already in place to help them manage the program; they have eligible buyers that are currently on a waiting list; they don't use term additional mortgaging, so it's easier for them to get people into homes; they actually have rehabilitation money that they can use to put into the properties, and we think that that's a real -- a win -win for all of us to work with them. The next thing that we have is we have six properties that are multifamily that we want to secure a nonprofit for to operate as rental December 13 -14, 2011 housing. We would need to go out and do an RFQ and secure one or more organizations that could help us with that, and we would be looking for nonprofits whose mission already includes something like rental or assistance to people through rental. And then the last item that we have on NSP -1 is that the county will continue to monitor for compliance, because we cannot get out of that side of it. The second program, which is NSP -3, again, we would partner with Habitat to acquire homes or land, and we would then reimburse Habitat for those acquisitions, plus we would give them a developer fee. We would not be funding any of the construction, demolition, or rehabilitation as related to that. Habitat would do that for us. And then Habitat would place an income - qualified person into that home, and the county, again, would monitor for compliance. When we talk about compliance, what we're really talking about is affordability for 15 years as it relates to NSP -3, and affordability and rental monitoring as it relates to NSP -1. So there are three actions that would take place. First of all, because we're modifying our action plan, we would need to come back and amend that action plan. We need to develop that request for qualifications that I mentioned before, and then create a developer agreement. Then because of that, staff would transfer the ownership of all the properties once the conditions required to do so had been met, which would be through either the developer agreement or through the subrecipient agreement, we would sell the properties, as I mentioned before, and we would monitor the income and property disposition, and then staff would be required, again, to monitor for the affordability as well as the rental of the program income. And then when we're done with the entire program, there will be some program income left at the end of the day, which we would then come back to the board at a future date and ask how you would like to December 13 -14, 2011 spend those additional funds. So we have four recommendations: Negotiate that developer agreement with Habitat for Humanity; prepare and amend the NSP- I/NSP -3 action plan and get approval by the board as well as by HUD; develop a new solicitation to designate not - for - profit organizations to own and operate rental housing; and then accept the list of exhibits that I have at the very back of your package which has the list of all the houses that we currently had not brought to you so that we will be able to do that final disposition, whether it's sale or transfer of title. And then I'm ready for questions. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala was first. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I have a few here. Get my glasses on. First of all, down near the bottom of the first page of the packet it says, there is no guarantee that program guidelines, interpretations, or the application of program rules will remain consistent during implementation of the recommended strategy. Can you give -- tell me what that really means. MS. RAMSEY: Yeah. As we've gone along from the very beginning, HUD has made -- has had questions requested of them, and then they've provided answers to those questions. And every time a question comes out, there's a clarification or maybe even a new guideline that we need to follow. And as we go through the program, if there are some new guidelines that we need to address as part of this strategy, we will either be able to monitor them in -house or we'll come back to the board to get direction. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. My second question -- I've got about five questions. My second question is, you talked about NSP -3 funds and saying that when you received those you would buy more houses and then give them to Habitat. December 13-14,2011 MS. RAMSEY: No. We received $3.8 million in the NSP -3 program which we have not touched yet, and the strategy says that Habitat will go out and find the house, purchase the house, then we will reimburse them for the acquisition of that house. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can those NSP -3 funds be used for something other than buying houses? MS. RAMSEY: It's mainly residential on the NSP -3 side of the program. NSP -1 did have some public facilities that you could be using as part of strategy or land bank. So there's land banking and residential on the NSP -3 side. On the NSP -1 there was a little bit more flexibility. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because, you know, I thought we were getting out of that business, to be perfectly honest with you and, in fact, I had understood we were getting out of that business, and there are so many areas that really, I think, these funds could be used for, whether it be to finish the park, you know, Eagle Lakes Community Park community center, and buy that stoplight there which we really, really need, as you all know. Or we could start on the park. What is it called, Big Corkscrew Park or some -- in East Naples -- out in the eastern section there. CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's the Big Coletta Park. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, Coletta Park. It's a much easier way. I can remember it that way. MS. RAMSEY: Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's the one, that's the one. I thought, you know, maybe the funds could be used there. That would be another good place. But you're saying, no, they cannot. MS. RAMSEY: NSP -3 cannot be used for public facilities. NSP -1, as I mentioned, at the end of the day, once we sell the properties, the 13 properties we have, will produce income, and from that we will then come back to the board at a future date and discuss how to use those funds. Page 291 December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh. Well, you can tell that I'm going to be on the top of the list with my hands out, and Commissioner Coletta will be right there with me, I'm sure. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right next to you. Right at the top of the list next to you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, there you go. Okay. Then will we be continuing to offer down - payment assistance to all of the clients that Habitat will be selling to? MS. RAMSEY: We are only going to be involved in the reimbursement of the acquisition of the properties. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No more down - payment assistance? MS. RAMSEY: No, ma'am. That is not part of the developer agreement that we've discussed. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Right now Habitat builds -- right now Habitat builds homes to their standard, which is very low income, but you were going to be building homes that would be bringing it up in standard to kind of like improve. You know, one of the things we do, if we buy only -- or if we keep building only for very low income, we've got a whole area in our community that are underserved, because nobody builds for that -- that income category. And I'm wondering, being that we were going to do that as the county, will Habitat be doing that? Will they be required to build to a higher standard, or are they going to still go for the very, very low? MS. RAMSEY: We will be looking at Habitat and their current mission. Their current expenditures are in the 60 to 50 percent of median family income at the moment. They could go as high as 80, is my understanding. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But they don't do that, right? MS. RAMSEY: I don't -- they may go up to as high as 80, but right now it's 60 and 50. We did sell 20 houses, as you know, and we're going to sell 13 more. Almost all of ours have been 80 percent Page 292 December 13 -14, 2011 and up. COMMISSIONER FIALA: See, that's the thing. That's the category that we need so badly is that 80 to 120 percent for young professionals who are just starting out, young people with families, and it is going underserved, and I was hoping to see these dollars go to serving that population that should also be recognized as needed and -- instead of just the very low. We've got a lot of that around. So I don't know what we do about that. I don't know what we can do about encouraging Habitat to build to a better standard. I know that they can do it -- they do it in other cities; they do it in other counties. And I have some great pictures to show it, not only in Ohio, but also in Idaho. Let's see. We are -- oh, yes. We were going to be -- we were going to be building for teachers, nurses, law enforcement, a quality which right now is hard to find, and that's what I'm trying to encourage here. Okay. I think -- oh, yes. And, also, these things, will investors then be able to buy them up and then turn them around and turn them into rental properties? MS. RAMSEY: And are you talking about the Habitat houses in themselves? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. MS. RAMSEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which right now is happening. MS. RAMSEY: Yeah. Maybe I could have Habitat address that. MS. GRANT: They are here and prepared to speak. MS. RAMSEY: If you would like them to address how they secure the homes to make sure that they stay affordable; is that what you're asking? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, yeah, that they don't -- they don't then -- you know, they can't help when somebody buys a Habitat home and then they -- and they live in it, say, three years and they find Page 293 December 13 -14, 2011 the money somehow to pay off the mortgage and pay off the county, then Habitat has no control over that anymore, because they don't own it anymore, and we don't have any control over it, and then it goes into the hands of speculators or people who are buying low - income rental units, and then they rent them out. And I see a lot -- I've just driven by -- through one of the villages right now where it says "for sale by owner," and there were a couple of them in there. And I thought, are we -- is there anything to tie this to homeownership where they remain the owner, or is there nothing we can do about that? MS. RAMSEY: Habitat over the years has changed some of the documentation. I'll just let them explain what they've done. MS. LEFKOW: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Lisa Lefkow, executive vice president of development for Habitat, and -- certainly can address this issue. We do have in place at this time mechanisms within our mortgage documents to keep homes affordable. For the last ten years or so we've had a silent second mortgage that is enforceable only at resale. That recoups not only our investment in the home, but in addition, the investment that would be equity that is immediately available in selling our homes at our cost with that interest -free mortgage. That has now recently been replaced by a Shared Appreciation Agreement. That mechanism does stay in place and keeps the house affordable for the lifetime of the mortgage. If the house was to sell, we do have also the right of first refusal, so we would enforce that. Certainly families can sell their homes. They purchase their home. We -- they have the right to do that. But in order to sell their home and repay not only their original cost of purchasing the home but also that Shared Appreciation Agreement, it would be -- it would be both a return on your investment and on our investment. And, honestly, I can also tell you that it is in a very rare Page 294 December 13 -14, 2011 case that we have conversations with families who are desiring to sell their house or leave their house in any way. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just looked it up, and there are quite a few that -- where one speculator has bought a number of homes. And as I said, I was driving through just one of your villages, and there were "for sale" signs on the property. So, I mean, you can only go so far. I'm not criticizing you any. I was just asking if there's anything we can do about it, because the more it goes into rental, the more the community changes, let me just put it that way. MS. LEFKOW: Sure, Commissioner, if I can address that. We are aware that there are a couple of houses that have sold on the open market. Those -- and I believe we're talking about a house in Victoria Falls that you may have driven by that has a "for sale" sign on it. We're very aware of what's happening with that situation and with that homeowner. There are two houses in that neighborhood that have sold to an investor. Those were houses that -- again, prior to our Shared Appreciation Agreement, prior to the boom in the housing market and what has been the result of the housing market here in Collier County and particularly as it has impacted low and very low income families. We did have two families that -- as I say, this is prior to the Shared Appreciation Agreement -- lost their -- refinanced their house. They paid us off. They paid you off. They refinanced through a predatory lender and were taken advantage of. Again, we had not a protection in place to protect them from that. And they eventually, over the course of the next year, lost their homes to foreclosure, being unable to repay that ballooning mortgage. So we did work with the investor that purchased those. Obviously, they are a part of our homeowners' association. And they were very aware and had to go through an application process with our homeowners' association. They must continue to maintain their Page 295 December 13 -14, 2011 home to our HOA standards and abide by rules and examine regulations as well as pay homeowners' association dues in those two homes that, again, are rental. Now -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: There were a few more. I was amazed to see that -- you know, I knew that there was some kind of a mortgage scam going on. Again, you have nothing to do with this. I'm just telling you what was existing. I'm not pointing the finger at all -- MS. LEFKOW: Understood. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- an accusing finger. But I was amazed that one of the mortgage companies paid $220,000 for one of those houses and, obviously, the people went into foreclosure and it was taken, and then it was sold on the open market. One of them -- I saw four that -- on one report. One of them sold for $10,000 on the open market. And I worry about that because then, as I've mentioned before, when a bail bondsman went in to get somebody out that had skipped bail -- and they went very early in the morning, obviously -- and 27 people were living in that place. That's not good for -- MS. LEFKOW: Yes, Commissioner. You mentioned that to me before, and I asked you for some specifics on that, and you were not able to provide that to me. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I asked the bail -bond person, and that person said -- because that person was involved in the pickup, but I guess it's against the law to say anything. But, anyway -- but things like that happen, and they degrade a community. And what I'm trying to do here is try and elevate it so that we serve a population that right now nobody serves. And are you going to do that? MS. LEFKOW: Our mission, based on our partnership and our covenant with Habitat with Humanity International -- as is with every Habitat affiliate worldwide -- is to serve the population that is making Page 296 December 13 -14, 2011 60 percent and below of the area median income. That is our -- that is our mission. We are able to serve families up to 80 percent. And we've talked to county staff about how to engage that as a part of our mission. It would need to come as a stipulation from you or from the housing department in our partnership, and we have talked about incorporating that language into the developer agreement so that we can be blessed by Habitat for Humanity International in this exception in serving population up to 80 percent of area median income. It is our -- it is our mission to break the cycle of poverty through homeownership. This provides an opportunity for families to build equity and to have resources that would otherwise not be available as they're caught in a cycle of renting. So that is absolutely our mission, and breaking that cycle of poverty, elevating the lifestyle and the abilities of families, providing educational opportunities in a solid foundation, particularly for the next generation. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I understand that. I'm just concerned about that underserved portion, the 80 to 100 percent. Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I mean, I have concerns similar to Commissioner Fiala. You know, one of the statements made at the beginning was that you have a list of individuals waiting to buy these homes. But I read the CAPER, and I am going to introduce this as an exhibit. And what the CAPER states is that, for example, with respect to one project, Regal Acres, which I believe is one of your projects -- that's what they say -- out of 185 homes completed, you've got only 33 homes occupied to date. So you need to be filling these homes up first. I mean, it doesn't give me the confidence that you've got a waiting list of individuals Page 297 December 13 -14, 2011 who need these homes when I see these many units unsold, and that concerns me greatly. The second issue is more generally. I also agree with Commissioner Fiala about the fact that, you know, as a matter of policy -- because it doesn't seem that we are effective or competent, if you will, at administering these kind of programs that we were not going to deal with these kind of programs. So, you know, I'm questioning, as she does, why are we going through NSP -3, which is part of the NSP program -- and, quite frankly, my understanding is NSP -1 and NSP -3 in terms of what you can do with those funds is the same. It's just another phase of the same NSP program. So, you know, we don't want to be in the acquisition or the improvement or the sale of these kind of properties. And so I guess I'm not understanding why we're pursuing NSP -3 given the board's decision not to engage in that, because we're not good at it. The other thing is, to the extent if a decision were to be made to accept these funds, I absolutely do not understand why we would not be looking at where the greatest need is. To say that we are going to look at areas where the index score is not less than a certain number when we have areas that clearly are twenties, and in the opinion of HUD, warranting the most support, that's where you target, okay. You don't start scaling back and moving to areas that need less. But, again, I still am not sure that we should even be moving forward with NSP -3. With respect to the current NSP program that is active, several options were presented. One is no change; the other is procuring a for - profit developer to administer construction; three is to procure a for - profit developer construction estimator and realtor to operate; four is return the funds to HUD; and five is reprogram the funding to other NSP - eligible uses. I mean, there are other NSP - eligible uses which don't involve the acquisition, the refurbishing or the sales of December 13 -14, 2011 properties. For example, assisting with, you know, soft seconds. As you pointed out, that is something that the county could actually do with the funds and thereby help individuals, who would otherwise maybe not qualify, get financial support to be able to buy properties that are already for sale. I mean, they would, you know, help to buy homes maybe in this established market, you know, the -- you know, 150 unsold homes in Regal Acres, okay. We don't need to add to the inventory of what's already there. The other issue is that we could put it out to bid and let organizations like the organization that helps disabled individuals -- tell me again the formal -- I hate to butcher the title of your organization. MR. GLENN: The Foundation for the Developmentally Disabled. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. The Foundation for the Developmentally Disabled, for example, would have the opportunity to bid on some of these homes, acquire these homes, and use them to house the developmentally disabled, as another example. Returning the funds to HUD is also an option if we want to get out of the program completely, as the board has indicated that it wants to do. So -- and then, you know, lastly, the option of putting it out to bid and getting a private entity to get this done is, you know, the last option which we haven't contemplated in this discussion. So I'm just not sure that at the end of the day we want to add to the inventory. I think what we want to do is facilitate the reduction of the inventory by getting people housed to the extent that people need help with getting housed. It seems like the houses are there. So I'm concerned about NSP -3, and I'm concerned about the administration and the farming out of NSP -1 and how we do it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning? Page 299 December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where is this Regal Acres that everybody's talking about? MR. KOULOHERAS: Good morning, Commissioners. Nick Kouloheras, executive vice president of land development construction for Habitat for Humanity of Collier County. And that's an excellent question. Regal Acres is a subdivision of 184 homes located on the East Trail off of -- one mile north of U.S. 41. So the back entrance to Fiddler's Creek, if any of you know that, it's about three miles east of Collier Boulevard, take a left on Greenway Road, head a mile up that road, and it's on the west side of the road. COMMISSIONER HENNING: How many people do you have waiting to purchase Habitat homes? MR. KOULOHERAS: Well, I will tell you last year alone we received just over a thousand applications for homeownership, and last year alone, we -- well, let's see. As of December 30th we'll have closed 101 homes in Collier County, including Immokalee. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you have people waiting for MR. KOULOHERAS: Oh, yes, yeah. We're actually -- we used to be right ahead of the curve as far as applicants coming in the door and where our construction was, and actually now we're slightly behind the curve. We are receiving anywhere from 10 to 12, 15 applicants that come through our selection process and are qualified to purchase homes every month. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, it seems to me that NSP grants were there to take some of these abandoned foreclosed homes off the market. And if you have approximately 15 per month that do qualify, that's -- that's approximately 160, 165 per year. You have plenty of people to fulfill not only the grant, but more than enough to occupy the homes that the county owns by far. I don't -- I know in 34120, 3417 (sic), 34116, there are plenty of Page 300 December 13 -14, 2011 homes. And watching the work that you do in Golden Gate City is -- far exceeds what the county has done with their homes. They have to comply to, Commissioners, the Florida Building Code, correct? No matter who is doing it. And the county's requirements, you've got to have all kinds of requirements. I don't know -- I know that some of the commissioners have problems with Habitat, but this is the way to get some of these affordable projects out of East Naples, okay, in areas. Our civic association has no problem with Habitat because they understand how they communicate with their customers on a monthly basis and train those people for -- to be a good civic member. I don't -- I think the proposal is great, and I am going to support the proposal. The only question I have is, why does it have to be a not - for - profit organization to assume ownership of the rental properties? MS. RAMSEY: Well, Commissioner, we targeted nonprofits because we've had at least two different nonprofits come to us and say that part of their mission is to put some of their clients, people that they work within -- into rental properties. And it's one way for the -- them to get a property for -- fairly inexpensively, because we will be donating it to their organization. And then at the end of the day, it's the monitoring of the program income. We will need to monitor the rent to make sure that the rent does not exceed the cost of the actual building. There can be no profit, so to speak. Stay there -- any profit would need to come back to the county so we really don't want profit because that becomes problematic for us, and so that's why we've picked a nonprofit whose mission is not to make money. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, again, you have -- we still have a lot of vacant and foreclosed homes in the county, and what was the purpose of it, and I support staffs recommendations. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta? Page 301 December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just want to smooth out a little bit of what we've just been talking about. And, Commissioner Henning, I agree with everything you said, and I'm right there, too. The concern is, of course, by one commissioner that there is an overabundance of homes in one area of the county. Is this going to be fairly distributed throughout the county, what we're looking at? MS. RAMSEY: The homes from NSP -1 are spread all over the place. I actually have a map, if you'd like to see. There are not that many in East Naples. There are a few, but most of them do fall in Golden Gate City. And then when we come back with that developer agreement, we will look at the targeted areas again, as Commissioner Hiller has recommended, because we are going to make a change to our action plan. So we can change the ZIP codes or the census tract areas that we look at to see where it is today where maybe there's more or less foreclosures, and we can make some adjustments to that to make sure that we're hitting the, you know, specific areas of need. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, one of the issues that was brought up, and it was a valid concern, was our original direction was to try to, especially with the foreclosed homes, to try to put people in it up to the 80 percent income percentage within the county to be able to make it a little more universal. Is that a possibility that this could be part of the agreement for the homes that have to be renovated? MS. RAMSEY: Well, again, our original action plan did allow us to go up to 120 percent, but there was a requirement 25 percent of the funding has to serve the 50 percent or below. So we did have a requirement to stay there in that very low income as well as, but then we could go up as high as 120. And as you've heard Habitat say, that they're comfortable with going up to the 80 percent. And don't forget, I've already put 20 people into the homes. I have 13 more to put in, and almost all of them are in the 80 to 120 area. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. Well -- and the reason, Page 302 December 13 -14, 2011 too -- and I -- at the very beginning when we got into this home program, I always thought that Habitat would be the vendor that we should have by choice. It didn't work out at the county level. I don't think we had the expertise to be able to run the program right. Habitat is a great organization in the fact that they have a very small paid staff. The volunteer effort that takes place within the organization is absolutely phenomenal. Commissioner Henning and I were both present recently when they got a grant for a half million dollars from Wells Fargo, was it? Very impressive. And then I was congratulating on them and they said, well, not too long ago we got one for a million dollar. And this is all from corporate donors. So when you not only have the combination of large corporate donors out there willing to put their money on the line to be able to better the community, along with an overabundance of free labor, absolutely phenomenal. If you've never been on a Habitat building site and participated in the 'raising of walls, you ought to do it at least once in your life. It's an experience that is extremely rewarding in the fact that you can do something you never thought you could do, and you become part of a bigger element. And I very much -- was that a motion you made, Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I'll make a motion. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And I'll second that motion. And thank you very much for what you do, and I hope we can get to where we need to be. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the motion is staff s recommendation; is that essentially what you're doing, Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, and incorporate the percentage that we just discussed as far as to reach the -- MS. RAMSEY: Up to 80 percent. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Up to 80 percent. Page 303 December 13 -14, 2011 CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I'd like for you to consider a friendly amendment. As Marla has indicated, there are some funds that are likely to remain at the end of this extrication from this program. Is there any way, Marla, to use those funds to benefit targeted portions of our population at a higher level? Can you suggest later, as an update to the program, how some of those funds might be able to target qualified people up to 120 or perhaps even slightly higher? MS. RAMSEY: Are you talking about the program income as it relates to NSP -1 ? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. That's where you've got the most flexibility. MS. RAMSEY: Correct. MR. OCHS: Commissioner, we have to come back to you with several of those amendments, and we will address that as part of the trip back to the board with the amendment -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. OCHS: -- to the action plan. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Then we've got a motion to approve by Commissioner Henning and second by Commissioner Coletta. MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we do have some public speakers. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I understand. And staff has agreed to come back with updates to this program. This is a complex process, and I would expect we'll have updates periodically throughout the entire process. Okay. How many public speakers do we have? MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we've got five public speakers. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's call the first public speaker. MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker is David Glenn. MR. GLENN: Thank you. Good morning, Commissioners. My name is David Glenn. I'm the executive director of the Foundation for Page 304 December 13 -14, 2011 the Developmentally Disabled, and I'm speaking today in favor of an NSP strategy that does include nonprofits in the picture. Our organization's been working very diligently over the last few years to build our capacity to provide more housing options for adults with developmental disabilities, which is who we serve. We also offer a number of other programs and services. But the biggest concern that comes from a lot of our families is what's going to happen when I pass away and my son or daughter with the disability, where are they going to live? Who's going to help them? Who's going to take care of them? So we've been working very, very hard on this for a long time and feel like this opportunity through the NSP program is a wonderful one, a partnership with the county where we can then have a couple of homes that we can immediately make available to families and, longer term, we intend to expand that footprint even further so that we can offer supported care right -- the first opportunity available would be for people with -- who could live a little bit more independently, and we would provide some basic support, but we would love to see down the road more support in the community, and we're building towards that. So I just would -- wanted to let you know a little bit about the foundation, what our interest was. I do appreciate that staff, over the last several months, has been talking to us quite a bit and listening to our ideas, and so I'm just pleased that this is part of the proposal, again, that this can be a win for the county as well as nonprofits and citizens in need. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. Commissioner Coletta would like to ask you a question. I guess Commissioner Hiller does, too. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I understand exactly what the mission is. I've been working with your organization off and on for a number of years. Page 305 December 13 -14, 2011 Like you said, when the elderly -- when the people become elderly, the person that's disabled -- and we're talking about all sorts of disabilities. It's not just a mental disability. It's physical disabilities. It's any number of things. What do you do with those children? And it's something that there seems to be no particular answer. Your foundation's done a tremendous job of bringing everybody together. Now, I believe that staff has identified up to six particular duplexes that could be used for this purpose; is that correct? MR. GLENN: That's correct. There are -- I believe there are six properties as part of this proposal, and they'll be putting out an RFQ to, not just our -- for our organization but, of course, for other nonprofits to also put in applications as well. We're looking at at least two properties that we're particularly interested in, and then we're also exploring up to, you know, six, the full six as well. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's wonderful. Now, I guess the question I've got, is this included in our -- the motion we just made? MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. MS. RAMSEY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That includes all that. MS. RAMSEY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Great. I'm fine. Thank you so much for being here today. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, did you have a statement or question about this specific question? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I absolutely support what you do, and you know I've been a supporter of yours, and I'm coming to your event to show my support again. MR. GLENN: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: You really make a significant contribution to the community and, quite frankly, more houses -- you Page 306 December 13 -14, 2011 know, these duplexes is just a drop in the bucket of what we need to support these individuals who, quite frankly, otherwise, potentially could be on the street. So I'm very concerned about that, and I think the emphasis needs to be more in your direction. The other thing I will say is -- and, again, and this goes to the other issue -- is that we need to help the people acquire these properties. You know, the properties are already there. They're unsold. The demand appears to be less than the supply given the volume in that one project that's evidenced as unsold. We need to help the people like your people get into the existing homes, and that's how the program needs to be used. So I really have my reservations, because I think the objectives are wrong. Again, it -- you know, you're looking at supply, you're looking at demand. We need to stimulate the demand, do what we can to help these people get in the homes. We don't need more homes. We need to get people into the homes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER HILLER: And we've got the homes. They're already there for you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are these the six duplexes over here on Gilchrist? MR. GLENN: All of the duplexes that I -- Marla may want to discuss that. There are six that I've seen in the Golden Gate City area. MS. RAMSEY: They're in the Golden Gate City area. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. Are they close to a bus place? That's -- MR. GLENN: Yeah. Again, the one that we'd seen -- and the two properties in particular that we had initially sort of zeroed in on are very close to public transportation, local businesses, and shopping. It was one of the things that was very appealing to us about the homes themselves. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm chairman of the Transportation Page 307 December 13 -14, 2011 Disadvantaged, as you well know. MR. GLENN: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And so I just wanted to make sure that they would be able to get to -- sometimes these people just need to be able to get away and try and get to a workplace or whatever. Second one is, have you ever communicated with Habitat, being that was just one village where they have 150 available? But they've got -- in East Naples, anyway, they've got a few more villages, and there are available properties in them as well. Have you talked with them about taking some of your developmentally disabled and maybe working out some kind of arrangement being that a lot of their homes are volunteer. built as well as donated sections of them? Maybe they could help you out at a greatly reduced price to get places for your people. MR. GLENN: Yes, ma'am. We have been participating with Habitat and county staff in some of the discussions over the last several months. And we haven't talked about a specific proposal along those lines, but I think we're -- certainly from the Foundation's standpoint, we're looking to partner with as many organizations in the community as we can because, again, the need is so great. So we want to make sure that we explore every opportunity, and we can do that with Habitat or any other organization. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And, again, there's bus service by them, so thank you. MR. GLENN: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're going to take a ten - minute break for the court reporter. We'll be back here at 10:40. (A brief recess was had.) MR. SHEFFIELD: You have a live mic. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we're back in session. We'll continue with the public speakers. Call the next public December 13-14,2011 speaker, please. MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Lisa Lefkow. MS. LEFKOW: I'll waive. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've already spoken. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I actually -- do you mind if I have Lisa come up to the podium anyway, because we want to -- I want to bring a couple of things out. We had the opportunity to speak over the break, and we had some very interesting conversation. First thing is, the statistics that I pulled of the -- and I'll read you exactly what it says. And this was in a report published by the county called a CAPER, which is the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report on the housing program. And staff in their report specifically stated that a total of 185 homes have been completed. In Habitat for Humanity's Regal Acres to date, 33 homes are occupied. As it turns out, staff made an incorrect statement. That isn't the case. That development is qualified to develop 185 homes, but only 33 homes have been built to date. And Lisa made that qualification and clarification, so our CAPER, in fact, is incorrect, and the conclusion that I drew based on the facts published by staff obviously are wrong because these facts are wrong. That being said, there still is an additional qualification that needs to be made, and it's very significant, and that is that while Lisa had represented that they had all these applicants, there is demand, but it doesn't qualify. There isn't the qualifying demand that we need to fill these homes. So what we need to do is everything possible to help these people who don't qualify to get into the existing inventory of homes that's out there. And so Lisa and I were talking about NSP -3 money, and it doesn't do us any good to continue buying and rehabbing homes if we can't get people to qualify to buy them. Page 309 December 13 -14, 2011 One of the obstacles to qualifying to buy is income, but that can be offset if the down payment made on the acquisition of these homes is larger. So if you take that NSP -3 money and, for example, put it towards assisting purchasers of Habitat homes to have a larger down payment, notwithstanding their lower income, they would then be able to qualify to buy those Habitat homes which, quite frankly, they're not qualified to buy now because they don't have enough income. So my recommendation on the NSP side is not to -- and since the application for the program has to be changed by the county anyway given the transition that we're going through with the program, to basically recommend that these funds not be used for the acquisition and the redevelopment of homes but rather to be used for financing, for secondary financing for down - payment assistance to assist in the acquisition of all the homes that Habitat has for sale so we can increase the number of qualified Habitat buyers. And Lisa was agreeable with that, it is something that's permissible under the NSP program, and it could even help to acquire the homes the county has for sale that Habitat would be taking over to finish the redevelopment and then the resale of those homes. So that's what we need to do. We need to help with the acquisition of the properties, because they're doing a great job getting the product on the market but there is a problem getting qualified buyers, and that's what Lisa and I talked about. And so I want to put forth that as a modification to what's on the table now with respect to the NSP -3 funding. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that's exactly the reason we're in the financial difficulties we're in with the housing market. Government taxed our tax dollars subsidizing down payments for people who can't qualify to buy a home. Guess who winds up holding the bag? Same people who are holding -- I'm speaking, Commissioner Hiller -- the same people who are holding the bag right now. If people can't qualify for the home, we shouldn't force them into Page 310 December 13 -14, 2011 it, because they're going to fail. We should find a less- expensive home for them. We should provide a rental opportunity for them. We should serve the need. But having the government provide no- down - payment loans for people who cannot meet the basic financial qualifications to purchase the home is about the worst thing we could ever do. So I would encourage you to look at other opportunities for those people who can't qualify for those homes and help them get housing some way that they can afford. It is devastating to a person who doesn't have much money to be thrown out of their home because they can't make the payments. And we have too much of that happening right now, and I'm certainly not going to be part of perpetuating that kind of program. So I would vigorously oppose anything along those lines. Commissioner Henning is next. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, well, we have enough votes for the motion on there. But Lisa, or I think Nick told me -- one of you told me that you had enough qualified, okay. COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. MS. LEFKOW: Yeah. If I might respond. We certainly do have enough qualified. We have more than enough qualified buyers for our program. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MS. LEFKOW: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We just heard that you didn't. MS. LEFKOW: We absolutely do. What Commissioner Hiller and I were talking about was being able to expand qualified -- there are people who do not qualify for our program. People that make more than 60 percent of area median income do not qualify. People that make less than about $18,000 a year do not qualify because they cannot successfully -- as you have exactly pointed out, cannot successfully make those mortgage payments. And the last thing we Page 311 December 13 -14, 2011 want to do is to set anybody up for failure. So there are folks that do not qualify for the purchase of a Habitat for Humanity home, for which there are other programs or other organizations that might provide assistance, the rental community, Section 8 housing, things like this. These are appropriate programs. But, yes, indeed, Commissioner Henning, we do have more than enough qualified candidates for the number of homes that we're able to build with the funding mechanisms that we currently have in place. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Commissioner Hiller does make up -- make a good point, but the -- what you have stated is what I understand; you have enough qualified people for these funds. So my motion stays -- stands. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's call the next speaker. COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I finish my -- I'd like to respond to what you said, Commissioner Coyle. Commissioner Coyle, you obviously don't understand how financing works. If the down payment is increased, then the payments on the balance that remain will reduce because you're amortizing a lower amount. So obviously by increasing the down - payment assistance, you put these people in a position where they're making payments where they actually can afford because now they qualify. So your statement is incorrect. To put someone in a home where they don't qualify based on income and down payment, obviously, is a problem. What we're doing here is by increasing the down payment, you are actually reducing what they would have to pay monthly because you're amortizing less over the same period of time. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That is the perfect socialist answer to housing. So call the next -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: To all you liberals out there -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let's just go onto the next speaker. COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- vote for me. Page 312 December 13 -14, 2011 MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Nick Kouloheras. MR. KOULOHERAS: Thank you. Nick Kouloheras. I'll just be very brief. I just wanted to say thank you to the commission and thank you to the staff, Marla and Kim and her staff, Buddy and Megan here. This is not an easy task that has been given them to get out of this program, and it's not easy because of all the mechanisms and all the facets of the program, and especially dealing with a federal agency like HUD. So that's all. I just wanted to say thank you for your time and thank you to the staff for letting us be part of the conversation. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. MR. MITCHELL: Sir, the chairman of the Affordable Housing Committee has asked if he can just address the board. He asked after the item had started, so I need your permission to call him. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. This will be the last speaker? MR. MITCHELL: It is, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you. MR. HRUBY: Good morning. I'm Stephen Hruby. I chair your Affordable Housing Advisory Committee. I've done it for three years now. I also have a day job, and it is involved in this business. I do strategic planning and housing policy, planning and program management for municipal governments and agencies across the country. That's my specialty, and this is a topic that's very near and dear to my heart. When we heard your comments about the NSP program -- and we, as our committee, have been monitoring to make sure that it was following the plan that was submitted to HUD and meeting its goals. When we heard your concerns, we looked into it and formed a subcommittee, which I also chaired, and spent a good, fair amount of time. I think we had four subcommittee meetings, half -day meetings, work sessions. Page 313 December 13 -14, 2011 Staff was present as well. We went through all the various options, the ones that you talked about earlier, all the way from reviewing the existing program and how we could modify it internally, could it work, hiring an outside consultant, the program manager to manage it internally, outsourcing it to a private developer or to a nonprofit. So those are probably about four options we talked about. We also did talk about giving the money back, which had some negative implications to us. We came up with a -- the recommendation of our subcommittee, which has parallelled what staff has presented to you, with one notable exception. We believe that the program income, anything that comes back into the county, needs to be earmarked for affordable and workforce housing production or preservation. That's very much along your discussion, Commissioner Coyle. We don't want to see this kind of dwindle off into other uses. It should be earmarked to serve people in need of housing. We took this on Monday to our full committee, vetted it, discussed it in the public, had comments, and passed a resolution supporting the staff s recommendation with that caveat that the program income be targeted to workforce and affordable housing preservation and production. So I just wanted to -- the committee asked me to come before you and give the support and inform you that we had passed that resolution. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. Appreciate your support. MR. HRUBY: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hruby. With regards to that, we have -- for instance, I want a community Page 314 December 13 -14, 2011 center in the Eagle Lakes Community Park, and that's specifically for the families who live in -- like, for instance, Habitat owns about, you know, my goodness, at least 40 percent of the houses in Naples Manor, and they have four other villages, but there's no community center for these kids to go to, no programs after school, no summer programs, because we don't have a community center. So even though this wouldn't buy homes, it would then support the homes that have already qualified and have children in them, but the children don't have a place to go. If a kid gets hit in the head with a baseball, for instance, over at Eagle Lakes Community Park, they don't even have an attendant there, because an attendant can't be assigned there full time because there's no place to put them. So I would like to make an exception with that and say that it would be great to put it -- to help the kids that we're already putting into homes. And -- MR. HRUBY: I understand and I sympathize with that. I'm just reporting what our committee felt the best use of those funds. And the role and the goal of NSP was to preserve homes and put people in affordable homes targeting to that. That was all -- that was the committee's recommendation. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Well, I just wanted to say on the record, you know -- MR. HRUBY: We did discuss other potential purposes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, good. Okay. And then the second thing is, would the motion maker and the second consider adding to their motion that we have Habitat build to the portion of the community that right now they can't serve even -- because they can't qualify because they make too -- they make over 60 percent? Could -- and right now if we say up to 80 percent, that could still mean 40 percent. Could we say between 60 and 120, or 80 between (sic) 120, which is where we were supposed to be going with the Page 315 December 13 -14, 2011 county, originally to serve a section of the population that is now underserved and there's nobody in the county serving them. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I understand their charter limits them to 80 percent. Is that -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sixty percent. And they're coming back with 80 percent. MR. OCHS: And that was part of the motion -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. MS. RAMSEY: That was part of the motion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: It was. MR. OCHS: -- to go as -- to go up to 80. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but up to 80 can mean 30, right? MS. RAMSEY: Could I get this on? Just for clarification again, 25 percent of the funds that we receive have got to be used to serve the low income, which are the 50 percent and below. And so part of the funds that are going to Habitat are going to help us with that. So they do have to provide housing to the 50 percent below in order for us to meet that standard. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So to address Commissioner Fiala's concern, though, can the remaining 50 percent be specifically identified for housing between 50 and 80 percent? MS. RAMSEY: Yes. I believe that that's what -- the developer agreement will come back and -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, at 80 percent. MS. RAMSEY: -- it will say up to 80 percent, and then we will work with Habitat as to what those numbers are. I don't like to put us in a tight box, because tight boxes make it very difficult for us to make compliance. So I want to have some flexibility in that, and I think that Habitat and everything that we've discussed so far is comfortable with up to 80 percent. Page 316 December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. But up to 80 percent still doesn't mean 80 percent, and right now, as Lisa herself said, she has people that do not qualify because they make over 60 percent. And so couldn't that other 65 percent here be targeting those between -- over 60 percent to 80 percent, so at least they can -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- sell to more people within the community who right now go unserved? COMMISSIONER HENNING: This is coming back, the developer agreement is coming back, and we can put language in there asking Habitat for Humanity to target the 80 percent. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think we need to do this right now, right? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. It's coming back, Commissioner. MS. RAMSEY: I can't tell you how many of the houses would have to be 80, how many would have to be 60. And this is something I have to discuss with Habitat to find out if it's feasible, because their mission isn't exactly that, and their lower -- they're able to accommodate us to help us with this issue. So I will bring it back, and we'll get you some numbers. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning, do you want to speak again, or can I call the question? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Call the motion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. Page 317 December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It's opposed by Commissioner Hiller. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And Fiala. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Fiala. It passes 3 -2. COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I -- I have the information that Commissioner Fiala wants. Can I read it to you? It says, at least 25 percent of the state's NSP funds must be used for purchase and redevelopment of homes and properties that will be affordable for individuals and families with incomes not greater than 50 percent of the area median income. All properties funded with NSP dollars must be affordable to households earning 120 percent of area median income or less. Rental and for -sale properties will be required to remain affordable for at least 20 years. So that's another thing. I mean, if this is going to really have effect, we need to make sure there is a deed restriction that provides that these, you know, remain affordable, if that's the intent. And also, the intent of this program is neighborhood stabilization, meaning chiefly through the acquisition, developing of already foreclosed -upon properties that might otherwise become abandoned or blighted. So that's the objective of the plan. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. County Manager, where do we go from here? Item #IOC RECOMMENDATION TO DIRECT THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO ADVERTISE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COLLIER COUNTY CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE, ORDINANCE NO. 2001 -139 AS AMENDED, TO INCORPORATE A PROVISION CLARIFYING Page 318 December 13 -14, 2011 THE IMPOSITION OF WATER AND SEWER IMPACT FEES ON GEOGRAPHIC AREAS IN THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER - SEWER DISTRICT UNTIL SUCH TIME WHEN CONNECTION TO THE REGIONAL WATER AND /OR SEWER SYSTEM IS ANTICIPATED WITHIN A TEN -YEAR PERIOD AS IDENTIFIED BY THE MOST CURRENT PUBLIC UTILITIES WATER AND WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATES AND THE ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY REPORT — APPROVED MR. OCHS: Go to Item IOC on your agenda. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that's a recommendation to direct the County Manager or his designee to advertise an ordinance amending the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance No. 2001 -18, as amended, to incorporate a provision clarifying the imposition of water and sewer impact fees on geographic areas within the Collier County Water /Sewer District until such time when connection to the regional water and/or sewer system is anticipated within a ten -year period as identified by the most - recent current public utilities water and wastewater master plan updates in the Annual Update and Inventory Report. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning -- oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Coletta has a motion to approve the staff s recommendations. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And seconded by Commissioner Fiala. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, just one question. Leo and I had a discussion about the added capacity that -- or the extra capacity we have in our water and sewer district. Did you get an answer on that? Page 319 December 13-14,2011 MR. OCHS: I'm still working on that, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And Mr. Wides wouldn't know that -- oh, Mr. Yilmaz might. And the question was -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- we have, approximately, 40 percent overcapacity of water and sewer; is that correct? MR. WIDES: Commissioner, for the record, Tom Wides, Operations Director. As it stands today, when we did our last update of the rate studies and the master plans, we showed it at an average as opposed to at peak, we had approximately 40 percent of capacity available. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What about peak? MR. WIDES: In peak periods it's much lower, and I don't have the exact number. I -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is it half? Is it half, like 20 percent? MR. WIDES: Oh, it's probably -- I'd be speculating at that, but it's much lower. I couldn't tell you exactly what that number is. We can find that out. MR. OCHS: That's why I haven't gotten back to you yet, because we were trying to get the peak number locked down. MR. WIDES: Right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. All right. MR. OCHS: I will have that for you shortly, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm done with my question. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. Page 320 December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes unanimously. MR. WIDES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that 10D next, Commissioner -- or County Manager? Item #I OD RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AN EXCEPTION TO THE PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION'S PROCEDURE FOR ADJUSTMENTS TO CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS TO CORRECT EXISTING RECLAIMED WATER BILLING ITEMS, AND TO DIRECT THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO IMPLEMENT STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION — APPROVED MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. 10D is a recommendation to approve an exception to the public utilities division's procedure for adjustments to customer accounts, to correct existing reclaim water billing items, and direct the County Manager or designee to implement staff s recommended actions. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just have one question. MR. OCHS: Just one question, George. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Yilmaz, this item, are we not -- we're not collecting for the past; we're moving forward? Is that basically the ordinance? MR. YILMAZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or the executive summary? MR. YILMAZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Then I make a motion to approve. Page 321 December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Henning to approve, second by Commissioner Coletta. All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good job, Beth. MR. YILMAZ: Thank you. MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners. That takes us to Item -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great speech. Item #I OE RECOMMEND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACCEPT THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN (WMP) AND DIRECT THE COUNTY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO IMPLEMENT WMP INITIATIVES UTILIZING EXISTING STAFF AND BUDGET — MOTION TO APPROVE W /MODIFICATIONS TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND DIRECTING THE CHAIRMAN TO WRITE A LETTER TO THE GOVERNOR FOR ADDITIONAL SUPPORT — APPROVED MR. OCHS : Yes, if they all went that well. IOE is a recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to accept the Watershed Management Plan and direct Page 322 December 13 -14, 2011 the County Manager or designee to implement the WMP initiatives utilizing existing staff and existing budget. CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many speakers do we have? MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have five speakers. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. How many people in the audience are opposed to the staff s recommendation on this item? MS. HUSHON: I have an addition. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, one clarification. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute. We have a motion. I've got to act on the motion first. Motion to approve by Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I can't second it until I hear what additions they're talking about. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I withdraw my motion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The motion's withdrawn. Go ahead, Nick. Commissioner Henning, did you get anything, or do you want anything here? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I do. I want a whole bunch. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Save it till the end, all right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Am I going to start, Commissioner? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. First of all, thank you. Plan's been a long time coming. There's been a lot of people involved in the plan, and I'd like to report that it was under - budget, although not on time. It was a long, drawn -out process, and it had to go on for quite a while. We actually returned a little bit of money out of the project. There are four pillars in Collier County, as you know; utility, water /sewer; your land use; your transportation; and what I call your Page 323 December 13-14,2011 natural resources, water. And it's becoming more important on a daily basis, and especially in the long term. I don't know if any of you are familiar with the water wars that happened in Hillsborough County, Tampa, where the city's municipalities and the unincorporated areas fought for water resources. As you know, right now the City of Naples draws from the same aquifer as the Golden Gate residents do in Golden Gate Estates. So I think protection of natural resources, especially water, is critical. And some of the components of the plan, I think, bring that up to speed or bring that to the highlight. I'll take you through a quick presentation. The purpose of the plan: protect water resources, meet our GMP goals, help meet the regulatory requirements, both state and federal, and it gives us a blueprint for restoration. Key components of the plan, Commissioners. No fiscal impacts in this phase, and today you're not approving any regulatory standards. And we have two things I want to make sure you're very clear on. It's obviously subject to available funds. Anything you see in here will come back to this board for appropriation at the appropriate phase. And staff and the applicant, and even working with the Planning Commission, we made it clear that most of what we're going to present to you will be cost neutral. Anything that's not, we'll make it clear, if it's regulatory, that it will impact someone somewhere. But our goal with the LIDs and regulatory things that we're going to present will be cost neutral. Conclusions: excessive freshwater discharge to the bays and estuaries. Your pollutant loads, such as nitrogen, phosphorus, copper are concerned; inadequate are primary and secondary canals, and we'll get into that in a little bit in the presentation; and your aquifer impacts and reduced recharge. When we talk about water wars, we talk about two things. One is the discharge freshwater into Naples Bay. That's been a primary Page 324 December 13-14,2011 concern. The table in front of you shows, on the left side, the season. As you can see, what I would call this line over here represents zero, and this is excessive water that's going into Naples Bay during the wet seasons. And even in Rookery Bay during the wet season they have a deficit. When you get to the dry season, you are discharging still excessive water into Naples Bay, and the deficit is there. So part of that water discussion with the city's going to be, you keep putting in water into Naples Bay, what are you going to do about it, and that's an issue we're taking on with the BCB, the district, and the county. Planned water diversions. We know that if we can divert water down to the estuaries to Henderson Creek, through that area, we'll get more freshwater where it's needed, and we'll take water out of Naples Bay. And these are some of the diversions we talked about, one through the City Gate area, just west of your landfill, tying back into Henderson Creek, and then something in the North Belle Meade area. Total basins with water - quality impairment: nine have dissolved oxygen; four fecal coliform, four iron; three nutrient; one, copper and mercury in the Florida Gulf. Interesting note, what I found out recently was we were an exporter of materials from Naples Bay when I talk about -- I want to say -- oysters, and now we can't do that anymore. Someone had told me the history was, we're one of the top exporters. Because of the contamination, you can no longing do that. I thought that was an interesting thing to bring up. We recently had what I call a stress test. They talk about in Europe stress - testing the banks. Well, what we have in the summer months in Florida is what I would call isolated rain. But that recent rainstorm we had a while back was rain everywhere. We were inundated throughout Collier County into Lee County. And I want to point out something that we all knew that was very interesting. When I take the highlighter right here, the Corkscrew Page 325 December 13 -14, 2011 headwaters into the Golden Gate Canal in Corkscrew and the Cypress Canal, this is all red; whereas, you see green in other areas. And we talk about model results show limited conveyance capacity in numerous canal segments, but what this shows is the red was out of bank. So we know that water coming from the headwaters flow down into Naples Bay, that this red area right here is where we have a backup. And we've met with the district, and they've made improvements to increase the headwater flow north, and Lee County has made improvements to send more water down this area right here as well. So we know that diversion to Henderson Creek is important. We know that rehydrating this area's important, and this stress test confirmed what we knew already. Third point is the aquifer recharge. We talked about -- I mentioned the water wars. These are the lower Tamiami aquifer and the surficial aquifer, and the red is, obviously, a bad sign; the agricultural drawdowns and the well drawdowns in the upper aquifer, and then in the lower Tamiami. So we're starting to see the early signs of that drawdown. And our goal as part of the Watershed Management Plan is to divert water back into those areas and keep it there where we can. So, again, nothing in this plan is going to be brought forward other than coming back to the board, so we want to be clear about that. My clarification was on your Item 4 of the recommendation. It talks about evaluating the effectiveness of a fee -based stormwater utility to create incentives to improve water - quality treatment and recharge. Structures of the fees would not increase the total revenues but reward users with effective treatment systems. This initiative would require an initial fee -rate study that would be funded by grant or from existing stormwater fronts. My recommendation and change to that to you, Commissioners, Page 326 December 13 -14, 2011 we do a cursory review first before we spend a lot of time and money on that, then come back to you and explain to you what other districts, communities in Florida are doing, and then just give you an update before we proceed too much in depth with that. I think you'll find that concerning if we move forward with a stormwater utility too quickly. So that's the change I'm recommending. This was voted unanimously by your EAC and your Planning Commission. The presentation continues with the conclusions, and I have Mac and the consultant here to take you through the rest individually or to answer questions with the team that's here. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's have the public speakers. MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker is Tim Nance. No? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: The next one is Nancy Payton, and she'll be followed by Brad Cornell. MS. PAYTON: Good morning. Nancy Payton with the Florida Wildlife Federation to represent the propose -- or to support the proposal that's before you today. We're particularly interested in two aspects of it. One is the proposal, the recommendations to protect and enhance wetland systems in eastern/northern Golden Gate Estates -- it's referred as flowways in the proposal -- and also, a TDR program to be explored to further protect habitat and wetlands in Northern Golden Gate Estates. Also, it briefly was discussed by Nick, North Belle Meade. We're particularly interested in that one; rehydrating wetlands, rehabbing wetlands. That was part of the whole North Belle Meade Overlay. It ties in with the Natural Resource Protection Area Program. There's some mitigation efforts that are taking place in that area, and there's a way to mesh several different programs in achieving that rehydration and also improvement of wildlife habitat. It not only benefits North Belle Meade, it benefits South Belle Meade, Page 327 December 13 -14, 2011 it benefits Rookery Bay, and it benefits Naples Bay. So it is a program in North Belle Meade that has significant implications for the rest of the county. So I urge you to move this plan forward into the next phases to further evaluate the recommendations in the projects that appear in the Watershed Management Plan. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. MR. MITCHELL: Following Mr. Cornell will be Nicole Johnson. MR. CORNELL: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Brad Cornell, and I'm here on behalf of Collier County Audubon Society and Audubon of Florida. And we're also here to support this plan and move it forward. I have three succinct points I want to make though, about it. One is that I share Nancy's interest in the rehydration and protection of wetlands in North Golden Gate Estates, North Belle Meade, South Belle Meade, and some of these other restoration projects. I do want to point out that there's a good connection between this and the Master Mobility Plan that you're going to also be looking at in the near future, particularly in North Golden Gate Estates, the TDR program. There are other ways we can protect wetlands and public interests, flood protection, and resource values: lot trading, land acquisition, cooperation and collaboration with the South Florida Water Management District and the Big Cypress Basin perhaps using land trust, et cetera. Second point, it's really important to do the implementation phase. Moving this forward as Phase 1 is good, and we support that; that's why I'm here. But you've got to implement it. And, you know, I think everybody's tired of studies that sit on shelves. So clearly that's in the public interest, and we urge you to take the next step after this acceptance. Page 328 December 13-14,2011 And, thirdly, I just want to underscore the importance of a proactive program like this where you're planning to do watershed benefits for your own public and how important it is to do this ourselves. We should not be deferring resource protection to the state and federal government. We should be -- we know what the watershed requirements are, the wetland protection needs are, and water supply and flood protection needs are in our county. We shouldn't be deferring those. So it's our responsibility, and so I support your moving forward on this on that basis, too. Thank you. MR. MITCHELL: Nicole Johnson will be followed by Judy Hushon. MS. JOHNSON: Good morning. For the record, Nicole Johnson here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And in a couple days of lots of heated debate, many important issues that you've been discussing, I think it's really important for all of us to take a look at this Watershed Management Plan, because it's been a long time in coming. It was due '93, and then in 2000, and it wasn't until 2006 that the county really got serious about moving forward with this. In 2010, which was the due date, the Conservancy was one of the organizations that requested a bit of an additional extension because we felt that the plan wasn't quite there yet, and it was most important to get it right. And I have to say that that additional extension has paid off. We had a lot of concerns, comments, suggestions about the Watershed Management Plan, and Mac and the staff and the consulting team have been really tremendous in working with us and incorporating our suggestions, explaining why they couldn't incorporate suggestions in other cases. So we're very, very pleased with the document. We're pleased with how the team has worked through this, and we do ask that you move it forward. Page 329 December 13 -14, 2011 But this really is only a plan. It's a guidance document, and its implementation is going to be where the community truly sees the benefits. Staff has identified a series of recommendations that are, we believe, sensitive to budgetary constraints that the county is under, and they've indicated that the majority of work will be done in -house as funding permits; therefore, in order to keep the plan from simply languishing on the shelf, we ask that you move forward with these recommendations with staff doing what they can this year with funds permitting, and we ask that the initiatives be considered during the upcoming budgetary cycles. It's important to keep in mind that any policies or programs that you pursue now as part of this process will result in water - quality improvement. And as the cost of addressing water quality will continue to increase in the future, any work done now which contributes to improvements, be it LIDs, fertilizer ordinance, TDR program, protection of the wetlands in the North Golden Gate area, it's going to result in less cost in the future associated with water - quality treatment. This problem isn't going to go away. We need to start seriously addressing it now. One suggestion that we would make regarding the fertilizer ordinance is that, as you'll recall during the fertilizer ordinance process several months ago, you had directed staff to prepare an ordinance with more stringent, more protective standards than the state model ordinance. Then at your July meeting you received a letter from the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services saying that they needed to further review new statutory language to see if you could go beyond that model ordinance. We have had communication with Department of Ag, and they indicate that to resolve that issue they may actually need to go in and introduce legislation to clarify the statute. So with this in mind, I think it's implicit in the recommendation, but you may want to specify that staff monitor what happens during Page 330 December 13 -14, 2011 the legislative session and then bring back a more stringent ordinance as appropriate. Thank you. MR. MITCHELL: Judith, yes. MS. HUSHON: Judith Hushon, Chair of the EAC. We heard this for many weeks, many months, and we've very familiar with what's in it. We like what's in it, and we hope the county does move forward. When the staff document came out that was the implementation and kind of the guidance for implementing the document, there were a few things that were missing from it, and I would like to request that you consider adding these at this time. All good plans need to be reviewed on a regular basis. This needs a review in five years. We are going to have new data, new monitoring data. We're doing things in engineering, we're going to move canals, put in basins, whatever. We need to relook at our numbers in five years. Relooking at those numbers is not a big deal. It's not going to be as big a deal as this deal was, because we know how to do it now. We just need to look at them again. Also, we need to include in future reviews a look at a one -inch sea level rise, and then maybe a two and a three only because this will affect our groundwater, and our -- we need to see what that impact is, because we drink our groundwater. And so any influx of saltwater -- saltwater intrusion into our drinking water aquifers would be serious, and we would be very -- it would be very expensive for us, and we would have to start putting money ahead for those expenses. So I'm just saying we need to know what's coming, and the only way to know what's coming is to study it. So I'm asking that that be included in the next round of study. Also, we need guidelines for managing anthropogenic copper in stormwater ponds right now. Nobody knows exactly how to go about it. They're kind of going about it in ten different ways. I would like Page 331 December 13 -14, 2011 the county to come back with some guidance, some standard guidance documents. The EAC intends to consider whether land development actions in the future are designated as resource protection lands, as seen on Figure 1 -41. That's because these are the lands that this study has shown are those lands that need to be protected, to protect our water resource. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do we have a copy of that? Can we put that on the overhead? MS. HUSHON: Somebody -- you have a copy. You have a copy. It's in the executive summary, 1 -41. COMMISSIONER HILLER: We should have it on the overhead for everyone to see. MS. HUSHON: Sure, sorry. Also, our canals are maxed out. That was something our -- this study showed us, our canal system as it exists today. In the future we should be requiring that no more water leave a development site than was when it was virgin. In other words, you need to manage your water on your site and not pour it off onto the next site, onto the next site, and out into the gulf. So we should be looking at having that as part of our goal for the future as well. And these are points that I think should be in the staff guidance, added to the staff guidance. So thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your last speaker. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know the answer, but I just Page 332 December 13 -14, 2011 need to have it on the record. One of the concerns that we have out in the Golden Gate Estates area, of course, isn't so much retention of the water in the land -- which is important. I mean, people know that it's important, but it's not the biggest issue -- it's the conveyance of water away from the residential area. Will this plan in any way hinder that present conveyance of water? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. No, that's not the intent of this plan. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Because one of the fears is that -- it's been mentioned many times and it's been category -- proven to be untrue is the fact that there's been plans afoot to be able to make Golden Gate Estates the water - storage area for the county. So this plan will in no way impair the flow of water? It will not add to the flooding risk? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, no, not the flooding risk, sir. As I pointed out in one of the prior slides, right now that Golden Gate Main and the Cypress Canal are already overflowing. So one of the -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I know that. But, I mean, will this plan in any way increase that risk? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir, that's not the intent of this plan, to increase flooding to the residents. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And will it be stated in there as we go forward, too, when we get it back as far as that, that it is not that intention? It would be great to have it stated in plain words so that everybody can go to it and refer to it and know that there's no harm that's going to come to them from this plan. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. And anything we bring -- anything we do, sir, has to come back to this board, so we'll clearly look at that, that benefit. One of the goals of the plan is to rehydrate certain areas in the Estates but not raise the water table so it will affect existing septic systems or flood anybody. That's definitely not what we want to do as Page 333 December 13 -14, 2011 part of that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Nick. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I like the comments that Judy just made, and I think they really should be incorporated. I also like the point that Nicole made, and that is that we should clearly have a timeline for what we are doing. And, in fact, I think we should, with everything brought forward, have a timeline, because oftentimes we just vote without saying, you know, when it's going to come back and, you know, what the plan is for the next step beyond that. So have you established a timeline for any of this? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. Interestingly enough, the discussion is that Mac is an army of one. And along with the additional staff, when you look at these recommendations -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, but he's a great army of one. MR. CASALANGUIDA: He is. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So it's okay. We can count on him. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And so I think our goal, Commissioners, and we've talked about it internally, is that we're limited in staff. So to look at the recommendations and then prioritize them internally, what can we consult out, what will be tied to the Surface Water Business Plan that you're going to hear next. And third component, you know -- and I'll bring it up. It's the bear in the room that nobody wants to talk about. But we're a donor county to the district, a donor county to the basin. And I mean no disrespect to Clarence and the basin board members or the district board members, but I've been knocking on their door the past 12 months and saying, I'd like to look at the financing, why we keep giving in funds to the district. The recent water report that was provided, the legislator talked Page 334 December 13 -14, 2011 about the east coast water supply. Well, we are a west coast, and we provide a lot of funds to the east coast. So we're going to be asking a lot from the district and the basin. And they've said to us, the executive director, Melissa Meeker, said, bring me a plan, show me what you want to do, show me how it benefits the district and the basin, and I'll encourage our staff to fund some of that. So we're going to be pushing for that to be a major funding source for some of these initiatives. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I think you bring up a very good point, and I know that you've been working on this for quite some time. The basin board is a new board now. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I think there are people on that board who are very reasonable. And maybe it would be worthy of a workshop to meet with that new board and tell them, hey, you know, we've got concerns about the redistribution of wealth, if you will and, you know, we want to be treated fairly. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think it's something I left off their fiscal -year budget with -- at their budget meeting that I would be inquiring going into '13, and I would love this board to put forward some motion or direction for us to inquire about that financing and distribution of funds. I think that's a great idea. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think we have to have a dialogue about it. It is the county's money. MR. CASALANGUIDA: To some of Judith's recommendations -- I didn't catch them all. But we talked about the sea -level rise. That's not funded as part of this project, and that's a pretty extensive study. So I don't know if I could commit to that. Obviously, the review annually is limited to the staff we have. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Review after five years. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. But provide a metric every year as to where we are. We could obviously give a board report as to Page 335 December 13-14,2011 the recommendations where we've come in 12 months. And that's not a hard thing to do. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think the intent of the recommendation was to assure that the plan itself would receive a review -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- at the five -year mark to determine if it's really accomplishing the goals that we intend it to accomplish. So that shouldn't be an overwhelming burden. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. And with the mobility plan that just was heard at the Planning Commission, their recommendation, which made sense, was to tie to the EAR review that happens every five to seven years. So staff is holistically looking at both the Growth Management Plan, which this drives, as well as other projects. So if you want to tie it to that EAR review, I'm perfectly happy putting that on the record that we do an update to the plan or do a review of it with the EAR. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I like the holistic concept, because all these things feed into a common plan. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So I think it's -- that would be a good idea if you were to do that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Very good. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. I would like to make a motion, please, to approve this agenda item with all of the stipulations here, plus I would like to add that -- we had some really great points from our speakers. Plus I would like to add that we don't defer it to other governmental agencies, as Brad Cornell said, but keep it within, and as Nicole said, move forward with staff, not outsourcing. So they're one in the same things, but also to have a timeline or time frame so that it gives us a map to follow. Page 336 December 13 -14, 2011 Also, to monitor legislation so that if legislation moves forward in the right direction, that we can then address, at some point in time, bring back to the County Commission maybe the more - stringent fertilizer legislation. And then I like the idea from Judy Hushon, that said review in five years. I think that's good. But like you said also, review with the EAR. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And so I think that's a good deal. Manage water on site for each new development. That's excellent. I think we do that in most cases, but if we need to expand that, I think that that would -- that would be important. And then, of course, with the sea level, as you mentioned right now, we don't have the money, but maybe we can monitor it from -- you know, from time to time, because that is going to be coming up in the future -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: We will. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and it's important to do that. So that is my motion. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Hiller to review -- to approve with the modifications to the staff recommendations as enumerated. Okay. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: We want to make the biggest impact to watershed management. Interconnection in Golden Gate to Henderson Creek would be a big impact. Commissioner Coyle knows that the historical watershed for Naples Bay was much, much smaller, and it's because of the changes outside the city to where we're dumping more water in there. If we can get it down to Henderson Creek, that should be really our goal. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It is, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And how can we -- how can we Page 337 December 13-14,2011 get everybody on board to -- I mean, we have to work with the basin. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Some of the funding will come there, and that was part of your remarks is a letter from the board to establish those connections? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Encourage that some of these projects are funded in partnership with the basin and the district. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can that be a part of your motion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure, absolutely. CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you don't mind if I just support that. One of the -- you've already said that you would entertain -- or you would love to have a motion that would encourage you to approach the basin about getting some funding for some of these projects. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And the district, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: The entire district. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And so I would vote for a motion that would include those kinds of things. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Very good. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we need to have that as a separate motion, or can we include it in this? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Include it in that is fine. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great, great. I will absolutely do that. Thank you for that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the second accepts that change? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, definitely. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let me just expand that very quickly. Big Cypress Basin has plans to do that, to distribute that water into a more appropriate surficial water flow. The problem is that it's going very, very slowly. Page 338 December 13 -14, 2011 MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And if we can encourage them to allocate some funds and priority to getting that done, that will accomplish the goals of all of our districts. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And so that, of course, is implied in the motion, which suggests that you approach the district about additional funding and higher priorities for some of the projects we'd like to see finished. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We are taxed two ways, sir, as you know. We are taxed as a basin tax and a district tax. So approaching both entities is important. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Can we copy the governor on this? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sure he's aware of the dynamics of Naples Bay, wouldn't you think? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Why don't you instruct me to send a letter to him on behalf of the entire Board, not just from me, but on behalf of the Board to encourage some emphasis on priorities and funding for the Water Management District in Collier County. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Perfect. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll provide copies to our legislative delegation also. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Excellent. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Very good. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Page 339 December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Appreciate your support, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Nick. Good job. Item #I OF RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT A PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT BUSINESS PLAN THAT WILL BE THE GUIDING DOCUMENT FOR THE FUTURE COUNTY SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND DIRECT THE COUNTY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE THE PLAN — MOTION TO APPROVE THE PROJECT PLAN WITH DEVELOPMENT OF A TIMELINE, REVIEW BY THE EAC AND TO INTEGRATE LDC ACTIVITIES INTO THE PROCESS — APPROVED MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 1OF, which is a recommendation to accept a project management plan for development of a Surface Water Management Business Plan, which would be the guiding document for the future County Surface Water Management Program, and direct the County Manager or designee to execute the plan. Mr. Kurtz will present. Page 340 December 13 -14, 2011 MR. KURTZ: Good morning. Jerry Kurtz, your planning manager for stormwater environmental. I've been challenged to bring forward a Surface Water Management Business Plan. This plan will be our strategic guide for the future of the stormwater program for the county. And with completion of the Watershed Management Plans, the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps and the upcoming completion of the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project, it's now very appropriate to go forward with this business plan to plan for our future with the stormwater needs. Our last major stormwater planning guiding document was completed in 1990, so we're due, if not overdue for a new document. And taking the business -plan approach to this task I wasn't real familiar with, so I did some research and pretty quickly found some good examples of how other municipalities were doing this process in the business manner. City of Minneapolis, the City of Nashville, Lorain County in Ohio, all these municipalities are taking this business -plan approach to their future surface -water planning needs. Even our friends at EPA have a great resource, a guiding document, for municipalities to take the business -plan approach to stormwater management. But I was most impressed with the City of Jacksonville. Last week I attended the Florida Stormwater Association winter conference in Tampa, and the consultant was presenting his work for the City of Jacksonville. And the numbers were impressive just due to the scale of the effort they have going on up there in Jacksonville. They have a lot of issues. And I was taking a lot of notes and trying to get my arms around what their efforts are. And all of a sudden the consultant said, stormwater is a business, so I put my pen down, and I just started listening. Surface -water management, stormwater is a business. We have customers. We have risks. We need to know what our risks are, where they're located. We need to know what they're costing us or what they could cost us. We Page 341 December 13-14,2011 need to know the cost of service delivery. We need to know where we're going. We need a sustainable program to manage our existing system and our risks. The Surface Water Business Plan will do that. It will connect the dots. The first priority of the plan will be understanding the system we currently have and knowing what's required to keep it properly maintained. We don't want to build any additional infrastructure when we're not properly planning maintenance of the existing infrastructure that we have, so that will be our number one priority. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Hear, hear. MR. KURTZ: Stakeholder collaboration will be real important with this business - planning process, because the other high - priority item is to prioritize the program and the future needs of the program and the projects. In addition to that, we'll focus on aquifer recharge for our drinking -water sources, water - quality improvement, managing development in our floodplains, resolving nuisance and neighborhood- flooding issues, system deficiencies regarding conveyance and attenuation, system operations and maintenance, rehydration of historic wetlands, and the effects on estuary health and Coastal Zone Management. So to wrap it up, we're asking you to accept the project management plan which will be used as a guide to produce the Surface Water Business Plan. And glad to answer any questions you have at this time. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, then Commissioner Hiller. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You say the funds are available in 325, but you didn't say what the project fiscal impact is. MR. KURTZ: Most of the work -- and we've already got a good Page 342 December 13 -14, 2011 start on the business plan -- is going to be done in- house. There are funds available in a project that we have for stormwater master planning. We don't have any current plans to use any of those funds at this time. If we do, we will come back to the board per purchasing policies if we need consultant help with defined tasks and work orders and scope of work. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the in -house task is not going to -- is -- will not come out of 325? MR. KURTZ: We'll get everything done using the existing staff. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Does that come out of 325 for this project? MR. KURTZ: Stormwater operations come out of Fund 324. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is the funds available in that? MR. KURTZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That's it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yep. Jerry, I think it's really great that you're putting a plan together. It's absolutely essential if we're going to have any focus on the direction we're going to take. Do you have an overhead that you could put up to let the viewers see exactly how this is all laid out? Do you have any sort of slide show or presentation that you could -- MR. KURTZ: I don't have any slide show or presentation, but I could -- I'm glad to come back at a later date with a little PowerPoint presentation. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think it would be beneficial, because I think, you know, to be able to visualize what's being proposed would allow people to focus in on, you know, particular elements of the plan and see how it affects them. I'm particularly concerned about surface -water management as a function of all the roads that we have been building here in Collier County and any future roads that are being proposed. Page 343 December 13 -14, 2011 My concern is that, you know, these roads obviously are impervious, which is a problem but, secondly, the interruption of sheet flow and what that does to communities that are boxed in by roads. So that is -- that is a very serious concern of mine. The other issue, obviously, is the displacement of water off of a property where that property should be absorbing its own stormwater and thereby burdening the tertiary system. And with that said, you know, the management of the tertiary system is obviously critical to stormwater management, you know, getting the water from here to there through that conveyance system. And one of the things that I really like is that we've been using CDBG funds for stormwater- improvement projects. And Coletta mentioned -- Commissioner Coletta mentioned -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- the Estates -- got to be formal here -- mentioned the Estates and the problems the Estates is having, and I share that concern. I mean, the Estates is just one example of these older communities that are not permitted through South Florida Water Management that don't have, you know, water - transfer systems and where we really have to help. And like what is being done in the Immokalee CRA and what's going to be done in the Bayshore CRA is what needs to be done in the Estates. They need help, and these CDBG funds should be allocated as much as possible to stormwater management because the bottom line is, if we don't, I mean, these homes are going to be inaccessible, they're going to be destroyed, we're going to have blight. I mean, there's all sorts of problems that come with flooding. So I think all of that needs to be considered and incorporated, because it is a business and these people are your customers. The constituency does deserve as much as it can get by way of proper management and protection against flooding. And we have done too much that, in my opinion, has contributed towards the flooding in Page 344 December 13 -14, 2011 neighborhoods and not enough to help. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. How many speakers do we have? MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have two speakers. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Would you call them, please. MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir. The first one will be Nicole Johnson, and she'll be followed by Judith Hushon. MS. JOHNSON: Good morning, again. For the record, Nicole Johnson here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. The Conservancy very much supports moving forward with business planning for surface -water management. I think this is an important step, not the only next step, but an important next step to the watershed management planning effort. So we think it's a great idea. Wanted to make sure that the stakeholder involvement, public involvement, isn't just at the back end of this process. Certainly the Conservancy wants to be part of the planning of this, not simply reacting to a document as it's coming before you for your approval. I think that it works much better when the community is involved right from the very start, and I didn't see that specifically in here. So I would ask that that be part of the approval, that it really be a collaborative stakeholder process. You get a much better product, and I think you can see with the Watershed Management Plan there weren't a lot of people concerned about the final outcome. So having that stakeholder involvement can be a little painful during the process, but really -- it creates a much better document in the end. Thank you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Nicole. MS. HUSHON: Judy Hushon, EAC Chair. I would like to make sure the EAC is a primary reviewer of this plan as it comes forward, just as we were with the Watershed Page 345 December 13-14,2011 Management Plan, because I think they're all tied together. And if anybody has read all the pages -- it's my committee -- of all the watershed management planning documents. I also think plans should be developed as a public process. I -- we want to get these -- we need to get these inputs. They're going to affect some of the areas, and especially like that Golden Gate Estates with the TDRs and things, so it does need to be a public process. I also hope that there will be best - management practices for low - impact development developed as part of this, because that's something that we need to start incorporating in our development cycle as soon as we can, as developments are coming online. We can't do it soon enough. I would also like to see retrofit guidance, because there are a lot of places that can be retrofitted. Islands can be dug out, curbs can be removed on islands, they can be lowered, things like that, so that we have a little more stormwater retention on site. I also hope that this is going to include putting forward the LDC changes to implement the Watershed Management Plan findings, that this effort will dovetail with that other effort and be the natural follow -on to it. And those are my concepts. Thank you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your last speaker. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do I -- I'm not too sure who was first. Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I'd like to make a motion that we move forward with this plan to develop the business plan incorporating the recommendations of the speaker, again, that there be public participation allowed. And I'm going to add that we, again, have a timeline -- and we should just do that as a matter of course for everything that's presented is, you know, have a schedule for performance -- and to basically integrate what we're doing, quite Page 346 December 13 -14, 2011 frankly, anywhere else that would affect or where we would affect surface -water management, as was recommended by Judy. And I like, also, one last thing, that it go to the EAC as part of the review process. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Well, I was going to make the same motion, so I will second yours, but I'd like to include the other suggestion from Judy, which is to include the LDC changes -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- or keep the LDC involved with this, okay. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Great. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. Commissioners, for the record, manage expectations. But first of all I want to give some credit to the County Manager who pretty much told us, your business plan better take care of asset management up front, so -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: I love that. I mean, so nice that someone's finally hearing that. Good j ob, Leo. And great j ob, Jerry, and great job, Nick, you know. Amen. Proper capital budgeting. MR. CASALANGUIDA: On your viewer is your project management plan. It has timelines to it. And to what the folks who are sitting in the audience have said to us, our key importance is this, that the first phase of the plan is asset identification and maintenance. You're going to be in, believe it or not, AUIR and CIE mode for the county staff in about three to six months preparation. You'll hear that next fall. And part of that will be your new fifth year. And I've spoken to some of the commissioners about maintenance will be in your new fifth year; whereas, LASIP starts to finish off, what you'll see coming in the next new year -5, Golden Gate City we've talked about, the weirs that are starting to fall apart. So the first parts of that plan and that business plan will be probably asset identification and maintenance. And then as far as the Page 347 December 13 -14, 2011 future funding or the future projects, we will definitely have stakeholders involved in that, because that's where we get into the district and basin funding. But I wanted to point out that it was there. You do have a schedule there. COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's great. So we have a motion and a second. CHAIRMAN COCLE: All in favor please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COCLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COCLE: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COCLE: Okay. It passes unanimously. Thank you. Item #I OG REQUEST THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROVIDE DIRECTION ON MOVING FORWARD WITH THE PROPOSED RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA (RLSA) AMENDMENTS, AS APPROPRIATED IN THE 2011 EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR), ADOPTED BY THE BCC JANUARY 31, 2011 — MOTION TO ACCEPT SPECIAL EAR CYCLE (OPTION 1) WITH AN INDEPENDENT FIRM PERFORMING AN UNBIASED REPORT FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD — APPROVED MR. OCHS: Commissioner, that takes you to Item 10G on your agenda. It's a request that the board provide direction on moving December 13 -14, 2011 forward with the proposed Rural Land Stewardship Area amendments as appropriate -- excuse me -- as appropriated in the 2011 Evaluation and Appraisal Report adopted by the Board January 31, 2011. And Mr. Bosi will present. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Does anyone have any questions? Foolish question. Foolish question, Coyle. How many public speakers do we have? MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have seven speakers. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. BOSI: Good morning, Commission. Mike Bosi, Comprehensive Planning. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to break at 12 o'clock. So go ahead and make your presentation, and we'll -- MR. BOSI: As part of the presentation, there's just two choices that are being asked for the Board to make, to select one of those choices. But to get to that, I'm going to give just a little bit of context, and it will be very briefly. Ninety -nine was the final order. State said we weren't doing an adequate job of protecting environmental resources and protecting farmland from premature conversion to urbanized use, that we had to address the regulatory policy within our Growth Management Plan. In 2012, through a series of three years of study, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay to address those concerns that were related within the final order. One of the things that was recognized by this commission, it was a very innovative and bold planning initiative, unlike any county or municipality had adopted throughout the state. So we said we needed to put a 5 -year review time on it, just to make sure that these -- that this concept was one that was going to work and address these points that we're concerned about. Page 349 December 13 -14, 2011 In 2007 we were approaching that 5 -year- review - period timeline. The Board appointed the 5 -Year Review Committee. The 5 -Year Review Committee from the RLSA presented a Phase 1 report, and it was just -- it's a numerical allocation of what has happened to date. The Board accepted that in 2008 and directed Phase 2. Phase 2 was a structural review of the goals and objectives in the policies of that RLSA from that 5 -Year Review Committee with all the stakeholders involved at the table to come up with proposals that would be, potentially amendments to the program to address those overarching goals. In 2000 -- beginning in 2009, January 28th, the workshops with the EAC and the Planning Commission took place. A number of modifications to the report were made, incorporated, presented to the Board of County Commissioners on April 21st of 2009. I believe attachments -- Attachment B was a snippet from that meeting. The Board accepted the report from Phase 2 and recognized that for those amendments to become part of the Growth Management Plan they'd have to go through a cycle. At that period of time, the Board directed that the cycle be processed within the appropriate order, but they said make it a privately sponsored petition. The property owners within the eastern property -- within the Eastern Collier Property Owners' Coalition objected, said it was not only a property owner amendment, it was based upon all the stakeholders involved at the table, and they weren't willing to support the full burden of those amendments. We took no action on that because of the -- because of that inherent conflict. In 2011, January 31 st, we adopted the EAR Report. Exhibit A is the adopted EAR report section that deals with the Rural Land Stewardship Area. What we said was, we recognized the comprehensive extensive review that was provided for the Rural Land Stewardship Area based upon the 5 -year review. That served as our EAR evaluation of that subdistrict within the Future Land Use Page 350 December 13 -14, 2011 Element. As such, those would be for -- those would be the EAR -based amendments for that overlay, for the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay. But we caveated. We recognized that there was a habitat and there is a Habitat Conservation Plan that's currently spearheaded by U.S. Fish and Wildlife with the property owners and all vested stakeholders at the table to try to come up with a road map for the schedule for how development would move forward with that. Based upon that recognition in the adopted EAR that the Board of County Commissioners, as I said, adopted on the 31 st of January of this year, we said we're going to wait. We're going to wait until the end of that Habitat Conservation Plan before we initiate these Rural Land Stewardship amendments. The DCA in -- March 10th, I believe, accepted the -- accepted the EAR Report from Collier County and, as such, they accepted that timeline. Between the time of when we accepted that in the DCA, now the DEO, accepted our EAR Report, we've been presented with a proposal from the eastern property owners led by an initiative from Stantec. What the proposal was, that if the -- Stantec and the eastern property owners paid for the preparation and the data associated with the amendments, handed it off to the staff, would staff take that forward as part of the EAR -based amendments and move it forward, somewhat ahead of the schedule of what we have adopted. Based upon the adopted EAR, through consultation with Nick Casalanguida, with the County Manager's Office, we realized we couldn't do that as initiative on our own based upon the direction that the Board of County Commissioners gave within the EAR, and that's basically the framework of this executive summary. We have two options that are available related to those EAR -based amendments within their RLSA amendment. One, wait until the Habitat Conservation Plan is completed, as we said in the Page 351 December 13 -14, 2011 adopted EAR, or move forward with the proposal with the eastern property owners and Stantec providing the -- or the data and the packaging of those amendments, provided it to Collier County staff, then staff would take those amendments as a separate transmittal stage from -- because the EAC has already heard the transmittal of the EAR -based amendment. So they would have to be separated from the transmittal process, but towards -- at the end of the process, at the adoption process the intent of the proposal would be to bring those RLSA amendments together with the rest of the EAR -based amendments and adopt at one hearing. So, basically, what staff is looking for, a direction from the Board of County Commissioners as to whether we would sit tight and act upon the RLSA amendments as we've indicated within our adopted EAR, as has been accepted by the state, or would we take advantage of the opportunity of the proposal with Stantec and the eastern property owners and move the amendments forward as a separate transmittal cycle that would be included as the overall adoption cycle which would be heard in the fall of 2012. And that's basically the question staff is seeking direction from the Board of County Commissioners. And I'm happy to address any questions that you may have related to any of the specifics. CHAIRMAN COYLE: If we have any questions of Mike, we can take a few of them right now, but I'd like to break at least by 12 o'clock and do all of the public speakers at the same time -- at one time rather than breaking up that process. Are there any questions for Mike? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We'll break now, and we'll be back here at -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll just wait till after. Page 352 December 13-14,2011 CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- we'll be back here at 12:54. Okay. Thank you. (A luncheon recess was had.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, Board of Collier County Commission meeting is back in session. We will continue with the -- do we have the public speakers? We don't have the manager of the public speakers here. MR. OCHS: There he is. MS. KINZEL: Uh -oh, Ian. MR. MITCHELL: Uh -oh. CHAIRMAN COYLE: He's late again. We have public speakers, Ian. MR. MITCHELL: Yes. The first speaker will be Mitch Hutchcraft. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who? MS. PAYTON: He's not here. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Try another name. MR. MITCHELL: Alan Reynolds. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You hit the jackpot, okay. MR. REYNOLDS: Good afternoon. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good afternoon. MR. REYNOLDS: Commissioners, Alan Reynolds with Stantec, and I'm here today on behalf of the Eastern Collier Property Owners, a group of the property owners that I've had the privilege of representing for about ten years now in this process. And per the letter that the Eastern Collier Property Owners provided to you last week, they are fully supportive of moving forward with Option 1 that was identified in the executive summary. Option 1 being, moving forward with the process as is spelled out and recommended by the committee and accepted by the Board of County Commissioners. You know, Mike gave a very good overview in recapping the Page 353 December 13 -14, 2011 process that led up to this time, but the recommended changes to this award - winning program are the result of an over -two -year exhaustive and comprehensive public process that the county undertook. Probably more documentation in that process than was taken to put the original program together. And I can tell you, there were countless hours spent by members of your citizens' committee and the public through a whole course of meetings. And they came up with a series of recommendations that were designed to both enhance some of the features of this program and address certain elements that were felt to be in need of some further improvement, particularly as it relates to agricultural protection. So the -- so the Eastern Collier Property Owners believe that it is timely to move forward with the process. We are now four years from the start of the 5 -year review, and the EAR plan amendment process will probably take another year. So we think it's good to start this process. Obviously the start of the process will open up the opportunity for a full review of all of the proposed amendments and looking at any new conditions that might exist and, hopefully, culminate in the adoption of some enhancements to the program. As Mike mentioned, the Eastern Collier Property Owners have offered to have our company provide technical assistance to Collier County to put this together. Our staff and myself, in particular, sat through literally every meeting of the 5 -Year Review Committee, and it is a — it's a very technical program, and there are a lot of elements of this program that are tied to land use credits, and other kinds of things. And there is voluminous documentation that needs really to be, right now, condensed into an understandable and a cohesive package. So what we have offered to do, and we have met with your county staff, and we have agreed upon an appropriate task for us to put together documentation cross - referencing data and analysis to help Page 354 December 13 -14, 2011 move the process forward. I think that will be helpful because frankly, several staff members that were running the 5 -year review process are, unfortunately, no longer with Collier County. So there's -- there's a benefit, I think, to having some of that institutional memory. So I would just close by saying that we would -- we would very much encourage the board to select Option 1 to move forward and to continue the collaborative and cooperative process that we've enjoyed with this program for the past decade. And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I do. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Reynolds, is there something pressing of why we have to do this now instead of -- and deviate what we did and said in the last year's EAR? MR. REYNOLDS: Well, yes, I think there is. I think what is pressing is that, as with any study process, over time the information gets stale. You know, the longer things sit out there, the less current they are and the more apt there is to need to kind of revisit the entire program, number one. Number two, this idea of tying the RLS to the HCP was something that, frankly, we have communicated from day one we didn't think was the right approach to take, because the HCP is a very specific creature of the federal permitting process. It is a cooperative effort, but it is tied to the federal permit process exclusively. It really has nothing to do with Collier County's comprehensive planning process or how you choose to move forward with these amendments. Unfortunately, like with a lot of the federal permitting processes, they tend to take a lot longer than you would like them to take. And we're probably maybe two to three years out before we would have a potential HCP if we get one at all, because there's no guarantee that there would, in fact, ever be an HCP. Page 355 December 13-14,2011 So the idea of saying we're just going to wait indefinitely for a federal process to move forward we are concerned is going to have you waiting till the point where, for all intents and purposes, two - and -a -half years worth of effort by your citizens' committee will be collecting a whole lot of dust on the shelf. And in the meantime, frankly, the recommendations that the committee made do a couple of very important things that are public benefits to Collier County. Most importantly, I believe, is a new feature for agricultural credits that will, if fully implemented, protect another 40,000 acres of land from being converted to development. So that's a good thing for Collier County. It's a good thing for the public. And there's really no reason to be waiting indefinitely for a -- for a federal process to move forward. So that's why we think it's important to go ahead. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Has the land use changed out there for the information to go stale? MR. REYNOLDS: Well, information changes all the time, sure. I mean, there's always new data. There's always new studies that are being done. The land uses out in the eastern part of the county probably don't change a lot physically over time, but there are in the eastern lands. And with this program you have -- if you recall, there's kind of two things that a property owner can do. They can use their baseline rights, which is to develop their land at one unit per five acres and the other kind of uses they have, or they can choose to participate in the RLS program. So over time, if some of the features from the program that the committee has recommended are not available to them, their only choice is going to be to utilize baseline rights. So you could, in fact, start to see more utilization of baseline rights if we don't move forward and get some of these new recommended programs in place. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. Page 356 December 13 -14, 2011 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. Well, on a more general note, before we get started, I appreciate your suggesting that you would assist the landowners with developing these amendments and be their consultant on this. But, quite frankly, I see that as a conflict, because you're representing the county on so many planning projects for that area. So obviously, you know, you can't serve two masters on a particular issue like that. So I just -- I guess I have a problem with that. Secondly, I think it's really great that the landowners are going to pay for these amendments, because they should, so I think that's a positive, regardless of, you know, what's being proposed here. That they have acknowledged that they're financially responsible to pay for this is a good thing, and I'm glad they're not thinking that the taxpayers should. The other thing I want to bring up is when I reviewed this, if my understanding is correct, what this is going to do is add 89,000 credits and approximately 1,688 acres to the maximum footprint of the SRA -- and that it caps SRA acres to 45,000 and the deletion of policy language to ensure the program does not result in premature conversion of agricultural lands, deletion of hamlets as a land use, expansion of a maximum size of towns and villages. And I guess I have some concerns with that. And, you know, before we propose anything, you know, by way of amendment, I think, you know, we're almost at the ten -year mark with respect to this program. And I've heard quite a bit of criticism as to what's going on in the equity of the system from the public. And I think what really needs to be done before any amendments are proposed is an evaluation of, you know, where we are today. I'd like to know who owns what in the way of credits, who has the sending lands, who has the receiving lands, who has what credits on sending lands, who has what credits on receiving lands, and make a Page 357 December 13 -14, 2011 determination, based on that, what is the need and, you know, how are agricultural interests being protected, how is panther habitat being protected, you know, what are we doing to ensure that there isn't a monopoly on the credits or creating value for those credits. My understanding is there's -- and I think it's Barron Collier is the only landowner out there that owns both sending and receiving lands, and maybe I'm mistaken, and you certainly can correct me about that. With respect to the habitat plan, I do think that it is premature to do anything before the Habitat Conservation Plan is proposed, because then we don't really know what effect -- what the effect is of, you know, what's being proposed by way of these amendments. So, you know, I would hate to see these people waste their money only to find out that it's not congruous, that it's not working with, you know, the Habitat Conservation Plan. I think we're putting the cart before the horse. And as I said, I think we need to have a ten -year evaluation where, at the second evaluation, if you will, of this program, where we need to understand, you know, who's benefitting and how and who isn't benefitting and, you know, are all the landowners being treated fairly, or is someone being treated maybe more fairly than others, as well as my concern about the protection of the environmental issues. MR. REYNOLDS: Commissioner Hiller, I was taking some notes. I think you had six questions there, so I'll try to catch each one. And then if I miss one, you can help me, remind me if missed it. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. MR. REYNOLDS: Your first question had to do with the thought that we are preparing the amendments, we being Stantec, on behalf of Eastern Collier Property Owners. That is -- that is not correct. The committee has prepared specific recommended amendments through the public process, and those specific amendments are incorporated in a report that the Board of County Commissioners has Page 358 December 13 -14, 2011 accepted, along with some modifications that were actually proposed in the process of accepting the report. So the proposed amendments are already in place. All we are proposing to do -- we being Stantec -- is to prepare very technical data that is already part of the process and put it together in a form that can make that amendment, frankly, more understandable and more easy to deal with through the plan- amendment process. So we are not proposing nor would we propose to make any recommendations as part of that process that differ from what your committee recommended, okay. So it's very much a technical process only. As far as the property owners' willingness or obligation to pay for the process, this is a public process. This is a county program. The 5 -year review process was mandated by the adopted Growth Management Plan. The property owners participated, as you would expect, because owning more than 80 percent of the land, you would want to have property owners be part of the process. But there is no obligation whatsoever for the property owners to bear the cost of a public process. What we are doing, frankly, in the spirit of the prior decision by the Board, is continuing really what started out in 2000 as a collaborative process between the public and the private sector, because this program is very unique in that it is an incentive -based program. So incentive -based programs don't work if you don't have the participation of and cooperation of the private sector. So really this is -- what we're proposing is very similar to what was used in the initial adoption process, which is we're going to be providing technical information. It will be given to the county. The county will be putting the final package together. The county will have the right to review, change, augment any of the information we provide, and it's all going to be very transparent and open to the public. Page 359 December 13 -14, 2011 You -- and I don't know that -- how you want to -- if you really want to get into the substance of all the recommendations today. I can answer the question about credits, but the bottom line of all that is yes, there are some proposed changes to the numbers of credits, but there are also some proposals that would cap both the credit generation and the acreage of development that do not exist in the currently adopted program. So from the county and the public's perspective, there should be a comfort in a proposed change that is going to put a limitation on what is currently a program that does not have a cap in place. And the net result of that is a reduction in the amount of development and an increase in the amount of protected land without requiring taxpayers to purchase and manage the property. As far as a ten -year review, you know, we were obligated to do a five -year review. We being the county. We did it. There were specific recommendations that came forward and were accepted by the Board. So, frankly, I think that the -- whether or not another review is called for, we believe that there is an obligation on the part of the county to move forward and deal with these amendments. And so it's really just a question of do we deal with them timely or do we deal with them with a potential time frame that is unknown and, frankly, may never be achieved, which is whether or not the HCP process goes forward. I think the last point you made is the perceived inequity of the Rural Land Stewardship Program. Barron Collier is not the only property owner that has both sending and receiving lands. There are a number of property owners that have both types of lands, and most of the Eastern Collier Property Owners have participated in the program. There are a couple that really have only receiving -type lands. And as part of the way this program is designed, we're supposed to be creating a market for credits to be exchanged between property owners that have sending lands and property owners that have Page 360 December 13 -14, 2011 receiving lands. So it's not -- frankly, the proposed amendment, if you're concerned about that, will actually correct what is perceived to be a weakness in the current program, and that is to put agriculture and agricultural protection on an equal footing with natural resource protection. That's really what the committee has recommended and that the Board has accepted as part of those recommendations. So did I answer all of your questions? COMMISSIONER HILLER: You did, you did, and I thank you. MR. REYNOLDS: Okay. COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I just -- I reviewed the material and, you know, I continue to have concerns. I mean, I think there will be justifications made for those amendments, and you will participate in the argument to support the justifications for what is being proposed. And so I do continue to think that there's a conflict there. But I do appreciate your perspective and you, you know, clarifying your position on that as to what exactly you're going to do. But it seems that it will go beyond that, particularly in light of what's really needed to properly approve this with, you know, the appropriate corroborating information. I think that the Carlton Fields memo was quite revealing. I've heard a lot of dissatisfaction, including from members of the landowner group, if you will. So, I mean, your analysis, while very succinct, I think, needs, you know, much more detail in order for me to be convinced that this has been a positive program and everyone is being treated equitably and no one has a corner on the market. I mention only the Colliers because I know that they're one of the largest -- don't they control about 70 percent of the RLSA, or something along that line? MR. REYNOLDS: No, it's -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: How much -- what's their interest? Page 361 December 13-14,2011 MR. REYNOLDS: If you take all of the Eastern Collier Property Owners which is made up of -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: The RLSA. MR. REYNOLDS: Yes. All of the Eastern Collier Property Owners as a group, which is eight different entities, they own or manage approximately 85 percent of the private property owner in Eastern Collier County. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So it's 85. So I was wrong when I said -- MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, of the private property, that collective group. That's eight different entities; Alico, Specific Land, English -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. So -- but Barron is 85 percent of that group? MR. OCHS: No. MR. REYNOLDS: No. There are -- there are roughly 180,000 privately -owned acres in the RLS. The rest of it is in public ownership. Of the privately -owned land, the Eastern Collier Property Owners represents more than 80 percent of that private ownership, okay. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. But what percentage of that is controlled by the Colliers? MR. REYNOLDS: What percent of that is controlled by the Colliers? Which Collier family? There are two different Collier entities. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't even know who -- I didn't even know -- MR. REYNOLDS: Well, I don't have all the figures in front of me. My recollection is that the Barron Collier Company is about 60009 I think Collier Enterprises is approximately 40,000, and then the rest is split between the other property owners. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what's the total again between the property owners as a whole for that area? Page 362 December 13-14,2011 MR. REYNOLDS: Approximate- -- the east- -- are you talking about the Eastern Collier Property Owners or all private ownership? COMMISSIONER HILLER: The RLSA. MR. REYNOLDS: Okay. The RLSA is about 190,000 total acres. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So a one hundred thousand -- a one hundred thousand of the 195- is controlled by one of the two Collier families? MR. REYNOLDS: Controlled by one of the two? No, 100,000 is controlled by two of the Collier families, right. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Both of them. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So basically they control half of that market. Like I said, I've heard a lot of concerns expressed. I really think that -- I mean, I don't see any justification, any need, any pressing need to do it now. And, quite frankly, it would concern me to do it ahead of the plan. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Ian, call the next speaker. MR. MITCHELL: Sir, the next speaker is Brad Cornell. MR. CORNELL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Brad Cornell on behalf of Collier County Audubon Society and Audubon of Florida. Thanks for the opportunity to speak to this issue. Back on October 25, 2010, we and three of our partner environmental organizations, Florida Wildlife Federation, Defenders of Wildlife, and Audubon of Florida, sent a letter to you supporting moving these amendments forward as part of the evaluation and appraisal and -- the EAR process, the Evaluation Appraisal Report. We still support that position. We don't agree that waiting for the Habitat Conservation Plan completion is needed in this case. There are two separate things. You do land planning. That's your responsibility. That has to do with federal regulations on Endangered Species Act issues. And while Page 363 December 13 -14, 2011 there is some intersection of those issues, your responsibility is land planning, and I think you do it very well, and that's what we want to see you move forward with. It's -- I was on the review committee, the 5 -Year Review Committee that met for two years. It's been four years since the 5 -year review started in the fall of 2007. The recommendations in the report, you accepted in spring 2009, are very important for acting on lessons learned in the first five years of implementing the Rural Land Stewardship Area Program. That was the purpose of doing the 5 -year review of an innovative, unprecedented land -use plan. We wanted to know, did it work? Have we done it well? Is there anything we can do better? It's time to adopt those needed plan amendments to evolve the Rural Land Stewardship Program into a cutting -edge benefit for all the citizens and agricultural and environmental resources of Collier County. Finally, regarding the choice that you're given in the executive summary about when to process these amendments, as a member of that advisory committee and also representing Collier Audubon and Audubon of Florida, I strongly recommend the amendments be fully included in the 2007 EAR -based amendments for both transmittal and adoption, and that would be your staffs Recommendation No. 1. 1 think that's clearly what's needed in this instance. So thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Andrew McElwaine. MR. McELWAINE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Andrew McElwaine, for the record. When you addressed this two - and -a -half years ago, Commissioner Coyle, Chairman Coyle, did an amazing thing, which is he got everybody to agree on a way forward. And so clearly there's a future career for him in the Middle East. Page 364 December 13 -14, 2011 CHAIRMAN COYLE: I've already tried that. MR. McELWAINE: The agreement was -- and I looked at the transcript, and it's available to everyone. The agreement was to go to a -- and this was voted up -- a special cycle on the RLSA amendments, a cap on the credits and a cap on the acreage development in the RLSA of 45,000 acres, and the credits would not entail any property right, Bert Harris right, or any legal obligation to the taxpayers or anybody else, that the special cycle would consider, in addition to the RLSA committee's comments and recommendations, the voluminous recommendations and comments of the EAC and the CCPC, which is normal in a special cycle, but not just the RLSA committee. It was an -- and also the Conservancy, as part of that -- and, again, it's in the transcript -- reserve the right to question putting agricultural credits on the same value as natural resource credits. It's not that we shouldn't preserve ag; we should. But I'd like to see some kind of science of justification behind the two credits going from 0.2 to 2. It's an order of magnitude. There's clearly some basis for all of the habitat and flowway credits; that's based on pretty good science. So I'd like to see something similar on the ag side before I buy into that. So -- now mama always told me, don't stick anything in your ear, and mama was a growth- management expert, it turns out. The EAR is already full, in my opinion. There's plenty of work to be done. The EAR has already been transmitted to the EAC. I believe that train has left the station. Moreover, we -- you have already voted for a special cycle. Stantec has indicated it will -- and, again, this was part of your motion -- that the outside party and outside group will be paid for to do the work. So you don't even need to vote on this again. You've already voted up a special cycle. The conditions have all been met. You can -- and there's no longer any limit in the Growth Management Act for a special cycle. Page 365 December 13 -14, 2011 Now, I've kept my word. I endorse that special cycle. I endorse everything Commissioner Coyle and I agreed to. I would ask the other parties who agreed to that to keep their word. Let's get the special cycle underway. Finally, if there's an issue of someone paying for it, the Conservancy will pay for it. I'm authorized by my Board to put $90,000 on the table. But we would want you to have independent consultants who don't do business with my organization or any other organization in the RLSA. With that, we will commit $90,000 to help pay for the special cycle. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's really great, thank you. That's, like, awesome. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Next speaker. MR. MITCHELL: Nicole, are you -- no, you're going to waive. Nancy Payton, and Nancy will be your last speaker. MS. PAYTON: Good afternoon. Nancy Payton representing the Florida Wildlife Federation. And we're here to support Option 1 to include the 5 -Year Review accepted -- Committee accepted amendments within the EAR process, which we consider a special cycle. I mean, I think we're talking semantics. We want to move it forward, and this is going to go on a parallel process with the EAR -based amendments that are in another package and come together at the adoption hearing, as I understand the proposal. The RLSA was a major issue in the EAR document, so it's not adding something. It is fulfilling an obligation that the RLSA would be addressed as a major issue in the EAR -based process. Again, we're supporting the 5 -Year Review Committee recommendations that you accepted with some modifications. It reduces and caps development, 45,000 acres. We think that's very December 13 -14, 2011 important. It provides incentives for farmland preservation. If we have to refine that through the adoption process, fine, we can do that. That's what the adoption process is about is looking at these in greater detail and justifying them. It provides disincentives for ranchettes, the five -acre baseline density, which we know is problematic, and it provides incentives for regional habitat links so that our large tracts of public and private conservation lands in Southwest Florida can be interconnected. The RLSA is a keystone parcel to ensuring that habitat connectivity. Earlier today there was discussion about controlling our own destiny and not relying upon outside agencies in -- elsewhere in Florida or in Washington, D.C., to determine our destiny. Well, that's exactly what you'll do if you do Option 2 is that you're allowing a federal regulatory process to trump your planning process, and it should be -- the other way around is that our planning process should dictate that Habitat Conservation Plan and not sit back and say, well, we'll let the federal government determine our particular land uses in Collier County. So I call upon you to walk the talk when it comes to controlling our own destiny and moving these amendments forward for further discussion and hopefully adoption. Thank you. MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your last speaker. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Nothing? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I already spoke. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to make a motion that we go with Option 1. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'll second that motion. I just wanted to -- could I add a couple things? Brad was saying something about -- especially getting the special cycle on the way, and I think Page 367 December 13-14,2011 that that's an important addition in case -- you know, in case we need to put that on the record as part of the motion. Would that be okay? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I -- didn't Nancy just say that this is a special cycle? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. MS. PAYTON: I viewed it as a special cycle. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, then I don't have a problem including that language. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. Yes, she did say that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is there -- MR. BOSI: There is no special cycle. The Option 1 identification would be a -- separate submittal stage hearings with the EAC, CCPC, and the BCC, and then at adoption it's part of your EAR -based amendment process. So it's not a special cycle. It's a cycle -- it's a cycle within the EAR -based amendments. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, that's what Nancy said, special cycle is the same as Option 1. MS. PAYTON: I viewed it that way. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: He doesn't. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'm sorry. Go ahead, Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: What about supporting a five -year review? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Isn't that automatic, the five -year review? COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's already done. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, this is it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, we're at a 10 -year review now. MR. BOSI: No. There's no -- there's no language in the existing Page 368 December 13 -14, 2011 policies that require the review specifically of the RLSA for any period of time. Of course, it would be part of any EAR -based -- or EAR reviews that we would have in the future. But there's no specific allocation of another round of RLSA - specific type of reviews that are incorporated within the regulatory -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But we get them through the EAR, through our regular EAR cycle. MR. BOSI: The regular EAR cycle will re- evaluate every subdistrict, every provision within the Future Land Use Element in the Growth Management Plan. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, could we -- you want me to include that in there, we recognize the fact that we're going to get updated through that cycle? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Five -year review, yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm just trying to meet everybody's needs. We're putting language in there just to try to -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: If you think it already says that, then fine. COMMISSIONER HENNING: We already did the five -year review. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I know that, but I was thinking of the next five -year review. I thought that possibly that was what we were talking about. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. MR. BOSI: Every EAR review, the RLSA will be part of that review as well. So the need to segment out another specified RLSA review, I'm not sure that it's of high importance. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. MR. BOSI: I believe it was of high importance when we first initiated the program because of the unknown. COMMISSIONER HENNING: To see how it works. Page 369 December 13-14,2011 MR. BOSI: Yes, yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You finished? Tell -- Nick, we're going to do this in English, okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: All right. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Explain to us about the mechanics of getting this done during the EAR cycle. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It -- you're going to do the EAR separately with the staff that's already scheduled to do this. We have some comp - planning staff that will take in the information and start processing it and reviewing it. It will not be attached to the EAR. That's what we'd always said. It would kind of parallel. Then we continue to do the EAR, submit it. And then as this progressed through committee summer and fall, when it was completed, it would submitted separately. So it was never intended, as the recommendation quite states, to go with the EAR. To go in parallel with the EAR is what the intent was for Option 1. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, tell me the advantages and disadvantages of doing this with Option 1 or Option 2. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Option 1, the disadvantage, in talking to Mike, is staff time. Right now we've got a lot going on. You just adopted your Watershed Management Plans, you're about to consider your Master Mobility Plan, you have your EAR -based amendments coming forward, and with the limited staff we have that -- you know, we probably don't give it its due diligence. That's our concern for Option 1. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Option 2 would be that if you still wanted to get this thing done, we'd kind of kick it towards the back end of the EAR. As the EAR went towards adoption and was completed, we'd start this process. Your Option 2 says HCP, but knowing that that's pretty much out in limbo, that we'd delay this a Page 370 December 13 -14, 2011 little bit longer until the EAR was kind of finalizing, and then that staff coming off of the EAR could focus on doing this as kind of the next project. CHAIRMAN COYLE: The problem is that the focus seems to be on either Option 1 or Option 2. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Delay indefinitely, right. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Option 2 essentially means that you don't know when it will ever get done. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So Option 2 is a strategy which would assure that nothing would be done at all for some indefinite period of time? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't think that's a good option, to me. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm not suggesting it's a good option, but that's what the option is. All right. I'm -- if you supported Option 2, you're supporting an option which is -- which will guarantee that these changes will never occur, probably. MR. CASALANGUIDA: What you heard today, sir, and what I'm telling you now is, in my opinion, after talking to Mike, we could do Option 1; it'd be a stretch. I would probably call it a IA or 2 hybrid. Wait till the EAR's done or towards the tail end of the EAR, and then devote resources to it. And I heard Andrew say he wanted some independent analysis. I don't know where that falls in. I think the ECPO group providing the data and analysis is not a bad idea, but maybe having some independent review of it as well to give it some legitimacy is not a bad idea either. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Well, here's the concern as far as I'm concerned. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. Page 371 December 13 -14, 2011 CHAIRMAN COYLE: The EAR is primarily designed to provide a focal point for a large number of plans that we struggle with throughout the year. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We do. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And it will serve to bring us together and to coordinate among all of those plans and strategies in a way that makes sense. So there is a lot of justification for doing it consistent with the EAR schedule, but it shouldn't get subordinated to the EAR schedule in a way that would ignore important elements of the Rural Land Stewardship plan. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Understood. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. At least that's my opinion. Do you share that opinion? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I do. My only fear, sir, is that I think once this comes to the Planning Commission, like your EAR's already been for the transmittal portion, there is going to be a lot of discussion, and I think by -- we want to be clear. You don't want to tie it to the EAR because I think it's going to start to drag as the discussion comes UP. I know, based on feedback I've received from both the Conservancy and other groups involved, estates residents, rural land folks, that there's going to be some discussion back and forth. So while it's an integral part of the EAR, I think if you tie it to the EAR right now, the EAR's going to be get slowed way down. So that's why I say they're separate in tracked (sic). CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. But my question really relates to, how can you assure that they will both go down a track that assures that they are properly coordinated. MR. CASALANGUIDA: By having that same staff that's looking at one, making sure that it's tied into what we're looking at with the other. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you can do that? Page 372 December 13 -14, 2011 MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's going to be a challenge, but I can do that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, with respect to having technical expertise available, your recommendation is not to rely upon any single organization to provide for final approval of this -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- but you would accept information -- technical information that could then be verified or reviewed by an independent source; is that possible? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well -- and that's an interesting twist. I didn't know Andrew was going to propose what he proposed. But what I would think makes sense and gives everybody a lot more comfort, based on what I'm hearing, if ECPO's willing to provide all that documentation and backup, if the Conservancy's willing to put up the money to have an independent, I would say, outside - the - county influence, do a review at the same time, I think you've got the best of both worlds. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I think so, too, and that's exactly where I'm going. And if Andrew can add another $90,000 to that, we can do some other good things, too. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I was looking forward to that. MR. McELWAINE: I'll check with Mr. Von Arx for you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Good, good, good. MR. CASALANGUIDA: So if that's on the table, I think we've got something, because we'll have a third party assisting staff. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can I suggest then that the motion maker and the second incorporate that proposal into the motion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm all for that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm all for that. And once again, too, the way -- may I? I'm sorry to speak out of turn. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, go ahead. You're the motion maker. Page 373 December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My understanding is is that you don't play a direct role in this once that money comes through. It's a gift from Santa Claus, and we're going to graciously accept it. MR. McELWAINE: As long as it's independent, outside. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, right, right. So I -- great. I thank you for that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And will they also be addressing the credits used? You know, you were talking about capping some of the credits and so forth. Will that same study be addressing that as well as to whether it would be beneficial to the environment, to the county? MR. McELWAINE: It seems to me that's more a parliamentary issue, really, because the commission voted to cap the credits. It was a very detailed motion that Commissioner Coyle offered and was approved, and that's still, to my knowledge -- again, not being a parliamentarian -- is still the guidance from the commission, I believe. Perhaps not, but I believe it is, in which case you've addressed that already, and I'm happy with it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. But you brought it up, so I thought -- MR. McELWAINE: Oh, my concern was on a separate matter, which is not that we don't have extra credit for preserving farmland, but that the amount we choose has a justification behind it, as it did for establishing habitat stewardship areas, flowway stewardship areas where we really did our homework and said, yes, these deserve these amounts of credits based on their ecological value. I'd like some thought put into that in terms of what are the true natural resource values to that open farmland. Do they all deserve two, do some deserve a half, you know, et cetera. I think there's some homework that needs to be done there. MR. CASALANGUIDA: So I'm clear, that that money would go towards a consultant that does not have direct involvement with the landowners of ECPO group -- Page 374 December 13 -14, 2011 MR. McELWAINE: Or Conservancy. MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- or Conservancy for that matter, and they would report directly to staff and do a third -party analysis and provide comments to this board through your staff. Very good. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That sounds like a good plan. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just -- Nick, just a minor tweaking of that -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- just to make sure that it is a truly unbiased report. You said to provide that report through the staff. I would prefer to see the independent agency that reviews it to make their own presentation to the board concerning the assessment. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Very good. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Rather than filtering it through staff. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Because if the Conservancy's paying for it to be a totally unbiased assessment, then it shouldn't be biased by us either. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We'd manage the contract but transparently, like we've done with some of the other contracts that they've been very happy with, so they would attend the meetings and listen and participate, and like the ECPO could as well, too. Very good. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Excellent idea. I include that in the motion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We don't have any other public speakers do we, Ian? MR. MITCHELL: No, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. You know, reviewing this material, what the effect of these amendments do is to increase the Page 375 December 13-14,2011 residential units permitted in the RLSA by 6,752 units, and somehow we have to, you know, justify that there's a need for this additional development, you know, proposed within that planning time frame, which I believe is about 2025. I really -- I really don't understand how we can possibly justify this and -- with the current development climate. And what concerns me even more is by basically adding 1,688 acres to -- of SRA lands, we have to have an offset of residential development potential somewhere else, you know, to adjust our Future Land Use Map. So -- and then there's, you know, the cost of the public facilities to support this additional residential development and the question of how agricultural acreage is being protected where we're adding, you know, so much more in the way of residential development. And, quite frankly, I'm not even addressing commercial development or anything else. So, again, I just don't see what the rush is when I don't -- I mean, we can't even build out Ave Maria. How many units are there in Ave Maria now? MR. BOSI: Constructed to date? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Constructed, yeah. MR. BOSI: I believe under 400. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Under 400. And what's the potential out there in Ave Maria? MR. BOSI: Seven thousand. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. So I mean, why if -- you know, why are we adding almost another 7,000 units when we only have 400 units of Ave Maria developed? I mean, I just don't see what the rush is to increase the development potential of an area that is not developing anywhere at the rate that was anticipated. I mean, the numbers are just not panning out. And, again, you know, what about fiscal neutrality, and what is the cost to the county to, you know, continue developing infrastructure Page 376 December 13 -14, 2011 further out? I mean, I just -- I just have a real hard time understanding, you know, what we're doing here. I mean, it seems like we're just building on urban sprawl. I mean, it just doesn't make any sense without the demand. MR. BOSI: And all those -- all those concerns are legitimate questions, and I believe that's why the aspect for an independent review to the specifications of the amendments in the data that's presented to provide that evaluation will address a number of those questions. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just -- I can't -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor of the motion -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no, no. Wait a minute. One final thing. It appears that we're -- in my opinion we're trying to rush through. If we're going to have somebody independent, are we allowed to ask the independent consultant to look at certain aspects of it, like Commissioner Hiller was asking about? MR. BOSI: And I think Commissioner Hiller's request or questions relate to the appropriateness of the changes, and that's exactly what the data and analysis is geared to do within any amendment package, and that independent analysis would evaluate the data and analysis that was presented forward based upon the proposed changes— COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. BOSI: -- and see if there was appropriate linkage to support those changes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- do you want the consultant to go through the advisory boards also? I would hope so. Because that always spurs good dialogue and conversation. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think, you know, depending on what $90,000 buys, I'm sure the RFP could be written. Page 377 December 13 -14, 2011 MR. McELWAINE: Up to. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Up to. Well, it'll go pretty quick, Andrew, I hate to say it. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Trust me, it's like the government budget. You know, you say that the project's going to be 2 million, it's going to be 2 million. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think that analysis probably would have to be presented at the advisory board level to answer questions, too. So I think that would be realistic to ask for that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're forgetting change orders, Commissioner Hiller. COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're right. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And expired contracts. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And expired contracts. MR. OCHS: Ouch, ouch. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ouch. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I mean, contract dates don't mean anything to us, right? You just continue to spend the money. You have to abide by our rules. Once we start with your $90,000, there's no end to it. All in favor of the motion, 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. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It passes 4 -1 with Commissioner Hiller dissenting. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN COYLE: What item did you want to cover first? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I -- there was one off the Page 378 December 13-14,2011 consent, and also on the community redevelopment, B 1, I'd like to talk about. But, anyways, on the consent - agenda item, which was 16E 15 -- I don't know what it is now. Item # l OQ RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT REPORTS AND RATIFY STAFF - APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS — APPROVED MR. OCHS: It's now IOQ, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: 10Q? MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. MS. JOURDAN: Good afternoon. For the record, Jean Jourdan with the Bayshore Gateway -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: We haven't even decided we're going to take this yet. Hold on a minute, would you. MS. JOURDAN: Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The question was -- and we have on our change order -- we have an outside agency acting as the transportation planner for the Board of Commissioners, and the change order amount is now 98,000? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir, approximately that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: What's the number on this one, besides IOQ? What was the -- MR. OCHS: It was formerly 16E15 on your agenda, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's the second batch of change orders, and it was No. 5. Mr. -- Leo has forwarded me an email that you wrote to him, Nick. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. Page 379 December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER HENNING: It explains that we eliminated the director's position in transportation and relied on planning manager to fill the void for covering that obligation of both positions, Mike Green, who was covering those obligations until he gave his notice in the spring. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: In my exit interview with him, he stated that the job duties that he was being asked to cover were barely covering and -- barely covered and would like -- wouldn't want to take any risk to provide some coverage during the interim period while we look for a new manager. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And we secured WilsonMiller Stantec to provide the on -site oversight for the following projects that were in the queue. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I -75, IJR, the master mobility, MPO priorities, access management plan, and the preparation of AUIR/CIE. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, isn't WilsonMiller Stantec on the private side? No, on the public side working on these, at least one of these projects? MR. CASALANGUIDA: In some of them, yes, they are, sir. What that manager would do is do the QAQC on technical stuff. So the specific person that's doing the work is Jeffrey Perry, who was our former MPO manager for the county, so he's very familiar with this. That's the reason I went with that firm. If I'd gone with -- on any other general planning contact -- contract firm, sir, they would have come in on a learning curve that would have been really high, so we -- I chose Jeff on the GPC to come in and provide support. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Isn't Stantec a subconsultant for Page 380 December 13 -14, 2011 the Master Mobility also? MR. CASALANGUIDA: They are -- they are, sir. I'm asking to do totally different things, though, sir. As day -to -day projects come in -- in other words, if a developer comes in and submits a TIS to the county, right now I don't have anybody on staff qualified to read that. We do have the county engineer, but obviously he's doing his work. So Jeff would review those, provide comments directly to me; he would tell me what he thought. When the IJR came forward and submitted their D &K (sic) factors for the traffic study, he provided his comments to me. I reviewed them. Some of these documents, sir, are 50 to 100 pages, so he reads them for me and gives me a consolidated summary of what's in there, what I should be looking at and asks me to provide comment back to him. So he provided that capacity in the interim period. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you don't see the potential conflict in this? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's technical, and I review everything he submits to me. So I didn't see a conflict because he wasn't making any recommendations. He would say to me, Nick, this is what you should be looking at, and I would go through the document and -- on the tabbed sections he would provide, and I would look at it to see if there was an issue. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You don't see any perceived conflicts? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Perceived, I could see, sir, because his name's come up as working for the private side. But I've got to give him a lot of credit, sir, in his role as he sits in our offices. The outside entities that come in and have worked with him have said he's been very professional. Our staff, who sits next to him, have said he's been very professional. And he's provided me no guidance that I would consider Page 381 December 13-14,2011 to be inconsistent with what I would expect our planning manager to do. So I haven't found any, sir, but I could see how you could have perceived conflicts. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's not mine. You know, I've always believed in checks and balances -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and the independent reviews. And, in fact, our forefathers said, men are not made of angels, and they are not governed by angels; therefore, those shall be the checks and balances of the system, man over man. And I just don't see the separation there. I just see the same person is doing the work, the same person is reviewing it. And I really respect Mr. Perry -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: He's not reviewing any of his own work, sir. That was very clear when he took the work on with us, that he would not review anything submitted by WilsonMiller Stantec. That would be done by myself, sir. So things on the mobility plan, he had no -- most of this work related to the IJR, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I know, but in the email that you submitted, that's why I pulled it. It's -- I mean, he's reviewing the Master Mobility Plan. That's precisely why I pulled it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And, sir, I don't -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know that there was some public in the past that had a problem with WilsonMiller Stantec doing the work because of -- they're doing work for the eastern landowners and that perception of conflict. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And it's really about the public's perception. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I respect that, and the fact that you brought it to light is -- I think is fair, and I'm happy to answer those Page 382 December 13 -14, 2011 questions. We advertised that position as soon as Mike left. We expected it to last maybe three months, four months. We went through 85 applications, interviewed, I think, seven or eight people, and I wasn't even on the interview committee. We made an offer. They turned it down, readvertised again. We just made a selection this week and they accepted, and they'll start January 1 st. So I didn't expect it to be this long. And for that type of position, it's an interesting job market with the set of skills that we need for the county staff. But I appreciate you bringing it up, and all I can say is I've treated it fairly, and I've provided good oversight, and ultimately you hold me accountable, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I trust Nick. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I've asked my questions. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then we're finished with that item. Let's go to the next. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, we have to vote on it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve by Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes 3 -2 with Commissioners Hiller and Henning dissenting. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the other one is -- what is Page 383 December 13 -14, 2011 that 13B -- MR. OCHS: 13B 1, Commissioner. Item #1313 1 REQUEST AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE AN ORDINANCE FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2002-381 AS AMENDED, "COLLIER COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT GRANT PROGRAM ORDINANCE" BY ESTABLISHING A RESIDENTIAL INFRASTRUCTURE GRANT PROGRAM FOR THE IMMOKALEE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA — MOTION TO CONTINUE ITEM TO THE JANUARY 24, 2012 BCC MEETING — APPROVED COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- B 1. It's an ordinance change. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, having to do with the Collier County Redevelopment Grant Program Ordinance by establishing the Residential Infrastructure Grant Program for the Immokalee Community Redevelopment Area. MR. MUCKEL: Good afternoon. For the record, Brad Muckel, the Immokalee CRA, here to answer any questions you have with this item and also 13B3 as well. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Henning? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We -- I'm turning the gavel over to Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who can apply for these residential grants? MR. MUCKEL: Any entity nonprofit 501(c) 3, residential development. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just the nonprofit? MR. MUCKEL: Uh -huh. MIME December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER HENNING: No residents can do that? MR. MUCKEL: No. Page 1 of the policies and procedures in the agenda packet, Paragraph 1, Sentence 1 says, only residential developers classified as 501(c)3. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Only --yeah. MR. MUCKEL: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But that's different than the Bayshore CRA. And do these not - for - profits pay taxes within the CRA? MR. MUCKEL: Sure, yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: They do? MR. MUCKEL: Uh -huh. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wow. I don't think so. MR. MUCKEL: No. I'm not sure. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I thought the CRA, the Immokalee CRA mission was to try to encourage businesses to come into the CRA but yet there are no business incentives in your proposal like there is the Bayshore CRA. MS. PHILLIPPI: I'm Penny Phillippi -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Hi. MS. PHILLIPPI: -- the director of the Immokalee CRA. This is a completely separate request that came in from a for -- nonprofit developer who has completed an entire subdivision and is at the final stage. The subdivision is all homeownership units, and all those units do pay taxes. The nonprofit is the developer that has no more funds left to complete the final closeout to get the final CO on the entire development, meaning the sidewalks, the curbs, or whatever is damaged during the construction process. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wow. Have you ever had any businesses come to the CRA and ask for assistance? MS. PHILLIPPI: Of course, many, constantly. Page 385 December 13-14,2011 COMMISSIONER HENNING: But you never had -- but you never had any ability to do that because that wasn't a part of an ordinance? MS. PHILLIPPI: Oh, we help them constantly with our commercial facade grant. We've done 15 of them. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Have you ever had a business come to you and ask to assist on paying for impact fees to expand a business, create 50 to 100 jobs in Immokalee? MS. PHILLIPPI: No. We had one business request that we pay $50,000 impact fees for them, and we offered to offset that with a commercial facade grant or the incentives that are provided by the county. And that owner informed us that they wanted those incentives and they want the $50,000 paid. And the reason they cited was because the county had considered assistance to Jackson Labs. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But you don't have the ability to pay impact fees? MS. PHILLIPPI: No, we don't. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. So -- MS. PHILLIPPI: Or waive them or anything else. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you don't have the ability to waive them. MS. PHILLIPPI: Or anything else. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because it's not a part of the ordinance. MS. PHILLIPPI: We have no power as -- in regards to impact fees. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But you have the ability to do that. I mean, the Bayshore CRA does it, right? MS. PHILLIPPI: I don't know if they do it or not. We don't have funds to accommodate impact fees. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Have you seen this ordinance? Have you seen this ordinance? Page 386 December 13 -14, 2011 MS. PHILLIPPI: Yes, uh -huh. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It clearly states that Bayshore does it now. And you had a business that came to you wanting to expand their business to create high -wage jobs in Immokalee, and I'm surprised that you're not asking to assist businesses in that way but you want -- you want to help out not - for - profits. MS. PHILLIPPI: We want to help the nonprofit complete what they've completed. It's already a subdivision completely built. They needed $18,000. The CRA advisory committee offered to pay half of that if they come up with the other half so they can get their final CO on the complete development and finish off that development in Immokalee. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did you bring this ordinance to the CRA, to the Immokalee CRA? MS. PHILLIPPI: We took the full package to the Immokalee Advisory Committee. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And they're aware of what the Bayshore CRA is offering people and future businesses? No. MS. PHILLIPPI: We didn't have a discussion about impact fees whatsoever. COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's apples and oranges, isn't it? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, it isn't. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Where we going with it? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, it isn't. It is -- I mean -- MS. PHILLIPPI: This is a residential. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know it's a residential, and you want to help a not - for - profit. I understand that. But I always thought the mission in Immokalee was create a place to do business. MS. PHILLIPPI: One of the goals is economic development, but one of the goals is also housing, safe, decent housing. That's second -- another of the goals. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would hope -- Page 387 December 13 -14, 2011 MS. PHILLIPPI: I don't know about the -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would hope there would be emphasis on trying to create jobs out there. MS. PHILLIPPI: We have a tremendous emphasis on creating jobs. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Who built the homes? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, please. You're out of order. I'll recognize you when the time comes. Yeah, you've got to watch it now. You keep an eye on him, will you do that? COMMISSIONER HILLER: He's learning from me. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have a gavel, too. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: He's got a gavel, too. COMMISSIONER HILLER: He's been hanging around me too much. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's get down to brass tacks. Enough of the tom - foolery here. Where does the money come from for your CRA? MS. PHILLIPPI: From TIF funds. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Basically Immokalee is the one that's coming up. The money that comes from there, the money that's over and above. MS. PHILLIPPI: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, part of the tax revenue goes in there. MS. PHILLIPPI: Correct. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. You've got a CRA Board that comes and they meet on a regular basis, an advisory group, that sits down with you who knows Immokalee better than any one of us commissioners -- at least I hope they do -- who got a feel for what's taking place; is that correct? MS. PHILLIPPI: That is correct. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now, you're trying to blend a town, a December 13-14,2011 town that's going to be something not only the beauty to behold, but it's going to be something over and above what it is today that will attract businesses. Isn't this what some of this is all about is to be able to make neighborhoods look appealing enough so business would want to locate there? This is what I think the direction is. MS. PHILLIPPI: That's part of the housing goal, yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I don't know where Commissioner Henning's coming. It seems like every time we turn around there's an attack on this organization. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't see any sense in doing this. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I got the floor right now. I'll recognize you in just a minute, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And, you know, we need civility up here, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We do, sir. And that -- sir, you have to wait your turn. I'll give you a chance. But, Penny, this direction we're going, now, have you been refusing people as a matter of course that want to operate growing businesses in Immokalee; in other words, they come before you and they ask for something that's doable? You're refusing them out of course? MS. PHILLIPPI: No, no, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Of course not. You're doing a wonderful job, and everybody has commended you on it, and everybody recognizes you for what's taking place. You're building an entity in Immokalee that makes all the difference in the world. Right now you're the glue that's holding everything together. And with that I make a motion for approval. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's see. Let me go down the line here and give somebody else a turn. I'm sorry. I don't know who was Page 389 December 13 -14, 2011 first on lights. I don't know if your light's working. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't even have a light on. COMMISSIONER COYLE: One thing you have to remember, if there's any confusion, Commissioner Hiller's light is always on. COMMISSIONER HILLER: He just doesn't turn it off. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where's the civility up here? Why can't you -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, drop the civility garbage. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know. Why can't you be civil CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And if this is an example of civility, talking over the top of everyone else -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's hold it. Let's go down the line, and we'll come back to Commissioner Henning, and we'll give you all the time in the world you need to finish up. Commissioner Coyle, you got anything to add? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I have nothing. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER COYLE: You've got a motion. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Penny, who is the developer? What is this project? MS. PHILLIPPI: This is Milagro Place, and the developer is the Empowerment Alliance of Southwest Florida. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And what happened that they didn't budget? I mean, it seems like we're -- I mean, how was this project funded initially? MS. PHILLIPPI: Initially it was, I believe -- I can't even tell you. It would either have to be Florida Housing Finance Corporation, CDBG, or USDA Housing Development. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So did they just run out of -- Page 390 December 13 -14, 2011 MS. PHILLIPPI: So this was over a long period of time, because it was a homeownership development. They put in all the infrastructure, and then they started -- as they sold a house, they built a house until the full development was completely built out. And it was all, again, affordable housing, but it was homeownership. At the end of the day, they had their final inspection by the -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: The county. MS. PHILLIPPI: -- the county, and they had a list of things -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: A punch list. MS. PHILLIPPI: -- that needed to be done, and there was a cost attached to that. They didn't have the money for that. Six more months went by. They still couldn't close out the final deal. They had another inspection, and the punch list actually got bigger because trucks run over curbs and gutters fill up, and things like that happen. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I guess my question is, wouldn't it be more appropriate to get CDBG funding -- I mean, we've got CDBG funding coming in -- rather than do an amendment to an ordinance, since, you know, this project is in effect, you know, a CDBG, USDA project? Rather than take money from the CRA, why not pull it from, you know, where it has come up till now? MS. PHILLIPPI: Well, there is a good answer for that. When you apply for CDBG funds -- for example, if you apply this coming April, you won't receive them probably until October of that same year, maybe even December, depending how long it takes to get your award. And the longer that they wait, the bigger the punch list gets and the bigger the dollar sign gets for that punch list. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I guess my -- I guess my question is, because I — from what I understand, you can always amend, you know, the application of these funds, and it's not a large amount. Have you actually spoken to housing to see if whether, you know, we can reallocate, you know, $9,000 in CDBG funding to get this done? Page 391 December 13 -14, 2011 MS. PHILLIPPI: No, and that wouldn't be our role. That would be the role of the nonprofit developer. We can facilitate that conversation. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Isn't it worthwhile doing that as a first step before we go this route? Because, I mean, it seems to me that would be the simple solution, and then we don't have to change an ordinance or do anything else. MS. PHILLIPPI: Well, I mean, that is the decision for this board. We basically had someone come to us, make the request of the CRA Advisory Board. Their request was, go to the CRA and ask them. The only way we could do that would be to amend the ordinance, because we have no residential program in place in the Immokalee CRA. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I guess my point is, you know, you're taking away money from the CRA that could be funded, you know, by a very legitimate other source and could maybe be done very quickly and easily. So I would really hate to see that alternative explored and, you know, money that you could be putting towards some other, you know, beautification of Immokalee towards something it doesn't really need to go to because we just haven't considered the alternative source of funding. MS. PHILLIPPI: I think it's a good idea. I can't speak for the developer as to if -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure. And he just -- MS. PHILLIPPI: -- they've already done that or not. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And if it's one of those things where, you know, they may just not have thought of it and, you know, we just need to help them with the alternative idea. MS. PHILLIPPI: I don't know. They're pretty professional in this regard. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, you never know, you know. So it would be really ideal if we could get it from there and leave the Page 392 December 13-14,2011 CRA money in the CRA to do this other stuff as opposed to do this development's punch out. That would be my preference as an alternative, as a first step, you know. MS. PHILLIPPI: We could take that suggestion. As I said, it's up to this board. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because then, like I said, you're just leaving more money in a CRA and, you know, supplementing it with the other stuff. I'm repeating myself. It's getting late. But that's my point. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, Commissioner Coyle, could you find it in your heart to recognize there are people that have differing viewpoints, and it is not productive to attack others that don't have the same viewpoints as both of you separately? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Can I go first? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Go first. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. I think you're absolutely correct. You should always recognize different viewpoints. It's how they make the presentation that's all in the mix that -- how everybody else reacts. When it comes out to be confrontational, interrogating the people that are in front of them, then the whole demeanor of the room changes, and it becomes a little hostile. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did you feel that -- that I was interrogating you? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You don't have to answer that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Of course, she's not going to tell you. Yeah. Well, my answer is fairly simple. The large portion of my adult life was spent in an institution, not a -- Page 393 December 13 -14, 2011 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That didn't come off well. Try again. COMMISSIONER COYLE: An organization, perhaps an institution where you did not lie, cheat, or steal, and you didn't tolerate people who do. And when there are lies being told by commissioners on this dais, I am going to confront them. And if you don't like it, that's tough. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you feel that I was lying? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I'm not -- you raised a general question, okay. You raised a question about, do you feel it's in our heart to accept differences of opinion and, of course, I always recognize that. But what I do not tolerate is people who will lie, distort the facts in order to try to convince others to believe them. And I will never tolerate that. And there is no reason to expect civility under those circumstances, because you cannot deal with that kind of conduct by being civil to people. But I consider that no more offensive than for you, every time someone challenges the facts that have been presented on this board, you jump up and down and say, oh, we've got to have a decorum. We've got to have civility. Well, I think we've got to have truth, and I will keep doing that. And if it disturbs you, you know, you're just going to have to get used to the fact that that's what I'm going to do. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you tell me where I lied? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I didn't say that you lied, okay. But you asked a question about when are we going to get to the point that we respect other people's position. What I -- what I object to in your conduct is that you interrogate and berate staff for issues that have nothing to do with what is before us. You target certain people, and every time they come up here, you interrogate them and, in my opinion, berate them, and that is unprofessional, and I object to it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, everything was on Page 394 December 13-14,2011 the agenda. If I offended you, I apologize. Again, I thought the whole mission of the CRA is to help businesses. MS. PHILLIPPI: It is one of our goals, as is housing, safe, decent housing. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But somehow we have to govern in a different way that it is productive, and what we're doing now is just not working, and it's offensive to our staff and the general public. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. I agree with you, Commissioner Henning. Okay. Let's get back to the business at hand. Commissioner Henning, I don't want to assume that you're done. Did you want to address the issue at hand? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I'm done. I -- I would hope it would come back with considerations for business and other things within the ordinance. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And they do. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the ordinance does for one of the CRAs. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, forgive me. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But anyways. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's not -- no, let's not end it yet. Commissioner Hiller brought up a point that I would like to discuss just a little bit with you. And you seemed all of a sudden to have a little bit of doubt in your mind, and whenever I hear somebody with a hesitant answer, then I begin to think that maybe there is another way to do it. Commissioner Hiller mentioned about the money that we keep -- that could be drawn down from the -- what is that now? COMMISSIONER FIALA: CDBG. COMMISSIONER HILLER: CDBG. Page 395 December 13 -14, 2011 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Now, are those funds that readily available? Can anybody answer that, or is this something that has already been exhausted for the year, or it is something that's up for grabs? MS. PHILLIPPI: I think it cycles, and you have to answer a request for proposals. I mean, they put it out to bid so everybody has equal opportunity to try for those funds. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's explore this possibility just a little. Marla, please, if you would step up. You're the absolute authority on this. MS. RAMSEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's just say that we as a commission don't think that this is a justified expense of the CRA with other funds out there that are available. What is the chances of drawing these funds down, and how long would it take to get them? MS. RAMSEY: First of all -- and I'm at a disadvantage. I don't know what this project is, don't know if it was currently funded with CDBG, don't know if the nonprofit that we're talking about has an existing funding out there. So I'm like shooting in the dark here, just so you'll know. But the process that we would go through is that if there are funds available from various budgeting years that have not been allocated, maybe returned to us because it wasn't needed, then we can reprogram those funds, and it goes through a process where people will then submit an application for those funds, and then we will advertise it and select a person based upon the best one for the funding that's available. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Now, question. Second question would be if we were to continue this, first, how much -- what would happen as far as the projects go that's out there? If all of a sudden we put this on hold to be able to see if those funds are Page 396 December 13 -14, 2011 available, what would happen to the project? MS. PHILLIPPI: As I said, it will simply remain on hold. It's my understanding there are many subdivisions, developments in the county that have never received that final CO. It happens that this nonprofit wants to close this one out and move on. It's the same developer from Esperanza Place who is going to do -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And I can understand all that. And I don't mean to cut you short on it, but I want to try to bring this to some kind of conclusion so some people can meet their other schedules. If we put this off for -- till January, maybe the second meeting in January, do you think we might be able to have a better idea -- Marla, I'm sorry, I'm addressing you. Would we have a better idea -- in one month's time, do you think we could actually come up with a possible direction where we might be able to identify these funds? MS. RAMSEY: We would definitely work with Penny to find out what the issue is, and we work with Penny a lot on various funding opportunities for the Immokalee area. The process, though, does have a fairly lengthy period of time with it, because even once we've -- there's a 15 -day advertising window before we come back to you after the committee has selected, so there is a process, and it could take two months when -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's fine. I mean, that's realistic. But let's do this: I withdraw my motion, and what I'd do is I'd like to substitute or put another motion in place, and that's to continue this item until the second meeting in January to be able to try to get a clear idea of how these funds are available and if they could come into play. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And with that, any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. All those in favor, indicate by saying aye. Page 397 December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the nays? Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No nays. All ayes. It was unanimous. Thank you very much. Commissioner Hiller, thank you for asking that question. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you for being open minded to my idea. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm not too sure where we're going to go from here, whether we're going to stay on the CRA or — Item #1113 RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AN ESCROW AGREEMENT BETWEEN FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ( "FPL "), COLLIER COUNTY CLERK OF COURT, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND FIFTH THIRD BANK FOR PHASE ONE OF THE VANDERBILT BEACH MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT UTILITY CONVERSION PROJECT AND ACKNOWLEDGE FPL CAN CONSTRUCT THE PROJECT WITHOUT THE NEED FOR COMPETITIVE BIDDING, AS AN ALLOWABLE EXCEPTION UNDER SECTION 255.20(1)(C) — APPROVED MR. OCHS: No, sir. We have a request from the County Attorney, while we have all the commissioners still here, to reconvene the board meeting and go to Item 11 B, which is the add -on item, the agreement with Florida Power & Light for the burying of the Page 398 December 13 -14, 2011 underground cables in the Vanderbilt Beach MSTU. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Board of County Commission meeting is back in session. MR. OCHS: Thank you. This is a County Attorney item. MR. TEACH: Commissioners, Scott Teach, Deputy County Attorney. Yesterday I provided the board with a read -ahead of a draft contract at the time regarding the underground conversion utility project with the Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU and FP &L. We've been working around the clock on this for a couple weeks now. We did have some additional changes, and I do have some additional copies for the board, and I'll give one to the court reporter as well, which indicates that the relatively minor strikethrough since -- the one I provided the board yesterday. At the November 8th board meeting, the board directed the County Attorney's Office to follow a twofold course; one, to prepare an attorney- general opinion for -- a request for formal opinion while, at the same time, working with Clerk's Office and FP &L to try to see whether we could resolve the payment arrangement to the satisfaction of all parties. I did prepare a formal response to the letter to the Attorney General. At one point in time it became clear that we were going to be able to work out a resolution, and we all agreed that it would be better that we kept our destiny in our own hands. So we didn't submit it because we don't know what the Attorney General might say. So we continued to work. And what we've done here is we set up an escrow agreement which allows the county to pay into an escrow account the $1.8 million, approximately. There will be four draws. It won't be released until the Clerk reviews, makes sure the payments are appropriate, FP &L agrees that the money should be released to them, and that's how the project will go forward. The agreement is attached. Since yesterday the only changes that Page 399 December 13 -14, 2011 have been made to your agreement -- initially we thought we'd put it in an interest - bearing account. It became clear that the interest - bearing account was not fully FDIC insured, so it went to a nonbearing (sic) account, a qualified public depository, which is acceptable to the Clerk's Office, and that's the most significant change. We've also attached Exhibit A, which is the fees and costs related to the escrow agreement, and those are the two changes. What this will do, this will allow FP &L, once it's executed, along with the UFCA, which is the underground facilities conversion agreement, allow them to move forward on the project and begin Phase 1 of the underground conversion project. And I'm available for questions. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'd just -- MR. TEACH: Commissioners, I just wanted to add, too, that, you know, this has been a really cooperative -- vigorously cooperative effort between the Clerk's Office, their attorneys, FP &L; Jordan White, he's the attorney for FP &L; Charlotte Miller's been very helpful with FP &L. I've been on the phone with attorneys for Fifth Third Bank in Chicago. We've been trying to pull it all together. I've had emails -- Jordan's laughed because I've sent him emails at 3 o'clock in the morning. You know, it's -- we've really tried to pull this together for the community. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. I'd just like to verify with Crystal that she's in agreement. MS. KINZEL: Yes, sir. And I just want to say this is not the way we want to continue to do business, but we were successful this time. And our attorneys have approved it, the Clerk has approved it, and we have been working with staff. So I think we have a positive and happy resolution, and moving forward we're going to change this so we don't get into this position in the future, we would hope. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute. Going to change what? Page 400 December 13 -14, 2011 MS. KINZEL: The process of prepayment or resolution of a prepayment with an escrow. I think we've got the agreement with the transportation department that we're going to sit down before this becomes this type of an issue at the last minute. In the future we're going to work these things through before it becomes such a crunch and a potential of a project being delayed. CHAIRMAN COYLE: But it is my understanding that it was primarily FPL who required the advanced payment. MS. KINZEL: Correct, they did. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MS. KINZEL: But we're going to work through either a bid process or another construction method for the future. But this one's good. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. If we go through another contract with FPL that requires an advanced payment, do we have a mechanism for dealing with that? MS. KINZEL: I can't say that we would use this same escrow mechanism to do that. We need to figure out what the proper approach is if we do a different agreement with FP &L. MR. TEACH: And, Commissioner, I want to add to that, too, part of the executive summary that I provided the board yesterday indicated that -- there was a question regarding the competitive bidding the last time we met, too, and we've resolved that. There is an exception under the Florida Statutes when the public utility performs the work, and FP &L is providing us with an affidavit which the Clerk is comfortable with as a viable exception under the statutes. I've discussed with staff this whole issue, and there are opportunities under FP &L's tariff for -- not to have FP &L perform all the services themselves. In the future, maybe to avoid some of this, staff will consider -- we've got three more phases of the project -- competitively bidding out a portion of the project. FP &L still has to flip the switch, so to speak, to make sure the power turns on. But we Page 401 December 13 -14, 2011 may be able to resolve a lot of these issues that we're talking about regarding process by doing it a different way in the future. And that's something that I'm going to be sitting down with Crystal and staff to explore so we don't run into this situation again. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. First of all, I'd really like to thank the County Attorney's Office and the Clerk's Office and FP &L for working so hard. The citizens in my district were very frustrated and very concerned that this wasn't going to go forward, so I'm glad that you all, you know, were able to come up with a solution that's very positive, and I want to thank you. The other thing I want to mention is that maybe it would make sense to send out the request for an opinion from the AG anyway, because if the AG prospectively for -- if this comes up in another instance, if the AG says, yes, we can accept prepayment under these circumstances, then, you know, the manner in which we do business with FP &L on future projects of a similar nature is, you know, easily addressed. MR. KLATZKOW: If I could add. Commissioner, the Attorney General -- the people who write the Attorney General's opinion live in Tallahassee, have no experience with local government and don't understand the first thing about home rule. Their bias is towards more of the state -law issues. Historically, counties have not done very well in front of the Attorney General. It's not something I would recommend, if we can avoid it. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are you of the opinion that the Attorney General would say no prepayment allowed? MR. KLATZKOW: I'm of the opinion that whatever the issue is, okay, that there's a bias in that office against local government. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand. I just don't Page 402 December 13 -14, 2011 understand what would be the bias against us in this because, quite frankly, I don't see that it makes a difference either way because it's just a question, you know, can we prepay or do we pay after the fact, so I don't know where the bias for or against us would be. It's merely a determination of the timing of payment. CHAIRMAN COYLE: If we've got agreement with the Clerk to pay this -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, I don't think this should be halted at all. This -- I mean, this is a done deal. I'm just saying prospectively. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then let's take up that issue later. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, I think it needs to be considered, because this is not the first time this is going to happen. Or let me restate that. This is not the only time this is going to happen. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. TEACH: And, Commissioners, I did have a conversation with our outside -- one of our outside counsel, Nabors & Giblin, and it was something that they would recommend against based on the opinions that are coming out of the Attorney General's Office at the moment. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seconded by Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll third it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. Page 403 December 13 -14, 2011 (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion passes unanimously. Thank you very much for helping. COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I make one little comment? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, go ahead. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just want to thank Charlotte Miller again, from FP &L, all she did to assist me on another project. I really appreciate you just jumping in and saving the day. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, she's always been helpful. MS. MILLER: I try. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Even on one I had once upon a time. MS. MILLER: We've had some fun, haven't we? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. Thank you. Okay. County Manager? MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta wants to finish the CRA issues. MR. OCHS: Pleasure of the board, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. OCHS: And probably after that we may need a break for your court reporter, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, that's right. Can we do this quickly? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Are you holding up all right? THE COURT REPORTER: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. The next one is — Item #13B2 RECOMMENDATION FOR THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) TO APPROVE AND EXECUTE A COMMERCIAL BUILDING IMPROVEMENT GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CRA AND A GRANT Page 404 December 13 -14, 2011 APPLICANT IN THE BAYSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE AREA. 2068 DAVIS BOULEVARD: $6,752.50)— APPROVED MR. OCHS: The next item under your Community Redevelopment Agency, 13132, recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency to approve and execute a Commercial Building Improvement Grant Agreement between the CRA and a grant applicant within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle area. Specific address, 2068 Davis Boulevard. MS. JOURDAN: Jean Jourdan. I apologize for jumping in line, but I just get so excited to be up here that I just can't contain myself. I'm here to answer any questions that you have about the Commercial Building Improvement Grant request for 2068 Davis Boulevard. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do you want to tell us about it? MS. JOURDAN: This is a request for a Commercial Improvement Grant facade. This is requested by Michael Corradi, which is the owner /manager of CCE Investments. He has actually metal roof and gutters which are leaking, and he wants the CRA to match his improvement of putting on the roof and gutters. He's presented two bids to us for each of the items. And it has gone before the advisory board, and they recommended that we bring it forward to the CRA board for approval. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We've got one speaker. Do you want to go with that, and then -- I'm sorry. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's all right. You can hear the speaker. MR. MITCHELL: Sir, the speaker is Michael Corradi. MS. JOURDAN: This is the grant applicant. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you like to speak, or -- please, come on up and address us, sir. State your name for the record. Page 405 December 13 -14, 2011 MR. CORRADI: My name is Michael Corradi, and I'm here today to -- we have a building that's in the CRA district, and we're trying to bring new businesses to the area, and we've landed Greenway Landscape, who has a location in Estero. And in order to do this, we let them know that there was the possibility -- because there was a possibility for a roof (sic) leak -- a roof that leaked, but it wasn't evident till about six weeks ago when we had a real bad flash flood. They had brought their stuff in, about $50,000 worth of merchandise, and the building completely flooded about 6 inches across the board. So that's when I reached out to the CRA to see if there was any grant funds available, and they said there was. And I gave them proposals. And now we have the tenant that's currently occupied the building. They've beautified it. They've put a lot of money into it, and we're just trying to increase the value of the area. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. You sure did increase the value of the area. They did a great job. You putting the outside touches on, and then the inside touches. It looks so much nicer now with the great big Christmas tree out in front and everything. And I sat in on the advisory board meeting, and everybody was unanimous about their -- in their agreement to fund this, and so I make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner Fiala, second by me. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're forgetting your place, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You must remain silent. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry. Just do what I just did, okay? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. A motion by Commissioner F W December 13 -14, 2011 Fiala and seconded by Commissioner Coyle. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes carry it. MS. JOURDAN: Thank you. It was a pleasure. MR. CORRADI: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. You did a wonderful job. Item #13B3 CRA RESOLUTION 2011 -238: RECOMMEND APPROVING A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING STATUTORY DEDICATION AND ACCEPTANCE OF PORTIONS OF SOUTH FIRST STREET THROUGH SOUTH NINTH STREET, SOUTH SIXTH COURT, BOSTON, COLORADO, DELAWARE AND WEST EUSTIS AVENUES ALL LOCATED IN IMMOKALEE, FLORIDA, BEING A PART OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 47 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY VIRTUE OF THE COUNTY'S CONTINUOUS AND UNINTERRUPTED MAINTENANCE OF ROADWAYS IN EXCESS OF SEVEN YEARS AND AUTHORIZE THE FILING OF A RIGHT -OF -WAY MAP MORE SPECIFICALLY SHOWN IN EXHIBIT "A" OF THE RESOLUTION — ADOPTED Page 407 December 13 -14, 2011 MR. OCHS: Commissioner, Item 13B3 was previously Item 16132 on your consent agenda. (Commissioner Henning has left the boardroom for the remainder of the meeting.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MR. OCHS: It's a recommendation to approve a resolution certifying a number of streets in Immokalee as county right -of -way. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And, Commissioner -- MR. OCHS: Mr. Muckle will present or answer questions. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why -- do you want a presentation? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure. Well, let me tell you what my concern with this issue is. Essentially what's going on here is there are a number of roads which the county is claiming the county has maintained, and these roads, apparently, are private roads. They happen to be in Immokalee. And the county is now going to turn these into public roads, and these roads are going to benefit from the Stormwater Drainage Improvement Program that's going out in -- going on in Immokalee. And I guess the concern I have -- and I'll sort of tie this back to another project -- is that number one, I want to see proof that the county has expended the funds to maintain these roads that they claim are private and what the total costs are to adopt these roads as public roads. I have -- I did request staff give me the information on the expenditures, and I -- unless I'm missing something, I have not gotten the answers, and I also didn't get the answers as to what the total costs would be to take these roads over. And the reason I bring this up is because this goes to a similar situation with a road that there was some past litigation on, and it was a road called Mamie Street. And I have an email -- and I'll introduce December 13 -14, 2011 this in the record for everyone to read -- which actually went to Commissioner Coletta from county staff in 2005. And there, in this particular email, in this memo, staff says that Mamie is a private street and maintenance was performed as a courtesy by the county at various -- at previous direction and has continued to date. Decision was -- the decision to maintain, even though a private street, was probably based on earlier cases where this service was performed to address public, health, and safety. And then this is -- this is where my concern comes into play and how it ties into this case. It goes on to say, please understand that there are liability issues involved with the county being asked to accept Mamie Street for right -of -way purposes. The county would have to bring this street up to county standards in order for acceptance, which would incur significant expenditures on the part of the county, as it would involve stormwater drainage improvements, water - retention studies and issues, and the actual widening of the street if permits could be obtained. It would be hard to justify these costly improvements when what we are dealing with is basically a private drive, a benefit to just a few residents. Okay. So again -- and it goes on to say that, you know, they're going to continue to maintain as -is as a courtesy and not adopt Mamie Street as a public road because of the legal liability and the significant unfounded expense. And so I'm looking at what's going on here, and I'm being told that these private roads were being maintained with public funds. I don't have the dollars. And I want to know what additional costs will be necessary to do as is described in this email, and that is to, you know, bring it up to standards, if even permits can be obtained. And then the other question I have related to this -- it really raises concerns in my mind and begs the question of whether there ought to Page 409 December 13 -14, 2011 be an audit, as to why the county is maintaining certain private roads and not other private roads. I mean, how is this decision being made with respect to the expenditure of public funds for private benefit? Is it coming back to the board? Did the board vote on doing this? I just -- I'm really very concerned. And I did raise all of these concerns in my emails and didn't get the answers to my satisfaction. And so we're here today so you have the opportunity to share with us what really is going on. COMMISSIONER COYLE: These are limerock roads, right? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, please don't break my heart. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. For the record, Nick Casalanguida. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And it really begs the question, why aren't the limerock roads being paved as opposed to these roads? There you go. Thank you, Commissioner Coyle. I know Commissioner Coletta wanted that question answered. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, for the record, Nick Casalanguida. And I have John Vliet, our superintendent director for road and bridge. Unlike Mamie Street, little difference is we do admit to and claim that we've been maintaining these roads all along. So John has records going back 20 years, not budget -wise, but work schedules, because they're included in his overall budget, so he doesn't line -item by roads, although our work -order system that we'll eventually get to will provide that. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So do you have work orders for these roads? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, he has maintenance -crew schedules, and I'll maybe let him answer that. But he's got schedules going back some time that would show people -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I need to see this -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. Page 410 December 13-14,2011 COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- because as of right now you haven't produced a shred of evidence to support that these roads have been maintained by you to justify them being converted to public roads. And I will share with you I have a concern about that, because if they are private roads and you haven't been maintaining them and you are basically taking them for public purpose, then, quite frankly, you know, is this a takings? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, for the greater purposes, I think they wanted to identify that they were public roads, and we knew that they were public roads, but they wanted it to be more of an official -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Hi, Norm. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'll let Norman jump in, because he's got a strong passion for this and -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: me about this. I know. He really wants to talk to MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, he's dying to talk about this. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I know. Hey, Norm. I heard through the grapevine that you just couldn't contain yourself with all these questions. You were so excited about addressing the issue. MR. FEDER: No problem at all, Commissioner. Just for the record, Norman Feder, Administrator of the Growth Management Division. These roads are all public roads. They've been public roads, been publicly maintained all this time. The issue at hand is the records or the accounting of how things transpired in the past sometimes aren't the best. And with the grant, the CRA, correctly, is trying to make sure there's no question of ownership and, therefore, is following this to make sure there's a clean record of ownership, almost suit to acquire title, although not a suit, the action here, to make sure that the title is clearly shown as being public. It's always been public; it's always been maintained as public. Page 411 December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER HILLER: And you're saying that these were always public? Because that's not what the record -- you know, that's not what your summary said. You said that these were private roads that have been maintained for a while by the county. That period being long enough to now justify making them public. So I mean, these are private roads, right? MR. FEDER: My understanding is public roads. To show you what I'm talking about in records, if I could, just on the overhead -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure. Because that's not what the executive -- that's not what the material says. MR. FEDER: Again, trying to go back to records, like I'm talking about here, you've got 1970 here. It's made clear that we have plans for reconstruction of a public roadway done by the county engineer at the time. But do I have the indications beyond that that are much more specific? No. Then in '72 a quitclaim of a portion of it with the rest of it to come from a water district out there that no longer exists, recorded being provided by a real estate agent to then County Manager. This is what I'm talking about is why they're coming in to try and clean the issue. They've been maintained, at least I can tell you, back to '70, it appears, as public roads. All the time I've been here we have treated them and maintained them as public roads. I talked to my predecessor. That's my understanding as well. So in answer to your question, I don't know where it was said "private," but my understanding, they have been maintained quite some time, and they've been treated as public roads. There was -- the only one question we had was a section of Boston, which is not part of what is being discussed here, because there is a section of Boston that is not a public roadway. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Can you go ahead and Page 412 December 13-14,2011 explain to me how you decide which roads you're going to maintain? MR. FEDER: Well, when I came here, there were five lists, I hate to say, and we've gone through extensive effort to try and research it. I'd like to tell you being here for 12 years I can tell you definitively what is public and what is private. For most of them I can do that. For some we're still digging up paperwork and finding out that, no, it's not public, only to find another piece of paper come up and say because of this action or something else it was public. We've had that opportunity throughout time, and that's part of what's trying to be done here is to clean up. We have no question, especially with the CDBG grant that the CRA is trying to utilize. But in answer to your question, we generally do know, but we still have some that we're continuing to try and get records on and determine. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Well, just so you know, in your executive summary, it says maintenance department confirmed -- has continuously maintained the subject areas depicted as privately owned -- THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. Could you slow down just a little. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sorry, sorry, forgive me. The executive summary says, the county's road maintenance department has confirmed that it has continuously maintained the subject areas depicted as, quote, "privately owned" on Exhibit A for more than seven years without interruption, period. So I think the record seems to indicate they were private roads. MR. FEDER: They were public roads, not private. That's incorrect. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I guess what you're saying is your executive summary is wrong? MR. FEDER: The executive summary identified as private Page 413 December 13 -14, 2011 roads; they were public roads. They're just trying to make sure that clearly it's acknowledged as public and that the right -of -way is shown in county ownership, and that is the case after seven years of continuous operations and maintenance, but they were public roads before that seven -year period of operation and maintenance. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because of maintenance or because of the fact that they were dedicated by plat to the county? MR. FEDER: As we understand generally dedicated, but some dedicated, never accepted by the county, are not county roads. So I can get some that I get a dedication in a plat and yet they're not county roads. Some of them have been accepted through vehicles other than the deed itself because they're so old and other issues. What I'm trying to tell you is, while we know generally, we do have some out there that we're still trying to research and find out definitively. We've had issues before this board where we've had to do that. I can think of Goodland not too long ago, Plantation issues, some others where we've had those items. It should be crystal clear, Commissioner, I agree, but are not always. MR. KLATZKOW: Our pre -1960 records, Commissioner, are horrible. It's simple as that. It was a different world back then. It was more of a customary world than there was a documentary world. Plus, when you try to get into transcripts of the older boards, everything was handwritten down, and they're more of the minutes than anything else. You just get the older parts of the county. Once you get outside the, you know, what we'd consider like the urban area, it's very difficult to try to figure out what's really private and what's public. So our general rule is, if we've been working that road for years and years and years, it's a public road. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I second the motion. I'll jump in and just say one little fast thing about the same thing. Page 414 December 13 -14, 2011 You know, we had flooding and some -- like in the Everglades City City Hall, but everything was written down in pen, and so a lot of that stuff is gone. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, Hurricane Donna took a lot of stuff out. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And, of course, they didn't have computers back in those days, so there were many things that were lost in the files someplace or another. So I know we -- I had the same problem in East Naples. We have a lot of -- you wouldn't believe this, but we still have a lot of roads that are not paved, and we have the same problem, so -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I move that we take a break for the reporter. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let's take a vote. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Vote on it. MR.00HS: Vote. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion; we have a second. All those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it 4 -0 with Commissioner Henning absent. I turn the gavel back over to you, and you can declare the break. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to take a ten - minute break for the court reporter, and we'll be back here at 2:54 and a half. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do I have an open mic? MR. OCHS: You do now, sir. Page 415 December 13 -14, 2011 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The Board of County Commission meeting is back in session. We're going to Item No. — Item #I OK RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE A PARTIAL RELEASE OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT TO SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT IN CONNECTION WITH THE VANDERBILT BEACH RESTROOM & CONCESSION PROJECT APPROVED MR. OCHS: IOK, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- IOK. MR. OCHS: It's a recommendation to approve and authorize the chairman to execute a partial release of conservation easement to the South Florida Water Management District in connection with the Vanderbilt Beach restroom and concession project. Mr. McAlpin is available to either make a presentation or respond to questions. CHAIRMAN COYLE: This is a final approval for the pier, fishing pier? MR. McALPIN: No comment. For the record, Gary McAlpin, coastal zone management. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. MR. OCHS: Hold on, Gary. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let me just begin by saying -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute. You've got to put your light on. COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I don't. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because you just know it's going Page 416 December 13 -14, 2011 to happen. Okay. I don't have to do anything anymore. CHAIRMAN COYLE: At least press the button so I know that it's there. COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, we're there already. It's like a vulcan mind meld, you know. Now he's working for me. I like this. Okay. The reason I brought this forward is because I actually was really pleased to see what you were doing, Gary. I'm really glad that you found a creative way to eliminate a year -to -year cost with a permanent solution to, you know, put something that we need but is somewhat unsightly out of the way in a discreet fashion. So, I mean, this was actually good thinking, and I was very happy with it. And so I just wanted you to share what you are doing, explain how you're doing it, and, you know, thank you again for, you know, thinking outside of the box and generating savings and making things look good. So go ahead. MR. McALPIN: Thank you. Mr. Chair, what you have in front of is -- this is all about having South Florida Water Management District release a very small easement that they have -- portion of an easement that they have that will allow us to build this road right in through here. This is the existing Vanderbilt Beach parking garage. We currently park our beach equipment in this location right here. This lease costs us about $6,900 a year. This is our main access into the beaches on the north end of the county. This area covers from Wiggins Pass down to Clam Pass Park. With this project, Mr. Chair, what we will be doing is there's an existing walkway right here. We'll be rebuilding the walkway with a -- with an access for our beach equipment coming in here, adding a road right in through here, and this is the area that we will need the easement for, and then taking this easement and parking our beach rake, our equipment, our -- and a dumpster in this location. So that's the scope of what we're trying to do. We have -- South Page 417 December 13 -14, 2011 Florida Water Management District has an easement. The property belongs to us, and this is a request to release the easement which will -- which will save us $6,900 a year. The cost to build this is about 23,000, so there's a good payout. And I'll answer any questions that you have. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And what we're doing is we're building a small building? MR. McALPIN: No, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: What are we doing exactly? MR. McALPIN: This is a dumpster pad right in through here. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. MR. McALPIN: We'll put a 20 -yard -- cubic -yard dumpster in this location right in through here. All of this infrastructure is existing except for the fence. This is a rock area. We'll build a pad right in through here, and we'll have to build this -- we'll replace this boardwalk with a road. We'll put some culverts in here, and -- so that the -- and separate the public from the -- when we get -- when we bring our equipment in here. And that's what we're doing. We're providing access on the west side of the Vanderbilt Beach garage. We're keeping it out of the public view and cleaning the area up. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Great. CHAIRMAN COYLE: This is not a six -lane feeder road, is it? MR. McALPIN: No. It's a single -- it's a single road in this -- it's not even a road. It is a shell rock access so it will allow us to serve two purposes. One is pedestrian walkway, and the other is to bring our equipment out to the -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. Now would be a good time for a motion. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Go ahead and make it, Commissioner Coyle. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I make a motion for approval. Page 418 December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Including funding for the pier. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I withdraw my second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We've got a motion by me, a second by Commissioner Hiller for this minor modification. And all in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Absent.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: (No verbal response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Nobody else said anything. COMMISSIONER HILLER: We all said aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's the silent aye, silence is consent. MR. McALPIN: Thank you, Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes 3 -0 with Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner Henning absent for the moment. MR. McALPIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's go to the next item. MR. OCHS: Next item is Item 1OL. It was previously 16A24 on your consent agenda. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that's Commissioner Henning's or -- yes, Commissioner Henning's issue. Item #I OM RECOMMENDATION TO DIRECT THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO SUSPEND COLLECTION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONTRIBUTIONS, PENDING THE Page 419 December 13 -14, 2011 BOARD'S DECISION ON A LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC) AMENDMENT TO REMOVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONTRIBUTION COMMITMENTS — APPROVED MR. OCHS: IOM, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, yes. MR. OCHS: I stand corrected, IOM. It's a recommendation to direct the County Manager to suspend collection of affordable - housing contributions pending the board's decision on the Land Development Code amendment to remove affordable - housing- contribution commitment. COMMISSIONER HILLER: The reason I brought this forward -- right, Commissioner Coyle, I can just keep going on my roll here? CHAIRMAN COYLE: It would make it a lot easier if you'd turn on the light. Here. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I promise you I will not ever turn it off again. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Good, okay. As I was saying, Nick, what -- I think it's really great that we're doing this, because clearly there's no need or justification to carry this forward. And so what we're doing today is the right thing by reversing these commitments. I have one -- well, two issues that I want to raise that I think needs to be addressed to basically bow tie what we're doing here. And the first thing is that these commitments are not only in developer agreements but also in developer settlement agreements. And I think if we say we're going to eliminate them, we just have to say across the board without -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, for clarification, this action is not eliminating them. What -- because you can't do that. They're all in different PUDs and agreements. This action is basically saying that Page 420 December 13-14,2011 you're going to ask me to stop collecting them through Amy's department when developer orders come in, and I'm providing a mechanism that's fast and expeditious and cheap so they can come to the board and, effectively, eliminate as they come forward. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we have to do this piecemeal? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Unfortunately, we do, ma'am, because they're -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Because they're in PUDs adopted by board ordinance. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But can't we just do a blanket amendment? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why not -- MR. KLATZKOW: No. We've got to go through the LDC process. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do we have to do that for every single one? MR. KLATZKOW: Nick and I are going to be working trying to get the most expedient way to get this done so people don't have to go through this, but -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why can't we just do one -- couldn't we do one modification in the LDC saying that -- MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. We're going to -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- all PUDs that have this -- MR. KLATZKOW: We'll be working -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why would you have to do one by one? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Because they're in PUD ordinances, ma'am, and those were brought through the public process, and so if you -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: But can't we say -- you know, in a Page 421 December 13 -14, 2011 single ordinance list out every single ordinance that we're amending as to this issue? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think you'd have a notice issue that -- because the PUDs -- you know, and this is where I have to work with Jeff on it, and that's why we said do it as an LDC amendment. When these PUDs -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Rich? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Excuse me. I'm fighting a cold. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm a registered speaker. MR. CASALANGUIDA: When these PUDs were adopted, there was a certain notice that happened. You had a neighborhood meeting, notice went out to people, you had a Planning Commission hearing and then a board hearing. So the issue that happens is, how do you do it without violating your own Land Development Code? COMMISSIONER HILLER: But you still have notice and hearing because you're going to notice an amendment to each of these ordinances by one action. Can't you do that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You can, but the issue that I'm worried about is your notice requirements are different. In other words, when a PUD is done, you actually -- you put out an advertisement, you put out a sign, you put out specific advertisement for that property. Now, how do I make sure that anybody who objects to this has the ability to do so? Now, I'm going to work with Jeff to see if we can find a way that's more expedient -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: If you have to put a sign on the property, just tell all these property owners you have to put a sign out. MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, we're not saying no. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: All I'm saying is I need to work with Nick and his staff. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, there are so many. To have so many hearings would be insane. It would be costly and Page 422 December 13 -14, 2011 time - consuming. MR. KLATZKOW: I don't disagree with you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, suppose we do this then. Suppose we just approve the action by the staff, and then you guys work out the fastest and most expedient way to do it. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, that's what the executive summary said. COMMISSIONER HILLER: That would be fine under the condition that it is for not only ordinances but also any sort of settlement agreements, anywhere where these affordable- housing- contribution commitments have been incorporated that -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's in my recommendation, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Across the board. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. That's number one. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So that's good. Number two is the issue of those people that have paid or made contributions. I was talking to Crystal, and she said some developers made payments as recently as this past month. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I have about -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: So there's about somewhere between, I think, five -- I don't have the -- I have the paper somewhere here, but it's like five or six hundred thousand that's already been paid. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: What do we do about that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's sitting in the account, and nobody's touched it. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So are we going to refund them? MR. KLATZKOW: No. What we're going to do, ma'am, is we're going to go through the LDC process. The board is going to make a decision what you want to do with these payments, all right. Page 423 December 13 -14, 2011 It's going to require four votes, so you may decide you want to keep them. I don't know. It's a public process, okay, and you don't want to vote now on this because you've got to go through a public- hearing process on this issue. And at that point in time after you make a decision what you want to do, you know, we'll decide what we want to do with what's sitting in that account. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And it's, right now, escrow. It's there. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, it's in a separate account. What you have is your staff acknowledging they're not going to touch it or spend it. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. Okay. Well, that's great then. And you're going to bring this back to us when? MR. KLATZKOW: It's going to come through your LDC process, and we'll hit the whole -- take these at the same time. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you'll bring both of these through the LDC process, Part 1 and Part 2. MR. KLATZKOW: The refund you won't have to bring through the LDC process. Once you give us -- once you give us your decision on the refund, okay, then we'll tackle the issue of what you want to do with the prior payments. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Got it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Then I make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Hiller to approve staff s recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. Page 424 December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Rich -- MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have a public speaker. COMMISSIONER HILLER: He's waiving. MR. YOVANOVICH: I waive, I waive, I waive, I waive. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. He doesn't need to speak. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you please help to come up with the most cost - effective expeditious solution? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Free of charge. MR. YOVANOVICH: To you. COMMISSIONER HILLER: You have to do -- no, you have to do pro bono work anyway. So this is how you could show how much you love the county. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Where you going? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Don't leave. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've heard that legal advice is worth exactly what you pay for it? MR. YOVANOVICH: I've heard that. Item #ION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REZONE AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT FOR A TWENTY -FIVE THOUSAND SQUARE -FOOT CLASSROOM AND OFFICE ADDITION TO EXISTING COMMUNITY SCHOOL OF NAPLES, NOT TO EXCEED THE SAME EXISTING UPPER SCHOOL BUILDING HEIGHT OF THIRTY -TWO FEET — STAFF TO ISSUE PERMIT Page 425 December 13-14,2011 WITH THE STIPULATION THAT HEIGHT IS NOT TO GO BEYOND 30 FEET — NO FORMAL VOTE TAKEN MR. OCHS: Commissioners, ION. It was previously 16A21, recommendation to approve the issuance of a building permit prior to the approval of a Planned Unit Development rezone and Site Development Plan amendment for a 25,000- square -foot classroom and office addition to the existing Community School of Naples, not to exceed the same existing upper school building height of 32 feet. This item was brought forward by Commissioner Hiller. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I have real, real concerns about what's going on here. You know, I'm hearing all these conflicting opinions on the one hand. I'm hearing that the, you know, building permitting official is independent of the board and doesn't take direction of the board, so why are we voting on this? Then I'm hearing that the building official and building staff doesn't want to do this unless the board approves it because they don't want to be blamed if it all goes wrong. I mean, the zoning isn't in place. The -- you know, no one else would be able to pull a permit and build if the zoning wasn't in place. I mean, look at the Blockers. Look what's going on with them. Now all of a sudden we're saying, yeah, you know, Community School can build even though the zoning doesn't allow it, but the Blockers can't. You know, it just -- I just -- I can't even believe that this is being proposed. MR. FRENCH: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm sorry. Good afternoon. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And, quite frankly, let me just say, as a matter -- and this is an issue generally across the board. I don't care who it is that would bring this forward. I mean, they don't have the zoning. How can they get a permit? MR. FRENCH: Sure. Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the Page 426 December 13 -14, 2011 record, Jamie French. I'm the director of operations for the growth management division. Mr. Yovanovich is here to represent the applicant. If you'd like to speak with him about why they're proposing this -- however, if you'd like, Commissioner, I can clear that up. I am joined today by two licensed officials as well as our -- and Tom DeGram serves as our interim building official in Mr. Harrison's absence; however, I can discuss with you, should you like, the Florida Building Code when it pertains to other pertinent law such as your Land Development Code, and this is outside of the purview of your Florida building official, your licensed official, because this is a Land Development Code issue. And in the past, I will tell you, the most recent past, was with Florida Specialties where they came forward with both their application for land use as well as their building permit at the very same time. Generally what happens is that the applicant would make application on the land -use item first and then come in simultaneously for a building - permit review. But you're right, we would not issue that building permit unless this board said, yes, you can move forward, Building Department, without the approval of your land -use item. You are correct there. It's -- but we have -- we did do it with Florida Specialties, and the applicant is asking for that same permission today. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But we, as a board, can't -- we're not having a zoning hearing now. I mean, we haven't been asked to approve a change in the zoning for this parcel. So I mean, this -- this is not what's at issue here. You're basically wanting us to allow someone to develop in a way that they're not permitted to develop, and I don't see how we can do that under any circumstances. MR. YOVANOVICH: May I? Since it was actually my request and wouldn't be fair to ask Jamie to carry my water. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is this the only public speaker? MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir, it is. Page 427 December 13 -14, 2011 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have three minutes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Really? I thought it was -- since it was my request I was the petitioner. Good afternoon. For the record, Rich Yovanovich. Just briefly how we got here. We have an existing Site Development Plan for what is the current upper school, and we came in to amend it to build the planned extension to the upper school. We wanted to build the very same building that we currently have. It was discovered that the existing upper school was built at 32 -feet zoned height versus what's allowed under community zoning 30 feet. We had two choices. I still have to deal with that inconsistency. So I was going to have to fix it through either a variance or rezoning of the property. I had two choices. I could come in, change my building permit, come in with a flat roof, start the building - permit process that way, go through the zoning process to get it changed, come in and amend the building permit, and go for what I really wanted, or I could simply go forward with the building permit at our own risk for what we really want, change the zoning. And the zoning is actually going through the process. We're scheduled to go to the Planning Commission tomorrow. And hopefully with any luck we'll be in front of the Board of Commissioners in January. We know that should the zoning be denied, we would have to come in and amend the building permit to build it at 30 feet. We're prepared to do that. We just didn't think we needed to go through that expense and through your staffs time to review a permit application that nobody really wants to build. We'll build it if we have to. But we saw that as kind of a waste of time and inefficient. We thought it would be better to just come out of the ground so we can keep our schedule of being able to open in the fall for the students who are going to be using this building. It's not Page 428 December 13 -14, 2011 unprecedented. There's other mechanisms where you can get early work permits for foundations and things like that. We thought we would just -- it was a reasonable request. We know we could lose the zoning hearing. We're willing to take that risk. We just wanted to stay on schedule and only have your staff review one set of plans, the plans that we hope to be able to construct. But if we have to come back and amend it to do another set of reviews, we'll do that and incur all expenses related to that. We have zoning. There are -- there is an issue out there that we have to fix. We have to fix the upper school that's already built at 32 feet. We're taking care of all of that through this rezone process. I think you legally have the ability to allow us to go forward -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- at our own risk. COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's the planning -- I'm sorry -- the Board of County Commissioners' call if you want to allow us to move forward at our own risk, and I think the County Attorney agrees we can go forward at our own risk. And that's what we're asking, let us go forward at our own risk. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, my opinion, having heard what you said, is they didn't plan properly. If they knew they had this timing issue and if they knew they had to get zoning in order to pull the permit, which they know they have to do -- I mean, you're their attorney -- they should have done this ahead of time. MR. YOVANOVICH: We did. I'm telling you we -- it was discovered in the Site Development Plan review for the extension. As soon as we discovered that issue, we immediately met with your staff and said, we've got to fix this. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I see. I misunderstood. on it. MR. YOVANOVICH: As soon as we discovered it, we jumped Page 429 December 13-14,2011 COMMISSIONER HILLER: And how long ago was that? MR. YOVANOVICH: I think my letter to Nick was in October, or -- I have it. It's -- it was in October, late October. I immediately came in and sat down with your staff and said -- October 7th -- sat down with your staff. I said, what do we need to do to fix this? The quickest route was to get a PUD approved. We had our preapp, and we'd moved along in the process, and your staff has been wonderful in working with us. The PUD simply, Commissioner, is the very same permitted uses that exist on the property today under the CF zoning district, the same development standards on the CF zoning district. The only thing that's changing is the maximum height allowed, and that's to address the existing buildings that are on the campus. What you see is what you get. We're not coming back and asking for anything new. We thought that this made sense. It kept the process moving at our own risk, and we did jump on it as soon as we discovered the mistake that occurred. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just don't think you can do it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I make the motion to deny. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A motion to deny by Commissioner Hiller. Is there a second? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The motion dies for lack of a second. I'm -- well, I'm concerned about it, too. We have done this in the past. I know that we have. I'm just amazed that you're willing to take the risk. But tell me how much investment and construction will you have done by January. MR. YOVANOVICH: We will -- what will happen is, at the end of -- to keep the schedule to be open, we basically need to either get Page 430 December 13 -14, 2011 our PUD approved by the end of January, or we have to come in and amend the plans to bring the roof -- the building down to 30 feet from the 32 feet. We're prepared to do that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: And we're on schedule to do that. We will be, you know, doing the foundation and starting, moving up, but we will not be at the roof stage. CHAIRMAN COYLE: How much will you have done between now and the third week in January? MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll be -- I don't think we'll be anywhere near the roof. We'll be -- we'll still be -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'd be amazed if you're anywhere near foundation, quite frankly. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we're -- but at this point we've got to keep -- we've got to keep the schedule moving or else we're not going to make a fall opening for that building. I can't -- I can't wait till the end of January to find out which way we're going on the plans. But, again, we know there's a risk that we're going to have to come in and amend the plans and redesign the roof, and we've made plans accordingly. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'd like a clear statement from the County Attorney as to whether or not he thinks that we have the authority to do this. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I already talked to Nick, and he said, we're going to do an LDC amendment that specifically gives the board the right to do this. Because Commissioner Hiller's right, there's nothing that says you can do this. You know, in the grand scheme of things, we've done this before. You know, I don't have a lot of heartburn on this. You know, yeah, I think you can do it. Would it be more comfortable if we had an LDC amendment that said you could do it? You betcha. And, you know, I've asked Nick to bring that forward, because I think Page 431 December 13 -14, 2011 Commissioner Hiller makes a good point on this one. We don't have a process on this, but we've done it in the past. And to me it's a -- it's a di minus issue at this point in time. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So if we give them approval to proceed and they start building something, and in our second meeting in January we don't approve it -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll come in and amend the building permit to redesign the building to 30 -feet in height from the 32 -feet that's currently being approved. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And will you have the walls completed that high by the third week in January? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. We will be in a position to address -- we -- the timing is such that we will not be at the point where we will have already incurred cost to make it infeasible, if that's a word, to come to the 30 -feet. CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is a word, yeah. Lawyers can use anything, assign their own meaning to it. So -- and you are accepting responsibility for all liability if you don't get the permits you need? MR. YOVANOVICH: Me personally or the Community School? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Either one. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, the Community School -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: You probably have more money than they do. MR. YOVANOVICH: I hope you're right, but I don't think so. But, yes, we accept full responsibility. We've put that in a letter and a follow -up email to the county saying we understand we are totally at risk and any costs that we incur to have to redesign that building to come down to the 30 -feet and construct it at 30 -feet is on our dime if we get denied -- if the PUD is denied. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And, Nick, is there any adverse Page 432 December 13 -14, 2011 impact to neighbors that would result from this action being taken? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir, because he's not going above the 30 -feet. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER HILLER: I want to -- may I say something? CHAIRMAN COYLE: One more time. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I make a comment? I have a statute here in front of me that basically puts the issue of permitting within the jurisdiction of the building -code administrator. It's not within our jurisdiction as the Board of County Commissioners to be making decisions on the issuance of permits. It is not our ability here, I believe, to make a decision as to allow a building that doesn't conform to what is permitted with respect to zoning on that site today. They're not having a zoning hearing, and we can't have this informal determination that says, yeah, you can build even though, you know, zoning doesn't allow you to build what you want to build. So we can't make -- we can't have a vote to give him the right to issue a permit, and we can't have a vote to make a decision as to allow something that is non - conforming with our zoning laws. So what exactly is it that we're approving here? Because we can't -- you know, we're overstepping our boundaries jurisdictionally or, alternatively, we don't have the jurisdiction because we're precluded because we haven't noticed it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. Your building official is independent of the Board. I think what you're doing here is saying -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. So we can't authorize the permit. He's independent. If he wants to issue the permit knowing that the zoning doesn't allow, it's his responsibility and it's his jurisdiction. Why is this even in front of us? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Because he works for the Board of County Commissioners through the County Manager. He's an Page 433 December 13 -14, 2011 employee. And I think you could direct your County Attorney to prosecute him for violation of your Land Development Code if he issues that permit. COMMISSIONER HILLER: No -- well, we're violating the Land Development Code. I mean, we're not above the law. I mean, we're as bound by the Land Development Code as it stands today as he is. I mean, we have the right to pretend it doesn't exist? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, I think what the building official -- and the applicant has put on the record is at no time will we issue the CO, will there be anything that violates the ordinance of 30 -feet. So he's saying, I'm going to get up to the third floor and stop, and then I'm going to wait til the zoning comes forward. And if I don't get it, I'm going to resubmit building plans and make it to 30 -feet. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I wonder how they're going to get insured by their insurance company. Because, you know, normally -- I don't know insurance law that well, but -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: They couldn't for an occupied building, but what they do get is insurance under construction. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the construction will say, oh, yeah, you're insured even though you're building a -- you know, where it's nonconforming to zoning? MR. CASALANGUIDA: While they're under construction it's just to insure under construction, they don't consider that. When he was -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: They don't consider the zoning for insurance for construction? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Because it hasn't gone to 32 -feet. It hasn't violated that code. So what -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't know. What do you -- I mean, it's not my issue. I mean, their loss is their problem. I just -- I'm surprised that the insurance company would insure that, but it's not my business. Page 434 December 13 -14, 2011 MR. YOVANOVICH: I think that -- I think that's something my client needs to worry about, not the county. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, it is. No, it's not -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And we're pre- -- again, we're prepared -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: But that's not the issue. I'm presenting that as a goodwill question for your benefit for your client. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I appreciate that, and our client is we have a contractor that's going to be moving forward with proper -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just don't -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Don't interrupt him. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sorry. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's let him -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: Our client and our contractor are comfortable with this approval to move forward understanding that at no time will we ever violate the existing zoning on the property. We will never violate, for this building, the existing zoning. If it remains 30 -feet, you will get a 30- foot -tall building. If it changes to what we're requesting, we'll be consistent with the new change. We're just asking you, in light of the circumstances that were discovered, to allow us to continue the scheduled opening of this building. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Then just pull a permit for 30 -feet. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't have time to go back and make that change and stay on schedule at this point. I need to get started with the building. COMMISSIONER HILLER: How long does it take to change the permit to amend the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioner, I've got a request. We're here because this was the way we needed to handle it. If there was another way to do it, we would have done it. Page 435 December 13-14,2011 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is it my turn? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I think this is one of the instances where we need to reach out and let the community know that we want to be a little business friendly, that we want to encourage people to build and that we want to work with them instead of being inflexible. I realize that there are some -- there are some things to overcome. You're willing to take that chance, and I'm willing to take the chance to bet on you, so I'm going to motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'll second that motion, because I totally agree with the fact that we have to start meeting our customers more than halfway. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I have a motion by Commissioner Fiala to approve, second by Commissioner Coletta. I need to ask a couple of questions of the County Attorney. Let's talk about the mechanics of getting this done. If it is the building official's responsibility to issue the permit and the building official is concerned about the Board of County Commissioners not approving his actions, can we solve this merely by stating that we're not going to interfere in the building decision, building -- MR. KLATZKOW: I had that conversation the other day, the very same conversation. Why are you coming to us? You're the building official. And I had that through Nick. Ask your building official. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So the building official feels uneasy about making a decision on this without the Board's endorsement or approval, and the Board, on the other hand, doesn't -- appears not to have the right to circumvent you in issuing that permit. Page 436 December 13 -14, 2011 So what I'm wondering is, can we solve this problem by merely indicating to you the consensus of the majority of the Board that we have no intention of interfering in your ability to issue a permit under these circumstances? MR. DeGRAM: Okay. For the record, Tom DeGram, interim building official for Collier County. In order to do this, I have a person making an application for a permit. I have pertinent laws that I have to comply with. In this case, the building code allows me to -- because of the height, I can go ahead and issue a permit. I have no conflict there. But I do have a conflict with the pertinent laws, which would be the LDC has to approve it. So if I'm directed and -- by this Board, you know, saying, hey, we have no problem with it, I could proceed. But I wouldn't do that without the direction of this board. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is it the direction of the Board or the cooperation of the Board that you need? MR. DeGRAM: Well, there's conflict, you know. There's -- this Board has the right under the LDC to approve the variance. We're dealing with a building that already exists. CHAIRMAN COYLE: But we're not talking about a variance at this point. MR. DeGRAM: Right, not at this point. So there's no conflict with the building department. So, I mean, I could issue a permit, but there's a conflict with the LDC. So that's the building -- it is building height. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. But we're not talking -- we're only going to give them approval to build up to the existing zoned height. MR. DeGRAM: Yeah. We could go conditional -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. DeGRAM: -- and, you know, based on what this Board is directing me to do, you know, as long as I know your intent and what's Page 437 December 13-14,2011 COMMISSIONER HILLER: Intent about what? MR. DeGRAM: -- I can conditionally approve it. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Intent about what? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Let's be clear what you're asking, Commissioner, so I understand it. What you're asking, Commissioner Coyle, if I understand it correctly, is if you have no objection and Tom has no fear that this Board will take repercussions after him, is he comfortable issuing the building permit. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's it. MR. DeGRAM: That would be fine. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That was the question. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then what would be the best way to deal with this, County Attorney? MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know why we just don't issue the permit conditioned on he doesn't go over 30 -feet. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. That's essentially what we're really saying. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's all we're asking for. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're not violating any zoning at all. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, he can't go over 30 -feet. MR. YOVANOVICH: I am not -- I've said that. I've said I'm not going to go above 30 -feet. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: I just want to get started, recognizing -- MR. KLATZKOW: But the permit -- what I'm saying is the permit will say you can't go over 30 -feet. MR. YOVANOVICH: That -- until the zoning's approved to go higher. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And then the zoning official -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We're there. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- is not in a conflict at all under those December 13 -14, 2011 circumstances. You're approving it under existing zoning and -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Not to exceed 30 -feet. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, not to exceed 30 -feet. So there is no conflict, as I see it. I mean, you would not be held in violation of anything. MR. YOVANOVICH: I can get the permit, but I can't go beyond 30 -feet. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right, that's right. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that okay? MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's acceptable to us. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Coyle? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HILLER: There is no need for us to vote on that. This is not an issue that needs to be brought before the Board. Again, if you're issuing a permit up to 30 -feet, there is nothing this Board has to do with respect to that. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So this is not a matter for a vote. And the way it was presented was -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Confusing. So you guys can go about your way and get everything done and you -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll withdraw my motion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you're going to be completely under the code and whatever you're doing is consistent with the code. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And if he can come back and modify the permit once he has his zoning changed. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right. MR. DeGRAM: That would be fine. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I'll withdraw my motion then. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion has been withdrawn, and Page 439 December 13 -14, 2011 I think you have what you need. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm not sure, because that -- the modify- the - permit thing threw me off here a second. What we anticipated getting was -- what? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We're going to issue a phased permit, Commissioner, a phased permit that says not to exceed 30 -feet. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay? It will -- the plans will show 32 -feet, but we will tell them the permit only allows you to go up to the third floor, and it's a phased permit not to exceed 30 -feet. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And then the third week of January, if everything goes okay, then you can proceed. MR. CASALANGUIDA: He couldn't build past 30 -feet even if he wanted to, because we would do the inspection and hold him in violation. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That would be good. So, good. Thank you very much. Item #100 RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A RELEASE OF LIEN IN CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS VS. JACK & EMMA MAE BARRS, CEB CASE NO. 2002 -008, FOR PROPERTY AT 2990 SUNSET BOULEVARD, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA — APPROVED MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 100 on your agenda. It's a recommendation to approve the release of lien in the code - enforcement action entitled Board of County Commissioners versus Jack and Emma Mae Barrs. MS. FLAGG: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Diane Flagg, for Page 440 December 13 -14, 2011 the record. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. And I pulled this. Can I -- my light is on. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Your light stays on. It's going to be on all night long. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. This is another very important, but a very good thing, and the reason I pulled this was I recognize this as actually one of the first projects that I had had the opportunity to work on with staff. I worked with Diane, with Nick. And my contribution was to basically monitor a debate for a solution to a problem. And it was really interesting because the debate actually produced a really outstanding result. And, basically, this was a program that evolved to encourage lenders, when they foreclosed on properties, to remediate to basically abate as quickly as possible so we wouldn't have blighted neighborhoods. And, essentially, it's really proven to be working, and this is one example. And this case actually was a little bit different, but it was on track. In this case the county actually had to do the abatement before the bank took over; however, had the county not abated -- and they had to abate for safety issues -- the bank would have abated, and the bank would not have had to pay all the fines that accrued. Those fines would be waived. And waiving those fines has been a tremendous incentive to the banks to perform quickly. And so I wanted to give credit to Diane for, you know, really advancing this program as effectively as she has, and I wanted her to read the statistics that she got at my request as a result of this agenda item to put on the record how much has been abated and how much has been forgiven and how much has been saved. MS. FLAGG: At this point, Commissioners, the banks have Page 441 December 13-14,2011 expended $2.5 million, more than $2.5 million to abate 2,092 code violations. The program started in November 2008. So our weekly savings are averaging $16,000 a week to the Collier County taxpayers because the violations are being paid by the banks rather than Collier County. This particular week it was 12,004. COMMISSIONER HILLER: It was really great. And just so you know, in this particular case the county did abate. The bank came in, foreclosed on the property, took the property over, and then reimbursed the county for all the expenditures incurred by the county. And so we are, in our action today, waiving the fines that had accrued up to the point of abatement, which is about 146,000. But as you can see, the cost to the county that's being saved by these lenders paying for abatement is very significant. As Diane pointed out, it's almost $2.6 million. So I'd like to make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve by Commissioner Hiller. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. MS. FLAGG: Thank you, Commissioners. Item #I OP Page 442 December 13 -14, 2011 RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF ARTHREX COMMERCE PARK, APPROVE THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVE THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY — APPROVED MR. OCHS: Item 1OP. It was previously Item 16A4 on your consent agenda. It's an item that requires ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. It's a recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Arthrex Commerce Park, approval of the standard form construction and maintenance agreement, and approval of the amount of the performance security. This item was brought forward by Commissioner Hiller. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. The reason I -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait. We need ex parte disclosure and swearing in. So let's start with the swearing in first. Will all persons who are going to give testimony under this petition please stand and be sworn in. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. Now we'll start with commissioners for ex parte disclosure. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir. On this particular item, I don't have any disclosures. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Nor do I have any disclosures for this particular item. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have no disclosures. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And, Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: I've discussed this with staff, and I've received emails from staff pursuant to my request for information. Page 443 December 13 -14, 2011 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then go ahead with your questions, please. I'm sorry, did you -- did you need a -- need to present anything? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead, Commissioner Hiller. COMMISSIONER HILLER: There were a number of reasons that I pulled this. The first thing that concerned me -- and this is a general concern when I have agenda items that come before me that involve a contract is that the contract was not attached. And then I subsequently received the contract, but the specifics in the contract that we're supposed to be approving here today are not included. So I really -- I really have a problem with that, and I really don't find it acceptable for me to be approving something unless I have the contract filled in to approve. So that's my first exception. And I did ask for a copy of the contract. I ultimately did get it; I believe it was yesterday. And -- but, again, it wasn't filled in, so I really have a concern with that, and it goes to the whole issue of, you know, what we had talked about contracts and, you know, approval of the board and so forth. So I wasn't -- I was very concerned about that. The second thing that I wanted to discuss was I wanted to get an understanding of what this was and who this was for. And I was trying to -- when I -- you know, I, of course, read it closely, and I was a little bit concerned because when I looked at it -- and it could be just an error, but at the very beginning when it talks about dedications and reservations, it lists out all these names, but then when it's signed by the various parties, the signatures are not all the same. In other words, there's actually a company that -- the last company on the list is not included as one of the companies who are actually making the dedication and reservation, and that just might be a mistake and you need to just correct what's presented here. It's the very last one that I didn't see included in the overall list. And it may be that I missed it. I can't see it there. So if you could help me with that. NUMiii December 13 -14, 2011 MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. COMMISSIONER HILLER: The other thing is, I just want to know what this is, you know, and what this is for. And who owns these properties and, you know, is this for Arthrex's project that is coming down the pike that they're proposing to build, or is this something different? And if you can just help me out on that, explain that to me. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. I'm going to go through your -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: And it looks like, as I was reviewing this, that there was a breakdown in some cost. There was some 21,000 that has been expended already. When you're talking about the revenues realized by the county, you said in May of 2011, 21,000 was expended for the plat review, construction drawings, drainage, and so forth? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'll start at the beginning of what you talked about. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, just help me out, because there just wasn't a great deal of information here, and I just -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- couldn't really wrap my arms around what was going on. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. Well, I'll start from the beginning. The contract that you have for you is in your Land Development Code. Commissioner Henning, about six months ago, asked the same question. We always reference the standard form agreement that's in our Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But the problem is the standard form agreement has blanks that provide, you know, what's going to be done, what's going to be paid, dates, names. You know, I understand Page 445 December 13 -14, 2011 that it is a standard form -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- but it isn't so standard when you can add information to it that makes it, quite frankly, nonstandard and unique. So I want to see the contract completed, submitted with these plats so we know what we are approving because, quite frankly, I have no idea what I'm approving right now. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, you're approving the plat. The standard form agreement goes with that plat, so -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, I understand that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- let me take you through this, and then maybe when I'm done it will make a little more sense, I hope. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Someone submits a plat. You talked about the fees. Those $21,000 you referenced as in the first page of the executive summary are the fees people pay by our fee schedule to submit a plat, have it reviewed, and it goes into our coffers in 131 as a service fee. What happens next is the plat comes into county, it's reviewed by the county engineering department. County Attorney's Office reviews the dedications and the language on the plat. County surveyor reviews the metes and bounds descriptions provided by their surveyor to meet -- make sure it closes; in other words, it's a sufficient document, a surveyor can certify that it's there. What is it? You cannot transfer property in Florida, or typically any other state I've worked in, without referencing a legal document. The plat is that legal document that breaks apart that property and subdivides it into smaller pieces. So you are buying -- for instance, on this plat there is a Tract C 1 and Tract C2. The parent tract is a larger piece owned by the underlying developer or landowner. So the plat breaks it down into an individual tract. On that tract Page 446 December 13-14,2011 there are usually easements, rights that are known on the dedication side of the plat. They're on your top left corner of the title page of the plat. It says who the property's going to reside to, who's going to maintain it. These are all private. None of these are public roads. And that comes in the dedication, ultimately, but it gives the County Attorney, the staff, it makes a recommendation for the chair to sign the plat so that he knows that this property's not coming to Collier County, but the maintenance responsibilities that go with it. So all those documents are there. Once you've approved the plat as sufficient, the documents referenced certain amounts. The opinion of probable costs, the engineer's estimate, we take a bond with that, and that standard form maintenance agreement for subdivision improvements is tied to what's on this executive summary, the amount. In the end, we don't really care as much who provides that check or that bond. It's basically saying whoever does provide it, that entity, that we have rights to that bond, to call upon it should you, by this approved plat, not do the things you said you're going to do. And the benefit of that is to the people who buy property, and usually it's residential plats, but commercial plats as well. If they don't put in the infrastructure that's required by that plat, then call the bond, by this agreement -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: And put it in. MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- and put it in place. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. MR. CASALANGUIDA: So since I've been here, ma'am, these things are never filled out in advance. That's why we have them in the Land Development Code. It says it has to be by that. The numbers that go into it are done by the executive summary, so we put in the amounts that we reference, and the board approves that amount. We attach opinion of probable costs that go with that that talk about where the justification is for that. It's prepared by a professional Page 447 December 13 -14, 2011 engineer in the State of Florida and it's reviewed by a professional engineer and the county engineer. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the county engineer reviewed these costs. I saw you didn't get any fees on the water and sewer, and I assume that's because it's part of the Ave Maria utility? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And so the fees would be going to them instead of us. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am. So the county engineer will put on the record that he's reviewed the OPC, opinion of probable cost, and he's satisfied with it, if you'd like. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. MR. McKENNA: For the record, Jack McKenna. I'm your county engineer. Yes, we have reviewed the opinion of probable cost here, compared it to other recent costs that we've had, found it to be generally in order, couldn't find any inconsistencies. One thing I'd like to also add to what Nick was saying is that the amount of the security that's placed is 10 percent of the total cost and 100 percent of the remaining cost. So if the plat hasn't been recorded but there's work begun, that amount can change. So the final agreement wouldn't happen until, you know, that amount could change and be reflected in the final agreement. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And what is the -- you know, one of the things in the contract is that I assume the improvements that you have on this plat will be described as the improvements that will be constructed by the developer? MR. McKENNA: Correct. COMMISSIONER HILLER: In what period of time? Because the contract does provide that they have to do it within a certain number of months from approval of this. MR. McKENNA: The period of time -- it's -- the bond is reviewed every year and refreshed. The -- I believe they have three December 13 -14, 2011 years to complete the improvements, and then they can get an extension beyond that. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is that what you're going to put in this contract? Because it -- let me read you what is says. Developer will cause to be constructed, you know, blank within blank months from the date of approvals of said subdivision, plat, said improvements hereinafter referred as the required improvements. So is that where you're going to put in three years? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's in your Land Development Code, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is that -- the blank is going to be 36 months? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. And I think Jack might be in error. I think you have 18 months. And I'm referring to the Land Development Code. It is in your Land Development Code, and I don't know the exact numbers, and I should know the code. But I don't know that detail. But whatever's in the code, when you submit per our design and you approve the plat, you have X amount of time to go forward. Barring no objections, they can ask for a one -year administrative extension if they haven't violated any of the rules of the plat. Same issue you had with that Cocoa Lakes project we've had. But they can continue asking for a one -year extension as long as they're moving along and there is no conflicts with any neighbors or things like that. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the developer in this case will be all the parties named on the plat? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, yes, and then that goes through the County Attorney's Office that they have legal authority through the underlying document, the folio that's there. So that's reviewed with the County Attorney before they sign it. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And all those people named on Page 449 December 13 -14, 2011 that plat are the current owners of that property, owners of title of that property? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Owners or have interest in that property. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Owners of title of that property. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, or may have interest in it. I don't -- again -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: What does that mean, have an interest in it? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Because you may have a contract that you have rights to that property, so you could be the owner with someone having a contract to that property. But whoever signs is reviewed with the County Attorney's Office to make sure they -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: It doesn't have to be someone who owns the property? MR. CASALANGUIDA: The owner and someone who may have interest in the property. So the owner has to sign, and if you have interest in the property, you may sign as well, too. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So who's liable to do this? MR. CASALANGUIDA: The owner. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Jeff, just help me out. MR. KLATZKOW: It's -- usually these are corporations that are signing off on it, so it's an authorized, you know -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: But is it the owner of the property? MR. KLATZKOW: Is it the owner of the property? The owner or an agent, yeah. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it's whoever has an ownership -- who has title of record on that parcel that signs off on this? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, just a couple questions. Page 450 December 13 -14, 2011 Crystal, is this something that the Clerk's Office is going to be concerned with now, contracts on just plats and stuff? Is that something you're going to be needing or not? I mean, we might as well know if the rules are changing here, because we haven't -- we've never done this before. MS. KINZEL: Commissioner, we only look at contracts in relationship to payments made. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, okay. MS. KINZEL: That's our concern is a pay request or a payment request that's made for anything. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So if, for example -- go ahead. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So then I was wondering, because these things are usually really simple and, you know, we get maybe five an agenda on here or something like that. And they're all just standard form, and they -- they're always on the consent agenda. So, you know, I was just -- if things are changing, we need to know that. MS. KINZEL: And if there were any relationship to, for example, a jobs program or some of the other things that have been discussed in relationship to development or -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. No, I'm just talking about plats -- MS. KINZEL: -- you know, any of those other grants or anything else, those might come up in a pay request that we would have to make. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. But, Crystal, I was just talking about plats, you know, final plats and, you know, things like that. I just didn't know if there was something -- something coming up. But just so I know the parameters, you know. Then the second thing I wanted to say was I make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner Page 451 December 13 -14, 2011 Fiala, second by Commissioner Coletta. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. Please tell us we're finished, sir. Item #1 I C DISCUSSION REGARDING NORTH NAPLES FIRE & RESCUE PROVIDING SERVICE TO AREAS OUTSIDE OF THEIR BOUNDARIES — MOTION TO SEND LETTER TO NORTH NAPLES FIRE AND RESCUE — APPROVED MR. OCHS: Almost, sir. You have Item 11 C that was an add -on during your change -sheet discussion yesterday morning, way back yesterday morning, to add an item on here regarding the board's approval to allow the North Naples Fire Control and Rescue District to provide the ALS services that they're currently providing outside of their district boundaries on occasion when they get called for mutual aid and similar calls. So Mr. Klatzkow, at the direction of the board, has worked this draft letter up, and I'll be quiet and let him talk. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. And my understanding is that the North Naples Fire District's in the process of renewing their certificate. That will be coming to you in the next month or two, that this language will be part of that, but their concern between now and then if they get an emergency call, can they go outside their stated Page 452 December 13 -14, 2011 district. It would seem to be, yes, you can, but they're concerned because their certificate limits them. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. COMMISSIONER FIALA: God bless you. Bless you, bless you, bless you. MS. KINZEL: Thank you. MR. OCHS: Bless you. MR. MITCHELL: Gesundheit. COMMISSIONER FIALA: She always has three. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion to approve by me, second by Commissioner Coletta. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passed unanimously. MR. KLATZKOW: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Item #14 PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS MR. OCHS: Okay. That takes you to Item 14, public comment on general topics. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And we have some public Page 453 December 13 -14, 2011 comment speakers, Ian. MR. MITCHELL: Sir, just before the public comments there was just something that we wanted to bring before the Board -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: We need to get you at a microphone somehow. MR. MITCHELL: -- to bring before the Board. Since next week, the 22nd of December, is the winter solstice, we thought that it would be very suitable to ask Commissioner Hiller to -- if she can come down into the main body of the Boardroom. Then, perhaps, we could sacrifice her to the winter gods. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We don't have to have her in front to do that. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, that's right. You sacrifice me to the gods at every meeting. MR. MITCHELL: But actually Sunday is Commissioner Hiller's birthday, so we were going to celebrate quite suitably. We have a cake for her, and -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Hey, Leo -- MR. OCHS: Ma'am? COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- get over here. Nick, get over here. If you think I'm going to be sacrificed alone, absolutely not. MR. MITCHELL: We just thought the sacrificing might be really good. COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's Leo's birthday, and it's also -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: There are not nearly enough candles here. COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- Nick's birthday also. Hey, come on. It's their birthday also. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Looks like a fruitcake to me. COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're not talking about -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm talking about the cake. Page 454 December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- me? You're certainly not talking about me. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. Out of respect for your age, I'm not going to insult you. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Come on, guys. You've got to blow out the candles. MR. MITCHELL: So happy birthday. COMMISSIONER FIALA: To everyone. MR. MITCHELL: Happy birthday to everyone. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Happy birthday, Leo. Happy birthday, Nick. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER HILLER: And after I'd like all of the public to come and join us. We all need to have a piece of cake. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does anybody have the same day? CHAIRMAN COYLE: I do. It's my birthday this Friday. COMMISSIONER HILLER: It is? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, he's full of hops. His is in August. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let's have a bonfire and put him in the middle of it. Oh, I am being nice. I could be a lot worse. MR. OCHS: Congratulations. Happy birthday. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, happy birthday. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Happy birthday, everyone. MR. MITCHELL: Okay. We do have speakers. Sir, on Item 14 we did have speakers, a lot of speakers registered yesterday, but what I'll do is I'll start with the people who have signed up today. The first speaker will be Debbie O'Dean. CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many do you have total? MR. MITCHELL: There's probably around 20, but I've a feeling -- there's not 20 people here, so -- Page 455 December 13 -14, 2011 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MS. O'DEAN: Hello. For the record, I'm Debbie O'Dean. I'm a long -time resident on the Isles of Capri. And I'd like to make a comment on John Rogers' motion yesterday to investigate the termination of Fire Chief Emilio Rodriguez. The truth has not been spoken here. I have heard back - peddling, I have heard cover -up, I have heard collusion, but I don't hear the truth. When the truth is spoken, it resonates as truth, and everyone that hears it knows that it is the truth. What really happened here? Does anybody care what the truth is? Our mob, as we were referred to yesterday, just wants to know the truth. Why was Chief Rod terminated? Maybe the county doesn't think we're entitled to know. Well, it's our tax dollars from our MSTU that pays the county to manage our fire department. In a way, we're the county's employer, and yet anyone watching the proceedings yesterday would think that the county owns our fire department. We asked the county years ago to manage our department, and now we're being treated as if we have no right to know how it's being managed. It's not -- I'm not sure that's the kind of management that we're interested in. If everything was done aboveboard and there -- if everything was done aboveboard here, why doesn't the county hold its head up and respectfully explain the reasons for the termination? Instead, it's hiding behind phrases like, we don't always tell all the reasons for a termination in order to spare employee embarrassment. And now Chief Rod's staff has been asked, after the termination, to write down all the things that they can think of that Chief Rod has ever done wrong. Why? Did they not have enough cause to let him go in the first place? Did he somehow stand in the way of a future successful implementation of the fire and EMS consolidation? Will our MSTU aff-M 0 December 13 -14, 2011 tax money be of benefit to this cause? And what recourse does Chief Rod have if he has been wrongfully terminated? According to the County Attorney, he can sue the county. And just how long and how much money will that take? I guess it does provide job security for someone, though. I'm disappointed in your results on this item yesterday. Asking the County Manager to give a report, which he so clairvoyantly had already prepared, describing the events in this matter is like asking the fox how many chickens are in the henhouse. You'll never get the real truth. No, the truth has not been spoken here. Either you don't care what the truth is or you know and are helping cover it up. I wonder which it is. MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Jeri Neuhaus. MS. NEUHAUS: Hi. I'm Jeri Neuhaus, a business owner on Isles of Capri, a former Capri first responder and a former Capri Fire Advisory Board member. Because we weren't given an opportunity to speak yesterday, there were some things that I really wanted to make sure went on the public record. I'm concerned that the commissioners did not and still do not fully understand the motion that had been presented and that you subsequently turned down. We were not asking for a motion to investigate Chief Rod. We were specifically asking for a motion for an independent investigation into the process used to terminate him. By allowing Mr. Ochs, Dan Summers, and Human Resources to report on this process, you've essentially -- sorry to repeat it, Debbie -- put the fox in charge of the henhouse. I'm not sure I understand how somebody can be asked to investigate and report on themselves and their procedures and be expected to come up with anything of merit. Mr. Summers and Human Resources have demonstrated, both through private meetings, public meetings, and in writing, a complete Page 457 December 13-14,2011 disregard for established hiring and firing procedures adopted and practiced by Collier County. They have proven themselves incapable of handling a fair and unbiased investigation. Mr. Ochs' 40 -page -- I was able to review this morning Mr. Ochs' 40 -page undated report of the termination investigation. It is incomplete at best. In order for this report to be valid and complete, interviews should have been held not only with those involved in the termination, but those that should have been involved in the termination. Specific -- where are those interviews? They're not anywhere referenced in Mr. Ochs' document. Specifically, further interviews should have been conducted with Chief Rod again, every member of our fire advisory board, and the numerous firefighters who have come forward, and EMS staff who have information that completely negate the statements made by the "coffeehouse three ". Without these interviews, any report prepared by Mr. Ochs and staff is useless and completely without merit. What the commission did accomplish yesterday was to completely destroy my faith in Collier County as the manager of our fire department. Contrary to what Chief McLaughlin and Mr. Summers keep saying, I would like to remind them that we pay for the services we receive from our MSTU funds. We are not subordinate to Collier County. We have the power to determine who we choose to manage US. We are not going away. Our fight to reclaim our fire department and, subsequently, our fire chief has just begun. MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Abbe Drossner. MS. DROSSNER: Abbe Drossner. I have lived on Isles of Capri since 2004. I'm asking the commissioners to reconsider a third -party investigation into the firing of our chief and the process that went with Page 458 December 13 -14, 2011 it. Without an unbiased investigation, this commission does not know if proper procedure was followed. For the County Attorney to say our chief should initiate a suit speaks to his arrogance. For the County Attorney to say there's more to the file than we know implies that either he or Dan Summers is less than honest. Dan Summers told our Fire Advisory Board, plus 200 citizens on Isles of Capri, that there was no other document or no other issues. Which one of them is speaking the truth? For Tom Henning to try and refuse to accept the information package and the petition that John Rogers offered speaks volumes of his prejudgment on the issues. As for you, Commissioner Fred Coyle, calling us an angry mob, you owe the citizens of Isles of Capri an apology. We came here and followed due process, and you were rude to us. What are the three commissioners afraid an unbiased investigator might find here, as well as Leo Ochs? What is he afraid of? Are you afraid to hear the answers to why was a clandestine meeting allowed? Why wasn't HR in attendance? Why is there nothing in writing from the three employees who went to the coffeehouse? Why is there only Dan Summers' interpretation of the meeting? Why were there documents added to the file after the termination? Why are the three commissioners willing to turn a blind eye and not hold Leo Ochs and Dan Summers accountable for firing for cause and not following the process and procedures? We know Dan Summers has been found guilty of this before. We are only asking for transparency and for you to reconsider an unbiased investigation. Thank you, Commissioners Fiala and Hiller, for your stand yesterday and your motion and for trying very hard to get the other three commissioners to be transparent. The residents of Isles of Capri will not lose interest in this issue, and we are not going away. Page 459 December 13 -14, 2011 MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Kathleen Bruns. MS. BRUNS: Hello. Let me say yesterday I, too, was offended by the County Attorney calling our support for Chief Rod a show. I'm disturbed that he would encourage any citizen to file a lawsuit against the county. Do we have so much money that we now solicit lawsuits instead of trying to resolve issues? I accept your assertion that the commissioners cannot interfere with Mr. Ochs' firing of our chief, but that clearly is not what Ms. Hiller requested. The distinction was clear. She asked for an independent review of process, of process. You approved an internal, not an independent review. Since we have no confidence in the process Mr. Ochs followed in the firing, we have no confidence in the internal review either. Clearly, Mr. Ochs is under the control of this board and reports to you. To opine you can't supervise the process he used to fire a long -time employee, of that an at -will employee, is unacceptable. We ask for fundamental fairness here. Chief Rod has worked cooperatively with our community on so many issues over the years. He has earned our respect. He is effective, responsive, and very reasonable. He is an asset to our community. We obviously want him reinstated. We need him. He is a very special leader. We count on you to respect and to represent our interests. As you can see from the support our chief has, we ask that you reconsider your review process to permit an open, transparent, and independent review of process. And if that process is found to have been violated in Chief Rod's case, please ask Mr. Ochs to reconsider the firing and adhere to all accepted practices and procedures. Chief Rod's future, his family's future, and our confidence in you is clearly in your hands. This is not going to go away. I thank Chief Rod for his service, and I hope to thank all of you each individually and personally for a thoughtful reconsideration of our petition. Page 460 December 13 -14, 2011 MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Matt Crowder. MR. CROWDER: For the record, I'm Matt Crowder. I'm a resident of the Isles of Capri. And I have these questions: Under what policy does the county official meet with the subordinates of his subordinates in a coffee shop on a Saturday morning with no one from human resources present and create what could be an uncorroborated case against Chief Rodriguez? I would like to know if Mr. Ochs' report will be addressing this specific issue. Under what policy does a county official place a gag order on an entire fire department? If a firefighter who might be sympathetic to Chief Rodriguez's position sees his boss's boss openly planning to drag their chief through the mud, exactly to whom would he speak? The message is, "Stay silent or this could happen to you." I hope Mr. Ochs' report will include an interview with all of the firefighters of the Isles of Capri Fire Department in an environment free of the fear of retaliation, preferably including someone from human resources. I would like to know if Mr. Ochs' report will be addressing this specific issue. Are these the methods that the county uses to spare someone unnecessary defamation, to publish false allegations against him in the media while simultaneously keeping our Fire Advisory Board in the dark, to openly give orders to rank -and -file employees to dig up dirt on the individual? Is this how the county avoids defaming a good man? To me it sounds like exactly the opposite. I would like to know if Mr. Ochs' report will be addressing this specific issue. And, finally, just as a reminder, you have heard already, the Isles of Capri Fire Department is a Municipal Service Taxes Unit, an MSTU. It is not a general fund county department. As you know, an MSTU is a funding mechanism for community members to create a special tax district to make improvements to their own community. In addition to our operating and capital Page 461 December 13 -14, 2011 expenditures, our MSTU pays a fee to Collier County to cover the costs of administrative services. None of our MSTU's costs are paid out of the county's general fund. It's not county money that pays the employees of our MSTU. It's our money. I can't see how in this environment with this unique relationship that the people of the MSTU can be ignored. Not only have we been called a mob and told, in effect, it's none of our business, but the MSTU's Fire Advisory Board was specifically left out of the loop, and the chairman of the board was asked to vacate the fire department premises on the day of Chief Rodriguez's termination. This is not a case of "It's none of your business." I submit that it should be our business or at the very least the business of our advisory board. Thank you. MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is John Rogers. MR. ROGERS: Thank you, Commissioners. I want to take full responsibility for my inability to convince you in my ten minutes yesterday to have an independent investigation; however, at this point I have to play within the rules. And so maybe to the chagrin of some of my friends on Isles of Capri, I want to thank you for passing the motion that you did pass, to have an investigation conducted by Mr. Ochs or Mr. Ochs' department. At this point I'd just use the few minutes that we have to say to you, Mr. Ochs, when you do this, please listen to some of the concerns presented by my neighbors and the other members of our fire district. Consider the questions that they've raised and especially the questions that Matt raised, and I throw out a few more points that hopefully you'll consider in your investigation. Is it procedure to add documents to the file which were drafted after the termination and recite unsubstantiated claims? Is it proper procedure to allow statements which have not been investigated to be Page 462 December 13 -14, 2011 amended after Chief Rod was terminated? Is it proper procedure not to investigate but one of the many claims within the packet? Is it proper procedure to accept unsigned, unsworn emails as gospel? Is it proper procedure to include a third party and totally unrelated parties' criminal record in the packet which terminates Chief Rod and was delivered to the news media? Is it proper procedure to inform the news media proper (sic) to informing either the Fire Advisory Board or Chief Rod? And isn't it odd -- isn't it extremely odd that for 15 years in a row Chief Rod is evaluated in July except for July 2011? Something was planned, I submit to you, as early as July of 2011. Let me just focus on one item in Mr. Ochs' report, which I received this morning, just to try to hone you in on one of our big concerns here. I've reviewed his package. And just taking the statement that led them to investigate the bank account by Barbara Shea, she makes her statement on September the 27th. On November the 4th the chief is fired. We scream and yell to the news media that on its face this is a lie, this is inconsistent, this makes no sense. And one month and one day later, December the 5th of 2011, Barbara Shea completely amends her entire statement. The statement that led to the investigation of the bank accounts is amended 31 days after -- after they relied on it to terminate the chief. That's one of the enormous problems within the complaint. And, lastly, Commissioner Fiala, it's clear in the termination packet -- just so you know, and this is not a complaint. Just to clear it up -- the tax ID number of the bank account in question is in the termination packet as well as the proof that it's tied to the 501(c) 3 and not to Collier County. It's in the very packet that Mr. Summers and Mr. Ochs have submitted. So it answers itself. But thank you for bringing that up yesterday. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I please ask Mr. Rogers a question? Page 463 December 13-14,2011 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure. COMMISSIONER HILLER: How has the statement of the aide changed? MR. ROGERS: Well, she -- the procedure -- she got an email, and she said, I've had a -- suddenly she says -- and I have it in my briefcase. She said, I've had a chance to review my statement, her statement. COMMISSIONER HILLER: This was at Day 31? MR. ROGERS: Yes, ma'am. She made the statement on September 27th. I would assume -- I'm assuming they would have had the people review Mr. Summers' report. COMMISSIONER HILLER: It doesn't matter. I don't care who MR. ROGERS: Okay. She made the statement September 27th. COMMISSIONER HILLER: How has it changed 31 days later? MR. ROGERS: Thirty -one days after November 4th. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. And what -- MR. ROGERS: She said -- where she initially says I receive -- I check the mail once -- I never check the mail she says. COMMISSIONER HILLER: In the first one. MR. ROGERS: Then says, I -- one day I recently saw a statement, and I looked at this statement. That's what she initially says. That would cause me concern. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Just -- MR. ROGERS: What does she say in the revised statement? I checked the mail two to five days a week for the last three years. I've noticed bank account statements for the last three years. In 2010 I thought it was odd, so I pulled out a bank statement, and I held onto it. She says, in the fall of 2010 I pulled out a bank statement and I held onto it and didn't have anybody to talk to about it. And what's interesting about that, Commissioner Hiller, is in January of 2010 she says, in an interview, an independent interview ��- i em December 13 -14, 2011 that you guys ordered -- I'm sorry -- that your department ordered, she says, this is the nicest and friendliest place I've ever worked. And two months later she says, I didn't have anybody to talk to, so she says, I pulled out a July 2010 statement -- excuse me -- a 2010 statement and then oh yes I remember a subsequent statement of 2011. So she goes from this narrow, oh, my God, we got you, Chief, to, well, it's been going on for three, four, five years, everybody -- which is exactly what the chief testified to. It was an account I had no control over. I threw the statements away because they weren't addressed to me. So the "uh -huh" becomes a "so what ". COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, the "uh -huh" and the "so what" were used to suggest, by innuendo -- and I assume it's by innuendo -- that it was an illegal bank account, and -- MR. ROGERS: There's 48 pages in the 78 pages that try to tell people that's correct, yes, ma'am, an account of which Chief Rod couldn't have closed if he wanted to, but was getting pressure to close, rightly so, you know. The county didn't want volunteer accounts. I mean, we all have known that since 2005. That's not news. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, but, you know, suggesting someone has an illegal bank account when they don't -- MR. ROGERS: Is huge. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. MR. ROGERS: Thank you, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, yeah. MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Peter Kocik. MR. KOCIK: Good afternoon. For the record, my name's Pete Kocik. As my friends and colleagues have so eloquently stated, the process in which Chief Rod has been terminated is just plain wrong. I presented to the board a -- presented the board with a history that shows, in my opinion, the animosity Mr. Summers has had toward Page 465 December 13 -14, 2011 Chief Rod since early in 2010. It makes you wonder where he was going with this. Termination, yes. And the basis for that termination of Chief Rod was found to be without merit. In conclusion, I would also like to ask that Mr. Ochs include in his investigation the way Mr. Summers conducted himself in the history I presented the Board with and, essentially, in the manner in which he terminated Chief Rod. And I'd like to give Mr. Ochs a copy of that history that I presented the board. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. MR. KOCIK: Thank you. MR. MITCHELL: I would just ask, is there anyone else that wants to speak? Could I have -- MR. LANGKAWEL: Yes, sir. I turned one in yesterday. MR. MITCHELL: Okay. Do you want to come to the podium. Could you identify yourself, please. MR. LANGKAWEL: Yes, sir. My name is Joseph Langkawel. Chairman, Honorable County Commissioners, as the chairman of the Isles of Capri Fire Advisory Board, I monitor the health of the fire department on an ongoing basis. The relationship between the community, the fire department, and the county has always been exceptional, until now. When I asked Mr. Summers, the director of emergency services, why he fired our chief, Emilio Rodriguez, he said it was a matter of health and safety for the department. I was told that it was about issues that were out of the preview (sic) of our advisory board. This took place after I was notified that Chief Rodriguez had been fired. I still have a few questions. Why was Chief Rodriguez fired? Chief Rod's termination papers cite the letter of certain issued to him in July of 2010. This had been addressed and put to rest in November of 2010. The advisory board took the allegations and the letter seriously, '.:-'•• December 13-14,2011 although we thought they were unfounded, as did the independent investigation initiated by human resources. We worked through all 15 items in that letter. We then sat down with Mr. Summers on 8 November, and we discussed them and came to conclusion that we had completed all of the issues within that letter and that it was to be put to rest, yet that letter was the basis for the termination. Apparently it was within the preview (sic) of the Board because we'd worked on it over a year prior. Why was the advisory board kept in the dark concerning this action until after he was fired? At the November 8th meeting, 2010, Mr. Summers had stated how important it was that we all work together and keep each other informed, yet this didn't happen. Why was I asked to leave when Mr. Summers notified the firemen of Chief Rod's termination? What did he have to say to the firemen behind closed doors that he did not want the chairman of the advisory board to hear? Why was the news media on site at the fire station before the firemen had been notified of Chief Rod's termination? Why did they have the information almost a full week before the fire advisory board had the information of his termination? Why were the personnel of the fire department requested to file statements that could be considered derogatory towards Chief Rod after he had been terminated? When is it considered correct to terminate an individual and then search for justification for that action after the fact? His file does not contain one derogatory entry that was not placed in his file until after his dismissal. Why have we been told that Chief Rod does not have the right to appeal his dismissal and he is not covered by the Firefighters' Bill of Rights, yet yesterday at these chambers we were told he is covered. Why has the advisory board been presented with a packet of Page 467 December 13 -14, 2011 information and was told, this is it, this is all we have, this is all the information that was used to terminate him, and then yesterday we are told by the County Attorney but we have more information yet? These are just a few of the questions that have gone unanswered, and the inconsistencies continue to grow and mount. All we are asking for is, what is the truth? We are looking for the truth and for fair management. We understand Leo Ochs has not only the right but the obligation to hire and fire employees, but at that level, isn't he also required to run it through the Board of Commissioners before he does so? CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your last speaker. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, do you have anything, County Manager -- MR. OCHS: No, sir. Item #15 STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- for correspondence and communication? MR. OCHS: No, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HILLER Yes, I do. Can I comment on what these people are saying first? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thanks. I want to thank you all. You all speak really well. I mean, it's really impressive to hear citizens who are so knowledgeable and articulate. The Florida Statute that governs the county administrator's powers and duties is 125.74. And there is a section, Section L, and it says it's the County Manager's -- it's within his powers to suspend, December 13 -14, 2011 discharge, or remove any employee under the jurisdiction of the board, and this is the part of his duty or his right, if you will, that, to me, is most important, pursuant to procedures adopted by the board. So how anybody is suspended, discharged, or removed has to be pursuant to procedures adopted by this board. And there was a great deal in the termination of this gentleman who, again, I don't personally know, and I have no idea what he did or didn't do that was wrong. I know that the County Manager has issued a report, but I actually had a meeting last night and I even had a meeting this morning in between yesterday's meeting and today's meeting, so I haven't had the time to review it to know exactly, you know, what is -- what is in that packet. What I care about is the process, just like you, and I feel that no matter who it is or what the investigation reveals, the process has to be fair. Importantly, the process has to be a process that has been board adopted. I can't believe that having secret meetings in restaurants where whistleblowers are claiming, you know, certain things happened and fear retaliation and not having a human - resource person present at such a meeting is a normal county procedure. I can't believe that the press would know before an advisory board that their chief is being terminated is normal county procedure. I can't believe that you can have informal investigations and that would be part of a normal county procedure for the termination of any employee. And so I'm going to go back to what I asked for before, and that is an investigation -- independent investigation to determine that the procedures used to remove Chief Rod, in fact, were those procedures that were adopted by the board. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Say that one more time. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like to -- and I'm making this as a motion, and that is that we have an independent investigation to make a determination that the procedures that were used to remove December 13 -14, 2011 this employee, Chief Rod, were procedures adopted by the board. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are we allowed to do that, County Attorney? Can -- is this legal for us to do? COMMISSIONER HILLER: And it is our right. You know he -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let the -- MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know where we're going -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let the County Attorney answer the question. MR. KLATZKOW: I'm not sure where we're going with this. If a report comes back and says that this procedure may have been violated or that procedure may have been violated, are you going to then require that Leo hire this guy back? COMMISSIONER HILLER: It actually will raise the question as to, A. why this person was terminated and whether Leo is doing his job or whether someone else caused the wrongful termination or caused Leo to wrongfully conclude this person should be terminated. There's no way to make a determination of what the board will decide to do until we have confirmation that the process used to come to this end was, in fact, the process that the board has adopted. And I think it's absolutely critical that we do that. We have so many concerned citizens. And, quite frankly, if Leo did his job and if Dan Summers did his job, and if everybody -- and if HR did their job and everything is legally compliant and has followed -- you know, and everything was done pursuant to procedure -- MR. KLATZKOW: You are -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- that's the end of it. MR. KLATZKOW: You are really getting very close to being in violation of your own ordinance here. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why? MR. KLATZKOW: If what you're doing is investigating Leo, that's fine. Page 470 December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. We want a -- yeah, well, that's -- we're asking -- MR. KLATZKOW: If what you're -- please. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, go ahead. MR. KLATZKOW: If what you're doing is you want to have an investigation of Leo and then hold him accountable for the way it was conducted, that's fine, but you cannot use that as far as the decision making on Chief Rod. COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I agree. Pursuant -- and we are holding him responsible to ensure that he did what he has the right to do pursuant to us. MR. KLATZKOW: But I will tell you this, okay, we have terminated how many people, Leo, in this county over time? Now, I know Chief Rod was popular, okay, but if we're going to go down this road every time somebody's terminated and they raise foul, okay -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: But he hasn't raised foul. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could we just finish listening to him, please. MR. KLATZKOW: And I'll say this again, there is a process for this, okay. It is not a political process. The problem I have with this whole thing is they're coming in here putting pressure on this Board, okay, to then put pressure on that man who made a decision. And the whole point of the Florida Statute and the county ordinance here is to take away the politics from the way he administers his people. That's the whole purpose of it, which is why the process here, if Chief Rod believes he's wrong, is to file for a wrongful termination, okay, and use that as the forum. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But -- thank you. MR. KLATZKOW: And that's what the state wants you to do. CHAIRMAN COYLE: There's no point in going over this over and over and over. We understand this. It's very clear. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We did it at a legally advertised Page 471 December 13 -14, 2011 meeting. Now we're doing this -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: This is still a legally advertised meeting. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We did. It was legal advertising, and the item came before us. We discussed it at great lengths. We went through it at great efforts. Now, at the 11th hour when we're dealing here in a non - advertised -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's not the 1 lth hour. These people were -- did not speak at that point. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, please let someone else speak. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, I hear everything that's out there. I recognize the fact that the chief was extremely popular, well loved by everybody that was out there. I also recognize there was a process in place that's going to be followed. I also recognize the fact that we might be in violation of Florida Statutes and our own ordinance, and I'm not about to go down that road. COMMISSIONER HILLER: We're not in violation of anything. He -- Leo has a duty to terminate pursuant to procedures adopted by the board. I want proof that he terminated pursuant to procedures adopted by the board. I want to know what was done with respect to the termination of this employee. I want to know what procedures were employed, and I want confirmation that the procedures employed were those procedures adopted by the board. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Call the motion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I haven't had a chance to speak at all. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. I didn't mean to jump in front of you. MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, listen. We're either going to have to wind this up quickly, or we're going to have to give a break to the Page 472 December 13 -14, 2011 court reporter. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I understand. MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll just wind it up. I just wanted to know, because the only -- one of the problems I have, and I just wanted to ask you, in your report, to include part of the process, because I do have some problems with the way the -- with the process that we used -- MR. OCHS: Ma'am, that was the direction that I received. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and maybe we could learn from that to make sure that, from here on in, the same process isn't used. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, wait a minute, wait a minute. Here's the issue. For years and years probably hundreds of employees have been terminated by the County Manager. If there was no process identified, it would be interpreted today that that is the policy. They're at -will employees. We have permitted him to make his own decisions about his own people, and we've done that in accordance with the Florida Statute. Now, maybe there should have been a more specific procedure laid out, but there hasn't been. So we can't hold him responsible for procedures that we failed to implement over the past ten years. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I can't believe we don't have procedures in place for the termination -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: For at -will employees there are procedures, and they've already been spelled out, and Chief Rod has -- is going through those procedures in a number of instances. His is slightly different because he's a fireman. But the -- if we -- if you want to develop procedures, you know -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: The procedures are in place. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- fine, let's do so. COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. The procedures are in place. Page 473 December 13 -14, 2011 MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right, and he has followed his procedure for an at -will employee. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I want to know what the procedures are that were used to terminate this man. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. OCHS: I understand that, Commissioner. That's what I was directed by the board to provide yesterday in an upcoming report, and I will do just that. If the board decides that that's unsatisfactory, I'm sure they'll let me know. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think the issue of the community -- and, quite frankly, I don't see it as political pressure to have the community voice their opinion. I view it as their right to express themselves as to how government is conducting themselves. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HILLER: These people don't vote me in office, so -- MR. KLATZKOW: Ma'am, I'm trying to keep you -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm just sharing with you that they're not putting any pressure on me. This is independent. MR. KLATZKOW: Believe it or not, ma'am, I'm just trying to keep you out of any legal jeopardy here. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. And I'm not entering any forum where there is any legal jeopardy. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, you know, I'm not so sure you're not. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, tell me why. CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, no, no. COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no. I have the right. You're the County Attorney. If I'm doing anything wrong, I want to know right now. MR. KLATZKOW: And I've been telling you, ma'am, that there Page 474 December 13 -14, 2011 is a process for this, and the process is not to have people come in here in T- shirts and put pressure on you to put pressure on the County Manager. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is there a law that forbids them to stand up -- MR. KLATZKOW: Your own ordinance prohibits you from getting involved in his personnel matters. That's your ordinance. COMMISSIONER HILLER: My statute says -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's not the statute we're talking about. COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- that he has the duty pursuant to procedures adopted by the board. MR. KLATZKOW: That's not -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't have the right to confirm that he has employed procedures adopted by this board? MR. KLATZKOW: You need to look at the County Manager ordinance of this, you know -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Just answer the question -- MR. KLATZKOW: -- of this Board. COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- yes or no. Do I have the right to ask whether he has terminated pursuant to our adopted procedure? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, I'm going to have to ask that we have decorum since Commissioner Henning isn't here. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you please answer the question. MR. KLATZKOW: Ma'am, Leo Ochs has already said he's going to give you a full report as to what the investigation was. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. I wanted to ask you -- MR. KLATZKOW: I think -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- whether or not I have the right to ask the questions. MR. KLATZKOW: I think any time you get involved in inserting yourself in personnel matters, okay, you're putting yourself Page 475 December 13 -14, 2011 at jeopardy of being in violation of County Manager ordinance, and -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: I can't ask him -- MR. KLATZKOW: -- and I will tell you that Commissioner Henning got dragged up to Tallahassee, okay, on this very issue. THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, I can only get one at a time. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, he got involved, didn't he, on -- or didn't you, Commissioner Coyle, get sued because you recommended someone should be terminated or something like that? Didn't he get sued? I thought you -- wasn't the county sued over something like that? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, we're not going anyplace. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, it was. COMMISSIONER HILLER: The county got sued because you said you wanted an employee -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, that's not true. COMMISSIONER HILLER: What happened? CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's not true. The employee alleged that I did, but I did not. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that was -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to know whether or not I, as a commissioner -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Take a break. COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- can ask -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're having a ten - minute break. Okay. You get a break now. COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- whether or not he is terminating pursuant to Board procedure. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll have a ten - minute break. We'll be back here at 4:40. Page 476 December 13 -14, 2011 (A brief recess was had.) MR. OCHS: Commissioner we have one item Mr. Casalanguida wants to bring to the attention of the board. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Real simple. And it's actually -- Ian, if I could get the Watershed Management Plans that you dropped off to the Board collected from their aides. I want to recycle those. But the reason I'm up here, Commissioners, is the Vanderbilt Drive Bridge was given to us by FDOT. They completed it. They did not finish painting it. They painted it partially and returned the rest of the funds back to us, approximately $700,000. To finish painting the bridge is about $3,000. I'm going to take those funds out of that money that was returned by FDOT and get the bridge painted. Mr. Fee was going to bring up the item. I just wanted to put it on the record, we're going to get it painted. It's $3,000 that's going to come out of those funds. And unless anybody has any objections, I'm -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: What are you going to do with the other 700,000? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It stays in that settlement agreement and would be applied to that corridor. COMMISSIONER HILLER: What are we talking about? What are you talking about? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Vanderbilt -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Vanderbilt Drive bridge, ma'am, that's in your district. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why are we bringing this up under commissioner communication? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Because I will let you know that there's a -- MR. OCHS: No. It's under County Manager's communications. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And why are we -- why isn't this an agenda item? Page 477 December 13-14,2011 MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's just -- I can make it an agenda item. It's just it's -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think it should be an agenda -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: An advisory? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's an advisory. I don't have to get permission from the Board to spend the $3,000. I could do it -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Don't tell us about it, Nick. Just go away. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're in trouble now. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go away. You caused more trouble telling us about it than -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: I figured I would. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Tell us, what is it about? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's just that the bridge has not been completely painted by FDOT. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, now you're going to paint it? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am. I'm taking the money they gave back to us. I'm going to use that money to paint it, a portion of it. That's all. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, good. Oh, good. He's just trying to catch up. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I would like to see it painted purple with yellow polka dots. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Done. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, no. We didn't vote on it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I understand that's Commissioner Hiller's favorite color. you? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. County Attorney, anything for December 13-14,2011 MR. KLATZKOW: No, I'm good. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, I get to go first? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, you get to go first. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I appreciate it very much. I just -- this is my last opportunity probably to be able to wish you a happy holiday season, and I hope that the holidays go well for everybody here and everybody out there and that you enjoy it with your families. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ba- humbug. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I kind of figured that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You say that every year. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I know. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But it's consistent. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm the Grinch, I'm the Grinch. I don't have anything more. Do you have something? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just had a few little things here, yes. I was hoping that at some point in time, Commissioners, we can bring back a subject called resign to run, and that was where -- that's where board members, any advisory board members that want to run for an office, they have to first resign from their advisory board, yet if you're already holding office and want to run again, you know, as a -- you know, well, anyway -- that you don't have to resign from the committee. And I just thought it might be a good thing for us to discuss. I'm not telling you which way I want to go, but I think it's a good thing to discuss. We've had it brought before us and asked about it a few times. I think it's a good thing to do. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, if you don't mind me commenting on that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I know where this is coming from, and I will vigorously oppose it. It's just not a good idea. But if you want to Page 479 December 13 -14, 2011 bring it up and put it on the agenda, that's your prerogative, but I simply do not -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, if you think that there's something negative to it -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: There is. And here's the thing that people are not thinking about. There are some people who will use their participation on an advisory board to promote their election, to use it as a bully pulpit, use it to get them before the camera and before the newspaper and get their name out there. And we have seen people who will do that. And there are people running for office either now or within the next year or so who are specifically interested in doing that. And I do not believe that we should have on our advisory boards people who use the boards for those purposes. We have advisory boards for valuable input. It's not a place for people to perform. And I think our policy is a good policy, and it does not harm a political candidate who is a member of those boards to resign and then seek appointment to boards later on if they wish to, and in most cases they would even be ineligible for an advisory board if they got elected, but there are some exceptions to that rule. But I -- I've seen correspondence that wants us to reconsider this. I think it's a waste of our time, and it's based upon circumstances that I think are unjustified. But, anyway, that's my story. I didn't mean to take up your speaking time. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, that's all right, that's all right. I was thinking, also, I got probably the same email then that you got or that you received. I don't like that word "got ". But then I was also thinking back to Larry Magel when he was running for Marco Island City Council, and, you know, it seemed a shame to have him drop off when he was a vibrant part of a committee, but I'll rethink that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second thing I wanted to talk about, and this is pretty quickly. I just wanted to clear up, in case there was any misunderstandings by anyone about the -- God bless you. Where's the third one? MS. KINZEL: I did three. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. MS. KINZEL: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that was, I had been mentioning -- that I wanted to mention at the MPO meeting, but then I had to leave to run to another meeting -- about the overpass dollars for U.S. 41 and 951 that I'm referring to. And I -- what I was hoping to do, and I'm hoping to say this clearly now, I don't ever want to change the 951/41 at -grade improvements that are about to take place. That is really important, and I don't even want a dime lost from that. I think poor Norm almost fell over thinking that maybe I was going to take them. And no, no, no, I don't want to do that. What I was saying was, we so desperately need the overpass at Davis and 951 and I -75, because pretty soon we're going to open up something maybe along Everglades Boulevard, and we need to have a way to move them, and I'm saying take the money from the U.S. 41/951 overpass -- on the overpass, if we ever get any. I don't even know that we're ever going to get any. But if we happen to, dedicate it to the Davis Boulevard/951 overpass, because right now the state can't seem to do anything about it. I've also asked for our federal government, one of the priorities to be if they have any money, to put it there also so we can get that thing opened up so we can get another entrance or exit out of the Golden Gate Estates for safety purposes. But we need to open that thing up so we can do it. So that's -- I hope I made that real clear. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why don't we transfer that money from the Vanderbilt Road fund and -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Never mind. December 13 -14, 2011 So then I'm going to go on to the next one. And then I just wanted to suggest -- I had a delightful meeting over at Manatee Middle School the other day. They invited me over to speak to seventh and eighth graders about government, and it was just -- the kids' faces over there, they were just shining and glowing and excited about learning, and it was a beautiful thing. One of the things that the principal of the school asked, actually -- she asked for two things. One was a shelter, and it was -- and I wasn't able to get this on the record at the MPO meeting either -- a bus shelter for out in front by U.S. 41 and Manatee School, because so many of their employees -- they have a middle school and an elementary school all on one property, and many people take the bus there, but there's no shelter for them. And she was asking that we would please consider that, especially if there are some shelters that are not yet assigned. I said I would bring that up. She also wanted to make sure that we knew that she, as well as the principal of Lely High School -- I was also over at Lely High School -- are very concerned with the light over there by the park and their -- anything that they can do to help us move that forward is, indeed, important to their students. So I said I would mention that. I have a personal thing, and that is all of the fire engines that right now cannot carry all of the ALS equipment, medications, and so forth, I know that they -- you know, I think we could have such a better service, and everybody would work more cohesively if we could get them to be carrying that stuff again. I've spoken to Leo about it, and so I'm just telling you that this is a concern of mine as well, because I think it would help everybody to attend to the people who might have an accident or might have a heart attack or a stroke or something. They need those things on those fire engines right away. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I support you on that? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, it's absolutely critical. December 13 -14, 2011 In fact, the thing that I found astounding is when we went through the AUIR process about a month ago, in prior years it was very clearly stated in the AUIR that EMS could not provide the level of service proposed without ALS fire engines backing them up, and now all of a sudden this year they took it out, but they kept the response time the same. It is inconceivable that they can deliver the service. And I don't know why we would be compromising the public safety and not allow these ALS - certified paramedics to have what they need to provide the service if there is an emergency. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I totally agree with you. COMMISSIONER HILLER: It doesn't make any sense. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Or you agree with me. Or we agree. COMMISSIONER HILLER: We agree with each other. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did you see, we even said that together. Anyway, so -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Another Vulcan mind meld. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I do want to say again that I want to investigate what we can do to get that thing back in order, because I think we would provide the entire community -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: No question. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- a service by getting these things equipped again as the way they were designed to when we started the ALS process. And the last thing is, I wanted to talk just a little bit more about Isles of Capri and say I'm hoping that when we have this report we address the process. I think that's extremely important. I have four things, if you don't mind me mentioning them. The -- because it isn't -- now this one, it's any process, anyplace it might happen. If there's an advisory board, they should always be in as part of the process. If people are admonished, then it should go in their record rather than giving them a glowing evaluation. How can you tell if there's a problem if you can't see it? The third thing is, if there's December 13 -14, 2011 a problem and there's a disciplinary action, then there should be some actions taken by us, and it should be in their public -- in their records before we actually go about firing. I think that there were a lot of things missing out of this particular one. And the last thing is, I was curious also to find out how the media found out even before the fire board or their fire commission -- or their personal commissioner found out, and I'm -- that will be interesting. I mean, I know that you didn't do that, Leo. You would never call them, and I wouldn't do that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You explain that in your packet. MR. OCHS: Yes, I did, sir. So I'm not sure every commissioner had a chance to read through their packet yet. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much. Oh, Merry Christmas everyone, and remember at Christmas, and all the time, spread a little love and make sure to hug your families, hug your children; they're the most important things in the world. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, couple of things. To begin, I spoke to Clarence Tears again to reconfirm my understanding that the county did not have to wait for any sort of review by the Corps of Engineers before submitting the request to have approval for a mitigation bank for Pepper Ranch to South Florida Water Management District. And, again, he confirmed that, no, we did not have to wait and that it could be submitted immediately, could already have been submitted. So I asked him to put it in writing, and he did, and I forwarded that email to you. So, again, there is no reason why we should not have already submitted the application to South Florida Water Management District for the mitigation application for Pepper Ranch. Leo? December 13 -14, 2011 MR. OCHS: Yeah, I saw your email, ma'am. I'll get you a report. I'll get the full Board a report, another answer. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yep, well -- MR. OCHS: An answer again to the question. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. This is the head of regulation for -- this is the regulatory guy from South Florida Water Management providing the answer to the head of the South Florida Water Management District, and in his response Clarence Tears went on to say, after checking with the regulatory staff, that the district -- the short answer is no. In other words, no, you don't have to wait. I was also informed, we also -- we always forward a copy of the application to the Corps of Engineers as part of our process. Also, when the county is ready to submit their application, a pre - application meeting can be arranged in Collier County to go over the proposed submittal. So based on that -- and I don't know why they would be wrong. Since they are the permitting agency, I would think they would know. We should have that pre -app meeting as soon as possible and submit immediately and get the process going. That's one thing I wanted to share to clarify the constant debate on this issue. It is now in writing from South Florida, number one. Number two, I asked staff from IT to apply their technical skills and play a short little YouTube video for you. MR. OCHS: Where is this going, on the podium computer? The laptop? Is this it? COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think it has to be scrolled back to the beginning. CHAIRMAN COYLE: This is all yours, buddy. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm in charge? CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're in charge. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Actually, Commissioner Coyle, why don't you stay and watch, because you accused me of lying, and Page 485 December 13 -14, 2011 this video is being presented, really, for your benefit to give you the opportunity to retract your statement and apologize to me -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Fat chance. COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- because what you said was completely false and completely defamatory. (YouTube video clip from an MPO meeting was played.) "COMMISSIONER HILLER: All of that has to do with what you've got here as your priorities; is that correct? Because, like, for example, the land acquisition for runway extension, 103 acres, is that the same as the 103 - -" COMMISSIONER HILLER: The image is not playing. (YouTube video clip continuing.) " -- rural land that's being redesignated? MR. CURRY.- I'm sure it is. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. " COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is there a reason the video's not playing? MR. OCHS: Is there a video? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. There is a video. There's -- (YouTube video clip continuing.) -- agricultural land through the Immokalee Master Plan, you're upzoning it, and then subsequently you're going to propose that the government buy it based on the upzone value? MR. CURRY. Yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Why would you do that? That makes no sense at all. I mean, if we know that you're going to need that land, why aren't we buying - -" COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, you can -- why don't you rewind and just start again. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That was the beginning, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: It actually -- 0-1-11M December 13 -14, 2011 MR. OCHS: Where do you want us to start, Commissioner, right there? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Well, just start from -- just start from the beginning and -- yeah. Just start from the beginning and just turn up the volume. (YouTube video clip being replayed.) "COMMISSIONER HILLER: All of that has to do with what you've got here as your priorities; is that correct? Because, like for example, the land acquisition for runway extension, 103 acres, is it the same as the 103 acres of rural land that's being redesignated? MR. CURRY.• I'm sure it is. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. So, essentially, if I understand what's going on here, you're taking agricultural land through the Immokalee Master Plan, you're upzoning it, and then, subsequently, you're going to propose that government buy it based on the upzone value? MR. CURRY- Yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Why would you do that? That makes no sense at all. I mean, if we know that you're going to need that land, why aren't we buying it now as agricultural land and then subsequently upzoning it ourselves for whatever need, you know, we deem appropriate? Because, obviously, what you're doing by having it in the Immokalee Master Plan, changing the zoning and then subsequently buying it for a runway extension is you're creating tremendous value for the private owner of the land and costing the taxpayers of Collier County way more than they should be paying for this land. It's -- I mean, it's agricultural land. MR. CURRY.• Well, it's in my plan because I want it to be funded by the FAA. I want it to be eligible. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it's public money. I don't -- MR. CURRY.- To be funded by the FAA and -- Page 487 December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, that's federal funds. MR. CURRY.- And when property is purchased in that way, it's done simply based on what is the appraised value of the property. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, the appraised value of the property is agriculture. The only reason it's becoming more expensive is because, through this Immokalee Area Master Plan, it's being rezoned ahead of a known future acquisition, which makes no sense. And to me, when we're talking about tax dollars, I don't care if it's county, state, or federal. It's the public's money. Who owns that land? MR. CURRY.- The land currently is owned by the Colliers. " (The following is the YouTube video of a clip from the 12/13/11 Board of County Commission meeting.) "MR. CURRY.- Chris Curry, executive director airport authority. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Chris, would you please address the - -" COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you make it louder? (YouTube video clip being played.) " -- allegations made by Commissioner Hiller -- MR. CURRY.- Well, those allegations are false. The airport has in its JSIP a plan to purchase the property. It's been in the - -it's been in the .ISIP for years, but it's to purchase the property at agricultural value, and we've been discussing that with the Colliers for months. So you're right, I said there's no problem getting money from the federal government because that's how most airports expand, but the intent has always been to purchase it at agricultural value, not for urban - industrial use. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, absolutely. Okay. And there's never been any question about that. And I want -- I called you up to clarify that because I want the public to understand one thing. These are the kinds of things that people say to justify their own decisions, and I want you to weigh these false assertions and wild accusations to December 13 -14, 2011 determine who is really trying to act in the best interest of Immokalee and who is merely trying to play - -" (YouTube video of a clip from an MPO meeting being replayed.) "COMMISSIONER HILLER: All of that has to do with what you've got here as your priorities; is that correct? Because, like, for example, the land acquisition for runway extension, 103 acres, is that the same as the 103 acres of rural land that's being redesignated? MR. CURRY.- I'm sure it is. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. So, essentially, if I understand what's going on here, you're taking agricultural land through the Immokalee Master Plan, you're upzoning it, and then, subsequently, you're going to propose that government buy it based on the upzone value? MR. CURRY.• Yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Why would you do that? That makes no sense at all. I mean, if we know that you're going to need that land, why aren't we buying it now as agricultural land and then subsequently upzoning it ourselves for whatever need, you know, we deem appropriate? Because, obviously, what you're doing by having it in the Immokalee Master Plan and changing the zoning and then subsequently buying it for a runway extension is you're creating tremendous value for the private owner of the land and costing the taxpayers of Collier County way more than they should be paying for this land. It's -- I mean, it's agricultural land. MR. CURRY.• Well, it's in my plan because I want it to be funded by the FAA. I want it to be eligible. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it's public money. I don't -- MR. CURRY.- To be funded by the FAA and -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, that's federal funds. MR. CURRY.- And when property is purchased in that way, it's done simply based on what is the appraised value of the property. ME= December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, the appraised value of the property is agriculture. The only reason it's becoming more expensive is because through this Immokalee Area Master Plan - -" (YouTube video ended.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: We've heard this about five times now. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Hey, I didn't post the YouTube. I just found it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Well, we know who posted it. I don't -- I don't quite get it, but it appears that Chris Curry misspoke. He came in here just yesterday and said that he did not say that. It's clear that he misspoke. But the allegations continue to be false despite the fact he might have misspoke because nobody has been involved in trying to upzone that land before it is purchased. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I made a statement based on staff s representation to me. What I said was absolutely true based on the representations made. You very rudely called me a liar publicly, impugning my integrity, and obviously it isn't the case. So I would like you to apologize to me. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I won't because you have made that allegation numerous times before even talking to Mr. Curry. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Really? Would you like to prove when and where? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You made it on Jeff Lytle's show. COMMISSIONER HILLER: That was subsequent. That was just recently. CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, it wasn't. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, it was. CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, it wasn't. You weren't on the Jeff Lytle show recently. 10--mu ,� December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER HILLER: I was. CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I haven't been on the Jeff Lytle show since March. I just went on the Jeff Lytle show, when was it, Ian? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Merry Christmas. COMMISSIONER HILLER: A couple of months -- weeks ago. Yeah, you're confusing your time line, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, I'm not. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, you are. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I know it very well. But the point is -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: You need to retract that statement. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I'm not going to -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Hey, I don't want to stay for the fight. If you don't mind, I'm going to just say "Merry Christmas." COMMISSIONER HILLER: Merry Christmas to you, Donna. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We are adjourned. * * * ** ""Commissioner * *Commissioner Henning moved, seconded by Commissioner Fiala and carried unanimously that the following items under the Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and /or adopted * * * * Item # 16A 1 RESOLUTION 2011 -210: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF CLASSIC PLANTATION ESTATES PHASE FOUR WITH THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS BEING PRIVATELY MAINTAINED AND THE RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY Page 491 December 13 -14, 2011 Item #I 6A2 RESOLUTION 2011 -211: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF WHITE LAKE CORPORATE PARK PHASE TWO WITH THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS BEING PRIVATELY MAINTAINED AND THE RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY am.—I OIN RESOLUTION 2011 -212: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF CITY GATE COMMERCE CENTER, PHASE TWO, AND WITHIN TRACT `A' OF CITY GATE COMMERCE CENTER PHASE ONE WITH THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS BEING PRIVATELY MAINTAINED AND THE RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY; AND ACCEPTANCE OF PLAT DEDICATIONS Item # 16A4 – Moved to Item # 1 OP (Per Agenda Change Sheet) Item #I 6A5 RESOLUTION 2011 -213: REINSTATING THE CONDITIONAL USE FOR THE BETHESDA CORKSCREW SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH, RESOLUTION NUMBER 02 -161, WHICH EXPIRED ON MARCH 26, 2005 PURSUANT TO SECTION 10.08.00.E.I OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC) THAT PROVIDES A THREE YEAR EXPIRATION DATE FROM THE DATE THE Page 492 December 13 -14, 2011 CONDITIONAL USE WAS GRANTED IF THE USE HAS NOT COMMENCED — ELIMINATING THE PETITIONER'S NEED TO APPLY FOR A NEW CONDITIONAL USE AND TO PAY ASSOCIATED FEES Item #I 6A6 PMC- PL2011 -872: HEAVENLY PUD — NOTIFICATION OF STAFF'S INTENT TO APPROVE A MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE HEAVENLY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LDC SECTIONS 10.02.13.E.6 AND 8 TO CHANGE THE LOCATION AND TYPE OF PLANTINGS AND TO REVISE THE BUFFER STANDARDS TO REDUCE THE HEIGHT OF TREES AND PLANTINGS DUE TO SITE CONDITIONS AND CONFLICTS WITH FPL LINES, AND ALLOWING PAYMENT IN LIEU OF SIDEWALKS INSTEAD OF CONSTRUCTION OF A SIDEWALK ALONG MYRTLE ROAD FROM NORTH TRAIL BOULEVARD TO THE PROJECT ENTRANCE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 6926 TRAIL BOULEVARD, AND COMPRISES THE ENTIRE BLOCK BOUNDED BY RIDGE DRIVE, WEST STREET, MYRTLE ROAD AND TRAIL BOULEVARD IN SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA — AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item # 16A7 REJECT THE OFFER TO SETTLE A $59,281.15 CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN FOR PAYMENT OF $59000 — THE FINE AMOUNT HAD ALREADY BEEN REDUCED TO $259281.15 AFTER THE PROPERTY WAS BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE ON DECEMBER 21, 2010 Page 493 December 13 -14, 2011 BID #12 -5805 FOR "US 41 NORTH (TAMIAMI TRAIL) NORTH FROM SEAGATE DRIVE TO IMMOKALEE ROAD LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE" TO COMMERCIAL LAND MAINTENANCE. THE ANNUAL EXPENDITURES ARE ESTIMATED TO BE $98,345.65 Item #I 6A9 AMENDED EASEMENT THAT INCORPORATES ADDITIONAL TERMS INTO THE DEED OF CONSERVATION WITH THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SFWMD) THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE BOARD ON OCTOBER 9.2007 FOR THE FREEDOM PARK Item #16A10 AMENDED EASEMENT THAT INCORPORATES ADDITIONAL TERMS INTO THE DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT TO THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SFWMD) THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE BOARD ON SEPTEMBER 23, 2008 FOR THE LELY MITIGATION PARK Item # 16A 11 AGNOLI, BARBER & BRUNDAGE, INC. AS THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL FOR "PROFESSIONAL DESIGN AND OVERSIGHT SERVICES FOR LELY AREA STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (LASIP): 1) COUNTY BARN ROAD, 2) WINGSOUTH, AND 3) PROJECT CLOSE OUT" PURSUANT OEM December 13 -14, 2011 TO RFP #11 -5751, AND STAFF ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH AGNOLI, BARBER & BRUNDAGE INC, PROJECT #51101 — WORK MUST BE COMPLETED BY JULY 25, 2015 Item #16Al2 RESOLUTION 2011 -214: STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) ROADWAY LIGHTING SYSTEM MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR MAINTENANCE OF FDOT OWNED ROADWAY LIGHTING SYSTEMS TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE TRAFFIC OPERATIONS SECTION OF THE TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FOR THE SR 84 (DAVIS BOULEVARD) PROJECT FROM SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD TO JUST WEST OF RADIO ROAD, FDOT FINANCIAL AID PROJECT ID #195416- 4 -52 -01 AND THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT Item # 16A 13 CLERK OF COURTS TO RELEASE A SECURITY POSTED AS A DEVELOPMENT GUARANTY BY LELY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION — FOR LAKE EXCAVATION PERMIT #59.793 Item #16A14 RELEASE OF LIEN IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS VS. JAMES K. TOWNE AND DEBORAH B. TOWNE, CODE ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CASE NO. CEPM- 2008- 0016337, RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4419 18TH AVENUE SW, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA — FOR VIOLATIONS RELATING TO A VACANT STRUCTURE WITH Page 495 December 13 -14, 2011 A DAMAGED ROOF Item #16A15 RELEASE OF LIEN IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS VS. ALBA R. LICCI, CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CASE NO. CESD- 2009 - 0007768, RELATING TO PROPERTY AT 2395 39TH AVENUE N.E., COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA — FOR VIOLATIONS RELATING TO A GARAGE THAT WAS CONVERTED INTO LIVING SPACE WITHOUT PERMITS Item # 16A 16 — Moved to Item # 100 (Per Agenda Change Sheet) Item #16A17 REVISIONS TO THE GOLDEN GATE CITY ROADWAY BEAUTIFICATION MASTER PLAN — CHANGING THE REVIEW PROCESS TO ALLOW FOR EXPLORATION OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR PRIVATE /PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS FOR ROADWAY BEAUTIFICATION Item #1 6A 18 BID #I1 -5700 FOR "DEVONSHIRE BOULEVARD LANDSCAPE & IRRIGATION REFURBISHMENT PROJECT" TO HANNULA LANDSCAPING & IRRIGATION, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $2789818.46; AND REJECT THE BID FROM AMERI - PRIDE, INC. IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE FUNDED BY RESIDENTS OF THE RADIO ROAD BEAUTIFICATION MSTU — AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 496 December 13 -14, 2011 Item # 16A 19 — Moved to Item # l OL (Per Agenda Change Sheet) Item #I 6A20 RESOLUTION 2011 -215A: SUBMITTAL OF THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION SECTIONS 5310 AND; RESOLUTION 2011 -215B: SECTION 5311 FY 2012/2013 GRANT APPLICATIONS AND APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS IN THE AMOUNTS OF $544,872 AND $569,600 RESPECTIVELY TO FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) AND EXECUTE A FDOT CERTIFICATION & ASSURANCE EXHIBIT Item # 16A21 — Moved to Item # l ON (Per Agenda Change Sheet) Item #I 6A22 RESOLUTION 2011 -216: AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE TO AGREEMENT #BDM59 (MEDICAID NON - EMERGENCY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES) BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND COMMISSION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED TO INCREASE STATE FY 11/12 MEDICAID FUNDS BY THE AMOUNT OF $649591, A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT THEREOF AND A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE AFOREMENTIONED AMOUNT — IN ORDER TO RECEIVE A REDISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS Item #I 6A23 OFFER TO SETTLE SEVEN (7) FORECLOSURE CASES FOR PAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL (WAIVING ACCRUED INTEREST) ON IMPACT FEE DEFERRAL LIENS AT BOTANICAL PLACE CONDOMINIUM — WAIVING $12,385.90 OF AN INITIAL Page 497 December 13 -14, 2011 $61,929.46 IN IMPACT FEES Item # 16A24 — Moved to Item # I OM (Per Agenda Change Sheet) Item #16A25 ADOPTING THE ESTABLISHED POLICY OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO ALLOW THE PLACEMENT OF INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED AND ACCEPTED MARKERS ALONG COUNTY ROADWAYS TO MEMORIALIZE THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAVE DIED IN VEHICLE RELATED CRASHES Item #16A26 — Continued to the January 24, 2012 BCC Meeting (Per Agenda Change Sheet) RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A THIRD AMENDMENT TO COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AGREEMENT #C- 11759, REGARDING OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF DESIGNATED PRIMARY WATERCOURSES IN COLLIER COUNTY, MODIFYING THE AGREEMENT AND EXTENDING THE TERM UNTIL SEPTEMBER 30, 2024 Item #I 6A27 REJECT BID NO. 12 -5801 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE COLLIER AREA TRANSIT INTERMODAL TRANSFER STATION — DUE TO DISCREPANCIES IN PLANS AND SPECS BY MANY OF THE BIDDERS; THE BID PACKAGE WILL BE UPDATED AND RE- SOLICITED 99=_ M December 13 -14, 2011 Item #16B 1 RECOGNIZING VIA BUDGET AMENDMENT GRANT REVENUE IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,709,150 FOR THE BAYSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) TO EXECUTE CDBG GRANT AWARD # l ODB- D4- 09- 21- 01 -K09 IN FY 2012 FOR THE TERTIARY STORMWATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IN THE GATEWAY TRIANGLE RESIDENTIAL AREA — TO MONITOR STORMWATER SYSTEMS TO DETERMINE THE NEED FOR WET AND DRY DETENTION AND RETENTION AREAS, SWALES AND CULVERTS Item #16B2 — Moved to Item #13B3 (Per Agenda Change Sheet) Item # 16C 1 UTILITY EASEMENT FROM COLLIER COUNTY TO COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT FOR IRRIGATION QUALITY (IQ) WATER PIPELINE AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE INCLUDING ELECTRICAL PANEL, METER ASSEMBLY, ELECTRICAL CONDUIT AND ACCESS ON, OVER AND ACROSS A PORTION OF GOVERNMENT CENTER PROPERTY LOCATED OFF PALM DRIVE AND HARRISON ROAD IN NAPLES, FLORIDA AT AN ESTIMATED COST NOT TO EXCEED $20, PROJECT NUMBER 70062 — TO PROVIDE LEGAL RIGHTS TO THE CCWSD FOR ACCESS AND MAINTENANCE, ASSET MANAGEMENT INVENTORY, AND ALL FUTURE MAINTENANCE AND UPGRADES Item #16C2 December 13 -14, 2011 CONVEY A UTILITY EASEMENT TO THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITIES AT THE NORTH COLLIER RECYCLING DROP -OFF CENTER, AND A CORRECTIVE EASEMENT TO FP &L, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $166 — LOCATED ON GOODLETTE -FRANK ROAD, FOLIO #00168050002 Item #16C3 REJECT BID NO. 11 -5717, "SEWAGE HAULING," FROM SOUTHERN SANITATION, INC., AND ISSUE A MODIFIED INVITATION TO BID — DUE TO ADDITIONAL REQUESTS BY THE BIDDER THAT WERE NOT PART OF THE INITIAL BID Item #16C4 EXECUTION OF A UTILITY FACILITIES WARRANTY DEED AND BILL OF SALE TO CONVEY THE WATER UTILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE AT THE COLLIER COUNTY LANDFILL TO THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $61 — FOLIO #00298520004 Item #16C5 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN FLORIDA'S DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO RECEIVE A $61,693.96 PAYMENT UNDER A CONTRACT FOR THE DISPOSAL OF RECLAIMED WASTE FROM THE ISLES OF CAPRI PARK PROJECT — LOCATED AT MCILVANE BAY ON THE CORNER OF COLLIER BLVD. AND CAPRI BLVD. Page 500 December 13 -14, 2011 Item #16C6 RESOLUTION 2011 -217: SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR 1995 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS WHERE THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT IN FULL SATISFACTION OF THE LIEN. FISCAL IMPACT IS $20 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN — FOLIO #62765880008 Item #16C7 SATISFACTIONS OF NOTICE OF CLAIM OF LIEN FOR SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEES. FISCAL IMPACT $67 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTIONS — FOLIO #47870680008, # 61833840007, #74410720003, #74413320002 AND #00271640008 Item #16C8 SATISFACTION FOR A CERTAIN NOTICE OF PROMISE TO PAY AND AGREEMENT TO EXTEND PAYMENT OF WATER AND /OR SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEES. FISCAL IMPACT $18.50 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN — FOLIO #00271640008 Item #I 6C9 RESOLUTION 2011- 218 /CWS 2011 -02: REQUESTING AN ACCESS EASEMENT AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT FROM THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) FOR THE VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE OF PROVIDING ACCESS TO, FACILITATING Page 501 December 13 -14, 2011 UPGRADES TO AND REHABILITATION OF WASTEWATER MASTER PUMPING STATION 312 (MPS 312) EASEMENTS FROM FDOT, AND AN ACCESS EASEMENT FROM COLLIER COUNTY TO FDOT TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO A FDOT- OWNED STORMWATER RETENTION POND LYING CONTIGUOUS TO MPS 312, FOR A TOTAL COST NOT TO EXCEED $150. PROJECT #72549 — FOLIO #53264000165 Item #16C10 ACQUISITION OF A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT, FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING DRAINAGE AND A UTILITY EASEMENT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW WATER LINE FOR FIRE PROTECTION, FOR AND AS PART OF THE REHABILITATION OF MASTER PUMPING STATION 312, FOR A TOTAL COST NOT TO EXCEED $3,646, PROJECT NUMBER 72549 — FOLIO #81820000322 AND #81820000306 Item #16C 11 UTILITY EASEMENT FROM COLLIER COUNTY TO THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT FOR RECLAIMED WATER PIPELINE AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE INCLUDING ELECTRICAL PANEL, METER ASSEMBLY, ELECTRICAL CONDUIT, TELEMETRY TOWER AND FOR ACCESS ON, OVER AND ACROSS A PORTION OF VINEYARDS PARK PROPERTY LOCATED OFF VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD ALONG VINEYARDS BOULEVARD IN NAPLES, FLORIDA; ESTIMATED COST NOT TO EXCEED $40, PROJECT #70062 — FOLIO #80708195004 Page 502 December 13 -14, 2011 Item #16C12 DIRECT THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 2003 -18, THE COLLIER COUNTY INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE, TO CONFORM WITH THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY MODEL PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE AS REQUIRED BY FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION — TO COMPLY WITH FDEP REGARDING PERMITS #FL0141399 AND #FL0141356 Item # 16C 13 — Withdrawn (Per Agenda Change Sheet) AGREEMENT WITH ADAM J. PISKADLO AND BARBARA K. PISKADLO FOR THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY FOR THE RELOCATION OF SUB - MASTER PUMPING STATION 300.06 AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $78,000, PROJECT #70046 Item #16C14 RATIFING A LETTER AGREEMENT WITH GOLF CLUB OF THE EVERGLADES TO DEFER PAYMENT OF WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES PENDING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S REVIEW AND DECISION ON THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO UPDATE AREAS EXEMPT FROM PAYMENT OF WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES SCHEDULED TO GO TO THE BOARD ON DECEMBER 13, 2011 FOR THE DIRECTION TO ADVERTISE — AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16C15 Page 503 December 13 -14, 2011 WAIVING COMPETITION AND AUTHORIZING THE USE OF NON - STANDARD SOLE - SOURCE VENDOR, HEYWARD, INC., AND A TEST APPLICATION OF WEATHERFORD SULFA - CLEAR, IN THE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF $809210, FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT ODOR CONTROL BLOW -DOWN DISPOSAL PROJECT NUMBER 70020 — DUE TO THE PATENT, NO EQUIVALENT PRODUCT HAS BEEN FOUND Item #16C16 NOTICE OF PROMISE TO PAY AND AGREEMENT TO EXTEND PAYMENT OF WASTEWATER SYSTEM IMPACT AND ASSOCIATED FEES WITH KAMPGROUNDS OF AMERICA, INC., FOR A PAYMENT PLAN AMOUNT OF $1559772.49 — LOCATED AT 1700 BAREFOOT WILLIAMS ROAD, FOLIO #007316802003 Item # 16D 1 AMENDMENTS TO AGREEMENTS BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND SUBRECIPIENTS FOR OPERATION OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE, MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE GRANT PROGRAM TO CHANGE THE TERM AND EXPIRATION DATE TO FEBRUARY 23, 2014 TO COINCIDE WITH THE EXPIRATION DATE OF A FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (DCF) RESOLUTION 2011 -219: APPROVING COLLIER COUNTY'S Page 504 December 13 -14, 2011 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG), HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP (HOME) AND EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANT (ESG) CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE AND EVALUATION REPORT (CAPER) FOR FY2010 -11 REQUIRED BY U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD), APPROVE THE CAPER RESOLUTION AND CHAIRMAN TO CERTIFY THE CAPER FOR SUBMISSION TO HUD AND TO SIGN THE RESOLUTION Item #I 6D3 ONE (1) SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE FOR AN OWNER - OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT IN WHICH REPAYMENT IN FULL HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO COLLIER COUNTY — FOR PROPERTY AT 12024 SITTERLEY STREET, NAPLES Item #I 6D4 TWO (2) RELEASES OF LIEN FOR DEFERRAL OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR OWNER OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING DWELLING UNITS THAT HAVE BEEN REPAID AND AUTHORIZE THE REFUND OF AN OVERPAYMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $23.52 TO TROPICAL TITLE INSURANCE AGENCY, INC. — FOR PROPERTY AT 7530 BRISTOL CIRCLE, NAPLES Item #16D5 TWO (2) LIEN AGREEMENTS FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR OWNER OCCUPIED Page 505 December 13 -14, 2011 AFFORDABLE HOUSING DWELLING UNITS LOCATED IN COLLIER COUNTY. APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM WILL TRANSFER PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DEFERRAL AGREEMENTS FROM HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF COLLIER COUNTY TO OWNER OCCUPANTS WITH A CONTINUING FISCAL IMPACT OF $28,572.93 — FOR REGAL ACRES LOTS 15 AND 18 Item #16D6 A RELEASE OF LIEN FOR THE DISASTER RECOVERY INITIATIVE SINGLE FAMILY REHABILITATION PROGRAM FOR AN APPLICANT DETERMINED TO BE INELIGIBLE BUT FOR WHICH NO FUNDS WERE DISBURSED — FOR PROPERTY AT 3404 SEMINOLE AVENUE Item #16D7 MEMORANDUMS OF UNDERSTANDING WITH SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARD, INC. FOR DELIVERY OF THE 21 ST CENTURY COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTERS PROGRAMS "MIRACLE PLUS 1 AND MIRACLE PLUS 2 PROGRAM" — TO TEACH STUDENTS BASIC SWIMMING SKILLS AT IMMOKLAEE SPORTS COMPLEX DURING THE CAMPS HELD APRIL 2 -4 AND JUNE 18-21,2012 Item #16D8 ONE (1) SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT FOR A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) WITH THE CITY OF NAPLES PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FOR DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) FUNDING IN December 13 -14, 2011 THE 2011 -12 ACTION PLAN APPROVED BY THE BOARD ON JULY 26, 2011 (ITEM #10H) — FOR IMPROVEMENTS IN THE RIVER PARK NEIGHBORHOOD Item #16D9 TWO (2) SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENTS FOR DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) FUNDED CONTINUUM OF CARE GRANT (COC) PROJECTS THAT WERE PRESENTED TO AND APPROVED BY THE BOARD ON APRIL 12, 2011 — FOR THE SHELTER FOR ABUSED WOMEN & CHILDREN AND ST. MATTHEW'S HOUSE Item # 16D 10 BID #11 -5778R TO CHENEY BROTHERS INC. TO PROVIDE CONCESSION FOOD RESALE AND FOOD - RELATED PAPER PRODUCTS AT NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL PARK AT AN ESTIMATED COST OF $100,000 FOR FY 2011 -12 Item # 16D 11 CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND AREA AGENCY ON AGING OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC., DBA SENIOR CHOICES OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA AND A BUDGET SUMMARY REVISION THAT REFLECTS A LEVEL TRANSFER OF GRANT FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,172 BETWEEN BUDGET CATEGORIES FOR THE FY 2011/12 HOME CARE FOR THE ELDERLY (HCE) PROGRAM Item #16D12 — Continued Indefinitely (Per Agenda Change Sheet) Page 507 December 13 -14, 2011 "CERTIFICATION FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF REGULATORY REFORM ACTIVITIES REQUIRED BY S.H.I.P" AND REPORTS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2006/07,2007/08 AND 2008/09 AND SUBMISSION TO THE FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS Item #16D13 AMENDMENT TO THE HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION AND RAPID RE- HOUSING PROGRAM (HPRP) ADMINISTRATIVE PLAN TO ALLOW PARTICIPATING AGENCIES TO PROVIDE SHORT TERM ASSISTANCE TO INDIVIDUALS & FAMILIES WHO ARE HOMELESS OR AT RISK OF HOMELESSNESS UP TO A MAXIMUM $2,500 — DESIGNED TO ASSIST AT RISK INDIVIDUALS /FAMILIES WHO CAN DEMONSTRATE THE ABILITY TO REMAIN HOUSED AFTER ASSISTANCE IS PROVIDED Item #16E1 CONTRACT UNDER REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL #11 -5735, "ON -CALL IT PROJECT MANAGEMENT," TO EXECUTIVE ALLIANCE GROUP, INC., EMA, INC., RNR CONSULTING AND GOLDEN TECHNOLOGIES, FUNDED BY APPROPRIATED OPERATING FUNDS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IT) SKILLS AND SERVICES AS NEEDED — THE COUNTY'S IT DEPARTMENT DOES NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY TO MEET DEMANDS Item #I 6E2 December 13 -14, 2011 CONTRACTS UNDER REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL #11 -5606, "TELECOMMUNICATIONS VOICE AND DATA SERVICES," TO CENTURYLINK AND US METROPOLITAN TELECOM, LLC., AT AN ESTIMATED COST OF $161,580 ANNUALLY TO PROVIDE VOICE AND DATA COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES — SERVICES FOR THE BOARD'S FACILITIES AND ALL COUNTY AGENCIES EXCEPT THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT Item #16E3 CONTRACT FOR RFP #11 -5689 PROPERTY AND CASUALTY BROKERAGE AND INSURANCE SERVICES TO INSURANCE AND RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC. (IRMS) IN AN ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $125,000 PER YEAR, A REDUCTION OF $63,375 — THE CURRENT CONTRACT WILL EXPIRE ON DECEMBER 31, 2011 Item #I 6E4 RESOLUTION 2011 -220: THE COLLIER COUNTY EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLAN DOCUMENT AND RESOLUTION EFFECTIVE JANUARY 11 2012 USED TO ADMINISTER GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE AND FLEXIBLE SPENDING REIMBURSEMENT ACCOUNT PROGRAMS Item #16E5 PURCHASE OF GROUP HEALTH REINSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2012 IN THE AMOUNT OF $638,3875 A 7.7% REDUCTION — WITH ZURICH INSURANCE Page 509 December 13 -14, 2011 Item #16E6 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 Item #16E7 ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT FROM GENUINE PARTS COMPANY D /B /A NAPA AUTO PARTS TO NAPA AUTO PARTS D /B /A SUNBELT AUTOMOTIVE, INC. FOR PARTS AND FILTERS FOR FLEET VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT Item #16E8 FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT WITH GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC., FOR THE CONTINUED USE OF ROBERT'S CENTER IN IMMOKALEE FOR HOUSING, HUMAN AND VETERAN SERVICES' SENIOR NUTRITION PROGRAM AT AN ANNUAL RENT COST OF $13,498.37. THE COST OF THIS RENTAL WILL BE PAID FROM OLDER AMERICANS ACT GRANT FUNDING — PROVIDES FOR AN ADDITIONAL ONE -YEAR TERM WITH TWO (2) ONE -YEAR RENEWALS Item #I 6E9 WAIVE COMPETITION BASED ON A SOLE - SOURCE VENDOR AND AWARD A CONTRACT TO ECIVIS, INC. FOR A MULTI- YEAR SUBSCRIPTION TO ECIVIS GRANTS NETWORK IN AN ANNUAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $37,168.75 — A 5 -YEAR Page 510 December 13 -14, 2011 CONTRACT THAT IS $2,000 LOWER THAN PREVIOUS CHARGES Item #16E10 THE FISCAL YEAR 2011 GRANT REPORT PROVIDING AN ANNUAL UPDATE OF GRANT FUNDING ACTIVITY Item #16E1 1 ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT FROM PARTS DEPOT, INC. TO UNI- SELECT USA, INC. D /B /A AUTO -PLUS FOR PARTS AND FILTERS FOR FLEET VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT — DUE TO THE PURCHASE OF PARTS DEPOT ASSETS BY UNI- SELECT ON OCTOBER 26. 2011 Item #I 6E 12 MODIFICATION NO. 7 TO U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (USFWS) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 401815J021, REVISING THE USFWS PROJECT OFFICER ON THE AGREEMENT — ERIN MYERS REPLACING KATHY O'REILLY -DOYLE Item #16E13 PAYMENT OF AN INVOICE FOR BONNESS, INC., DATED SEPTEMBER 9, 20115 IN THE AMOUNT OF $25400 FOR SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SCHOOL CROSSING AT SHADOWLAWN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Item #16E14 Page 511 December 13 -14, 2011 ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT FROM KILPATRICK TURF EQUIPMENT, INC. TO HORIZON DISTRIBUTORS, INC. FOR SUBLET /PARTS FOR COLLIER COUNTY — CERTAIN ASSETS OF KILPATRICK WERE ACQUIRED BY HORIZON ON APRIL 13, 2011 Item # 16E 15 — Moved to Item # 1 OQ (Per Commissioner Henning during Agenda Changes) Item #16171 WAIVE FORMAL COMPETITION AND CHANGE ORDER #4 STATEMENT OF WORK WITH METHOD FACTORY, INC. UNDER CONTRACT #11 -5616 FOR ENHANCEMENTS AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES TO GOVMAX BUDGETING SOFTWARE, FOR A COST OF $805750 — AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item # 16172 INVOICE AND FINAL REIMBURSEMENT PAYMENT TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN THE AMOUNT OF $10811684.42 REPRESENTING DOLLARS NOT EXPENDED FROM THE TOTAL HURRICANE CHARLEY FUNDING RECEIVED OF $19882,777.68 AND THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT — FINAL CLOSE -OUT ACTION TOOK PLACE JULY 19, 2011 Item #16173 RESOLUTION 2011 -221: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE Page 512 December 13 -14, 2011 PROCEEDS) TO THE FY 2011 -12 ADOPTED BUDGET Item #16174 AWARD OF BID #11 -5754 TO PHASE V OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. FOR TOURISM FULFILLMENT SERVICES AND AGREEMENT #11-5754 TO INCLUDE A REVISED TERMINATION NOTIFICATION PERIOD OF SIXTY (60) DAYS FOLLOWING COUNTY ATTORNEY APPROVAL — SERVICES FOR AN INITIAL TWO YEARS WITH TWO (2) ADDITIONAL ONE -YEAR RENEWAL PERIODS Item #16175 AWARD OF RFP #11 -5725 TO LOU HAMMOND AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR TOURISM PUBLIC RELATION SERVICES AND AGREEMENT #11 -5725 IN THE AMOUNT OF $152,000 ANNUALLY AND INCLUDES A REVISED TERMINATION NOTIFICATION PERIOD OF SIXTY (60) DAYS FOLLOWING COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE APPROVAL — SERVICES FOR AN INITIAL TWO YEARS WITH TWO (2) ADDITIONAL ONE -YEAR RENEWAL PERIODS Item # 16F6 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH OF IMMOKALEE IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES RELATED TO NATURAL AND MAN -MADE HAZARDS EMERGENCY RESPONSE Item #16177 Page 513 December 13 -14, 2011 COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO ADVERTISE AN ORDINANCE FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION THAT AMENDS ORDINANCE NO. 04 -121 AS AMENDED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF REVISING THE CLASS 2 CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR POST - HOSPITAL INTERFACILITY TRANSPORT SERVICES Item #16F8 AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE AND BRING BACK FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 92 -605 AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX ORDINANCE, TO REALLOCATE UNTIL PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE TO MARCO ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY, INC. $100,000 FROM TDC CATEGORY "C -2" NON COUNTY -OWNED MUSEUMS FUND 193 TO CATEGORY C -1 COUNTY -OWNED MUSEUMS FUND 198 TO REIMBURSE MARCO ISLAND'S HISTORICAL SOCIETY, INC. FOR THEIR FY 10 GRANT — AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item # 16G 1 BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $161,500 FOR REPAIRS TO THE FUEL FARM AT EVERGLADES AIRPARK REQUIRED BY THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION — FOR TANK INSPECTION, HEAVY RUST REMOVAL, TO APPLY PROTECTIVE COATING, VACUUM TESTING AND FOR A WRITTEN ASSESSMENT OF THE TANK CONDITION Page 514 December 13 -14, 2011 Item #I 6G2 — Moved to Item #I 3A3 (Per Agenda Change Sheet) Item # 16G3 — Moved to Item # 13A4 (Per Agenda Change Sheet) Item #I 6G4 FIRST AMENDMENT TO A T- HANGAR LEASE AGREEMENT WITH EXEC. AIR, INC. OF NAPLES, HIGH SOARING INC., AND AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA — FOR MONTHLY RENT TOTALING $247.79 AT IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT Item # 16H 1 COMMISSIONER HILLER'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE AVE MARIA SCHOOL OF LAW ANNUAL FALL GALA ON NOVEMBER 19, 2011 AT THE RITZ- CARLTON, NAPLES, FLORIDA, $130 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER HILLER'S TRAVEL BUDGET — LOCATED AT 280 VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD Item #16112 COMMISSIONER HILLER'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. SHE WILL ATTEND THE 7TH ANNUAL GALA AND AUCTION FOR THE FOUNDATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED AT HODGES UNIVERSITY, NAPLES, FL. ON FEBRUARY 11, 2012; $50 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER HILLER'S TRAVEL BUDGET Page 515 December 13-14,2011 Item # 161-13 COMMISSIONER HILLER'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. ATTENDED WAKE UP NAPLES SPONSORED BY THE CHAMBER ON OCTOBER 10, 2011 AT NAPLES HILTON, NAPLES, FL. $20 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER HILLER'S TRAVEL BUDGET Item #161-14 COMMISSIONER HENNING'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. HE ATTENDED THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA HISPANIC CHAMBER OF COMMERCE NETWORKING LUNCHEON ON NOVEMBER 9, 2011 AT SENOR TEQUILA'S, 26801 SOUTH TAMIAMI TRAIL, BONITA SPRINGS, FL. $16 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER HENNING'S TRAVEL BUDGET Item #16H5 COMMISSIONER HENNING'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. HE ATTENDED THE COLLIER COUNTY PRESIDENTS COUNCIL HOLIDAY RECEPTION ON DECEMBER 9, 2011 AT GREATER NAPLES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, 2390 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH, NAPLES, FL. $12 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER HENNING'S TRAVEL BUDGET Item #161-16 Page 516 December 13 -14, 2011 COMMISSIONER HENNING'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. HE ATTENDED THE 2012 CBIA INSTALLATION DINNER ON DECEMBER 8, 2011 AT OLDE CYPRESS, 7165 TREELINE DR., NAPLES, FL. $30 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER HENNING'S TRAVEL BUDGET Item # 16H7 COMMISSIONER HENNING'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. HE ATTENDED THE BIG CYPRESS BASIN HOLIDAY LUNCHEON ON DECEMBER 9, 2011 AT THE BIG CYPRESS BASIN TRAINING CENTER, NAPLES, FL. $10 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER HENNING'S TRAVEL BUDGET — LOCATED AT 6089 JANES LANE Item #16H8 COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE 29TH ANNUAL NAACP FREEDOM FUND BANQUET OCTOBER 29, 2011 AT THE NAPLES HILTON HOTEL, NAPLES, FL. $75 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET Item #161-19 COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE UNITED ARTS COUNCIL Page 517 December 13 -14, 2011 PATRIOTIC SALUTE TO THE ARTS ON NOVEMBER 12, 2011 AT THE VON LIEBIG ART CENTER IN NAPLES, FL. $38 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET Item #161-110 COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE MARCO ISLAND AREA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS 36TH ANNUAL INSTALLATION BANQUET ON DECEMBER 9, 2011 AT THE HIDEAWAY BEACH CLUB IN MARCO ISLAND, FL. $35 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET Item #16H1 I COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED A NAPLES KIWANIS LUNCHEON ON NOVEMBER 22, 2011. THE SUM OF $17 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET Item #16H12 COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE UNITED ARTS COUNCIL HOLIDAY PARTY ON DECEMBER 3, 2011. THE SUM OF $28 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET — HELD AT A PRIVATE HOME LOCATED AT 1900 5TH STREET SOUTH Page 518 December 13 -14, 2011 Item #16H13 COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. HE ATTENDED THE 2011 CITIZEN OF THE YEAR BANQUET AT VANDERBILT COUNTRY CLUB, NAPLES, FL ON NOVEMBER 10, 2011. $35 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET — LOCATED AT 8250 DANBURY BLVD. Item #161114 COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. HE ATTENDED THE HELEN BELL PANEL DISCUSSION AND LUNCHEON AT RITZ - CARLTON GOLF RESORT, NAPLES, FL NOVEMBER 9, 2011. $125 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET — LOCATED AT 2600 TIBURON DRIVE Item #161115 COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. HE ATTENDED THE 2011 DISTINGUISHED PUBLIC SERVICE AWARDS CEREMONY AT THE NAPLES HILTON ON OCTOBER 12, 2011. $20 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET Item #16H16 BOARD APPROVAL TO ATTEND A FUNCTION SERVING A Page 519 December 13 -14, 2011 VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE, THE FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES LEGISLATIVE CONFERENCE — THE EVENT WAS HELD NOVEMBER 16-18,2011 Item #161-117 BOARD APPROVAL TO ATTEND A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE, FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES LEGISLATIVE DAY IN TALLAHASSEE — WILL BE HELD FEBRUARY 1 -3, 2012 Item # 1611 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by the Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various departments as indicated: Page 520 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE December 13, 2011 1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED: A. Miscellaneous Correspondence: 1) Florida Public Service Commission: Economic Development Rider by FPL and Approving New Existing Facility Economic Development Rider 2) Collier County Growth Management Division: Official Interpretation of Collier County Land Development Code Ordinance Advertisement 3) District School Board of Collier County: School Impact Fee Schedule 2010 -2011 4) Ave Maria Stewardship Community District: Regular Meeting Schedule FY 2011 -2012 5) Larry H. Ray, Collier County Tax Collector: Collier County Tax Annual Report FY 2010 -2011 6) United States Department of Agriculture: Lee - Charlotte- Collier Newsletter October 2011 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES December 13, 2011 2. ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED: A. Minutes: 1) Airport Authority: Minutes of 5/2/11; 6/6/11; 8/1/11 2) Animal Services Advisory Board: Minutes of 7/19/11; 9/20/11 3) Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee: Minutes of 6/1/11 4) Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board: Minutes of 2/1/11; 4/5/11; 5/3/11; 6/7/11 5) Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee: Minutes of 6/9/11; 9/8/11 6) Collier County Code Enforcement Board: Minutes of 7/28/11; 8/5/11 (Special Magistrate); 8/25/11; 9/2/11 (Special Magistrate); 9/21/11 (Special Magistrate); 10/7/11 (Special Magistrate) 7) Collier County Planning Commission: Agenda of 9/1 /11 Minutes of 8/18/11; 9/1/11; 9/15/11 8) Consumer Advisory Board: Minutes of 3/15/11 9) Contractors Licensing Board: Minutes of 7/20/11; 9/21/11 10) Development Services Advisory Committee: Minutes of 8/3/11; 9/7/11 11) Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council: Minutes of 08/19/11 12) Environmental Advisory Council: Minutes of 8/3/11 13) Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage Advisory Committee: Agenda of 8/10/11 Minutes of 3/25/11; 7/13/11 14) Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee: Agenda of 7/12/11 Minutes of 7/12/11; 8/9/11 15) Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee: Agenda of 6/6/11; 6/21/11 Minutes of 6/6/11; 6/21/11; 7/5/11; 8/29/11 16) Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee: Minutes of 10/12/11 17) Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board: Minutes of 3/24/11; 4/28/11; 5/26/11 18) Historical /Archaeological Preservation Board: Minutes of 6/8/11; 8/17/11 19) Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency: Agenda of 7/20/11 Minutes of 7/20/11; 09/21 /11 20) Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board: Agenda of 8/17/11 Minutes of 7/20/11; 9/21/11 21) Land Acquisition Advisory Committee: Minutes of 8/8/11 22) Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee: Agenda of 9/15/11 Minutes of 7/21/11; 9/15/11 23) Library Advisory Board: Minutes of 6/29/11; 8/17/11 24) Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Committee: Minutes of 8/8/11 25) Pelican Bay Services Division Board: Agenda of 9/7/11 Minutes of 9/7/11 26) Radio Road Beautification Advisory Committee: Agenda of 8/2/11; 9/12/11; 10/10/11 Minutes of 5/17/11; 8/1/11; 9/12/11 December 13 -14, 2011 Item # 16J 1 AN AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING THE COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE TO HAVE TRAFFIC CONTROL JURISDICTION OVER PRIVATE ROADS WITHIN THE IBIS COVE SUBDIVISION — LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF IMMOKALEE ROAD Item #102 DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF OCTOBER 29, 2011 THROUGH NOVEMBER 4, 2011 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE OFFICIAL RECORDS FOR THE BOARD Item #I 6J3 DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF NOVEMBER 5, 2011 THROUGH NOVEMBER 11, 2011 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD Item #104 DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF NOVEMBER 12, 2011 THROUGH NOVEMBER 18, 2011 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD Item #105 DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF NOVEMBER 19, 2011 THROUGH NOVEMBER 25, 2011 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD Page 521 December 13 -14, 2011 Item #16K1 RESOLUTION 2011 -222: A SCRIVENER'S ERROR RESULTING FROM A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN RESOLUTION NUMBER 2011 -177 (DEVELOPMENT ORDER 2011 -04), FOR THE TUSCANY RESERVE DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT Item #I 6K2 AGREED ORDER AWARDING EXPERT FEES AND ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS IN CONNECTION WITH PARCEL 27T IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. COLLIER HMA, INC., ET AL., CASE NO. 06- 0013 -CA, CR -951 WATER TRANSMISSION MAINS PROJECT #70152. (FISCAL IMPACT: $92,701) — FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SIDEWALK ALONG CR 951 AT THE INTERSECTION OF US 41 AND COLLIER BLVD. Item # 16K3 MAKING OF AN OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENT, KATHERYN MORENO, FOR PARCEL NO. 140RDUE IN THE AMOUNT OF $75000 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. KATHERYN MORENO, ET AL., CASE NO. 10- 2741 -CA (COLLIER BOULEVARD PROJECT NO. 68056) (FISCAL IMPACT $1,200) — FOR A.034 ACRE ROAD RIGHT - OF -WAY AND UTILITY EASEMENT Item # 16K4 MAKING OF AN OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENT, Page 522 December 13 -14, 2011 NAPLES ESTATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, FOR PARCEL 101 IN THE AMOUNT OF $3685000 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. NAPLES ESTATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL., CASE NO. 06 -1213 -CA IN THE COUNTY BARN ROAD PROJECT #60101 (FISCAL IMPACT: $35,600 IF OFFER IS ACCEPTED) Item #I 6K5 MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT TO BE DRAFTED INCORPORATING THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS THE MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $3015000 FOR PARCELS 110FEE AND 110TCE IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. A L SUBS, INC., ET AL., CASE NO. 09- 3691 -CA (COLLIER BOULEVARD PROJECT #60092). (FISCAL IMPACT: $253,023) — RELATING TO A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ALONG BECK BLVD. Item # 16K6 STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT $35,650 FOR PARCELS 1 11 FEE AND 111 TCE IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. A L SUBS, INC., ET AL., CASE NO. 09- 3691 -CA (COLLIER BOULEVARD PROJECT #60092). (FISCAL IMPACT: NONE AT THIS TIME) — RELATING TO A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ON BECK BLVD. Item #I 6K7 A MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN THE SUM OF $65,000 AND DIRECT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO FILE ALL Page 523 December 13 -14, 2011 DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO END WITH PREJUDICE THE LAWSUIT STYLED ADONIS MARTINEZ V. COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, CASE NO. 2:10 -CV- 599- JES -DNF, NOW PENDING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION. (FISCAL IMPACT: $65,000) — RELATING TO AN ALTERCATION WITH A FELLOW EMPLOYEE ON MAY 19, 2009 Item #I 6K8 COUNTY ATTORNEY TO FILE A LAWSUIT ON BEHALF OF COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AGAINST REGINALD DEVOSE, IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO RECOVER DAMAGES INCURRED BY THE COUNTY FOR THE REPAIR AND /OR REPLACEMENT TO A TRAFFIC SIGN AND A LIGHT POLE DAMAGED BY REGINALD DEVOSE IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,038.40, PLUS COSTS OF LITIGATION — DAMAGES OCCURED ON GOODLETTE -FRANK ROAD NEAR OHIO DRIVE Item #I 6K9 REQUEST BY THE COLLIER COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR, PURSUANT TO SECTION 197.323, F.S., EXTENDING THE TAX ROLL BEFORE COMPLETION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD HEARINGS FOR THE 2011 TAX YEAR — VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD WILL RECONVENE ON APRIL 2, 2012 Item #16K10 Page 524 December 13 -14, 2011 COUNTY ATTORNEY TO FILE A LAWSUIT ON BEHALF OF COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AGAINST JEFFREY LILLARD, IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO RECOVER DAMAGES INCURRED BY THE COUNTY FOR THE REPAIR AND /OR REPLACEMENT TO A LIGHT POLE, DAMAGED BY JEFFREY LILLARD IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,489.75, PLUS COSTS OF LITIGATION — DAMAGES OCCURRED ON BAYSHORE DRIVE Item #17A — Moved to Item #8C (Per Agenda Change Sheet) Item #I 7B RESOLUTION 2011 -223: VAC- PL2011 -1021, DISCLAIMING, RENOUNCING AND VACATING THE COUNTY AND THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN ALL OR PART OF THE 10, 15 AND 30 -FOOT WIDE ROADWAY EASEMENTS AS ORIGINALLY RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LOCATED IN SECTIONS 13, 145 23 AND 24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA BEING MORE SPECIFICALLY SHOWN IN EXHIBITS "A -1 THROUGH A -12" Item #17C RESOLUTION 2011 -224: CU- PL2011 -0855, NABOR BUILDING, A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CONDITIONAL USE ALLOWING A RELIGIOUS FACILITY AND /OR CIVIC, SOCIAL AND FRATERNAL ORGANIZATION WITHIN A C -1 ZONING Page 525 December 13 -14, 2011 DISTRICT PURSUANT TO SUBSECTIONS 2.03.03.A.1.C.4 AND 2.03.03.A.1.C.5 OF COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF PINE RIDGE ROAD AND EAST OF GOODLETTE FRANK ROAD IN SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. Item #I 7D RESOLUTION 2011 -225: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING CARRY FORWARD, TRANSFERS AND SUPPLEMENTAL REVENUE) TO THE FY 2011 -12 ADOPTED BUDGET Page 526 December 13-14,2011 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS /EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL FRED COYLE, ATTEST: DWI VI T .:;BROCK, CLERK TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 527