BCC Minutes 01/24/2012 R BCC
REGULAR
MEETING
MINUTES
JANUARY 24, 2012
January 24, 2012
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida
January 24, 2012
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION
in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida,
with the following members present:
Chairman: Fred Coyle
Jim Coletta
Donna Fiala
Tom Henning
Georgia Hiller
ALSO PRESENT:
Leo E. Ochs, Jr., County Manager
Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Crystal Kintzel, Clerks Finance Director
Ian Mitchell, Executive Manager to BCC
Mike Sheffield, Business Operations Manager - CMO
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB)
Airport Authority
01 t
//:/
r / :1
AGENDA
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor
Naples FL 34112
January 24, 2012
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 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS
SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY
Page 1
January 24,2012
COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE
BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS."
PUBLIC PETITIONS ARE LIMITED TO THE PRESENTER, WITH A
MAXIMUM TIME OF TEN MINUTES.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN
ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3335 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL,
SUITE 1, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Reverend Richard Rogers - Unity 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 consent and
summary agenda.)
Page 2
January 24, 2012
3. SERVICE AWARDS
A. EMPLOYEE
1) 20 Year Attendees
a) Gail Bonham, County Attorney's Office
b) Ronney Cox, Library
c) Michael Sullivan, EMS
d) Bobby Allen, EMS
2) 25 Year Attendees
a) Mark Burtchin, Road Maintenance
b) Steven Epright, EMS
c) Tracey Payne, Information Technology
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation designating January 23-29, 2012 as Bayshore Festival of the
Arts week in Collier County. To be accepted by Chick Heithaus, President
of the Bayshore Cultural and Performing Arts Center and Chellie Doepke,
Vice-President of the Bayshore Cultural and Performing Arts Center.
Sponsored by Commissioner Fiala.
B. Proclamation designating January 23-29, 2012 as The Band of the United
States Air Force Reserve Week. To be accepted by Chick Heithaus.
Sponsored by Commissioner Coyle.
C. Proclamation designating February 2012 as K is for Kids Foundation's Bring
a Book, Bring a Friend for Children's Literacy Month. To be accepted by
Karen D. Clawson, Founder & Executive Director of K is for Kids
Page 3
January 24,2012
Foundation and the Teen Advisory Team. Sponsored by Commissioner
Coletta and Commissioner Hiller.
D. Proclamation designating January 27, 2012 as United Nations International
Holocaust Remembrance Day. To be accepted by the Board of the Holocaust
Museum and Education Center of Southwest Florida. Sponsored by
Commissioner Hiller.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Recommendation to recognize Amy Patterson, Manager-Impact Fees and
Economic Development, Growth Management Division as the Supervisor of
the Year for 2011.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public Petition request from Daniel McMahon requesting that the Board
restrict vehicle access on Woodland Estates Road.
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 pm unless otherwise noted.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. 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. CUR-PL-2011-1177, SR 846 Land Trust
requesting a Conditional Use Re-Review (CUR) and amending the
Conditions of Approval in Resolution Number 08-290 which allows for
earth mining with excavation, blasting and processing of material in a Rural
Agricultural Mobile Home Overlay (A-MHO), for property located in the
Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Receiving Lands, and east of Immokalee
Road, approximately 2 miles north of Oil Well Road. The subject property is
located within Sections 35 & 36, Township 47 South, Range 27 East; and all
of Sections 1 and 2, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, less road right-of-
way for County Road 846 (Immokalee Road), Collier County, Florida; and
repealing Resolution Nos. 08-128 and 08-290. [Coordinator: Fred Reischl,
Page 4
January 24,2012
AICP, Senior Planner]
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item continued from the January 10, 2012 BCC Meeting. This
item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are
required to be sworn in. PUDZ-2003-AR-3608: Orangetree PUD -- An
Ordinance amending Ordinance Numbers 2005-42 and 2004-73, the
Orangetree PUD, to add 1,050 residential units for a total of 3,150
residential units; to add 100,000 square feet of office use and add 172,000
square feet of retail use to the existing 60,000 square feet of retail for a total
of 332,000 square feet of commercial development; to revise the
development standards including building height and setbacks and to add
allowable residential, commercial uses and mixed uses, and to eliminate the
environmental commitments, for property located in parts of Sections 11, 12,
13, 14, 22 through 27, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier County,
Florida consisting of 2,138.76 acres; and by providing an effective date.
(Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner)
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. This item to be heard at 3:00 p.m. Request to discuss current regulations
limiting the "stretched mesh" size of marine fishing nets to two (2) inches
and possible actions by the Board of County Commissioners to support
efforts to rescind these regulations.
B. Appointment of a member to the Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU
Advisory Committee.
C. Appointment of a member to the Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory
Committee.
D. Appointment of a member to the Golden Gate Beautification MSTU
Advisory Committee.
Page 5
January 24, 2012
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to approve the required program agreements with Arthrex
Manufacturing, Inc., Arthrex, Inc. and RES Collier Holdings, LLC for the
Fee Payment Assistance Program, the Job Creation Investment Program and
the Advanced Broadband Infrastructure Investment Program, consistent with
the provisions of Chapter 49 of the Collier County Code of Laws and
Ordinances and the company's approved incentive application. (Fiscal
Impact: $597,514 — Fiscal Year 2012) (Amy Patterson, Impact Fee
Manager)
B. Recommendation to review the Phase II Master Mobility Plan report, accept
the report and direct the County Manager or Designee to move
Recommendations into Phase III of the Master Mobility Plan. (Nick
Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator, Growth Management
Division/Planning & Regulation)
C. Recommendation to award a construction contract in the amount of
$1,076,737.62 to Lodge Construction, Inc. and reserve 10% ($107,673.76)
on the purchase order for funding contingency, for a total of$1,184,411.38
for ITB No. 10-5817 — "LASIP - Naples Manor North Canal Stormwater
Improvements; Project No. 51101. (Jay Ahmad, Director, Transportation
Engineering)
D. Recommendation to award a Design Build contract in the amount of
$4,048,944 to Thomas Marine Construction, Inc. and American Consulting
Engineers of Florida, Inc. for RFP No. 11-5572 - "Design Build Golden
Gate Boulevard Bridge Replacements: 1) Golden Gate Canal #034026 and
2) Miller Canal #034028", Project No. 66066. (Jay Ahmad, Director,
Transportation Engineering)
E. 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. (Gerald Kurtz, Principal
Page 6
January 24,2012
Ii
Project Manager, Growth Management Division)
11. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
12. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
13. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
A. AIRPORT
1) Request Collier County Board of County Commissioners provide
direction to the Airport Authority Executive Director as to whether
County Commissioners should be provided a copy of Collier County
Airport Security Plans.
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Community Redevelopment Agency FY2011 annual performance
appraisal review for the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Executive
Director. (David Jackson, Executive Director, Bayshore Gateway
Triangle CRA)
2) Recommendation to award Contract No. 11-5709 - Immokalee
Downtown Stormwater Improvements to Douglas N. Higgins, Inc. in
the amount of$2,718,000 (Project Number 33130), approve all
necessary budget amendments and authorize the Chairman to sign the
standard Board approved contracts after legal review by the Office of
the County Attorney.
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
Page 7
January 24,2012
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Triangle Parcel, 14250 Tamiami Trail North, and
to authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to release any
Utilities Performance Security to the Project Engineer or the
Developer's designated agent.
2) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water utility
facility for City Gate Commerce Center, Phase 1 and to authorize the
County Manager, or his designee, to release any Utilities Performance
Security to the Project Engineer or the Developer's designated agent.
3) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for City Gate Commerce Center, Phase 2 and to
authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to release any Utilities
Performance Security to the Project Engineer or the Developer's
designated agent.
4) 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
accept an alternate security in the amount of$1,758,578.20 from the
current owner of the subdivision known as Copper Cove Preserve, and
authorize the Clerk of Courts to release the previously posted
securities.
5) Recommendation to direct the County Manager or Designee to have
the County's consultant proceed with the design of a pathway
connection on the north side of Immokalee Road, also known as,
Alternative 1.
Page 8
January 24,2012
6) Recommendation to approve a Job Creation Investment Program
Agreement with Animal Specialty Center of Florida, LLC, a/k/a
Animal Specialty Hospital of Florida, LLC, consistent with the
provisions of the Job Creation Investment Program and the company's
approved incentive application. (Fiscal Impact: $14,666 —Fiscal Year
2012)
7) Recommendation to approve a Job Creation Investment Program
Agreement and an Advanced Broadband Infrastructure Investment
Program Agreement with Florida Specialties LLC, consistent with the
provisions of the Job Creation Investment Program and the Advanced
Broadband Infrastructure Investment Program and the company's
approved incentive application. (Fiscal Impact: $18,333 - Fiscal Year
2012)
8) 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
acknowledge a Corrective Dedication / Reservation for the plat of
Quarry Phase 3, and to direct the Clerk of Courts to make a notation
on the recorded plat making reference to the recorded Corrective
Dedication/ Reservation.
9) Recommendation to approve a resolution directing the County
Manager to revise and expand the duties of the Floodplain
Management Planning Committee (FMPC) and amending Resolution
No. 2006-200.
10) Recommendation to approve Supplemental Joint Participation
Agreement (JPA) No. 1 providing additional revenue in the amount of
$25,342 from FY 2011/2012 Federal Transit Administration Section
5311 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding.
11) Recommendation to enter into three Landscape Maintenance
Agreements with condominium associations to ensure that the
maintenance pathway along the Naples Manor North Canal is
unobstructed, by requiring periodic maintenance of hedges that will be
Page 9
January 24,2012
planted for the purpose of replacing the existing landscape buffer
along their southerly boundaries that will be lost during construction
of improvements to the canal. The proposed improvements to the
Naples Manor North Canal is one of the many "sub-projects" which
together comprise the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project
#51101 (LASIP). (Fiscal Impact $132)
12) Recommendation to approve an agreement with the Abbington
Village Condominium Association providing for the conveyance of a
Drainage Access and Maintenance Easement from the Association to
Collier County without compensation. Project No. 51101 Naples
Manor North Canal segment of the Lely Area Stormwater
Improvement Project (Fiscal Impact $35.50)
13) Recommendation to direct the County Manager or his designee to
work with the Finance Committee, the County Attorney, and the
Clerk's Office to review and possibly establish a potential process
which would authorize the solicitation for competitive bid proposals
from interested firms willing to both finance and construct
production-ready projects.
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
to approve an Extension and First Amendment to Lease Agreement
with Budget Rent A Car System, Inc., permitting them to continue
operating an existing business on CRA owned property located at
1933 and 1965 Tamiami Trail.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve Amendment No.1 to Agreement
MOA100 (#12-5842) between Collier County and the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection to continue to conduct
Ambient Air Monitoring in Collier County.
Page 10
January 24,2012
2) Recommendation to approve License Agreement #12-5841 with the
District School Board of Collier County to allow the County to
continue to locate the Ambient Air Monitoring Trailer at Laurel Oak
Elementary School, and to conduct ambient air monitoring for the
urban area of the county.
3) Recommendation to approve removing uncollectible accounts
receivable and their respective balances from the financial records of
Collier County Public Utilities Division in the amount of$423,644.77.
4) Recommendation to approve an increase to the annual estimated not
to exceed amount for Contract Number 11-5698 with N. Harris
Computer Corporation for maintenance, licensing, and technical
services, from $140,000 to $220,000. The increase is to include the
credit card payment processing transaction costs associated with
iWEB, a hosted payment system provided by Transaction Warehouse
(a Harris sub-contractor) through Contract Number 11-5698.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve a subrecipient agreement providing for a
$35,000 State Housing Initiatives Program (SHIP) grant to the
Housing Development Corporation of SW Florida, Inc. (HDC) to
provide Homebuyer Education, Counseling and/or Pre-Purchase,
Extended Credit and/or Foreclosure Prevention Counseling to benefit
persons earning less than 120% of Family Median Income of Collier
County.
2) Recommendation to approve a modification to Disaster Recovery
Initiative Grant Agreement #10DB-D4-09-21-01-K09 between the
Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO), formerly
known as the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and
Collier County to change the grantor's name within the agreement,
reallocate funds within the Immokalee CRA's Stormwater project and
sign the associated subrecipient agreement amendments.
Page 11
January 24,2012
3) Recommendation to approve a resolution to authorize an upland lease
application with the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement
Land Trust Fund of the State of Florida for the Parks and Recreation
Department to manage the newly constructed Isles of Capri Paddle
Craft Park constructed by Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research
Reserve.
4) Recommendation to approve execution of a Utility Facilities Warranty
Deed and Bill of Sale to convey the wastewater utilities infrastructure
at the Collier County public beach facilities at Bluebill Ave. to the
Collier County Water-Sewer District, at an estimated cost of$35.50.
5) Recommendation to award Contract #11-5791 to Pinellas Pool for
renovation of Interactive Water Feature at Vineyards Community Park
in the amount of$206,800; approve the necessary budget amendment
to provide funds and establish a 10% contingency; authorize the
Chairman to execute the attached contract after review by the County
Attorney's Office.
6) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign one
(1) release of lien for Affordable Housing Density Bonus agreement
for a unit sold which is no longer subject to the terms of the
agreement.
7) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign one
(1) satisfaction of mortgage for owner-occupied affordable housing
units that repayment in full has been provided to Collier County.
8) Recommendation to approve an agreement and associated forms with
the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) to accept
funding for the Disaster Recovery Enhancement Funds (DREF) in the
amount of$3,335,131.91 and approve a budget amendment to allocate
the funding.
9) Recommendation to approve an amendment with the City of Naples
for $30,365 in Community Development Block Grant Recovery
Page 12
January 24,2012
(CDBG-R) funds.
10) Recommendation to approve reprogramming of Community
Development Block (CDBG) Grant funds in the amount of$810,000,
and approve a Subrecipient Agreement with the Collier County
Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) of Immokalee to
purchase two adjacent parcels and construct design-build the First
Street Plaza located in the downtown area of Immokalee, Florida.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve the execution of a Corrective Easement
to FP&L at a cost not to exceed $19.
2) Recommendation to approve Amendment 5 to Contract#06-3939
"Northeast Regional Utility Program Management and Oversight
Services" with Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., for services during Program
hibernation and reactivation of the Northeast Facilities Program
Projects #70899, #73156, #70902, and #75012.
3) Recommendation to approve and ratify two additions to the 2012
Fiscal Year Pay and Classification Plan made from October 1, 2011
through December 31, 2011.
4) Recommendation to approve a Donation Agreement with Ginnie
Evans Poovey Kania for 10 acres under the Conservation Collier Land
Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $3,000.
5) This item continued from the January 10, 2012 BCC Meeting.
Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign the
Assumption Agreement from Tectrans, Inc. to Keolis Transit
America, Inc. to Keolis Transit America, Inc. d/b/a Tectrans, Inc.
Contract for the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fixed Route and
Paratransit Program.
6) Recommendation to award a contract to Commerce Bank NA for
Letter of Intent (LOI) #10-5562 E-Payables for the automation of
Page 13
January 24,2012
payments to vendors and obtain additional revenue / rebates to the
County.
F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS
1) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
to the Fiscal Year 2011-12 Adopted Budget.
2) Recommendation that the Board approves a prepayment of the 2007
State Infrastructure Bank Loan resulting in an interest savings of
$59,983 and approve all necessary budget amendments.
3) Recommendation to approve and authorize the County Attorney to
advertise proposed amendments to the Tourist Development Tax
Ordinance No. 92-60, as amended, and return to the Board for final
approval. Amendments include (1) revise language relating to
Category B use of funds; (2) delineate the allocation of administrative
costs for tourism promotion and beach park facilities and beach
improvements; (3) reallocate for a period of one year $100,000 from
Fund 193, municipal owned museums and museums owned and
operated by not-for-profit organizations open to the public, to Fund
198, County-owned or operated museums to be used for a one-time
payment pursuant to a Category C(2) Agreement with the Marco
Island Historical Society.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
1) Recommendation to approve a License Agreement with Walker
International Events, Inc. at the Immokalee Airport for a two (2) day
circus event.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the U.S. Coast Guard Change of Watch on January 7, 2012.
Page 14
January 24,2012
The sum of$50 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
2) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the Eastern Collier Chamber of Commerce Breakfast at
Roma Havana Restaurant, Immokalee, FL on January 4, 2012. $15 to
be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
3) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Will be attending the Leadership Collier Foundation Alumni Box
Lunch Speaker Forum at the Professional Development Center,
Naples, FL on January 26, 2012. $10 to be paid from Commissioner
Coletta's travel budget.
4) Commissioner Hiller requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the Pre Legislative Breakfast with Florida Senator Richter.
$25 to be paid from Commissioner Hiller's travel budget.
5) Commissioner Hiller requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attending the Cato Institute Naples Luncheon February 6, 2012. $75
to be paid from Commissioner Hiller's travel budget.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
Page 15
January 24,2012
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
December 24, 2011 through December 30, 2011 and for submission
into the official records of the Board.
2) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
December 31, 2011 through January 6, 2012 and for submission into
the official records of the Board.
3) Recommendation to accept the investment status update report for the
quarter ending December 31, 2011.
4) Pursuant to Florida Statute 318.18(13)(b) the Clerk of the Circuit
Court is required to file the amount of traffic infraction surcharges
collected under Florida Statute 318.18(13)(a)(1) with the Board of
County Commissioners.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to approve an Agreed Order for expert fees and
costs and attorney's fees for Parcels 105FEE/TCE and 106FEE/TCE,
and a Stipulated Final Judgment for compensation as to Parcel Nos.
106FEE/TCE, in the combined amount of$41,219.17 in the lawsuit
styled Collier County v. Annette Pocchi, et al., Case No. 10-2682-CA
(Collier Boulevard Project No. 68056) (Fiscal Impact $28,819.17).
2) Authorize the making of an Offer of Judgment to Respondent, Ariam
Lopez, for Parcel No. 173 SE in the amount of$1,000 in the lawsuit
styled Collier County v. Pablo Garcia, et al., Case No. 10-2683-CA
(Collier Boulevard Project No. 68056) (Fiscal Impact $300).
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners authorize
the law firm of Henderson Franklin Starnes & Holt, P.A. and John
Potanovic, Esq. to represent Collier County in the matter entitled
Page 16
January 24,2012
Donald Edwards v. Collier County, Florida; Case No. 09-6111-CA.
4) Recommendation to approve the mediation settlement prior to trial in
the lawsuit entitled Maureen Benes and Laddie C. Benes v. Collier
County, Florida, filed in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for
Collier County, Florida, Case No. 11-1879-CA for the sum of$15,000
and authorize the Chairman to execute the Settlement Agreement.
5) Request for authorization to advertise and bring back for future
consideration an ordinance which would establish limitations, in
addition to those set forth in Chapter 538, Part II, Florida Statutes, on
the sale of regulated metals (secondary metals).
6) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners direct the
Collier County Supervisor of Elections to take appropriate action with
respect to the Collier County School District's Resolution 12-01,
which seeks a millage referendum on the November 6, 2012 ballot for
the scheduled general election.
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS WHICH ARE QUASI-
JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
A. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are
required to be sworn in. PUDZ-PL-2011-2115 Community School of
Naples CFPUD. An ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of
Page 17
January 24,2012
Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended,
the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the
comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier
County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by
changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from
a Community Facility (CF) zoning district to a Community Facility Planned
Unit Development (CFPUD) zoning district for the project known as
Community School of Naples CFPUD, located at 13275 Livingston Road in
Section 12, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida
consisting of 73 +/- acres subject to conditions; by providing for the repeal
of Ordinance Numbers 2000-06 and 2004-33, as amended; and by providing
an effective date.
B. Recommendation to adopt 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 a 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.
C. Recommendation to adopt an ordinance that amends Ordinance No. 04-12,
as amended, for the purpose of revising the Class 2 Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity for post-hospital interfacility transport services.
D. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating carry forward, transfers and supplemental revenue) to the
Fiscal Year 2011-12 Adopted Budget.
E. Recommendation to adopt an amendment to Ordinance No. 2011-07, the
Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (FDPO) with an effective date of
March 30, 2012.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
Page 18
January 24,2012
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252-8383.
Page 19
January 24,2012
January 24, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, the Board of
County Commission meeting is now in session. Would you please
stand for the invocation by Reverend Richard Rogers, Unity Church
of Naples.
Item #1
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — REVEREND
RICHARD ROGERS — UNITY OF NAPLES
REVEREND ROGERS: So we come together to acknowledge
the presence of the Divine, the presence of God that is within us and
all around us, that there is only one presence, one power, one God, one
good. And today we give thanks for all the blessings of our
community. We give thanks for our leaders that are guiding and
directing. And we give thanks for all the blessings that we have in this
community, that we are so richly blessed.
Let us be in service, let us do the highest and the best, and let us
remember that we are always at work to lead and to experience the
Grace of God. And so it is, amen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Reverend Rogers.
Join us in the pledge of allegiance, please.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
County Manager, would you go over the changes to the agenda
for us this morning.
Item #2A
APPROVAL OF TODAY'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND
SUMMARY AGENDA AS AMENDED — APPROVED AND/OR
ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
Page 2
January 24, 2012
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Good morning,
Commissioners. These are the proposed agenda changes for the Board
of County Commissioners meeting of January 24, 2012.
First proposed change is to continue Item 8.A to the February
14th, 2012 BCC meeting. That is the consideration of the rezoning
request for the Orangetree PUD. And that continuance is requested by
Commissioner Coletta.
Next proposed change is to withdraw Item 16.A.5. It's a staff
request. We need some more time to revise some of the back-up
materials.
The next proposed change is to move item 16.A.13 from your
consent agenda to become Item 10.1 on your regular agenda. The item
is moved at Commissioner Coyle's request.
Next proposed change is to continue item 16.C.3 to the February
14, 2012 meeting. And that is a staff request based on a consultation
with our finance department.
Next proposed change is to move Item 16.D.8 from your consent
agenda to become Item 10.F on your regular agenda. And that move
is made at Commissioner Hiller's request.
Next proposed change is to move item 16.D.10 from your
consent agenda to become 10.G on the regular agenda. That move is
made at Commissioner Hiller's request.
Next proposed change is to move Item 16.E.3 from your consent
agenda to become Item 10.H on the regular agenda. That change is
requested by Commissioner Hiller.
Next proposed change is to continue Item 16.E.6 to the February
14, 2012 meeting. And that is a staff request, also request made on
behalf of the finance department and the vendor to finalize some
contract language.
The next proposed change is to move Item 17.A from your
summary agenda to become Item 8.B under your advertised public
Page 3
January 24, 2012
hearings. That is a recommendation for a rezoning of the Community
School of Naples CFPUD. And that is moved as requested by
Commissioner Hiller.
Next proposed change is to move Item 17.E from your summary
agenda to become Item 8.C. And that is a recommendation to adopt
an amendment to your flood damage prevention ordinance. That
proposed move is made by Commissioner Hiller.
We have three agenda notes this morning, Commissioners. The
first is Item 10.C. There is a revision to the fiscal impact portion of
your executive summary. And should read as follows: Funds in the
amount of$1,184,411.38 plus a 10 percent contingency of
$117,673.76 are available in the stormwater capital improvement fund
325, project 51101. And this is part of the addition and in the
transportation grant fund 711. Source of funding is ad valorem and
grants from the South Florida Water Management District. Those
changes are made at staff request.
The next agenda notice Item 10.D, there was a transposition in
the request for proposal number. Instead of 11-5722 -- excuse me,
instead of number 11-5572, it should read 11-5722. And that
correction is made at staffs request.
And the final agenda note is on Item 13.A.1 under your Airport
Authority. There is an incorrect date in your executive summary.
That date should read December 26th, 2011, not December 26th,
2012. And that correction was made by both Commissioner Coyle
and Commissioner Fiala.
Finally, Commissioners, there's three time certains listed on your
agenda this morning. 10.E will be heard at 11 :30 a.m. Item 10.B is
scheduled to be heard at 2:00 p.m. And finally Item 9.A is scheduled
to be heard at 3:00 p.m. this afternoon.
Those are all the changes I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
County Attorney?
Page 4
January 24, 2012
MR. KLATZKOW: No changes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. We'll start with
Commissioner Hiller for ex parte disclosure for the summary agenda
and any items on the consent, and for other changes to the agenda.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: On the summary agenda, I've had
communications on 8.A and 8.B. I've had meetings, correspondence,
e-mail and calls. And no other communications -- actually, on 7.A I
also had communications with the representative of the mine. No other
communications besides that.
I would like to discuss something on the agenda. I have concerns
about continuing 8.A, which is the Orangetree PUD modification.
And I really don't understand why we're continuing this. And I would
like to ask the attorney for the Orangetree PUD to step up to the
podium and explain what's going on. Because quite frankly, it's my
understanding that you're all ready to go forward, and it's for some
reason other than what's related to your petition that's holding this up.
And I'm not really sure that I see a reason for delaying this or any
justification to delay this.
And just so you understand, it's not to blame you. I'm just of the
opinion that outside forces are causing an unwarranted delay to the
advancement of your petition.
MS. SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, Burt Saunders with the Gray
Robinson law firm, for the record.
The petition has been continued at the request of members of the
county commission for the utility, Orangetree utility to work out some
details with the Pulte Group on a totally unrelated development.
That's the Orange Blossom Ranch PUD.
We've agreed to the continuance because we're attempting to get
those utility issues resolved. I will say to the commission that they are
issues that are totally unrelated to the petition. But in the spirit of
trying to work with Pulte Group and the Orange Blossom Ranch
developer, we are working towards resolving the issue.
Page 5
January 24, 2012
The problem is that there are utility lines that were -- that were in
place by the Pulte Group in the Orange Blossom Ranch PUD. They
want the Orangetree utility system to accept those utility lines.
There's a very formal process that you have to go through in accepting
the lines. It's basically the same process that you go through when
you have your utility operations accepting lines from developers. The
Orange Blossom Ranch developer and Pulte Group are trying to short
circuit that formal process by putting pressure on us, and they're using
the petition for that purpose.
I think that we can get down the path towards accepting of those
utility lines by the Pulte Group, but I don't believe we can finish that
in the next couple of weeks. And our position would simply be we'd
like to go ahead and hear the petition February 7th or 14th, whatever
the date is is fine for us, but we don't want to continue it for months
and months and months while we try to get the details worked out on
the utility line acceptance. That is a very formal process.
One of your staff, Jamie French, would be willing to come and
talk to you about the process and how long it takes and what we're
trying to do to expedite that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So if I understand correctly, you
essentially are being held over the barrel because of a disagreement
between two parties unrelated to the parties involved in this petition.
MS. SAUNDERS: My understanding is the original request for
the continuance was because of the issue dealing with the line
acceptance at the Orange Blossom Ranch PUD.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I have a problem with that,
because it has nothing to do with your application and you have every
right to go forward. And to block your right for petition this Board for
this change based on some other issue unrelated to this application is
problematic for me.
Could you please share with me what counsel for Pulte said to
you with respect to this hearing?
Page 6
January 24, 2012
MS. SAUNDERS: Commissioner, what I'd like to do if possible
is perhaps we can discuss that. I feel a little bit reluctant to discuss
that in an open forum without them being here to discuss the issue.
But basically was advised that they would put on testimony in
opposition to our petition if we did not accept the lines prior to our
petition being heard.
I think that's improper, quite frankly. And I don't really want to
go into all the details of it. I'll be prepared to if necessary at the
hearing on February 14th.
I think that what I would request the Board to do is there's been a
motion to continue the hearing until February 14th. There's been a
newspaper article out there indicating it's going to be continued. So
the public is not aware that the hearing would be today. So I would
respectfully request that we go ahead and continue it to February 14th,
as Commissioner Coletta has requested.
On February 14th, I'll have Jamie French here, who will basically
explain the process, if necessary. I want to go forward at that date and
not be held up any longer than that. But I think February 14th is a fair
date because I think the public is now aware that's what's going to
happen.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Quite frankly, this issue will not be
resolved by that time, more likely than not. And I'm very concerned
about the last representation you just made. And Jeff, I think we need
to address this, because this is obviously a very serious legal issue.
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm aware of the issue. I sat in on a meeting
on it, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I'm also very -- one of the --
part of the seriousness, if you will, is the last representation that was
just made with respect to what this non-party is proposing to do to
essentially block this petitioner from being able to have his rights.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, no, they're not blocking. What they're
saying is that they're going to oppose the petition and come to the
Page 7
January 24, 2012
Board and give testimony that might negatively reflect on the petition
unless certain issues are resolved --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, that doesn't -- that sounds
like --
MR. KLATZKOW: -- I've got to tell you, ma'am, --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- blackmail.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- this happens. Well, it's negotiation. In
my years with the county, ma'am, this has happened many times
where different members of the public have had issues with the
developer, they've sat down and they've worked out the issues, then
we've come to the Board with a project that's ready for approval that
has the consensus of the community. And I think that's what's going
on here.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Not really. Because what's going
on here is something very different. We've got a non-party to this
stating that they are going to object to this petition if this petitioner
doesn't do what they want with respect to an unrelated matter.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, it's not entirely unrelated, ma'am. But
I will say that I think Mr. Saunders would prefer that that testimony
that this other party would have not come before the Board so that he
could get four votes out of you folks, because that's what he needs
here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: As a matter of fact, this happens all the
time. We have residents who go to the petitioners for the same
reasons and say we're going to come in and oppose your project if you
don't grant us certain concessions. It happens all the time.
MS. SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, if I might, I agree that does
happen all the time. What we're dealing with now though is
something totally unrelated to the petition. And I've been in your
chair before and I've been in your chair before, and I can tell you in all
the years that I've been up here, I've never seen a situation where a
competitor, and this is a competitor, is threatening to do something
Page 8
January 24, 2012
that is totally unrelated to the petition.
Now, I think we can get through it, but I would just disagree with
the County Attorney. That doesn't happen all the time. But there's a
whole lot more detail to it, and we'll get into it if we need to on the
14th.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's more complex than that. But you're
right, the thing to do is to get into it on the 14th so that we've got all
the parties here to talk about it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry, Commissioner Coletta, go
ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
The -- let's get right down to it. This PUD is very important to
the residents of the Orangetree area. There's been a lot of support for
it for various reasons. And I don't want to have this thing jeopardized
because of an issue that may be able to be resolved.
Now, we've got the petitioner who's agreeing to the extension.
We also have a meeting that's going to be taking place between not
only the people from Pulte, but Brian Paul and Twin Eagles, who also
have an issue with the utility that probably will never get resolved at
the meeting. But if we can try to remove that little problem before we
ever get here with it, we might be able to move through this item and
be able to serve the public's needs without getting into a first class war
over an issue that we really shouldn't be involved in at the moment.
So that's the reason for the extension. And I kind of hope that we
can go forward.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And I'll second that, by the
way, because I figure as you can see, all of this conversation about
something that isn't even before us, could you imagine when the
subject came up. So that's why I originally continued it and told them
to go back to the drawing board and discuss it between themselves and
Page 9
January 24, 2012
bring us something we can vote on rather than another fight.
And I was hoping that they would meet with the intent to resolve
the issues and not hold people hostage. And that's why I originally
continued it. So I agree.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. We have a motion to continue.
All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The item has been continued until the
next meeting.
MS. SAUNDERS: And Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the interest
of the commission in this. And we will work towards trying to get this
issue resolved. We've sent a list of items that need to be sent to us, we
sent that over two weeks ago. We've gotten no response from the Pulte
Group or their attorney. We will continue to meet to try to push this.
We cannot physically have it resolved by February 14th, but we'll be
prepared to explain to the Board all the details of it and hopefully we'll
move forward with that.
I appreciate Commissioner Hiller bringing the issue up.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
MS. SAUNDERS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Did you finish, Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want to make sure that we
absolutely bring this matter back for hearing at the next Board
meeting, and that this not be continued again.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That was the motion.
Commissioner Fiala?
Page 10
January 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I have no additions or
corrections to the agenda, and I have nothing to declare on the consent
agenda or summary agenda. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And I have no further changes to
the agenda and I have no ex parte disclosure for the consent or
summary agendas.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. With the moving of 17.A
to 8.B, I have no disclosures and no changes to the agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commission Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No disclosures on today's
consent or summary agenda. And all the items concerned have been
pulled by the regular agenda by other Commissioners.
So I make a motion to approve as amended.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve the agenda as
amended by Commissioner Henning. And there was a second
somewhere --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: By me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: By Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion carries unanimously.
Page 11
Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
January 24,2012
Continue Item 8A to the February 14.2012 BCC Meeting: This item continued from the January
10,2012 BCC Meeting. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members.
Should a hearing be held on this item,all participants are required to be sworn in.PUDZ-2003-AR-3608:
Orangetree PUD--An Ordinance amending Ordinance Numbers 2005-42 and 2004-73,the Orangetree
PUD,to add 1,050 residential units for a total of 3,150 residential units;to add 100,000 square feet of
office use and add 172,000 square feet of retail use to the existing 60,000 square feet of retail for a
total of 332,000 square feet of commercial development;to revise the development standards
including building height and setbacks and to add allowable residential,commercial uses and mixed
uses,and to eliminate the environmental commitments,for property located in parts of Sections 11,
12,13,14,22 through 27,Township 48 South,Range 27 East,Collier County,Florida consisting of
2,138.76 acres;and by providing an effective date. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem,AICP,Principal
Planner) (Commissioner Coletta's request)
Withdraw Item 16A5: Recommendation to direct the County Manager or Designee to have the
County's consultant proceed with the design of a pathway connection on the north side of Immokalee
Road,also known as,Alternative 1. (Staffs request to revise back-up material)
Move Item 16A13 to Item 101: Recommendation to direct the County Manager or his designee to
work with the Finance Committee,the County Attorney,and the Clerk's Office to review and possibly
establish a potential process which would authorize the solicitation for competitive bid proposals
from interested firms willing to both finance and construct production-ready projects.
(Commissioner Coyle's request)
Continue Item 16C3 to the February 14.2012 BCC Meeting: Recommendation to approve removing
uncollectible accounts receivable and their respective balances from the financial records of Collier
County Public Utilities Division in the amount of$423,644.77. (Staff request based on Finance
Department request for additional time to review all documents)
Move Item 16D8 to Item 10F; Recommendation to approve an agreement and associated forms with
the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity(DEO)to accept funding for the Disaster Recovery
Enhancement Funds(DREF)in the amount of$3,335,131.91 and approve a budget amendment to
allocate the funding. (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Move Item 16D10 to Item 10G: Recommendation to approve reprogramming of Community
Development Block(CDBG)Grant funds in the amount of$810,000,and approve a Subrecipient
Agreement with the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency(CRA)of Immokalee to
purchase two adjacent parcels and construct design-build the First Street Plaza located in the
downtown area of Immokalee,Florida. (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Move Item 16E3 to Item 10H: Recommendation to approve and ratify two additions to the 2012
Fiscal Year Pay and Classification Plan made from October 1,2011 through December 31,2011.
(Commissioner Hiller's request)
Continue Item 16E6 to the February 14.2012 BCC Meeting: Recommendation to award a contract
to Commerce Bank NA for Letter of Intent(LOI) 10-5562 E-Payables for the automation of payments
to vendors and obtain additional revenue/rebates to the County. (Finance Department and the
vendor's separate requests to make final clarifications to the contract)
Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
January 24,2012
Page 2
Move Item 17A to Item 8B: 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. PUDZ-PL-2011-2115 Community School of Naples CFPUD. An ordinance of the Board of
County Commissioners of Collier County,Florida amending Ordinance Number 2004-41,as amended,
the Collier County Land Development Code,which established the comprehensive zoning regulations
for the unincorporated area of Collier County,Florida,by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map
or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Community
Facility(CF)zoning district to a Community Facility Planned Unit Development(CFPUD)zoning
district for the project known as Community School of Naples CFPUD,located at 13275 Livingston
Road in Section 12,Township 49 South,Range 25 East,Collier County,Florida consisting of 73+/-
acres subject to conditions;by providing for the repeal of Ordinance Numbers 2000-06 and 2004-33,
as amended;and by providing an effective date. (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Move Item 17E to Item 8C: Recommendation to adopt an amendment to Ordinance No.2011-07,
the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance(FDPO)with an effective date of March 30,2012.
(Commissioner Hiller's request)
Note:
Item 10C: The Fiscal Impact portion of the executive summary should be revised as follows:
Funds in the amount of$1,184,411.38($1,076,737.62 plus a 10%contingency of$107,673.76)are
available in the Stormwater Capital Improvement Fund 325,project 51101 and in the Transportation
Grant Fund 711. Source of funding is Ad Valorem and grants from the South Florida Water
Management District (Staffs request)
Item 10D: RFP Number referenced is incorrect. The title should read: Recommendation to
award a Design Build contract in the amount of$4,048,944 to Thomas Marine Construction,Inc.and
American Consulting Engineers of Florida,Inc.for RFP No.11-5722 11 5572-"Design Build Golden
Gate Boulevard Bridge Replacements:1)Golden Gate Canal#034026 and 2)Miller Canal#034028",
Project No.66066. (Staffs request)
Item 13A1: Under the Considerations portion of the executive summary,the last paragraph
should read: The General Aviation Airport Security Plan update for the Immokalee Regional Airport
was approved by FDOT on December 26,2011 204Z,after comments provided by FDOT were
incorporated into the plan,and the warning statement regarding distribution of the plan was added
to every page of the attachment. (Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Fiala's separate requests)
Time Certain Items:
Item 10E to be heard at 11:30 a.m.
Item 10B to be heard at 2:00 p.m.
Item 9A to be heard at 3:00 p.m.
1/24/2012 8:45 AM
January 24, 2012
Item #3A1
20 YEAR SERVICE ATTENDEES — GAIL BONHAM, COUNTY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE; RONNEY COX, LIBRARY; MICHAEL
SULLIVAN, EMS; AND BOBBY ALLEN, EMS; WERE ALL
PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Brings us to Service Awards, County
Manager.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, if the commission would join us in front of
the dais, please, we'll go ahead and start with our service award
recipients this morning.
Commissioners, we have four employees celebrating 20 years of
service this morning. Our first 20-year service award is Gail Bonham
from the County Attorney's office. Gail?
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Our next 20-year service awardee is Ronney Cox
with our library department. Ron?
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Celebrating 20 years of service with our
Emergency Medical Services department is Michael Sullivan.
Michael?
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Also celebrating 20 years with EMS is Bobby
Allen.
(Applause.)
Item #3A2
25 YEAR SERVICE ATTENDEES — MARK BURTCHIN, ROAD
MAINTENANCE; TRACEY PAYNE, INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY; WERE PRESENTED; STEVEN EPRIGHT, EMS
Page 12
January 24, 2012
WAS NOT PRESENT
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we have three employees
celebrating 25 years of service this morning. Our first 25-year
awardee is Mark Burtchin from our road maintenance operation.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Steve Epright from our EMS
department is not able to be here this morning, but he's celebrating 25
years of service.
And our final 25-year service awardee is Tracey Payne from your
Information Technology department. Tracey?
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that concludes your service awards
this morning.
Item #4
PROCLAMATIONS — ONE MOTION TAKEN TO ADOPT ALL
PROCLAMATIONS
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JANUARY 23-29, 2012 AS
BAYSHORE FESTIVAL OF THE ARTS WEEK IN COLLIER
COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY CHICK HEITHAUS, PRESIDENT OF
THE BAYSHORE CULTURAL AND PERFORMING ARTS
CENTER AND CHELLIE DOEPKE, VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE
BAYSHORE CULTURAL AND PERFORMING ARTS CENTER —
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that takes us to item four on your
agenda this morning, proclamations.
Page 13
January 24, 2012
Proclamation 4.A is a proclamation designating January 23
through 29, 2012 as Bayshore Festival of the Arts Week in Collier
County. To be accepted by Chick Heithaus, president of the Bayshore
Cultural and Performing Arts Center, and Chellie Doepke, vice
president of the Bayshore Cultural and Performing Arts Center. And
this item is sponsored by Commissioner Fiala.
Please, come forward.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mr. Chairman, could I say a couple
words?
This Festival of the Arts started last year, that was the very first
year. And as many of you know, a first time festival really doesn't
attract many people, because everybody's waiting to see if it's going to
be successful or not. But this one attracted nearly 7,000 in two days at
Sugden Park. You never saw such wonderful crowds and such great
entertainment.
So we're looking forward to seeing it again next year and we do
hope that the weather works with you.
I could give you this -- Chairman said I could.
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JANUARY 23-29, 2012 AS
THE BAND OF THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE RESERVE
WEEK. ACCEPTED BY CHICK HEITHAUS — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4.B is a proclamation designating January 23
through 29, 2012 as the Band of the United States Air Force Reserve
Week. To be accepted by Chick Heithaus, sponsored by
Commissioner Coyle. Chick?
(Applause.)
MR. HEITHAUS: The Band of the United --
Page 14
January 24, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could I get you on a microphone after
we finish the picture, okay?
MR. HEITHAUS: I frightened Chellie Doepke by showing her a
whole eight by 11 sheet that I said was going to be my comments. But
it's not.
I just want to make sure clear that the Band of the United States
Air Force Reserve is in fact the set closer for us on the second day of
our Festival of the Arts. So this is in fact related to the proclamation
you just did. And we hope everybody will come for that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And we'll be reading that proclamation
at that time.
MR. HEITHAUS: Thank you. Yes, I know.
(Applause.)
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING FEBRUARY 2012 AS K IS
FOR KIDS FOUNDATION'S BRING A BOOK, BRING A FRIEND
FOR CHILDREN'S LITERACY MONTH. ACCEPTED BY
KAREN D. CLAWSON, FOUNDER & EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
OF K IS FOR KIDS FOUNDATION AND THE TEEN ADVISORY
TEAM — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4.0 is a proclamation designating February,
2012 as K is for Kids Foundations Bring a Book, Bring a Friend for
Children's Literacy Month. To be accepted by Karen D. Clawson,
founder and executive director of K is for Kids Foundation, and teen
leaders Danielle Verducci and George Hiller.
MS. CLAWSON: We have something also for the
Commissioners. It's actually a --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Too many people talking at once.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You have to be on a microphone.
Page 15
January 24, 2012
MS. CLAWSON: Sorry about that.
I just want to say K is For Kids Foundation. We promote
children's literacy and leadership. But how do you promote literacy
with kids these days? You have to give them great stories to read. We
have book today, Cat and Crow. It's about an amazing friendship
formed between a crow who adopted a kitten. That kitten grew much
larger than the crow but they remained best of friends.
If two natural enemies can continue to get along and become best
friends, it's a great message to children that we can all learn to get
along together. So we love this message that we bring to children
through our Bring a Book, Bring a Friend for Children's Literacy
Month.
I have the pleasure over the last four years of our non-profit,
teenagers are our primary volunteers. Did you hear me? Teenagers
are our primary volunteers. And with me today I have the honor of
standing alongside, and I will be volunteering alongside with George
Hiller and Danielle Verducci.
He is an outstanding student at Barron Collier High School. She
represents Naples High School. They are among the most outstanding
students I've had the pleasure of volunteering with. So a big round of
applause.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I ask two questions? Alicia
(sic), you never mentioned your name. So we should know who you
are, number one.
And number two, the government has for many years sponsored
Reading is Fundamental for Children, giving children and elementary
schools a book, some who had never owned a book before. My
Kiwanis Club is very, very involved with that.
But now the government funding has stopped. And I was
wondering if you're able to work with some of these clubs to provide
books that maybe these kids can't afford to buy themselves.
Page 16
January 24, 2012
MS. CLAWSON: This is a really important issue. It is critical to
get children reading. The Kiwanis Club, the Northside Naples Kiwanis
Club came to K is for Kids rescue yesterday. I don't know if you saw
on the WINK TV news, we got a donation of 10,000 books because a
bookseller was closing down because of e-books, but also because
there's not as much disposable income in families to buy books. Our
teens who are our primary volunteers were in school, so the Kiwanis
Club came to our rescue, the AMI kids came to our rescue.
And yes, this is our primary mission, is to place books, give
children in need books to read. We believe readers are leaders. We
hope that RIF does get their funding this year. And that's definitely
what we're doing throughout Collier County, it's a grass roots
movement. Bring a Book, Bring a Friend for Children's Literary
Month. Donate one book to a child anywhere. Ask your employer to
have a book drive. Dust off those shelves, some of those adult books
are -- you know, those teenagers like them. And then just go take it to
a child in need, wherever they may be. Every drop fills the well.
And yes, that is exactly what we've been doing. Thousand of
books are raised every year, the money to buy books. And thanks to
the teens, they usually do the moving of those mountains of books.
Thank you.
Karen Clawson. I thought they got it. And I am Karen D
Clawson, sorry.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Karen, do you have any of these
bookmarks? Can you maybe pass it out to people in the audience?
I believe they also accept adult volunteers. But you probably
have to qualify. But these are wonderful -- and the website and the
e-mail address is on there. If you have books to give away, they're
happy to accept them.
MS. CLAWSON: It is true, yesterday we absolutely saw the
need for more adults to help us. We do children's literacy events.
February 11th is our first one. It was attended by -- the Governor does
Page 17
January 24, 2012
proclaim it. And it was attended by the First Lady. Come along, buy
a book for a child. And we really appreciate your support. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, that brings us to the next
proclamation.
Item #4D
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JANUARY 27, 2012 AS
UNITED NATIONS INTERNATIONAL HOLOCAUST
REMEMBRANCE DAY. ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD OF THE
HOLOCAUST MUSEUM AND EDUCATION CENTER OF
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, that's Item 4.D on your agenda this
morning. It's a proclamation designating January 27th, 2012 as United
States International Holocaust Remembrance Day. To the accepted by
the Board of the Holocaust Museum and Education Center of
Southwest Florida. It includes board members Joshua M. Bialek,
board president, Charles Dauray, board member, Jack Nortman, board
vice president, Lorie Mayer, board member and curator, Homer
Helter, board member, and Jay Kaye, development director. This item
is sponsored by Commissioner Hiller.
If you'd all please come forward.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How about Homer Helter?
MR. OCHS: I said Homer Helter.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who's going to accept this?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The president.
MR. BIALEK: No, Lorie is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Lorie. How are you? Good to see
you. Congratulations. Good seeing you.
Page 18
January 24, 2012
(Applause.)
MR. BIALEK: Just very briefly. I'm Josh Bialek. I'm currently
the president of the Holocaust Museum. I just first off would love to
thank you guys, thank the commission for, one, recognizing Holocaust
Remembrance Day and, two, allowing us of course to accept it.
What started off as a very small school project here in Collier
County with a couple of teachers and some students is now -- this is
our tenth year anniversary. We're now able to educate, bring
survivors, bring liberators out to approximately just over 16,000
children in Southwest Florida a year. Plus another 5,000 adults. And
so just want to thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Could you speak a little bit about
the organization that you've developed for survivors and children of
survivors?
MR. BIALEK: I'm probably not the best person to speak about
that.
Jay, Lorie?
MS. MAYER: As you might know, survivors are all my age.
They were all children during the Holocaust. And the students that
they speak to are very fortunate because they're going to be the last
generation to hear the stories of real survivors. We're losing them
daily. And our programs are very effective.
And I must say, the students are unbelievably respectful and
attentive when they come to the museum or when we have our
outreach programs that go out to the different schools as far as Lee
and Sarasota County.
So the programs are working great, I think. And I think you can
count on the fingers of one hand any incidents where students talk to
each other or not pay attention to whoever is leading them through the
museum. So this is very satisfying to us. And we hope to keep going
for another 10 years.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. Thank you for
Page 19
January 24, 2012
remembering.
MR. BIALEK: We also have a -- I think it's second generation
group for people whose parents were survivors.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Like me. My mother was in
Auschwitz. Grandmother was in Auschwitz. Actually the whole
family was in Auschwitz -- well, not in Auschwitz but in but in
several other camps.
MR. BIALEK: You should join us.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I actually have come to a number
of the meetings. Just the Board keeps me so busy, I can't attend them
all. If they would lighten up the schedule here.
MS. MAYER: Did your parents survive?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. My father was not in a
concentration camp. My mother was. And she did survive, and so did
my grandmother and my aunt and my grandfather. And only my aunt
is still alive.
MS. MAYER: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, if I can get a motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve today's
proclamations as presented.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Henning to
accept the proclamations today, and seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
Page 20
January 24, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
Item #5A
RECOGNIZING AMY PATTERSON, MANAGER-IMPACT FEES
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, GROWTH MANAGEMENT
DIVISION AS THE SUPERVISOR OF THE YEAR FOR 2011 —
PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item five on your
agenda this morning, presentations 5.A is a recommendation to
recognize Amy Patterson, Impact Fee and Economic Development
Manager in our Growth Management Division as the Supervisor of the
Year for 2011.
Amy, if you'd please come forward.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I thought we promoted her to director
last year. Didn't we?
MR. OCHS: We may have to after this presentation, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Amy, congratulations. Here's a
plaque, a letter of appreciation, and a little token of our
appreciation and Board. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I want to shake your hand.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you for your assistance.
MR. OCHS: Amy, stand right there while I embarrass you for a
minute here. I know you enjoy the limelight so much, so we'll keep
you up there for awhile.
Commissioners, as noted, Amy's been selected by a pool of
candidates by a committee of her peers to be the Supervisor of the
Year for 2011. She's been an employee with the county over 11 years,
Page 21
January 24, 2012
serving currently as our Impact Fee and Economic Development
Manager. In that role she's responsible on a daily basis for managing
the county's impact fee programs and our economic development
incentive programs, supervising a staff of six employees.
She works very closely with both the Productivity Committee
and Development Services Advisory Board and regularly presents
impact fee studies and updates, keeps them posted on the status of our
impact fee programs.
She's actually nationally recognized as an authority on impact
fees and has been invited to speak at the National Impact Fee
Conference several times. I don't think we ever send her, but she gets
invited all the time.
Amy effectively manages a section of very highly productive
employees. And certainly in a time of diminishing resources, her staff
never fails to meet their commitments. And I think that's a reflection
of Amy's commitment. She leads by example, and as such her
employees are always knowledgeable, helpful and composed when
meeting the demands of their customers.
She is an indispensable member of our team, possesses a wealth
of knowledge, skills and experience, and is certainly truly deserving of
the title Supervisor of the Year.
Commissioners, it's my honor to present Amy Patterson as your
Supervisor of the Year for 2011. Congratulations, Amy.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: We forgot --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Get a picture and then she has five
minutes to speak.
Thank you, Amy.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: She's going to take the five minutes, I
guess.
MS. PATTERSON: No, briefly. I just wanted to thank
Page 22
January 24, 2012
everyone. Thank you mostly to my family who's endured 11 years of
my county policy debates and has supported me through it. To the
County Manager and his management team and the County Attorney
who have supported me and encouraged me always to put forward my
best effort. And most of all to my coworkers who, without this, I
wouldn't be standing up here today. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Takes us to public petitions, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala has a question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, a fast request. We were
fortunate enough to receive these books for children. And if any of
you don't have anybody to take them to, if you would want to give
them to me, I'll take them to my Kiwanis Club who has the reading --
we're right in the middle of Reading is Fundamental. And they can
take this over to Manatee School.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm going to take mine myself and read
it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can you read that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I might be able to read it. It's basic
enough. It has pictures.
MR. OCHS: I'd like to try that for the agenda, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That would be a good idea.
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST FROM DANIEL MCMAHON
REQUESTING THAT THE BOARD RESTRICT VEHICLE
ACCESS ON WOODLAND ESTATES ROAD - FURTHER
DISCUSSION TO TAKE PLACE UNDER ITEM #10E
MR. OCHS: 6.A is our public petition this morning. It's a public
petition request from Daniel McMahon, requesting that the Board
Page 23
January 24, 2012
restrict vehicle access on Woodland Estates Road.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Mr. McMahon.
MR. McMAHON: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Daniel
McMahon and I submitted my petition to try and preserve some of the
privacy rights that I enjoy along Woodland Estates Road and also
perhaps address some possible flooding issues.
The reason this is coming up now is because the county is in the
process of amending their agreement with South Florida Water
Management District, the third amendment. This is regarding the
canal over-banks on Golden Gate, C-1 and Miller canals.
The amendment is Item 10.E on today's agenda.
What the third amendment to the agreement would do is
primarily remove the regulations contained in Florida Administrative
Code 40.E-6, which involves the usage of areas under the control of
South Florida Water Management.
One of the purposes of South Florida Water Management is to
maintain the over-banks and to maintain the areas just outside of the
canal in order to help prevent flooding.
The Chapter 40.E-6 also has numerous other provisions regarding
who can use the areas of easements, how they work, and basically
their total usage, primarily for drainage control and such.
Part of what the South Florida Water is doing with that at this
point in time is including any permitting for any usage of those areas.
And my main concern right now is if the county was to un-adopt the
canals' over-banks, as stated in the third amendment, which is again
Item 10.E, that this would kind of cloud the issue as to the privacy of
the road.
As of this point in time the county doesn't really have any
regulations in place as to how the over-banks or the easements can be
used. They are private property. But still it is a drainage easement.
South Florida Water, in their regulations, had prohibited ATV's,
unlicensed vehicles, swamp buggies and other similar means of
Page 24
January 24, 2012
conveyance. They had prohibited their use along the over-banks. To
my knowledge, Collier County doesn't have any restrictions on the use
of the over-banks.
What I'm asking the county to do is if they do adopt the
over-banks, I would just like my road to remain a private road, as it
has been. I'm the person who built Woodland Estates Road. And the
issue in question with Woodland Estates Road primarily involves the
first 900 feet. And the first 900 feet were built by Sammy Hamilton
before the canal was built, to my understanding. And as of right now,
that is fully within the canal's easement.
I worked with South Florida Water in the past. They provided me
reflectors and other means to mark the side of the road there. The rest
of the road I constructed with South Florida Water Management's
approval, so long as there was some sort of barrier between the road
and the canal so that cars would not go into the canal. I did that by
maintaining the berm along the side of the road, and the road drains
off away from the canal.
I just feel without any rules or regulations in place it would
basically leave the canal over-banks open to anybody who wants to
use it. At this point in time having a little bit of trouble with ATV's
and other motorcycles, other off-road vehicles going through at high
speed along the canal over-bank next to my home.
Additionally, most of the residents who own property along the
three canal sections, none of them have really been notified of this
process or what is going on with the process. It's taken me quite a bit
of time to actually find out what the amendments were going to be,
who they affected and why.
Woodland Estates Road was included in the third amendment
because persons along Woodland Estates Road were included in a
private lawsuit that was filed by BBT Bank and a private family. And
what that was to do was to grant them access to their properties along
Woodland Estates Road. Woodland Estates Road does not go to their
Page 25
January 24, 2012
properties, and it would be about a two and a half mile construction
that they'd have to construct. They actually live about 200 yards from
22nd Street Southeast.
It's my understanding that in order to get the county and South
Florida Water out of the lawsuit, this agreement was made so that the
county would be responsible for the over-banks. And again, my main
concern is that the county doesn't have any rules and regulations in
place as to how the over-banks would be used or who could use them,
where South Florida Water did. And South Florida Water's
restrictions included lands that were privately owned.
The section that it would remove is -- this is the section. It's
approximately 25 pages long. It's through quite a bit of work from
South Florida Water as to how to manage and control the areas within
their drainage easements.
And so I'd just like to ask that some sort of regulations be put in
place so that those of us who live in these areas can maintain our
privacy on private roads. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. McMahon, you have used the public
petition process to raise an issue for something that is on the agenda.
That complicates things for us because we can't make a decision on
your public petition request until we've heard the item that's on the
agenda, which is 10.E.
MR. McMAHON: No, I understand that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So is there any way you can
separate an issue that we can take action on now with respect to a
public petition?
MR. McMAHON: At this point in time, no. I've been trying to
keep up on this process, and I was out of state when this came before
the Board and I asked for an extension last month.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you going to speak when Item 10.E
comes up for discussion today?
MR. McMAHON: I would like to, yes.
Page 26
January 24, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, be sure that you register for that.
Because I don't know how we deal with your public petition right
now.
MR. McMAHON: No, I understood that. And when I saw how
the schedule was actually going to work, to me it was a little confused
and I thought maybe it'd be better for me to present it at that same
time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It would be better to do it when 10.E is
heard. Because we -- that's the point, we'll be discussing the
amendments that you're talking about now. And it would be improper
for us to make a ruling on those until we get to the amendment and
listen to it being presented. Okay?
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Mr. McMahon, thank you
so much for coming here under public petition. It's a little ironic the
fact that we do have that on the agenda for discussion and we'll get to
it then.
And I am concerned and we will ask the questions at that time
regarding the change of ownership and possible loss of control for
your privacy. Private land is one of those things we always have to
respect. And people should never have any doubts about the fact the
only way you go on private land is with permission. And so if you'd
wait patiently for that item to come back we'll ask all the right
questions and we'll make sure that you get to come up and speak
again.
MR. McMAHON: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: In order to do that, be sure that you turn
in a speaker slip to --
MR. McMAHON: Okay. Who do I -- okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: To one of those two people sitting over
there. Good, thank you.
Page 27
January 24, 2012
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm concerned about something
you said about litigation, and that the county eliminated a portion of
this agreement that otherwise would have been in there because of
some litigation. I want to better understand that now.
MR. McMAHON: It's --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And actually, before you speak, I'd
like the County Attorney to comment on that.
MR. KLATZKOW: I think the issues will be raised during 10.E.
All these issues.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I really want an answer. Because
when I sat down with staff to discuss 10.E, everything you're talking
about did not come up. The only thing that came up was that there was
an issue that a private citizen didn't want ATV's, and it's private
property and that's basically the end of the discussion. Everything else
that you're raising, which is very significant, was not disclosed to me.
And I am really very concerned about this.
MR. McMAHON: I've been trying to communicate my concerns
to the county since September 23rd of last year when I first found out
that this agreement might be going through.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's unbelievable.
MR. KLATZKOW: And we continued this so you could have
this opportunity.
MR. McMAHON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I really am concerned.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We'll take this up under 10.E. But
let's be clear. Me and Mr. McMahon, he's a very smart guy, we've had
how many conversations, half a dozen on the phone?
MR. McMAHON: Yeah, thereabouts.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, and conveyance in e-mails. So
we've been communicating since that time. Staff requested it to be
continued. And I did discuss this with the Commissioner, it was about
Page 28
January 24, 2012
private property rights.
So I think we had a little bit of a discussion. We only had a
one-on-one, probably had about 30 minutes to cover the whole
agenda, but we'll get into it. I think we've been very open, Dan and I,
in discussing this item.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, we discussed it twice. We
discussed it before and then again. And at no time was there any
disclosure to me that this, you know, was South Florida Water
Management's previous way of dealing with these issues and that we
were eliminating a whole section and that there was litigation and this
was how this litigation was going to be settled. There was no
disclosure to me about what I'm hearing today.
And I have a problem with that. I don't want to discuss it any
further. I'll wait till it comes up. And I want full transparency on this
matter.
MR. McMAHON: Absolutely. Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, just as a reminder, that item is
scheduled for a time certain hearing at 11 :30 this morning. Just so Mr.
McMahon would know that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Very well.
That brings us to —
MR. OCHS: Item 9 on your agenda this morning, sir. Board of
County Commissioners. 9.A will be heard at 3:00 p.m.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2012-12: APPOINTING MICHAEL I. PRICE TO
THE VANDERBILT BEACH BEAUTIFICATION MSTU
ADVISORY COMMITTEE — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: That takes us to 9.B. it's appointment of a member to the
Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee.
Page 29
January 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, a motion to approve by
Commissioner Hiller, seconded by Commissioner Henning to appoint
Michael I. Price to the Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU
Advisory Committee.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2012-13; APPOINTING SANDRA ARAFAT TO
THE BAYSHORE BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY
COMMITTEE — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 9.0 is appointment of a member to the Bayshore
Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have two well qualified applicants
for this position, Sandra Arafat and Phillip Litow. And the committee
has recommended Sandra Arafat. Is there -- there is no alternate
position on this advisory committee, is there?
MR. MITCHELL: No, sir, there isn't.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Well, we should keep Phillip
Litow in mind for future appointment. But I would recommend that
Sandra Arafat, that we accept the committee's recommendation
Page 30
January 24, 2012
concerning Sandra Arafat's appointment to the MSTU Advisory
Committee.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Coyle to
accept the committee's recommendation, seconded by Commissioner
Coletta and Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion is unanimously carried.
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2012-14: REAPPOINTING MICHAEL V.
MCELROY TO THE GOLDEN GATE BEAUTIFICATION MSTU
ADVISORY COMMITTEE — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 9.D is appointment of a member of the Golden Gate
Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve Michael
McElroy.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to accept the committee's
recommendation to appoint Michael McElroy, seconded -- by
Commissioner Henning and seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
Page 31
January 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion carries unanimously.
Item #10A
APPROVING THE REQUIRED PROGRAM AGREEMENTS
WITH ARTHREX MANUFACTURING, INC., ARTHREX, INC.
AND RES COLLIER HOLDINGS, LLC FOR THE FEE PAYMENT
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, THE JOB CREATION INVESTMENT
PROGRAM AND THE ADVANCED BROADBAND
INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT PROGRAM, CONSISTENT
WITH THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 49 OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES AND THE
COMPANY'S APPROVED INCENTIVE APPLICATION —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 10 on your
agenda this morning, County Manager's Report.
10.A is a recommendation to approve the required program
agreements with Arthrex Manufacturing, Incorporated, Arthrex, Inc.,
and RES Collier Holdings LLC for the fee payment assistance
program, the job creation investment program and the advanced
broadband infrastructure investment program, consistent with the
provisions of Chapter 49 of the Collier County Code of Laws and
Ordinances and the company's approved incentive application.
Ms. Amy Patterson will present.
Page 32
January 24, 2012
MS. PATTERSON: Good morning. For the record, Amy
Patterson, Impact Fee and Economic Development Manager.
The item before you today is the second step in the economic
incentive process, which is the approval of the program agreements
for Arthrex.
On June 28th, the Board approved the application by Arthrex to
participate in the fee payment assistance program for two locations,
eastern and western Collier, the job creation investment program and
the advanced broadband infrastructure investment program.
Arthrex is a fully qualified company proposing to not only meet
but exceed all of the program requirements, including the creation of
600 new jobs. The company is proposing a substantial capital
investment in both eastern and western Collier County. Therefore, the
incentive funds proposed for FY 2012 of approximately $600,000 are
less than the actual qualifying amount of over a million dollars, due to
the program requirement tying the actual incentive award to the
impact fees assessed.
The remaining proposed incentive awards are for future fiscal
years and remain subject to the availability of funding in those future
budgets.
Standard form agreements, which were prepared in conjunction
with the County Attorney, have been used in assuring that this
approval is consistent with prior participants.
It's been a pleasure to work with the Arthrex team through this
incentive process. The company is a true asset to Collier County and
we look forward to this relationship continuing. We're seeking your
enthusiastic approval of these agreements. And at this time we're
available for your questions or further discussion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Questions from Commissioners?
We have public speakers. How many?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we've just got one speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, let's call the speaker.
Page 33
January 24, 2012
MR. MITCHELL: The speaker is Peter Gaddy.
MR. GADDY: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Good morning,
Commissioners.
Yesterday I had -- I reviewed these agreements, and I had an
opportunity to write a letter to the County Commission and to the
County Attorney regarding my concerns, which are really limited to
the form of the contract.
And I'm really not prepared to get into the issues that have
already been determined by the County Commission, but I do have
concerns about the contract. And I tried to express them in that letter,
but let me just touch on one point or one highlight of what I think is
wrong with the agreement.
If you go to the definition of jobs under our ordinance, it provides
that jobs are limited to individual permanent legal residents of the
United States who are employed in each newly created position of
employment at a primary location in Collier County and as applicably
maintained as a result of the program.
That's a pretty broad definition. If we look at the Lee County
Economic Development Agreements, in Lee County they require that
the employee spend a minimum of 35 hours per week at a Lee County
location.
And the point I'm trying to make is that the taxpayers of Collier
County do not want to pay for jobs which may exist outside of the
county or outside of the state or outside of the country. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You sent us an e-mail. Could you
please read the e-mail and address the points and provide the exhibits?
MR. GADDY: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You sent the whole Board this
e-mail.
MR. GADDY: I am concerned regarding the lack of definition
and clarity contained in the economic incentive agreements proposed
Page 34
January 24, 2012
in Item 10.A on today's County Commission agenda. The proposed
agreements suffer from a lack of definition and specificity. They're
basically the same form of agreements the EDC has been using since
its inception.
As you are aware, the results have not been good. The
agreements are insufficient for an economic development initiative of
the scope and scale proposed which involves a large multinational
company. An established formula for payment of incentives is
essential for a healthy economic development program. Potential
future disputes have the potential to disparage the county's economic
development efforts.
The following deficiencies are apparent: Number one, there is no
definition of jobs or where they need to be located. How many hours
per week does an employee need to work at where? The definition of
jobs contained in the ordinance is vague and ambiguous.
No year or interval is specified for average wage. If the purpose
of these agreements is to create jobs, what is the base number of
employees with which we are starting? What is the base number of
jobs? Who are they and where do they work? Without a base number
of jobs to start with, it will be impossible to determine if there's been
in fact a net increase in jobs.
Item number four: There are no clear provisions as to what
should happen in the event of an acquisition, merger, consolidation or
other organization. Arthrex, Incorporated and Arthrex Manufacturing
cannot be treated as a single entity as there is no provision in the
ordinance to permit such blending. Old and new jobs will need to be
segregated, as will east versus west.
No copy of the land lease has been provided. What is the county's
collateral? In stark contrast to the agreements proposed are the
agreements used in the Lee County Economic Development Program.
For a comparison, a copy of the Lee incentive agreement is attached. I
will send all of the Lee agreements under separate cover.
Page 35
January 24, 2012
Lee County agreements are noteworthy for their clear and
concise definitions which provide for simplified administration and
reduce the likelihood of future disputes and litigation. The coalition
for open economic development does not support economic
development agreements such as those proposed, which are materially
deficient so as to create uncertainty and a lack of clear, concise
methodology.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you very much, Mr.
Gaddy, for your questions. I know that Lee County is delighted to
welcome them into Lee County as they're buying a building there and
going to expand their business. I think they're hoping that we do
everything we can to discourage them so they get all of their business.
We're not really talking about a widget company out of Michigan
who is moving here, we're talking about a company that's been here,
that has a proven track record, who hires more people than they ever
guarantee us that they'll hire. We're talking about a company who
treats their employees right. And I see no reason to not move forward
with this, being that they've got a proven track record.
So I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Fiala, second by Commissioner Coletta.
I have a question. Amy, would you come to the microphone,
please.
How long have you been working with Arthrex and the staff in
its entirety about agreements such as this?
MS. PATTERSON: The first time that we worked with them
was in 2008 when they were going to do their initial expansion at Ave
Maria. We have been working on this particular proposal for nearly a
year now, maybe a little bit less, nine months, 10 months.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And so what we get is an e-mail the
Page 36
January 24, 2012
night before the final hearing and comments about copies of Lee
County's contracts that will be forwarded to us at the very, very last
minute. Isn't that curious?
MR. GADDY: I think the contracts were drawn at the last
minute too. The first time I saw them were yesterday.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure. Thank you, Mr. Gaddy.
MR. GADDY: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all in favor of the motion, please
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, the motion passes 4-1 with
Commissioner Hiller dissenting.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I had my light on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Our present economic incentive
policies through ordinances doesn't -- are out of date now. There's a
lot of references with the EDC. It's not -- it is not there anymore. Is
anybody working on a cleanup of that? Yes?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You are?
MR. OCHS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think we've had a little bit of
experience on economic incentives and grants. Is there any possibility
that staff could make some recommendations on how to improve the
ordinance and the grant provisions? Is that being worked on also?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think Mr. Gaddy brought up a
Page 37
January 24, 2012
valid point about those jobs being created in Collier.
Amy?
MS. PATTERSON: Yes, sir. And that is something that we
ensure now through our auditing and verifying. The jobs have to be
Collier County jobs. They don't have to be Collier County residents,
but the jobs have to be in Collier County.
The other thing just for the record is we are working with the
Clerk's internal audit department to go through these verifications and
audits so that any questions that the Clerk's office might have are also
being addressed by the company, additional information that should
be provided, things like that. And we'll continue to facilitate that
relationship with the Clerk's office.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Was that reference in the
agreement on our agenda about the -- those are jobs created in Collier
County? You know, I didn't see it in there. If not --
MS. PATTERSON: I believe it's in there. They are new Collier
County jobs. The jobs have to be in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I seen it in the executive
summary but not in the agreement itself.
MR. KLATZKOW: You have an application that was presented
to you that you approved, and in the application they specify where
the jobs are to be located. The ordinances themselves refer to this as
Collier County jobs, and the agreements tie into the ordinance.
They're building a building, that's where the jobs are. That's where it's
all tied together.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, as long as there's
understanding.
MR. KLATZKOW: So if there's going to be 100 jobs, the jobs
are going to be in that building, which is what Amy and her staff
verified with the Clerk.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: According to the agreement.
MR. KLATZKOW: According to the agreement and the
Page 38
January 24, 2012
ordinances.
MS. PATTERSON: It's tied back to the ordinance.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Tied back to the ordinance.
MS. PATTERSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thanks.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it's not tied back to the
application.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to make another
comment.
Amy, as you're working with us in getting this new initiative for
economic development moving forward, I think it's so important for
people to -- we, we County Commissioners, need to realize that we
need to encourage new businesses to come here, not to pick everyone
apart. To make sure we have a good ordinance in place, good plan in
place, and then encourage people to come here, not cut them off at the
knees.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta, I skipped over
you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's okay, sir.
I agree with you, Commissioner Fiala. One of the things we need
to do is to become known as a business friendly county. We've had
some rhetoric that has been put out in the past that is absolutely
appalling, and I hope that that does not continue in the future.
Arthrex has made tremendous contributions to this community,
and I'd personally like to thank Reinhold Schmieding for sticking by
us through the hard times that we went through, and the final
agreement that we're doing today, the part that he played into it. You
know, it's very important that we keep Collier County moving
forward.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think Crystal Kinzel wants to
Page 39
January 24, 2012
speak first.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead, Crystal.
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner Coyle, we agree, and the last thing
we want to do is end up with a contract with audit questions or
concerns. We have been working with Amy's area. And this goes
back to a very important -- some of the issues were raised regarding
the clarity and the specificity within the contract.
And as the County Attorney mentioned, the ordinance, the
application that validates some of those numbers and the contract need
to all be a party to the agreement that Arthrex understands they must
meet if that's the Board's direction and policy. We will audit too the
ordinance, the contract. And hopefully they know that the application
and all the information that's been consolidated, there may be
concerns what's been brought forward about it not being very clear in
the actual contract document. We would audit to the Board's intent
and those legal agreements and documents.
But I did want to bring that forward that we don't want any issues
in the end result of an audit that would be performed. So I think we
need to maybe sit down and make sure all of those elements that have
been brought up today are clarified and that that is exactly what the
Board's approving.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, actually, all those issues and
elements should have already been reviewed rather than waiting for
the last minute before the vote is to be taken. And it's my
understanding you've been involved in that process and you've sat on
this Board and listened to the debates in the past.
So I'm not particularly happy to hear about that you might have
some concerns about things that have been part of government policy
for years. So let's get that clarified right now.
Okay, I guess we're not. All right.
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner Coyle, I will say this: I did raise
some of the issues with staff regarding some of the elements of the
Page 40
January 24, 2012
agreement. For example, the -- what we were talking about with the
specificity of the jobs and where they are. And I received the same
answers from the County Attorney, that they're in the application from
their office and that would be incorporated. So I'm relying a bit on
that legal reference. We would have to look at this in totality.
Now some issues are being raised by the Board. And I just want
to make it clear that we do not want to end up in an audit, we want to
be business friendly, and we need to get it right from the very
beginning. If there's any confusion, I would like it to be clarified and
give us time to work through that to make sure we don't have an issue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How long has the ordinance been in
existence, County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: Oh, Geez, I think it's since '03. There were
a couple of ordinances, they were all --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: About nine years --
MR. KLATZKOW: -- around '03.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And the application and the other
things are pretty much forms.
MR. KLATZKOW: These are all -- when I met with Arthrex, I
don't know, a year ago, a year and a half ago, the one thing they told
me is they want the same deal everybody else was given. And that's
what we did. They've got the same deal everybody else was given.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And so we have signed contracts with
other companies providing them the same incentives under the same --
MR. KLATZKOW: The standard form.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- standard forms that are available --
MR. KLATZKOW: The one difference is the amount of money.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's all that changes.
MR. KLATZKOW: We've had other people come in with five
jobs, 10 jobs, 20 jobs. We haven't had somebody come in with this
many jobs before.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But it doesn't make any difference.
Page 41
January 24, 2012
MR. KLATZKOW: But the contract form is the same.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right, and it's always been the
same --
MR. KLATZKOW: Correct. Now, if--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And if somebody is saying, oh, all of a
sudden now we're really going to start auditing you on some
provisions that might be generated by our concerns, it's a little late to
start that, quite frankly.
If there's something wrong with the contracts we've negotiated in
the past, we should have known about it. So it's particularly troubling
that people use these things to try to sidetrack good projects in Collier
County. Because the only reason, the only reason that this is being
brought up this morning is to sidetrack it. It's not because people want
to improve the process. If people wanted to improve the process, they
would have been talking to Amy about this during the past year when
she's negotiating these things.
So this is not a big surprise, and it doesn't fool me. So I
understand what's going on here. And for the benefit of the county, I
think we better start applying a little bit of common sense here.
MS. KINZEL: And Commissioner Coyle, I do need to respond
to that a little bit. Each of these contracts is different. There are two
locations in this agreement, the jobs numbers are different, the
validation criteria. Yes, the ordinance stands as the ordinance has
stood. But each of the contracts that are developed are separate, and
some of these issues have been brought up where people have
concerns about where are the jobs and the specificity of requiring
those jobs. We don't normally, and we were not involved in the
negotiation process of the county staff with Arthrex. We're reviewing
these agreements as part of the agenda item. And they are different.
While they are standard elements that compare to the ordinance,
some of the scopes may be different. And I don't want to be put in a
position where we've blanketly approved some agreement if there are
Page 42
January 24, 2012
concerns that are being brought forward to the public. I believe in the
forefront is the exact time to remedy it, and not as an obstacle but as
working together, now that the concerns have been raised publicly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And so your solution is to delay this and
not to approve it until such time as you can go through all this process
yourself, right?
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner, I'm saying that we may want to
based on what's raised in the public sit down with staff and bring it
forward at the next meeting. It is perfectly up to the Board. And then
the Clerk would have to audit according to the agreements that are
brought forward.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's what I figured. Okay. We have a
motion -- who --
COMMISSIONER FIALA. We already voted.
MR. OCHS: You already approved.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now we've got two new speakers,
Commissioner Hiller and Commissioner Henning, if I remember
correctly.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have a couple of questions for the
County Attorney.
Could you put a couple of things on the overhead for me? Could
you start by showing me where in the contracts these applications are
incorporated by reference and attached as an exhibit, since you say
they're a part of this agreement?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The vote's already been taken.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I want to know where the
information is. I mean, you --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He can provide that to you offline --
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, I'm going to be as blunt as I
can be, okay. You have an ordinance. The ordinance has been in
place for nine years.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just -- I asked a question.
Page 43
January 24, 2012
MR. KLATZKOW: It was an application. The same application
for all --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I asked -- no, no, the information
MR. KLATZKOW: You've had an agreement, they're standard
form agreements. You read all three together. Para-mutual, all right?
You have the application that led to an executive summary that
the Board approved the application. The agreements were based on
the application --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What -- and let me --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I want to hear his answer.
MR. KLATZKOW: Is there a specific provision in the standard
form agreement saying that the application is hereby incorporated by
reference? No, but it's in the ordinance.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, the application is --
MR. KLATZKOW: The application is referred to in the
ordinance.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you have to apply and here's
the application. But you can say --
MR. KLATZKOW: If you would like better form agreements,
we can do that. I don't know that it's going to make any difference at
the end of the day, but we can do that --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So just let me -- just to clarify my
-- the answer to the question, the application isn't incorporated by
reference in the --
MR. KLATZKOW: The application is incorporated by the
process, the entire Board approval process.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I asked -- yes or no is enough. I
mean, application is --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, it's not.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, no, it's not.
The underlying collateral for the fees, what is the underlying
Page 44
January 24, 2012
collateral that we are able to attach our lien to for the fee payment
assistance?
MR. KLATZKOW: The property.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Which specific property and who
is it owned by?
MR. KLATZKOW: The property that the building is going to be
built on --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And who owns that property --
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know who owns the property. It
doesn't matter. There will be a lien signed by that property owner at
that time --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is that property owner a party to
the agreement? Are they incorporated in the agreement and have they
agreed through this agreement to have a lien placed on their property?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, I believe they've agreed to have a lien
placed on their property.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: By way of this contract?
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know. I'd have to look at that in
particular.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, then, why don't you look at
it and tell me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are we going to have to do this with
every single economic development --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Over and over and over again --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The answer is no. The answer is
no. The answer is they're not incorporated, they're not referenced --
MR. KLATZKOW: With all due respect --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Calm down, calm down.
MR. KLATZKOW: We've had a vote taken. Do you want to go
through this or not?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're not going to do this.
Commissioner Hiller, if you want to get --
Page 45
January 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have one more question. Let me
just --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you want to get questions answered --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I can do it publicly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I think it's
important that the Board collectively recognizes that this agreement is
in accordance with our economic development ordinance, okay. And
that should not hinder the county and the payment under the
agreement.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I do, I recognize that these
jobs will be created in Collier County, that they comply to our
ordinance, and they -- the application was submitted by Arthrex to the
county. And we're basing it upon the agreement, upon our ordinance
and the application.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second that motion. Excellent --
you said it excellently.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Was that really intended as a separate
motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, it is just the Board --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Recognition.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That the Board recognizes that it
is incorporated within the ordinance.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think I certainly would nod my
agreement for that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Totally.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So we've got at least four nods. So --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We need to move on and try to
create more of those win stories, win/win stories.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
Commissioner Coletta?
Page 46
January 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You turned off my light.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree with Commissioner
Henning, it's absolutely correct. If the intent here is to try to destroy
any kind of economic development, I give Commissioner Hiller
tremendous credit for moving in that direction. Congratulations. I'm
sure that everyone that's watching out there in the business community
that would like to locate here is now weighing their options.
But please, do not be distraught by one Commissioner's reactions
to economic development. Remember, you have four commissioners
that are solidly in your corner to making that economic development
happen. So please come to Collier County, we are business friendly.
You may hear some things that are opposite the four commissioners,
but please, don't take that to heart.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, let's go to -- what can we get done
in seven minutes?
Item #10C
AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT
OF $1,076,737.62 TO LODGE CONSTRUCTION, INC. AND
RESERVE 10% ($107,673.76) ON THE PURCHASE ORDER FOR
FUNDING CONTINGENCY, FOR A TOTAL OF $1,184,411.38
FOR ITB #10-5817 — "LASIP - NAPLES MANOR NORTH
CANAL STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS; PROJECT #51101 —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Let's go to 10.C. It's a recommendation to award a
construction contract in the amount of$1,076,737.62 to Lodge
Construction, Incorporated and reserve a 10 percent contingency on
the purchase order for a total of$1,184,411.38 for invitation to bid
number 10-5817 LASIP-Naples Manor North Canal Stormwater
Page 47
January 24, 2012
Improvement Project number 51101. Mr. Jay Ahmad will present.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Fiala, second by Commissioner Coletta.
The public speaker light is still on, Ian. Do we have any?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have no speakers for this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion carries.
Now, what --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Great presentation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What can we get done in six minutes?
Item #10D
AWARD A DESIGN BUILD CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$4,048,944 TO THOMAS MARINE CONSTRUCTION, INC. AND
AMERICAN CONSULTING ENGINEERS OF FLORIDA, INC.
FOR RFP NO. 11-5722 11 5572 - "DESIGN BUILD GOLDEN
GATE BOULEVARD BRIDGE REPLACEMENTS: 1) GOLDEN
GATE CANAL #034026 AND 2) MILLER CANAL #034028",
PROJECT NO. 66066 — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Let's try the next one, we're on a roll here. 10.D is
Page 48
January 24, 2012
a recommendation to award a design/build contract in the amount of
$4,048,000 -- excuse me, $4,048,944 to Thomas Marine Construction,
Incorporated and American Consulting Engineers of Florida,
Incorporated, for RFP number 11-5722, design/build Golden Gate
Boulevard bridge replacements, Golden Gate canal and Miller canal.
Mr. Ahmad will present again, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: There's some discussion --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala.
And Commissioner Hiller, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have concerns. We've been
waiting on an inventory and aging of our county assets and nothing
has been forthcoming. And now we're taking steps to do this project. I
don't know where this project ranks in the priority of repairs,
replacements, improvements, if you will, compared to all other
bridges, you know, all other roads. So I just -- I just can't understand
prioritizing without having completed the asset schedule.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, for the record, Norman Feder,
Administrator of the Growth Management Division.
Specifically in the bridge program as we've identified previously,
every bridge in the state including all the county bridges are inspected
every two years by the State of Florida or sooner as needed. We have
a lot of bridges in this county that are approaching 50 years basic
useful life. And we've been very fortunate up until recently that we've
not had any of those reports show major problems or issues that
required other than routine maintenance work.
However, about three or four years ago we had five bridges on
that list, two of which are the ones before you. We inspected. One of
them we found didn't have the problems, and we did a further
inspection after the DOT report, Florida DOT. These we did have
Page 49
January 24, 2012
problems. But these were going to be addressed as part of our
widening project we had formerly on Golden Gate Boulevard, so it
would have been done as part of that construction project because we
handled much of our maintenance needs previously.
Unfortunately that project because of funding got deferred. And
so now we've had to come back and we are going to make these
repairs on two very deficient bridges that have been prioritized, they're
being replaced. They are prioritized out of a statewide program.
The asset management you're talking about, we have various
levels of that and we're working very diligently, aware of that, efforts
going with utilities to refine efforts. We have some already in our
shop.
But in this area in bridges, as in pavement in some other areas,
we've got specific information today, and we're working forward.
And based on those priorities, it is a definite prioritization process of
worst first, need, and the need is here and that's why we're moving on
it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What I would like to see is that
schedule and I'd also like to know all the costs associated with all the
MR. FEDER: We'd be happy to do that. We've got a five-year
bridge program, we can show that to you. And we've got all the
bridges and their condition ratings, the last report. We'll be happy to
share that with you. I think we did once, but I'll share it again.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The schedule with all costs.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. There's quite a
disparity between the three ranks of the companies -- actually teams.
Is there -- is there a reason you went into a design/build instead of a
let's design it and let's get builds for constructing?
MR. AHMAD: Good morning, Commissioners, Jay Ahmad for
the record.
Page 50
January 24, 2012
Yes, there is. As Mr. Feder mentioned earlier, the priority is high
on these bridges to be replaced. It's almost an emergency condition.
And I've shown some pictures earlier. I'll just maybe go back to that.
Parts of the bridge beams are falling off, frankly, and it's causing us a
grave concern about the bridge on Golden Gate Boulevard, which is a
major arterial in our highway system.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The contractor, the bids pricing
for the contractor, was that a material bid?
MR. AHMAD: Yes, sir. The process of design/build, as was
described in the executive summary, is a two-part process. But
actually here we made it a three-part process. We initially opened it
up to all companies to come and invite them to participate.
Six firms, of design/build firms, essentially contractor teamed up
with consultants. They submitted proposals to be qualified,
pre-qualified. And a selection committee short-listed those to three.
And the three firms and contractors got into the second phase of the
design/build per the statute, which is first you got to go through the
CCNA process prequalifications, and we assigned 40 percent based on
that process alone for prequalification.
But we wanted to make sure the cost is what's going to determine
the prequalification process. And as you can see in one of the slides,
the Thomas Marine-American submitted the lowest bid for the job,
which combined with the pre-qualification ranking and were qualified
and deemed as the number one on this project. So the cost was
actually the most -- 60 percent of the scoring system is designated for
the cost, the actual bid of the project.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the material, there's actual
material bid --
MR. AHMAD: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- within the ranking. Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor of the motion, please signify
by saying aye.
Page 51
January 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion passes unanimously.
We're going to take a 10-minute break. And we're right on time
at 10:30. We'll be back at 10:40.
(A recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, Board of County
Commission meeting is back in session.
Where do we go from here, County Manager?
Item #10F
AN AGREEMENT AND ASSOCIATED FORMS WITH THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
(DEO) TO ACCEPT FUNDING FOR THE DISASTER
RECOVERY ENHANCEMENT FUNDS (DREF) IN THE
AMOUNT OF $3,335,131 .91 AND APPROVE A BUDGET
AMENDMENT TO ALLOCATE THE FUNDING — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we go to Item 10.F. That was
previously Item 16.D.8 on your consent agenda. It's a
recommendation to approve an agreement and associated forms with
the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity to accept funding
for the disaster recovery enhancement funds in the amount of
$3,335,131.91, and to approve a budget amendment to allocate the
funding.
This item was moved from the consent agenda by Commissioner
Page 52
January 24, 2012
Hiller.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: This is 10.F? Yeah, the reason I
moved this is because I thought we were getting out of the housing
rehab business. And if my understanding of reading the numbers is
correct, it appears that we were going to take some of this money for
rehabbing homes again. So I mean, unless I misunderstood what was
presented, I don't understand why we're doing this.
MS. GRANT: Good morning. Kim Grant, Interim Director of
Housing Human and Veteran Services.
The projects that are identified on this executive summary, the
projects themselves were actually approved back in July, and these are
hardening projects for multi-unit residential buildings, that's not
single-family rehab.
And also, we are not doing this directly, we are doing it via
sub-recipient agreements.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's hardening of a
multi-family? I don't understand what that is. And who are the
sub-recipients?
MS. GRANT: The sub-recipients are Collier County Housing
Authority, Bromelia Place Apartments, are the two sub-recipients, and
MR. OCHS: Esperanza Place also.
MS. GRANT: I'm sorry?
MR. OCHS: Esperanza? They had flood damage, okay.
MS. GRANT: Yes, Esperanza is flood and drainage.
And the Collier County Housing Authority will be doing
windows and doors in the multi-family residential units. And
Bromelia Place will be doing a generator project to provide for power
should there be a storm circumstance or other power outage.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So while these are not properties
owned by the county, we're still funding renovations of properties
Page 53
January 24, 2012
owned by others; is that the policy that we're continuing?
Commissioner Coyle, can you comment on that? Was that your
intent or --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, they're different things.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand that, but is that what
we're planning on doing, we're going to continue? Was that your idea
when you said we're not going to be in the rehab business anymore?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, that was my intent. The staff is
doing exactly what we told them. We do things like providing grants
to people in the redevelopment areas to refurbish the facades of their
buildings or to improve the buildings in other ways that makes them
more acceptable for business. So we never had an intent to stop that.
What I was --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: This is residential --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, I understand --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- this is not commercial. This is
not economic development.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I understand. Well, it's a program that is
designed to reduce the possibility of hurricane damage or other storm
damage. It's a policy established by FEMA which recognizes that
particularly in coastal communities it's better to harden the structures
than it is to pay for the damages after the damages occur. So it's a
good program.
And the county, unlike in the neighborhood stabilization
program, the county staff doesn't get involved in supervising or
making decisions about acquisition of properties and then trying to sell
them after they've been rehabilitated. So there's quite a difference in
the way the county is involved here.
And although I have to admit I have a fundamental disagreement
with FEMA about spending money on things like this, but they have
established their policy and they are providing us money to do things
like this, and I think we should continue it.
Page 54
January 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So why do we keep pouring all
this money in the same few projects? Why is it always Esperanza and,
whatever, Bromeliad or whatever the name of that other project is.
The last I heard in a presentation was that Esperanza can't even get
tenants for its building, as was intended, and that they want to change
the character of their building to attract a different type of tenant, you
know, a higher paying tenant, when obviously the intent was to help
the poor.
So I just don't understand. Isn't there -- aren't there more
buildings out there that could benefit from this help other than these
few projects that you seem to keep pouring money into?
MS. GRANT: Commissioner, this funding was publicly
advertised for applications. And in fact, all of the applicants were able
to be funded. So there were no others that came forth looking for this
funding. And all of these projects meet the requirements of the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Maybe we need to do something to
improve our advertising to reach a broader audience. I'm not sure that
everyone out there who could avail themself of this is aware of it. But
that's for another day. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Coletta.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
Page 55
January 24, 2012
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it passes unanimously.
Item #10G
REPROGRAMMING OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK (CDBG) GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF
$810,000, AND APPROVE A SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT
WITH THE COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) OF IMMOKALEE TO
PURCHASE TWO ADJACENT PARCELS AND CONSTRUCT
DESIGN-BUILD THE FIRST STREET PLAZA LOCATED IN
THE DOWNTOWN AREA OF IMMOKALEE, FLORIDA -
APPROVED W/STIPULATIONS
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, that takes you to Item 10.G on your
agenda, which was previously 16.D.10 on your consent agenda. It's a
recommendation to approve reprogramming of community
development block grant funds in the amount of$810,000 and
approve a sub-recipient agreement with the Collier County
Community Redevelopment Agency of Immokalee to purchase two
adjacent parcels and construct design/build the First Street Plaza
located in the downtown area of Immokalee, Florida.
This item was moved from the consent agenda at Commissioner
Hiller's request. And Ms. Grant is available to either present or
answer questions.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like Penny to explain what's
going on here and how the value is determined, what exactly, you
know, this project is, how it will benefit the community and how the
price was determined.
And just one other quick question. I also would like to know
why we didn't use our in-house appraiser to appraise this property and
Page 56
January 24, 2012
why we went to an outside appraiser.
MS. PHILLIPPI: Good morning. Penny Phillippi. I'm the
director of the Immokalee CRA.
There's a couple of things. I guess there was about 20 questions
all in one, but I'll try to hit all of them at once.
As you know, back in March, as I presented in my annual report,
back in March of 2010 we brought to the Board of County
Commissioners our public round town design that had been discussed
by the community at large and agreed upon as our architectural style
and our multi-cultural theme that we were trying to develop between
First Street and Ninth Street. And in order to do that, we wanted to
create a plaza at First Street and one at Ninth Street, kind of a bookend
around that downtown commercial district.
And the one on First Street basically would be an entryway into
town. And this is only the left-hand side of the street. The right-hand
side of the street is way too expensive so far. So the way we came
about it is we applied for this grant actually in 2009 and we did a
contract to purchase contingent upon receipt of grant funds with the
owners. Well, we didn't get the money in 2009 so the owners weren't
really happy with us at that point in time.
So when we -- and at that time I believe the land appraised for
like $400,000. We used our in-house folks and made our application.
When we went back for another appraisal, it was 200,000. The
folks were extremely disappointed. We went out for a private
appraisal and tried again, and based on impact fees that had been paid
historically on three separate structures they were able to bring that
appraisal up to $290,000. We asked the owner if they would accept
that, and somewhat disheartened they said that they would. And that's
how we came upon the appraised price and the sale price. They're one
in the same.
Does that make sense?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Basically what you're saying is we
Page 57
January 24, 2012
had an in-house appraisal done and the appraisal came out with
200,000, and then basically when that was not an acceptable price we
went out and basically shopped the appraisal to figure out a higher
price --
MS. PHILLIPPI: No, no --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- a high -- because, I mean,
impact fees affecting --
MS. PHILLIPPI: -- we didn't, we didn't shop the appraisal. If
you read the appraisal --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I did. I have it right here --
MS. PHILLIPPI: -- I think it tells all the reasoning that elevated
the price --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have it here. But, you know,
paid impact fees affecting the value of the property, I mean, I just --
MS. PHILLIPPI: It's a credit somehow. It was new to me too.
But it resulted in a credit --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- I've never heard that before.
I would like to have our County Appraiser comment on that. I
mean, that's -- I think we need to offer what our County Appraiser
valued this property at. That's what it's worth. I mean, if the County
Appraiser in his opinion says it's 200,000, that's --
MS. PHILLIPPI: Well, if he looks at it again and disagrees with
the private appraiser, which I don't think he will, because they're both
licensed by the state and it could have simply been an oversight, you
know.
But the fact of the matter is if we don't move forward, we won't
be able to purchase this parcel.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think it would -- I think the
project is great, I think the idea of moving forward is great. But at the
same time we have to pay fair value, and we shouldn't be overpaying
for property. So somehow I think that needs to be reconciled.
MS. PHILLIPPI: Okay, ma'am, I could probably do that --
Page 58
January 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I can't I imagine that there are a
whole bunch of people, you know, out there knocking on this property
owner's door saying we want your property.
MS. PHILLIPPI: Well, I don't think that's absolutely true. We're
at the corner of First and Main in Immokalee as you first come into
the town. And we are getting hits after hits from folks trying to
purchase parcels. As you know, they just purchased a parcel for
400,000 on Main Street and built a brand new Dollar General. So
we're getting hits like that constantly.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How long has this property been
available for sale?
MS. PHILLIPPI: I have no idea. I have no idea.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Well, I think the project is
great. I think improving Main Street is great. I think paying fair
market value is what the county ought to do and I would like an
explanation for the discrepancy between the County Appraiser's
valuation and the outside valuation, and credit for impact fees doesn't
seem to make sense to me.
MS. PHILLIPPI: How can we facilitate that and still move
forward is my question to you. Because if we don't do something, I'm
afraid we'll lose the land and we'll be in our same situation that we've
been in.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let me ask you a question then: When
must you -- when would you want to make an offer on the property?
What would be your intent? If we approved this today, what would be
your intent with respect to making an offer?
MS. PHILLIPPI: I would like to make an offer tomorrow.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Tomorrow. Could you make a
contingent offer tomorrow based upon a reconciliation of the assessed
value?
MS. PHILLIPPI: And then of course it would be up to them to
accept that, if there was a difference.
Page 59
January 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. But it seems reasonable to me
that any great discrepancy between the estimate of value of property
should be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. So if we were to
approve this contingent upon providing information to properly
reconcile that to the Board of County Commissioners, then --
MS. PHILLIPPI: So would you say I should talk with the
County Appraiser and ask him to go over that and see whether he
agrees or disagrees, or would you say I should get a second appraisal
-- or a third appraisal --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'd be concerned about spending the
money on a third one, but it depends upon the nature of the
discrepancy. If it's a discrepancy that can be adequately explained. I
mean, I can understand why a payment of impact fees can increase the
value of the property, because if you're planning on developing it and
the impact fees have already been paid, that's value.
MS. PHILLIPPI: Three times.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. But it would be appropriate to
have an explanation of that so that we really know what the issue is.
MS. PHILLIPPI: Well, and the whole point of this is we can't
even make an offer until we have an awarded grant, because we don't
have funds to pay for this parcel --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we can't even make an offer
tomorrow.
MS. PHILLIPPI: Unless we have approval contingent upon the
reconciliation of the appraisals.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute, you said you don't even
have a grant to make --
MS. PHILLIPPI: Well, that's what they're trying to do. They're
trying to award us a grant right now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, okay.
MS. PHILLIPPI: I'm not asking to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that would happen concurrently
Page 60
January 24, 2012
with our approval, is that essentially what we're saying?
MS. PHILLIPPI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So if we were to give approval that is
contingent upon you satisfactorily answering the question between the
differences in the appraisals, then that would give you time to proceed
and the grant could be awarded on the same basis, and then hopefully
within a few days or so you could get that issue clarified for us?
MS. PHILLIPPI: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Does that make sense to you?
MS. PHILLIPPI: That would work.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta, you were next.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I can, a question on impact
fees to someone that can answer them.
MR. OCHS: Go ahead, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, impact fees. In other
words, the impact fees are paid, they stay with the property when the
property's transferred. That payment of the impact fees, we have to
pay impact fees when we do this project, don't we?
MS. PHILLIPPI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So that money from the impact
fees would be applied to the project; is that correct?
MS. PHILLIPPI: I don't know. I don't know the answer to that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I know in most cases it is.
You pay an impact fee, you either get a refund back if you don't use
it, or you apply it towards the project.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The attorney has a --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: If there was an impact fee paid, and I don't
know whether or not there was, it depends whether or not the
property's going to have more intensity of the use. If the intensity of
the use goes up, you pay that differential. If it doesn't go up, you don't
pay anything.
Page 61
January 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, great. But, I mean, going
back to the impact fee itself, say the impact fee was what, 90,000?
Whatever. Whatever the number of the impact fee was, that's money
that if for some reason if somebody asks for a refund back on it
because they weren't going to build, they would get it, wouldn't they?
We've done it --
MR. KLATZKOW: Not necessarily.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I remember we granted them
several times.
But going back to square one, impact fees paid, dollars paid that
could be applied to whatever we're going to do --
MR. KLATZKOW: The impact fee runs with the land. If you're
going to have a greater intense use, you'd have to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then you have to pay more.
MR. KLATZKOW: More --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How about if you're going to
have a less intense use?
MR. KLATZKOW: Then you don't pay more.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You get a refund.
MR. KLATZKOW: Not necessarily, no.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But you don't have to pay the impact fee
for your use.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's right, because it runs with the land.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. Because the impact fee has already
been paid. If there's not a more intensive use, you don't have to pay an
impact fee.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So that adds value to your purchase.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, maybe yes, maybe no. But that's the
question Commissioner Hiller's raised.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning -- were you
finished, Commissioner Coletta?
Page 62
January 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, I am.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We have a policy that if you
have a greater use, there will be no impact fees paid. That's our policy
MR. KLATZKOW: We have a program.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon me?
MR. KLATZKOW: We have a program, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So that's relevant to what we're
saying.
How old is the appraisal that you have?
MS. PHILLIPPI: The current one is brand new. The one the
county -- we actually have three. One the county did two years ago
and the one the County Appraiser did for us mid-summer, and then
another, this most recent one is like two months old, if that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay: Yeah, the impact fee, I'm
not sure how important that is. Depends on how you're going to
develop and when you're going to develop. I think it might be
irrelevant to the purchase price. But that's going to come back to us
anyways. The purchase, doesn't the CRA board hold all property?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, we have to approve it, don't
we?
MR. KLATZKOW: You're approving the grant for this now.
Penny, is it your plan to come back with a purchase agreement to
the Board?
MS. PHILLIPPI: (Nodding.)
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We have to. We have to see the
contract.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's coming back, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It shouldn't even be a question.
Staff only manages our agreements and contracts.
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm agreeing. I'm getting it on the record, it
Page 63
January 24, 2012
will be coming back.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I just remember in the past
anyway when we have appraisals done on something we want to buy,
the appraisals come in at a very, very low rate and then they negotiate
between them. The appraisal from the owner's appraiser is usually
very high, more than the property is valued. And then they negotiate
it down to a fair and reasonable amount.
And just possibly in this particular case, although we hired both,
maybe our own appraiser came in at a lower figure and then expected
to have a little negotiation taking place to bring it up to a fair and 1
reasonable amount. I'm just speculating on that of course. But maybe
that's the discrepancy.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Coletta.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I'll second the emotion (sic)
because we need to get going on this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
I have to ask you, is it contingent upon -- motion contingent upon
Penny providing us with information which answers the question as to
why there's a discrepancy between the two appraisals?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. And also with the
understanding that this is going to come back to us in its final form.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. All in favor of the
motion, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Page 64
January 24, 2012
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it passes unanimously.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good luck on that, Penny.
MS. PHILLIPPI: Thank you.
Item #10H
RATIFY TWO ADDITIONS TO THE 2012 FISCAL YEAR PAY
AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN MADE FROM OCTOBER 1, 2011
THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2011 — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes you to Item 10.H on
your agenda this morning. It was previously item 16.E.3. And as
soon as I find it I'll read it to you here.
It's a recommendation to approve and ratify two additions to the
2012 Fiscal Year pay and classification plan made from October 1,
2011 through December 31, 2011. This item was moved at
Commissioner Hiller's request.
And Ms. Price is available to respond to questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, it's not actually Len, is it? I
mean, I understand that you oversee the administration. But this is
actually two staff people for CDES, isn't it?
MS. PRICE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So shouldn't CDES explain who
they're hiring and why, and at what price?
MS. PRICE: It would just depend on what your question is.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: All of the above. I want them to
answer.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning, Commissioners. For
the record, Nick Casalanguida.
Page 65
January 24, 2012
Who I'm hiring, ma'am? The position was brought to HR. We
have contracts manager, business manager. We had one in the former
Growth Management Division, transportation construction
management side. That position has been vacated for about a year and
a half. We have one on the Growth Management Planning regulatory
side, an existing position that went through the classification system
with HR, and we have a current employee in that position.
That position went through the review process with HR. And I
can tell you what -- they can explain to you how it's done. I'm not
privy to that. It goes through a scoring system. So it's a mirror image
of what Ken Kovensky's contracts management position or business
manager is with the planning and regulation side on the other side.
And that's where we're hoping to hire.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So can you clarify your -- you've
got two positions that you're creating, one which is a business
manager. And these are for CDES.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, the business manager -- for
both, one in planning and regulation, one in construction and
maintenance. One division. So no, CDES no longer exists.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, whatever the -- what's the
new acronym?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Planning and Regulation, Growth
Management Division.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What is it?
MR. OCHS: It's Growth Management Division.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: GMD?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: GMD.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sounds like that business that went
out of business, remember?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Or Monopoly, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, okay, you're right. So
you've got basically -- and what are the salary ranges?
Page 66
January 24, 2012
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't have them in front of me. I
think -- for the business and project manager, it's a grade 18, between
45,000 and 66,000. For the manager, financial and operational
support, it's a grade 25, between 64,000 approximately and 95,000.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The latter is a high salary.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm sorry, ma'am?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The latter is a high salary.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's the maximum. We usually hire
about market. They don't put what market is, but the minimum --
people usually come in around the minimum to market. They don't
come in higher than that unless they have a lot of experience and
qualifications. Now, we're looking for a CPA.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's the reason for hiring these
people?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If you look at our budgets in prior
years, we were pretty flush with impact fees general fund, and as we
restrict these budgets and funds, we're putting more emphasis on
accounting, as the Clerk's office goes through and does audits and
reviews certain things.
I'm pretty tight, as well as Norman is. And now that the buckets
are smaller, we're making pretty darn sure that every bucket, the
dollar, where it comes in and goes, is accountable as we prepare these
budgets.
At one point in time our 313 budget had so much coming in, per
se, that you didn't worry about it. But right now 313 is made up of ad
valorem taxes and gas tax. With the bulk of that going towards
balance of repayment and loan for gas tax leaves us very little. So the
purpose is to make sure that every penny is accounted for and that
we've got someone managing those funds and can prepare the budget
and explain the budget to this Board.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Just make sure you don't
try to steal anybody from any other department.
Page 67
January 24, 2012
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We had that discussion --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You've got some good people in
the other divisions. No poaching.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No poaching.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You can advertise but don't poach.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Actually, ma'am, it's been advertised
and no one from the other departments have applied. It's all been
external. We haven't had anybody from the Clerk's office apply for
the position.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm talking about the Clerk's
office, just generally.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Generally --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No poaching --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: She's giving me the scowl, so --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No predatory poaching.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I make a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Hiller. Second by?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Page 68
January 24, 2012
Item #10I
DIRECT THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO
WORK WITH THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY, AND THE CLERK'S OFFICE TO REVIEW AND
POSSIBLY ESTABLISH A POTENTIAL PROCESS WHICH
WOULD AUTHORIZE THE SOLICITATION FOR
COMPETITIVE BID PROPOSALS FROM INTERESTED FIRMS
WILLING TO BOTH FINANCE AND CONSTRUCT
PRODUCTION-READY PROJECTS - MOTION TO BRING
BACK WITH FINDINGS TO THE BCC — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, 10.1 was previously 16.A.13. It's
a recommendation to direct the County Manager or his designee to
work with the Finance Committee, the County Attorney and the
Clerk's Office to review and possibly establish a potential process
which would authorize the solicitation for competitive bid proposals
from interested firms willing to both finance and construct
production-ready projects.
And this item was moved by Commissioner Coyle. And Mr.
Feder's available to answer questions, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I just wanted to make sure we clarified
something about this item before we make a decision about moving it
forward.
I think the idea is a good idea. It's interesting. It might work for
us. I would just like to separate the authority to -- or make it clear that
we're separating the authority to work with the Clerk's Office and the
County Attorney and the Finance Committee to work out the details to
see if it makes sense, to see if it is a proper way of proceeding and if
it's a good strategy for us.
But the second part, which is to advertise for proposals to
perform a particular project, I would like to separate that from this
Page 69
January 24, 2012
guidance and require that you come back after that first phase and
you've coordinated with all of the agencies with which you should be
coordinating with, and then bring it back to us, give us your
conclusions, and then we will have a chance to decide whether or not
we move forward with a specific project and a solicitation.
I'm just a little apprehensive about obligating ourselves in a loan
agreement for a capital project until we're a little more sure that we're
coming out of this recession. And I think it's getting better and better
all the time. So we might feel more comfortable taking action at some
time in the future. But my only objective was to separate it so that
you understood that the Board's direction, if the Board approves this,
that you understood that the approval is limited only to coordinating
with the appropriate agencies and then coming back and presenting
your conclusions to us before we precluded.
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Norman Feder,
Administrator, Growth Management Division.
We can definitely do that. I do want to point out that what we're
looking at, and we're trying to apply this to smaller scale projects,
typically it's big projects, nationally, internationally and the like, but
the idea is is right now with this economy and also the industry, the
feeling was that we can help our local economy and the industry with
some small projects, evaluating whether or not the ability to continue
the work and get it at lower prices, now that we don't have the funds
and they need the work, was an option better. And we're also going to
bid out what it would cost if you don't finance it, to really evaluate
truly with the financing.
Our intent was to do a small one, bring it back to you, you still
would have had to approve us to move forward anyway with the
contract. What I think I'm hearing, and we have no problem with that,
is come back to you after these meetings, tell you this is the project or
projects, more likely project just to test it initially, and why and what
we heard with that and we think it will go forward, and then go out.
Page 70
January 24, 2012
And we're more than happy to do that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That would be my motion, by the way,
to encourage you to proceed with coordinating this concept with all of
the other appropriate agencies, then come back with your findings and
recommendations.
MR. FEDER: And I think that would be great. We're more than
happy to do that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Coletta.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, we still don't even know
what the cost for repairs and replacements will be. I mean, we're still
waiting on finding out financially where we stand. I mean, shouldn't
we prioritize that?
And we basically, you know, at this point in time have an
unfunded liability with respect to supporting the existing asset
structure we have. And now we're already talking about going out and
trying to figure out different ways to finance new and additional
projects? Where is the money going to come from to support what we
have?
MR. FEDER: First of all, we have raised to you and have
worked with you and are moving from a capital project to a
maintenance effort with the available funds that we have, and we
know we have very tight budgets on that. We are evaluating those
things. What we're looking at though is we made commitments at a
time, had done production and spent money on a number of projects
that have some significant benefits, and we had to stop and pull those
out of the program.
Now, we're not necessarily advocating that we get --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are you saying we have partially
completed projects --
MR. FEDER: Yes, all the time --
Page 71
January 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- that we are not moving -- no, no,
right -- as of right now that we're not moving forward on because of
lack of funding and we're looking for financing to move those projects
forward because they have been halted --
MR. FEDER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- due to a shortage?
MR. FEDER: Correct. Understand, our process is about seven
years. We have to first develop a project, set a priority with this
Board, decide to go forward, design it, get the permits, buy the
right-of-way, go to construction. When we got hit with a shortfall
from 65 all the way down to about 18, now down to about five on
impact fees and other shortfalls and budget, obviously we had things
in the production process that we had to pull back on.
So what we're saying is I've already got projects where I have
designed them, I have acquired the right-of-way, but I couldn't go to
construction.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you give me examples?
MR. FEDER: I've got one -- I've got Whippoorwill, I've got
Valewood, I've got County Barn. I've got portions, although I don't
have all the right-of-way, for a section of Santa Barbara. I've got
Golden Gate Boulevard, although I've had to pull the right-of-way out
of that phase --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Help me out, haven't we been
moving impact fees from districts to other districts? I mean, if we
have incomplete projects that should have been completed, shouldn't
we have been allocating the impact fees to those districts?
MR. FEDER: I only have five million in total impact fees in all
districts as of this year.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand as of this year. But
when you look at the cumulative, because we're talking over a period
of time that these projects that you're describing have been halted.
And you've been shifting impact fees from one district to other -- or
Page 72
January 24, 2012
from districts, to district, if you will, and you're telling me that these
projects could have had those funds?
MR. FEDER: I'm telling you two things: One, I'm not just
summarily shifting impact fees from district to district, they have to be
related to the project in an adjacent district. And we're following that,
and that is our ordinance.
But even with that, I'm telling you you've got a five-year capital
improvement element of which I'm taking all of your impact fees and
they work appropriately on an HO district to follow through on just
951, Golden Gate Boulevard down to Green, 41 and 951, and
improvement on Golden Gate Boulevard out at Wilson. Those are the
only three major capital projects besides what you have underway
right now, the Davis/951 project and the finishing off of the Oil Well.
So that is all you have in your capital improvement program for
transportation as of today other than operating issues on bridges and
intersections.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're not here to make a decision on
capital improvement or projects. We're not considering any projects.
We're not considering spending any money --
MR. FEDER: We are going to come back to you with any
projects and we can explain its status and where it is at that time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right. When you come back,
you're going to have to address, if you find this is an appropriate way
to proceed --
MR. FEDER: If we do.
MR. OCHS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- then you're going to have to address
specifically how you intend to do it and when you intend to do it and
how much it's going to cost and why.
MR. FEDER: And where we are in the production cycle and
why. Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Right.
Page 73
January 24, 2012
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have one public speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's call the public speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: The speaker is Tim Witherite.
MR. WITHERITE: Good morning. Tim Witherite, I represent
the Oakes Estates Advisory Board. And we just wanted to lend our
support to this project. Because we're concerned about the
construction of Valewood Drive south of Immokalee Road, and this
would be one of the things that would come about through this. So we
just want to encourage this to go forward. Because that road was
promised to be done back in 2010, I believe, so -- it's been held up. So
there's a commitment been made to our neighborhood and to the First
Congregational Church there on the corner. So we'd like to see it
through if at all possible.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you very much.
All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
MR. OCHS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've got something we can do in 10
minutes?
MR. OCHS: I don't see your Airport Authority Director here.
Item #13B2
REQUEST COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS PROVIDE DIRECTION TO THE AIRPORT
Page 74
January 24, 2012
AUTHORITY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AS TO WHETHER
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SHOULD BE PROVIDED A COPY
OF COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT SECURITY PLANS -
MOTION TO ACCEPT THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY'S
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING SHARING ANY AIRPORT SECURITY PLANS —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: So we have an item under your Community
Redevelopment Agency, 13.B.2. It's a recommendation to award
contact number 11-5709, Immokalee downtown stormwater
improvements, to Douglas N. Higgins, Incorporated in the amount of
$2,718,000 and approve all necessary budget amendments and
authorize the Chairman to sign the standard Board approved contracts
after legal review by the office of the County Attorney.
Mr. Muckel is here to present on behalf of the CRA.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, I'm transferring gavels to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I got my own, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- the Chairman of the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You can't mix gavels.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead, it's all yours.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, please continue.
MR. MUCKEL: Good morning, Commissioners.
The purpose of this project is to address the flooding and
stormwater quality issues within the project limits of Immokalee. The
stormwater improvements involve closing existing drainage ditches,
replacing existing culverts and constructing a large stormwater
retention pond on West Eustis Avenue.
This project also -- this project covers an area of approximately
40 acres in Immokalee central business district and consists of
approximately 15,000 linear feet of stormwater pipe which will collect
and convey stormwater from the downtown area to the proposed six
Page 75
January 24, 2012
and a half acre stormwater pond. A four-by-six box culvert will also
be installed on the south side of Colorado Avenue for pedestrian
safety.
The project will reduce overall annual maintenance costs,
decrease drainage concerns from local residents within the community
and ultimately improve the water quality that empties into the Lake
Trafford slough at the south end of town.
And I brought a site plan of the overall project for familiarity if
you'd like to see that on the overhead. And I'm here to answer any
questions you might have about the project and funding.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Any questions?
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I think you've done a great
job. I've been -- you introduced me to this before I was elected, and
it's really great. And I'm really happy to see how you're working with
the outside engineers to really make a difference in the area. And I
think what needs to be highlighted is that, I mean, Immokalee is a
difficult area to develop because there is flooding and the area is very
flat, and dealing with drainage and drainage infrastructure is very
costly. And you've done a good job getting grants and you're doing a
good job getting this addressed.
MR. MUCKEL: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve by
Commissioner Fiala.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second by Commissioner
Coyle.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
Page 76
January 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The ayes have it unanimously.
Thank you very much.
We have one more item. You presenting that?
MR. MUCKEL: Not me.
MR. OCHS: I'm looking for Mr. Jackson, sir. I don't see him. I
believe he may be on the way.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's okay. I'll turn the
meeting back over to Commissioner Coyle and he'll proceed from
here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'll turn it back over to Commissioner
Coletta because we have six minutes left to kill.
MR. OCHS: That's right. Got dead air time here, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who put this agenda together?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Manager has to accept
responsibility for that.
MR. OCHS: That was me, sir. That's right. Too efficient for my
own good.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, you're six minutes off. That's the
only thing we can do? There's nothing else that you --
MR. OCHS: No, the rest are time certains, unfortunately,
Commissioners. I was hoping to do the other CRA item, but --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why don't we have Commissioner
communications, get that over with now and then we don't have to do
it at the end of the meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good grief, that takes an hour and a half.
Page 77
January 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, we have a half hour to kill.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, you only have six minutes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Six, why? Oh, we have a time
certain at 11 :30. I'm so sorry, I thought we actually had a half an
hour, which would cut off a half an hour from the end of the day.
MR. OCHS: You could take a five minutes quick recess,
reconvene.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, we'll take a five-minute recess
until 11 :30 and then we'll begin with the time certain item, okay.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
(Recess.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Board of County Commission meeting is
back in session. We have a time certain at 11 :30.
Item #10E
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 — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, it's Item 10.E. It's a recommendation to
approve the third amendment to the cooperative agreement with the
South Florida Water Management District, agreement number
C-11759, regarding operation and maintenance of designated primary
watercourses in Collier County, modifying the agreement's terms and
extending the term until September 30th, 2024.
And Mr. Casalanguida will present, along with Mr. Tears, who is
here.
Page 78
January 24, 2012
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning, Commissioners. For
the record, Nick Casalanguida, your Deputy Administrator for the
Growth Management Division.
What you have in front of you is a canal maintenance agreement
update. And you've had two of these in front of you prior, two
10-year agreements. Recently in the past year we've had a settlement
agreement with an ATV park. And this is kind of crossed in a little
bit, but we've managed to get an extension, and now we're bringing to
you another 12-year agreement to keep the process going with the
District and the Basin.
As you know, the District spends about three and a half million
dollars a year in O&M, a little over two million dollars a year in
capital. Most of these easements are to the county, although some of
them are to the District and owned by the District as well.
The exhibit you have in front of you on the viewer, and the
color's a little hard to see so I'll point it out to you, this area here is in
red where my pen starts and then comes along and then goes south.
And that's the southern part of the Golden Gate Estates, kind of known
as the Frangipani area. And then on the western side of Golden Gate
Estates, west of Everglades Boulevard. So this little L shape is kind of
the discussion we're dealing with right now.
Okay. This gives you a graphic, to just get a feel on the map.
This is the -- Mr. Brown's mine pit that's over here. So it starts in this
location, comes down and then goes down to the Miller canal over
here. So it's in this location right here. That gives you a graphic. 28th
Street is right off the bottom of the page and Tobias Street over here
where Wilson Boulevard is.
To give you a little history, Commissioners, and I'm sure more of
you are aware of this than I am, but these dedications and easements
in the Estates go back to 1962 with Gulf America Land Trust. They
dedicated certain public roads and they dedicated certain drainage
easements to the county.
Page 79
January 24, 2012
I'm going to put up an exhibit that I want you to just take a look
at real quick and give you a feel for what we're talking about. It's an
eye chart, but at least I can explain it to you somewhat.
These streets are coming off Everglades Boulevard. And then
along the west side of the Estates is a drainage easement, and they
vary in width, 95 feet, 140 feet, and it wraps around the northern part
of the Estates.
Now, one thing to remember important about easements: When
they're granted, they're granted for the sole purpose that the easement
is written for. On the periphery of the Estates they're drainage
easements. So the question is, what can you do in that drainage and
what can't you do? And that's a discussion I've had with Mr.
McMahon several times.
And county staff wanted to continue this item so we made sure
that everybody understood what was going on.
Right now those canal drainage easements are dedicated to the
public and to the county, and we've transferred that to the District for
maintenance and control. You still can only do what's within that
easement. What goes on in the Estates outside of the platted Golden
Gate Estates are not public roads, they're dirt roads. And those dirt
roads meander in and out of that drainage easement. I'm going to give
you another exhibit to give you a feel for what we deal with.
This is Mr. MacMahon's property, I believe, right, Daniel?
Okay, thank you. The edge of the easement is somewhere along the
overbank area here and there's a dirt road that runs along the west of
the easement and within the easement. The challenge is, once you get
out of that private access easement some of these people are afforded
or have between themselves, you get into a canal maintenance
easement. That's for drainage purposes only. And what I've explained
to Mr. McMahon, and he understands and we've had good discussion
over the past month or so, is the county can't grant any private
property rights other than what it has under their control, which is a
Page 80
January 24, 2012
drainage easement.
These roads that meander in and out of the drainage easement
through private property have been used for some years, and we're
dealing with this issue in Frangipani. And the District approached us,
says we go through this canal maintenance agreement redo and said
we're not in the business of access, we're in the business of drainage
control. Access is a private property right. Mr. McMahon has asked
me what is the intent of the county by having the District de-adopt
these as their works of the basin but still doing work on these
easements. And quite frankly, it's to be out of the business of dealing
with road conflicts. These are private roads.
Now, I've explained to Mr. McMahon, if he was to give us notice
and said if you're going to maintain those easements you need to stay
off my property, because these dirt roads float in and out of that
drainage easement. We would oblige him by doing that and respect
his rovate p ri property right. We as the county cannot grant that private
p
property or trespass to anybody else over those drainage easements
unless it has direct business with canal maintenance.
So this issue has been going back and forth with a number of the
residents that are down there. And it probably stems from the fact that
as the county's permitting authority, when someone comes in and pulls
a building permit, we need to ask how do you get there; through what
private property rights or public roads do you have access to your
property?
So that sums up kind of the conflict that we're dealing with in
Woodland Estates and Frangipani. But it's not tied to this canal
maintenance agreement. Because what we're really saying is it's not a
District issue, it's a county issue along with a private property right.
He can call the Sheriffs Office for trespass, he can work with us to
make sure we stay out of his property, but we can't do anything more
than what's allowed to us by that drainage easement.
So with that I'll answer some questions and go from there.
Page 81
January 24, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a public speaker, so let's call
the public speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: Daniel McMahon.
MR. McMAHON: Hello again.
My concern stems from I've been trying to find out about this
agreement for quite some time. Made numerous public records
requests. The only thing that I ended up getting was the executive
summary and the third amended agreement itself. Nothing into the
process of why these specific areas were chosen. Why Woodland
Estates Road? Why only up to 28th Avenue Southeast? Why not
South of 28th Avenue Southeast?
And the executive summary says in the fourth paragraph -- or in
the third paragraph of the considerations that the modification is
necessary to remove the provisions of Chapter 40.E-6 of Florida
Administrative Code from the specific areas of canal segments,
allowing for continued use for ingress and egress by adjacent property
owners.
Woodland Estates Road has a legal access, ingress-egress access,
that's 30 feet wide along the eastern edge of the properties. That's
right next to South Florida Water Management's drainage easements
or the county's drainage easement.
I built Woodland Estates Road in 2002 with the vegetation
removal permits and the required documentation for the county. And
county told me I also had to work with South Florida Water regarding
the road. When I went to build the road I spoke to an engineer from
South Florida Water and we ended up agreeing that a portion of the
road would be slightly towards the canal easement, and most of the
road would remain on the private easement. This was to allow the
Water District access to the areas, which they didn't have land access
prior to that. And also to give myself and the other residents better
access along the property.
It's been a little confusing to me as to who would be in charge of
Page 82
January 24, 2012
the permitting, how much the permitting would cost and what the
process would actually be. There's different issues up on Frangipani
than there are in Woodland Estates. But as far as my property goes, I
have legal and physical access to the property. I just wanted this
process to be a little bit more open so that I could actually understand
what's happening.
Also part of the agreement on sections lower case B, section four
and C, lower case C, section four says that the District shall have no
maintenance obligations with respect to the Miller canal southwest
over-bank. And I'm mostly just concerned at who will maintain that in
case of flooding and what will be the issues regarding flooding,
certainly since the canal's scheduled to be filled south of 75.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can answer that.
The District is still going to work to maintain the canal with
itself. The over-bank area, they're saying they don't need it to get in
there and do maintenance for that portion of it. What the District is
trying to do is get away from this issue that Mr. McMahon has raised.
It's not their issue. And we agree with them on that.
You had mentioned a couple things I want to make sure we're
clear on. That road meanders in and out of the canal drainage
easement. The District nor the county has no rights to grant Mr.
McMahon for access and egress over that property. It's not ours. It's
owned by each individual property owner up and down the Estates
platted lot. So that 30-foot or 20-foot paved road -- or not paved, I'm
sorry, dirt road within his 30-foot easement is not within his 30-foot
easement, it meanders out of it. So to that extent it's a private property
issue, which I've agreed to work with some of the neighbors to try and
come up with a solution how we can help them.
As far as flooding concern, the permitting of how much water
goes through that canal is done by the District and the Basin. The
maintenance of that canal will be done by the District and the Basin.
They're not going to touch the over-bank area unless we give them
Page 83
January 24, 2012
permission to go in that over-bank area, because the easement is to the
county. The only thing they can do in that over-bank area is -- has to
be related to canal maintenance, no other uses.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, excuse me, you have another speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's all right, Commissioner Hiller has
a question, I guess.
MR. McMAHON: Just again --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute, your name is not Hiller,
is it?
MR. McMAHON: No. Sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You spent a lot of time looking at
Commissioner Hiller, I just didn't know who was who.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Maybe I'm better looking than
you. Maybe he prefers women over men.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think that's probably true.
MR. McMAHON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Here we go. The litigation.
I'd like to incorporate all the comments that you made this
morning into what we're hearing now, because I know you don't have
time to repeat what you said, but I think it's very important that we all
understand that what you said this morning is not going to be ignored
in this discussion at this time.
So the first thing I'd like to talk about is this litigation. And what
you said this morning was that there was a section that was pulled out
that was included in the prior arrangement that did prohibit these type
of vehicles from crossing over these easements, and that the reason
that was done was because of this litigation.
MR. McMAHON: Yes, that's my understanding.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I have a problem with that
because Mr. Casalanguida is standing over here and he's saying that,
Page 84
January 24, 2012
you know, this is a private property matter and so on, so forth. And
yet it appears that we have a history where these easements did
include these kind of prohibitions. So I don't see any reason why the
same provisions are not included in this easement agreement.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm going to let the attorney step in,
but I don't have the right. That drainage easement, I spent a lot of time
in --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Who pulled out those provisions?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Provisions for what?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You did? Why don't you speak to
this.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: They're inconsistent with --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let me speak to Clarence, since
he's the one who's saying that it was pulled out.
MR. TEARS: Clarence Tears, Director of Big Cypress Basin,
South Florida Water Management District.
The reason for these areas being pulled out was because of this
access issue. Under Chapter 40.E and throughout the rest of the
District, we don't allow residents to drive on drainage easements. It's
not part of our -- what we do. We operate and maintain the primary
canal system.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Then that is exactly what should
be included in this easement agreement as well. The same
requirement that prohibits people from driving over those easements
on your drainage easements should be the same for our drainage
easements.
MR. TEARS: Commissioner Hiller, but --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you help me out, tell me why
you have that requirement on your easements?
MR. TEARS: Because it impacts -- in operation of maintenance
you have a lot of heavy equipment that goes down right-of-ways, you
have tow boats, you have spray equipment. And the idea is we want
Page 85
January 24, 2012
to focus on operation of maintenance and we do not utilize drainage
easements for public access. We try to keep the public access on
public road systems and try to have the adjacent property owners use
whatever platted easements they have to get to their property.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So if I understand correctly,
including the limitation that, you know, the public should not be
transversing (sic) over these easements, these drainage easements that
the county has, it would be an appropriate provision. Isn't that what
we're talking about? I mean, is my understanding correct?
I mean, I think this is the heart of the matter. And it's quite clear
to me that what you're saying, Mr. Casalanguida, is incorrect. And
quite frankly, what I'm hearing from Mr. Tears makes perfect sense.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, if we do what you're asking us
to do, he can't get to his property.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, that's not what he's saying.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: But he drives over the canal
maintenance --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am, he does.
MR. McMAHON: I would be able to get to my property without
using the canal easement. There is the first section of the road that
preexisted the canal that is within the canal's easement and then there's
one area where the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And let me tell you why you can
do it. Because you've been doing it up until now, and up until now
that provision was in the easement that was under South Florida Water
Management. Now nothing has changed other than it's the county as
opposed to South Florida, and all of a sudden they're saying you can't
cross your property when you could --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, no, ma'am, not at all.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, then I misunderstood.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We're not saying that at all. We're
Page 86
January 24, 2012
saying as part of this they're de-adopting that portion which takes
them out of the 40.E-6 chapter. We're saying we're going to let things
stand right now until we know what's going on. If we, say, put a
prohibition on for travel, not only will Mr. McMahon have issues,
everybody that lives south of the Estates in Frangipani, if we said right
now, you can't drive within that easement -- but bear in mind, the
underlying property owner who owns that canal easement can still file
suit. And I'm going to give you an example of a property.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But, you know, there is a
difference. Because if-- you gave the easement to South Florida,
right? Who did you give it to? It was on your property.
MR. McMAHON: There's an ingress-egress easement on my
property 30-foot wide, which is directly next to the District's 90-foot.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you have access to your
property.
MR. McMAHON: Yes, I do.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And you don't have to cross over
that easement?
MR. McMAHON: The only place where I actually have to go
onto the easement and drive fully on the easement would be that first
section that's approximately 900 feet long that predated the canal.
When I first initially bought my property, I had to access it from
trails to the back. In order to get the mortgage I had to have a road
that was within my legal easement. And without that I couldn't get the
mortgage for my home.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So just help me out. How do we
reconcile what they're saying to what you want? And from what I
understand, and again correct me if I'm mistaken, because this
obviously is somewhat of a complicated matter, what you had before.
MR. McMAHON: My understanding is that the reason the
county -- this un-adoption is being done is for ingress-egress purposes,
and that's for those mostly along Frangipani. On Woodland Estates
Page 87
January 24, 2012
Road again we have a 30-foot wide easement. I've been in litigation
with this slightly over about a year and a half now.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: With whom?
MR. McMAHON: BBT Bank and LOTA (phonetic) have sued
for an ingress-egress easement across my property. On September
22nd, during a court hearing, it was stated that this agreement, the
Third Amendment agreement, could possibly resolve or would resolve
that lawsuit. My main concern again is that section --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: To your -- and it basically would
resolve it to your detriment because now basically the public would be
traveling over that drainage easement which up till now with that
provision in the contract -- or the agreement would have prohibited.
MR. McMAHON: Yes, correct, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What about the public records
request? You know, he made records requests that he's saying haven't
been --
MR. KLATZKOW: I sent it to him December 2nd.
MR. McMAHON: It's my understanding that there's no notes as
to any discussions about this, there's no documents other than the
executive summary and the agreement itself.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: There are no e-mails?
MR. McMAHON: Apparently not.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: There are no e-mails.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I've never gotten a request for e-mails,
ma'am, and I've talked to Mr. McMahon a half a dozen times --
MR. McMAHON: I've written --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Did you address it to the county in
general or --
MR. McMAHON: Yes, I made several requests, at least four
different requests to the Commissioners' office, to the Manager's
Page 88
January 24, 2012
office, to the public comment area. And I was told that there are no
documents other than these two.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do you have information, Nick?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, whatever I have he's welcome
to. My e-mails probably were to Clarence were here's a copy of the
draft agreement, here's a copy of the draft back. That's all I have. It's
not -- discussions weren't done by e-mails --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How many drafts were there?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Probably several.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you need to include all the
drafts and all your e-mail, because obviously you haven't gotten the
responses to your records request --
MR. KLATZKOW: His record request was fully responded to. I
sent it to him December 2nd --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. He e-mailed to --
MR. McMAHON: I believe I was only sent two pieces -- two
documents.
MR. KLATZKOW: You asked for it --
MR. McMAHON: And I asked for it on September --
MR. KLATZKOW: You asked for the agreement, you got it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are you asking for everything
related to this issue from the county?
MR. McMAHON: That's what I had asked for on September
23rd.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's that?
MR. TEARS: I think his request was just for a copy of the
agreement.
MR. McMAHON: No, it was for a copy of the agreement and
any documents regarding this. I was told by the Attorney's office that
they don't keep any notes as to what the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That question is not on the
agenda right now. So let's stay with the item on the agenda. Excuse
Page 89
January 24, 2012
me.
MR. McMAHON: It's my belief that this is to provide
ingress-egress.
MR. KLATZKOW: You've got a lawsuit here. The lawsuit was
not initiated by the county but the county is now a party to this
lawsuit. The District at one point in time was part of this lawsuit. The
District does not want to be part of this lawsuit because they're not in
the road business, the county's in the road business. All right?
What we're effectively doing by this agreement is getting the
District out of this issue. So then the county could deal with the
school board, who's part of this, and the individual property owners,
who are a part of this, as well as the owners of these underlying fees to
the easements. It's not Mr. McMahon's property. You've got many,
many properties up and down Frangipani and up and down this
particular road as well. It's a global issue that the county's going to
have to eventually, you know, sit down and figure out, including
crossings that went over the C-1 that were never permitted.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I have a question. In the request to
speak under public petition, there's a question, it says is this subject
matter under litigation at this time, and you replied no.
MR. McMAHON: No, that's -- that's because that's what I was
told by the county. I thought this was directly, directly related to the
litigation because it came up during a hearing in the litigation. Then
the county told me no, these are completely separate issues, it is not
part of the litigation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But you mentioned some litigation
concerning you and your own property.
MR. McMAHON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So it is subject to litigation.
Okay, I think I've got it --
MR. McMAHON: The dispute would be my 30 feet versus their
95 feet.
Page 90
January 24, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, I think I've got it.
MR. TEARS: Commissioners, really, today we're here -- this is
an operation and maintenance agreement. It's a cooperative agreement
between the District and the county to maintain the primary canals.
We're going to continue to maintain the whole system. The only issue
is there's some property rights and transportation issue of people using
the drainage easement for access. We're just removing that from the
existing agreement and we're trying to move forward with a 12-year
agreement which really brings about over $50 million to this county to
operate and maintain primary canals. And that's all we're addressing
here.
This issue -- he's spoken to our attorneys on these litigation
matters. He's currently driving on somebody else's properly because
the drainage easement goes to the other side of the canal.
But we're really focusing on a cooperative agreement to just
address operation and maintenance of the primary canals and trying to
continue to be a partner in this --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, I make a motion to approve the
item as specified in the executive summary --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Don't we have another public
speaker?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There is -- we have -- do we have
another public speaker?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, call the other public speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: Tim Nance.
MR. McMAHON: Just one. My main concern was that this
process remain open to the public. And there's numerous landowners
who are involved with this who don't know about it.
Thank you.
MR. NANCE: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Tim Nance.
I would just like to address this because I've appeared before you
Page 91
January 24, 2012
on this issue many times before, just to outline some of the issues that
need immediate attention.
It's a very complicated issue with the property rights of the
people in Golden Gate Estates and the people that have used the land
on the opposite side of the canal ever since the canal was constructed.
The land on the opposite side of the canal from Golden Gate
Estates began being used as a road when the canal was constructed,
for the simple reason that's why the spoil pile was placed, and that's
when all the access to lands on the other side of the canal were cut off
by the county's permitting those canals to be built. So that's when this
started; it was in the mid-Sixties. I've been living out there since
1983. I've been driving on the canal maintenance easement because it
has been used as a public road continuously since the mid-Sixties.
The attendant issue that must be addressed by the county at this
time are the crossings that are within the drainage infrastructure itself.
Some of these are very primitive culvert pipe crossings, homemade
bridges and so on, so forth that have been retroactively permitted by
the county because nobody wanted to do any improvements of any
sort. The same property issues that we're discussing regarding the
property on the south side of the canal, or the west side of the canal,
depending on whether you're talking about this gentleman's property
or mine, has to do with the fact that all of those crossings are
trespassing on the same properties that we're talking about.
In the past they've been controlled by South Florida Water
Management District. Now there's discussion over the county taking
those responsibilities. What is simply -- what is occurring is the baton
is being passed back and forth between these two agencies and this
shell game has been being played for now over 30 years.
The county needs to take responsibility to go in, clear up these
bridge accesses, clear up the safety of the bridges and assist the
property owners on the south side in coming to grips with this issue.
I really hope that the Board of County Commissioners will take
Page 92
January 24, 2012
the high road and start to direct some staff to start solving some of
these problems, because they're not going away.
At the same time the county has denied that they have anything
to do with these roads, the county has continuously used these roads
ever since I've lived there. The county has used them for safety and
first responders. The county has used them to build well infrastructure
with. The county has improved some of these roads on occasion. The
county has improved some of these crossings on occasion. When it
suits their purpose, they claim responsibility and do they something.
When it doesn't suit their purpose, they deny that they have anything
to do with it. So some, you know -- it's got to -- the shoe's got to stop
in one square at some point.
I offer my services to help. I've been helpful in the past. I think
Mr. Casalanguida will vouch for the fact that I've done that. But we
do need some help from the county.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well --
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The first step to helping is get the issue
clarified between the basin and the county.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second your motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So we've got a motion by me for
approval, second by Commissioner Coletta.
And Commissioner Henning, you're next to speak.
Did you have anything?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I don't know if we're
trying to approve this agreement to settle a lawsuit or -- no, we're not,
definitely not. Okay.
MR. TEARS: No, this agreement is truly for operation and
maintenance of a primary canal system which has been extended.
And we're just trying -- the District is committed to operate and
maintain a primary system and we're trying to move forward for our
Page 93
January 24, 2012
12-year agreement, which allows the county and the District to go
back in and manipulate the agreement, change it as we see fit to best
protect the water resources of this community.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You've answered my question.
I'm supportive of the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
Then we'll get to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I have to bring up a side
issue. At some point in time in the very near future we're going to
have to deal with the access issues in Golden Gate Estates. I hope it's
going to be sooner. I know that there's a money crunch that's second
to none, but the truth of the matter is if we put our will to it and we
start to come up with a master plan to be able to address it.
Who pays for it? That's yet to be answered. But the problem is is
that we keep ignoring this and putting it off. And in some cases the
residents that live out there too don't want to have to deal with the idea
of maybe having to go to an MSTU. But we have to face this openly,
not only for these roads but those in Golden Gate Estates themselves
that are both county maintained but not paid and those that are private
roads in the Estates, to be able to qualify them, however they need to
be to, to be able to come up with some way to do it.
And I'm going to offer one bit of thought, and this is a little ways
off too. In this particular area that we're talking about, it's actually a
blighted area for the most part. These people are being held back
because of the fact that the roads are inadequate to be able to operate
with. And I think we ought to look at the possibility of establishing a
CRA to be able to meet their needs in the future. That's going to be
for discussion on another day.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why was -- if we're a party to
litigation and what we're doing to amend this agreement will affect
this litigation, why didn't you tell me this when we met?
Page 94
January 24, 2012
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, no disrespect, I was in your
lobby for almost an hour waiting --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no, you were working with
another person --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am, I --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- and we spoke about this before
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let him speak.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I want to hear what he has to say --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, let me -- I'm going to make a
comment --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, you're not going to make a
comment.
Nick, go ahead, say what you were going to say.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Go ahead, Nick, say what you
have to say.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nick, say what you have to say.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I waited about an hour to meet and she
was running late because of other appointments, and I took on another
meeting with clients that were there to meet with us about a different
issue.
We started at 5:00 on a Friday afternoon, we went for about a
half an hour. We briefly touched on everything on the agenda. We
couldn't go into the detail that you're asking for right now in that
period that we had. And we didn't get to a question and answer
session about this specific topic.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We discussed this earlier at
another time. This was not the first time we discussed this.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We did, ma'am, and we -- but we
never got into the de --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's why we didn't get into the
details, because we discussed it earlier and I said are we bringing this
Page 95
January 24, 2012
issue back, is it the same thing that we talked about before about
private property rights? Yes. That was it.
And so when you came back, we didn't need to spend time on it
because it was our second meeting on this issue.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, the question that came up last
time was I've got a concern that you raised -- you said I have a
concern because I've got an e-mail from Mr. McMahon about this
issue.
And I said, yes, staff is going to continue this item because we're
going to reach out to people.
No only did I spend probably six 20-minute phone calls with Mr.
McMahon, I've e-mailed him, I went to the Golden Gate Civic
Association meeting to explain to the community last Wednesday
night about what this issue is. And it's a private property rights issue.
Who's suing what is irrelevant to this canal maintenance
agreement. To me it has no bearing. And I've discussed it with our
attorney and with the District attorneys. It's a canal maintenance
agreement. They want to be out of the business of having easement
control over something that's in a lawsuit. They said it's not our
business. Access is not our issue.
So that's where we're at. And we didn't get into it any more than
that, ma'am. That's where we left it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all in favor of the motion, please
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it passes 4-1, with Commissioner
Hiller dissenting.
Page 96
January 24, 2012
All right, let's go to the next item.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's to go lunch.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's go to lunch. Yeah, we'll be back at
1:02.
(Lunch recess.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, Board of County
Commission meeting is back in session.
Item #7A
RESOLUTION 2012-15: CUR-PL-2011-1177, SR 846 LAND
TRUST REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE RE-REVIEW
(CUR) AND AMENDING THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IN
RESOLUTION NUMBER 08-290 WHICH ALLOWS FOR EARTH
MINING WITH EXCAVATION, BLASTING AND PROCESSING
OF MATERIAL IN A RURAL AGRICULTURAL MOBILE HOME
OVERLAY (A-MHO), FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE
RURAL FRINGE MIXED USE DISTRICT RECEIVING LANDS,
AND EAST OF IMMOKALEE ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 2
MILES NORTH OF OIL WELL ROAD. THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN SECTIONS 35 & 36,
TOWNSHIP 47 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST; AND ALL OF
SECTIONS 1 AND 2, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST,
LESS ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR COUNTY ROAD 846
(IMMOKALEE ROAD), COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND
REPEALING RESOLUTION NOS. 08-128 AND 08-290 —
ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to go to Item 7.A.
MR. OCHS: Sir, this item requires that ex parte disclosure be
provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on the
item, all participants are required to be sworn in.
Page 97
January 24, 2012
This is CUR-PL-2011-1177, SR 846 Land Trust, requesting a
conditional use rereview and amending the conditions of approval in
Resolution number 08-290, which allows for earth mining with
excavation, blasting and processing of material in a rural agricultural
mobile home overlay for property located in the rural fringe mixed use
district receiving lands and east of Immokalee Road, approximately
two miles north of Oil Well Road.
The subject property is located within Sections 35 and 36,
Township 47 south, Range 27 east and all of Sections one and two,
Township 48 south, Range 27 east, less road right-of-way for County
Road 846, Collier County, Florida. And repealing resolution numbers
08-128 and 08-290.
Ex parte, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do we have to have people sworn in,
Jeff, on this one? Okay.
Will all people who are going to be giving testimony in this
petition please stand and be sworn in.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll begin ex parte disclosure with
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I spoke to Mr. Barber briefly
yesterday.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I spoke to the petitioner
and his attorney.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And I spoke with the petitioner
and his attorney.
And by the way, we all have heard this item before, but not this
particular petition, since we approved the subject of this petition
today. But the only disclosure for this particular item for this time
was with the petitioner and the petitioner's attorney.
Commissioner Fiala?
Page 98
January 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. I too spoke with
the petitioner, Mr. Jones, and his attorney, Mr. Anderson. I also spoke
with staff about this briefly. And I even nodded at somebody in a
restaurant briefly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I spoke to Bruce Anderson.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry, to whom?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I spoke to Bruce Anderson.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, okay. All right, very well.
Let's go, Mr. Anderson.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is
Bruce Anderson from the Roetzel and Andress law firm. With me
today I have the petitioner, Damon Jones, and property owner Don
Barber and the planner for the property, Margaret Perry of
Wilson-Miller Stantec.
The purpose of this hearing is to rereview the current conditions
of approval for the State Road 846 Jones Mine to determine whether
any of the conditions should be changed.
This is not a hearing to reapprove the conditional use itself. The
purpose is simply to determine if any of the conditions should be
amended. The application before you today is a request to amend
certain of the conditions of approval under which this mine operates.
Blasting was first approved for this mine with a condition for
rereview in 2006. My client has been a reliable, responsible and
conscientious corporate citizen that has honored its promises to you
and its neighbors. The request before you today is to end their
six-year probation period and allow them to operate as all other mines
in Collier County do which do not require rereviews.
This Board always has the right to revoke the conditional use if
the conditions of approval have been violated or not fully complied
with.
In connection with the Board's right to revoke the approval we
Page 99
January 24, 2012
are asking that the revocation criteria and procedure be clearly spelled
out. As proposed to be amended, the conditional use can be revoked if
the Code Enforcement Board finds that the mine operator has violated
or not fully complied with all conditions of approval and the mine
operator has failed to remedy the violation or come into compliance
within a reasonable time period established by the Code Enforcement
Board.
Upon a finding by the Code Enforcement Board that a violation
has occurred and that the violation has not been remedied, then the
Board can revoke the conditional use for blasting.
The mine operator is also requesting elimination of the
requirement to provide a $40,000 fund designated for neighborhood
improvements. Again, this is a burden imposed upon my client that
has not been imposed on other mines.
Of the existing 42 conditions of approval, four are proposed to be
eliminated. Those being conditions number two, three, four and five.
Conditions eight and 36 each have a minor housekeeping amendment.
Condition one is the proposed clarification of the revocation
procedures to be followed in the event that the mine operator has not
complied with or has violated any of the remaining 38 conditions of
approval.
We respectfully request that you approve my client's request for
amended conditions.
And I and any member of our team are here to try to answer any
questions that you might have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many public speakers do we have,
Ian?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we just have one speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala, you want to hear
the public speaker first?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, let's call the public speaker.
Page 100
January 24, 2012
MR. MITCHELL: The public speaker is Tim Nance.
MR. NANCE: Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, I don't
want to address any of the specific requirements of the mine other
than to say that as a member of the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic
Association, throughout the period of time when all these conditions
were applied, I can say that I think the mine has been an excellent
steward. I've heard no complaints of any sort from anybody in a
period of time. And based upon that, I would put that in your
information base for granting the petitioner's request. I think they've
been very responsive to the needs and requests of the citizens in the
area.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. First I must tell you up front,
I've never been a great fan of mines, but when they were permitting
this mine a few years ago, I went out and I heard the blasting. I was
kind of impressed, I didn't realize it was going to be as quiet as it was.
And I heard all of the things they promised. And I knew a couple of
people that were involved and I felt that they were trustworthy as well.
So the mine that they were planning and the basis for it and the depth
of it and everything really kind of was okay with me. So I certainly
voted for it at the time.
And since then I've gotten a few letters from a few people in the
area. And just a little complaint here and there about some cracks or
something. And they went out immediately and fixed them. No
haggling, no arguing, nothing, or saying it wasn't me, it was something
else. And I was impressed with that.
So I have to say -- and they followed everything they said they
were going to do. And I prefaced by saying I'm not a mine lover
because I was impressed by this and they don't usually impress me.
So I just want to say that I am solidly in favor. I think that everything
they have requested is not out of reach, and I would say I would go
Page 101
January 24, 2012
along with it. And actually I would make a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Henning.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Bruce, when we met, we went
over the wording that you proposed. Did you modify it as we
discussed, or what had you decided to do? Because quite frankly --
MR. ANDERSON: I didn't want to modify anything that was in
your agenda packet till I got up here.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Great. Would you like to do that
now?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. My recollection is that you preferred
that the matter go directly to the Board of County Commissioners as
opposed to the Code Enforcement Board and that we spell out that it's
a reasonable time period within which to come into compliance or
cure any violation.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: As to the first one, that it go
directly to the Board of Zoning Appeals as opposed to the Code
Enforcement Board. And then with respect to the second, that the
standards be clearly outlined so there isn't any ambiguity and there's
no opportunity for any arbitrary decisions to be made, and that you
have the ability if there is a finding that something is incorrect to cure
that defect, and that any defect that you cure, you know, isn't
contingent on Board approval, that you have the ability to, you know,
unilaterally cure the defect --
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, ma'am --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- that you're not bound -- so that
you're not, or I should say, inhibited by a vote.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And what was the third item?
Page 102
January 24, 2012
MR. ANDERSON: Oh, you wondered whether the defunct
committee that was formed to initially interview and select two
engineering firms, that residents could call in the event that they had a
blasting claim. And that condition is proposed to be eliminated
because that function has essentially been completed.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So, I mean, if it's been completed
and you don't need the engineers, then eliminating the provision
makes sense. The only issue is is that if ever something were to occur
where you would need engineers again, then you would have to come
back, require an amendment and -- you know, to reconstitute the
committee and get the selection of the engineers back in place.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, I don't know that -- I don't know that
we would. I mean, my client would certainly be free to do that
voluntarily, and most likely would, the way they have, you know,
been responsible in the past. It's -- I kind of view this in the nature of
a housekeeping measure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what you're saying is you don't
believe that there will be a need to bring in engineers again?
MR. ANDERSON: No. And if there were, that would be
something that my client would do on their own, reconvene a group to
select someone.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, who was next, Commissioner
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, question for
Commissioner Hiller. Per our ordinance and the statutes, the County
Manager shall enforce the Board's ordinances, resolutions, regulations
and faithfully execute. So what you're saying, you want the Board to
enforce this --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no, no. What the provision
said as Bruce was initially proposing is that if there was an issue, or I
should say a question as to whether or not there was a violation, that it
Page 103
January 24, 2012
would go before the Code Enforcement Board as opposed to the Board
of Zoning Appeals. And that then we as the Board of Zoning Appeals
would be bound by the determination of the Code Enforcement Board.
And so what I said is eliminate the Code Enforcement Board
because I don't know that, you know, on an issue like this -- and I'm
not sure, and Bruce and I questioned that, and it was something that,
you know, would even require further research. But basically whether
the Board of Zoning Appeals could even be bound by the direction of
the Code Enforcement Board. So basically the jurisdiction would stay
100 percent with the Board of Zoning Appeals, as opposed to
introducing another board and having a hearing there, a determination
there that would then, you know, bind or maybe not bind us and that
would complicate things even more. So instead it just comes directly
to us as the BZA. That's the issue.
So it doesn't change what the County Manager does, it just leaves
the Board of Zoning Appeals as the enforcing board, which is the way
it is currently written. So Bruce is merely eliminating the
modification that he added. So we're just basically leaving things the
way they are as opposed to adding the Code Enforcement Board.
MR. ANDERSON: With regard to the procedure --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
MR. ANDERSON: -- but the criteria would be --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The criteria is the same.
MR. ANDERSON: Well --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, the criteria is the BZA --
MR. ANDERSON: As proposed to be modified.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I remember when this first
was approved, the conditional use, and out of respect of the
Commissioner we set up a process for a -- I believe an annual review?
And that was a condition that -- and there were several other
Page 104
January 24, 2012
conditions within this resolution that hasn't been applied to any other
mining in the area.
So we've taken a look at this quite a long time. And it's an
operation -- it is what it is, you know, there's a little boom boom once
in a while and a little dust and dirt and a little traffic.
So I think this is -- this particular conditional use has been vetted
enough.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, exactly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I agree with the conditions.
And if it's a further assurance to the residents that it doesn't go to the
Code Enforcement Board, and if there is a problem it comes to the
BZA through the process, normal process and application, I'm okay
with that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm also okay with it,
Commissioner. I'm also okay with it, Commissioner Henning.
It's been a long road, Bruce. I don't ever recall having quite so
many meetings on one issue in one area as we had on this mine, and
all the different factions that had to be satisfied. It's amazing that we
come to the point where we're here for rereview and reconsideration --
or consideration for doing away for the rereview and some of the other
aspects of it.
And I haven't received one phone call, one e-mail or one person
asking to meet with me, which is truly remarkable. I remember when
you came to see me and we met, I asked if they posted the necessary
signs, and you assured me that they did. And I assume that somebody
from our permitting department confirmed the fact that the signs were
posted. But the -- I'm getting the nods in the background there, so that
was taken care of.
I'm truly amazed that we have come full circle on this and that
something that people were very doubtful of and some people were
accepting, it's got to the point that it's received if not universal
Page 105
January 24, 2012
acceptance, at least no objection. With that, you know, I can
definitely support the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, the -- we have a public speaker
who registered a couple of minutes late that I'm going to let speak.
Call the other public speaker, Ian.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, it's actually turned into two speakers.
Kathleen Raimondi, and Guy Raimondi.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why don't we swear both of you in right
now.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
MS. RAIMONDI: My name is Kathleen Raimondi. I live near
Jones Mine. And I'm asking you not to approve that motion. These
people are nothing but liars. And if you approve it, you should all be
ashamed of yourself.
I was on that committee they called defunct. They never had any
more meetings. And when I went to those meetings, Damon Jones
lied every single time. We've had so many homes damaged over
there. And their way of processing was well, I'd rather pay for the
damage.
My home was damaged, and I chose the option to pick my
engineer, not the ones the county approved. Damon Jones told me,
well, I'd rather not pay for the engineer, I'd rather pay for the damage
of your home. But if you choose to have the engineer come out, I'm
not paying for the damage of your home. I have damage to my home.
I have concrete that's been cracked all over the place. I have stair step
cracks. And in December we were almost blown out of our home, our
windows almost rattled off the bottom.
With the exception of someone who doesn't vote for this, you
should be ashamed if you vote for it. You agreed that they would
abide by certain principles, and now you want to let him off the hook?
You're the law of the land. Whatever you say goes. So what you do,
you have to bear the brunt of the blame.
Page 106
January 24, 2012
Here's where the Jones Mine is. Here's where there's over 500
homes. And here's the lousy fairgrounds that's blasting the heck out of
us with amplified music. You're taking this area of the Golden Gate
Estates of Collier County and you're making it a hell hole. We live
there. You go listen to it and then you go home. You don't have to go
to my home where my house is being broken away by concrete
blasting, by amplified music. You've taken away every shred of our
human rights and our decency. And you always, always vote against
us.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I wonder why that is.
Next speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Raimondi.
MR. RAIMONDI: I'd like to make a few comments --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would you speak into the microphone,
please.
MR. RAIMONDI: And also, I'd like to remind you of what this
room was like the last time we were here. It was full of people who
were -- had damage done to their homes. The mine has always either
purchased the home or run people out. And with the economy the
way it was, most of those people either gave up their homes and they
went back to the banks or they left them abandoned and now they're
being resold.
And the same thing is going to happen to these new people who
have bought the homes. And we know some of them already. And
the reason they're not here today is because there wasn't enough time
for them to make arrangements to come to this meeting to make
complaints to you.
So we ask that you take this into consideration and postpone this
so that the people who live there can actually come and voice their
opinions and send you the e-mails you need. Because the same thing is
happening now that happened before. They admitted they
overblasted, they've done damage, and the last blast they had here was
Page 107
January 24, 2012
the same thing. And when we call anybody to find out about it, oh,
no, there was no blasting. Why aren't they even willing to admit there
wasn't a blast until we brought it out?
So I think it needs to be reconsidered, and that everybody was
here except for Georgia Hiller. And if you were here, you would have
been appalled by the amount of people -- there was grown men crying
here and children that were scared in their homes because of the
blasting, if you recall. That's how bad it was. We don't want to go
back to that again. And we want to have a voice in this and so do the
people that live near the mine even closer than us.
Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have Commissioner Hiller,
then Commissioner Fiala, followed by Commissioner Coletta.
Unless staff wants to make a presentation?
MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl, Land Development Services.
Just a minor housekeeping issue. The resolution that you have in
your packet contains the Planning Commission findings of fact.
We've been informed by the County Attorney's office that's no longer
required. So if this is approved, what you'll get to sign will not have
that extra attachment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. REISCHL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I'm very concerned. I mean,
I wasn't here so I didn't know. And I thought everything was all right
because I hadn't heard anything to the contrary prior to this meeting.
And staff certainly never told me that there was any history of
problems. So, you know, this seems to be contrary to what was just
presented here on the Board. I mean, hearing that there was a roomful
of people and people were crying and people, you know, were selling
their homes back, you know, to get out from under. I mean, that
Page 108
January 24, 2012
leaves me really concerned.
And quite frankly, I think in all fairness, continuing this and
making sure that these people have an opportunity to be heard is the
fair way to go.
And I do agree with the gentleman, one of the concerns I have,
and someone else mentioned this earlier today about not having
enough time to, you know, arrange to come to a meeting. I mean, if
the agenda is publicly released on Thursday, you know, you basically
have Thursday, Friday, Monday and then Tuesday is the meeting. It's
very difficult to speak to your county commissioner, it's very difficult
to speak to staff during that time. Very difficult to get time off of
work to come to a meeting to defend your rights. I think we really
need to change that.
I think there needs to be much more notice with respect to what's
being heard at a public hearing. Especially one like this. Especially
one that, you know, involves property rights.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to hear what Bruce is going
to say first.
MR. ANDERSON: First of all, this young lady shows up every
hearing to complain, whether there's blasting or not.
Next, there was adequate notice, Commissioner. I'm informed
that the county planning department sent out notices to all property
owners within 1,000 feet. Additionally, the property was posted with
I believe four signs. And additionally on top of that, this was
advertised for hearing in the newspaper and --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Within what period of time?
MR. ANDERSON: Fifteen days.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It was in the newspaper within 15
days? Did you all see the signs?
MR. ANDERSON: At least 15 days.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I seen the signs.
Page 109
January 24, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You can't speak from there.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You have to speak at the mic.
MR. RAIMONDI: Well, the mine is east of where the people
live. So they never go beyond the point to see the signs. And as far as
I know, no one within 1,000 feet has gotten these letters. And we
know of a good friend of ours lives within that and he has not gotten a
letter, okay?
So I don't know where they're coming off. And my wife does not
come to all these meetings, okay, to complain. Now, there haven't
been any complaints because they haven't been blasting in the last few
years. But now that they're ready to blast again, the problem is going
to happen again and this room will be full of people the next time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is that true, Bruce, you guys are
going to start blasting again? Is that what --
MR. JONES: Damon Jones, Jones Mining, Collier Aggregates.
First and foremost, I'm not a liar, and I think the other four
commissioners up here over the last years have gotten to know what
we're about out there. And I've never lied to anybody. Always done
what I said I would do. I've been up-front with people. I've always
asked them to contact me. I think I'm the only conditional permit I
think in the county that has my name and phone number as an actual
conditional use. And that again is to go to the -- our whole point was
communication.
Some of the meetings he's referred to, those were three or four
hearings ago. The gentleman she said cried I never heard one word of.
I brought it up, if you become so hysterical that it's bothering you that
much, wouldn't you reach out to somebody if you were having those
kind of issues?
With regards to not blasting, 2011 I blasted in March, June,
August, September and October. That's what I've recorded. County
staff is at the site every time I blast. Steve Lippe is our county
inspector. He records it. I send my blasting data, I send my readings
Page 110
January 24, 2012
from Geosonics, and all of my blasters' log information gets sent to the
county, plus he records it on-site.
We on numerous occasions have practiced good neighbor
policies to the extent that again, I'm trying to make a living. That
hasn't been easy by any means the last few years, especially in our
industry. You know, to the extent that we've got significant
investment, to the fact that I've spent thousands and thousands and
thousands of dollars trying to be a good neighbor, trying to live --
again, everything people do there's always going to be someone that
objects to it. And the idea that you communicate, compromise and try
to do right by each other is just human nature and being a good
human.
Again, I take offense to, you know, we come back -- I come back
up here and it is the same group, the same couple on every turn. I
haven't heard from them in two years. Again, if you were having this
many problems, wouldn't you have heard from them, wouldn't I have
heard from them? But they use the pulpit and this open forum to --
again, I swore in and promised not to lie, and factual, I've got all the
factual information.
I've got recently published articles that use my test house as data
for blasting and its effects on drywall compared to houses in other
states by Dr. Charles Dowding, who's one of the world's most
authorities. He actually spoke at one of our previous hearings on the
matter.
You know, again I think all I've asked is, you know, I think is to
be treated fairly and that I've done what I said I would do. And
always have.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Coyle, can I ask
one last question, since he's presented?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If you have blasted so often over
this last year and you haven't complained or been affected by it
Page 111
January 24, 2012
because, you know, for --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
MR. RAIMONDI: She has called and complained.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Has she called you and
complained?
MS. RAIMONDI: The engineer told me they missed recording
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You cannot speak from the audience,
okay. You had your time. You cannot speak from the audience. We
understand your concerns, let us try to work it out.
MS. RAIMONDI: Let me speak, because he says he's not lying,
and I'll prove he does.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think you need to let her, it's a --
MR. RAIMONDI: He either has a bad memory or he's lying, one
of the two. Because there was a man here, and Coletta, Mr. Coletta
even addressed the gentleman that was crying. I remember. I'm not
that old that I can't remember, and I don't know if you do or not. But
the gentleman was speaking --
MR. JONES: I believe I said there was a gentleman here three
meetings here that did cry. My point was if he's come to a public
meeting and becomes hysterical about an issue that no one from my --
the county had ever heard from before. I didn't lie that I'd never made
a guy cry. There was a gentleman here crying. Again, I have never
lied.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The issue that I want to focus on is
the fact that you have blasted over the course of this last year. And
have there -- you know, have you caused damage, have there been
complaints over this last year? Given all the times that you've blasted,
have there been problems that --
MR. JONES: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- ensued?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And to add on to yours, didn't they
Page 112
January 24, 2012
just say they hadn't blasted in two or three years?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's what I thought --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And now they're not saying that
they did --
MR. RAIMONDI: I'm talking about right after when the
Commission had put them on a hold, okay. But in this last few months
they have. And we've noticed it and we've called and we've
complained. But evidently nobody wants to hear our complaints. And
we're not the only ones complaining.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you very much.
MR. RAIMONDI: There are other people complaining and --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala, you're next.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to wait until another time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta, do you have
anything to say right now?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I do, as a matter of fact.
You know, this has been a situation that's sort of mellowed out
over the last couple of years. First there was a tremendous amount of
resistance, some people bought in, the project went forward, we put
conditions in place in order to give them a fair chance to be assessed
by the community.
Now, you even heard from the Golden Gate Estates Civic
Association in the form of Tim Nance. I've attended every meeting for
the last 25 years. I missed a couple of them along the way, but I can
tell you originally when this issue came up, the Golden Gate Estates
Civic Association was a mecca where all these people that had the
problems were going to the meetings to be able to talk about it. And
that's when everything was contentious.
Over the years this thing has got resolved, as you heard Tim
Nance talk about, in that he's seen this thing come around full cycle to
the point where the objections out there are next to none.
Once again the signs were out there, there's been notices sent.
Page 113
January 24, 2012
There's been a lot of things that were said here today that were totally
uncalled for. You know, to call people liars, it's just not right. It's just
not right.
But let's get on with it. We're trying to deal with a realistic
situation. Once again, just to make sure. If there is something as far
as a violation goes, this can come back to this commission at any point
in time first through the Code Enforcement Board and we can order it
back here if it comes through --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The way it's modified, it will come
directly to us.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm talking to our County
Attorney, if you don't mind.
MR. KLATZKOW: If you want to keep condition one in
unchanged, then it comes back to you. The proposal Mr. Anderson's
making is taking that out and having it go to the Code Enforcement
Board.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, it's not his proposal to
change it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: He modified it on the record.
MR. KLATZKOW: I have what's in my package, and it was a
motion to approve. There hasn't been a motion to change anything.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: He made --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The way we got it now is fine.
We can only keep bringing this back every time. There's been no
complaints. There's been the statement that they haven't blasted and
that's why there's been no complaints, when they have blasted. So,
you know, I think this is getting a little far out of reach right at the
moment. We need to be able to move on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we've got a motion by
Commissioner Fiala, seconded by --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no, no, I think -- wait.
Page 114
January 24, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, will you just wait
your turn, please.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- to speak. He's trying to speak.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've been speaking all day, will you
just wait your turn?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Bruce Anderson is trying to clarify
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Was it -- you seconded it, Commissioner
Henning?
I thought you did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, you seconded the motion. All right,
now discussion.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Bruce Anderson is trying to clarify
what was incorrectly stated by the County Attorney. And that goes
directly to the vote and what we are voting on. He has amended what
he has brought before us.
So could you clarify what you want this board to vote on?
Because I don't think they understood what you said. It's not in the
package. He's changing the package.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, he's not changing anything,
Commissioner Hiller. He can't change anything. We change it.
Commissioner Fiala made a motion to approve it as it is in our packet
without the changes. I also am concerned about trying to make
changes on the fly during our meeting. It's not properly vetted.
If you want to change it, then bring it back and we'll change it
and refine it sometime in the future, if that's necessary. But
Commissioner Fiala's motion was to approve what's in our package.
Commissioner Henning's second was based upon her motion. And so
we've got that motion. Trying to change this thing at the last minute is
counterproductive and it's too open for error. So we have a motion on
Page 115
January 24, 2012
the table for -- from Commissioner Fiala to approve it as it is right
now. So all in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it passes 4-1 with Commissioner
Hiller dissenting.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I will say it is not what the
petitioner wants. The petitioner wanted to amend what was before us
because going to the Code Enforcement Board rather than coming
directly to us creates a problem, as well as the other provisions in there
which, you know -- but whatever. I mean, it's not what he wants.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, he didn't say that on the
record.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: He did.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He said he wanted to change this?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, he did. And he explained
how. He said --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, but that was after you brought
it up. He didn't say it during his presentation. And it was after our
vote --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- or rather our motion and second.
And Bruce also I wanted to know, does it cost the county a lot of
money to bring it back to the BZA versus Code Enforcement? I mean,
are we talking about an extra lot of money here to change this in
midstream?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's now two hearings for you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It just means he makes more money. So
Page 116
January 24, 2012
he's going to be perfectly happy about that. The petitioner might not
be. But cut him a deal on the prices, Bruce, and you'll both be happy.
Okay?
All right, we're --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wanted to ask Bruce, did you want
to change this? I mean, you didn't mention it in your presentation, but
Commissioner Hiller said you did want to change that.
MR. ANDERSON: During the normal give and take that we
often have, things do get modified. I'm perfectly willing to live with it
either way. I'm fine with Commissioner Hiller's point, and I'm also
fine with, you know, leaving it the way it was submitted.
The most important thing to my client was that there be a clear
procedure spelled out and the criteria spelled out. And it was less
important to me whether we had just one hearing before the Board of
Zoning Appeals or two hearings that included one with the Code
Enforcement Board. We're perfectly willing to live with either one.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you've got a vote of four
Commissioners to do it the way it's in our packet.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Okay, where do we go from here, County Manager?
Item #8B
ORDINANCE 2012-05: PUDZ-PL-2011-2115 COMMUNITY
SCHOOL OF NAPLES CFPUD. AN ORDINANCE OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-
41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE
UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
Page 117
January 24, 2012
BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR
MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF
THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A
COMMUNITY FACILITY (CF) ZONING DISTRICT TO A
COMMUNITY FACILITY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(CFPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS
COMMUNITY SCHOOL OF NAPLES CFPUD, AT 13275
LIVINGSTON ROAD IN SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH,
RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CONSISTING
OF 73 +/- ACRES SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS; BY PROVIDING
FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NUMBERS 2000-06 & 2004-33,
AS AMENDED; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE —
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 8.B, Commissioners, was previously 17.A on your
summary agenda. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be
provided by Commission members.
All participants are required to be sworn in. This is
PUDZ-PL-2011-2115, Community School of Naples CFPUD. An
ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida amending Ordinance number 2004-41 as amended, Collier
County Land Development Code, which established the
comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of
Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas
map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein
described real property from a community facility zoning district to a
community facility planned unit development zoning district for the
project known as Community School of Naples CFPUD located at
13275 Livingston Road, in Section 12, Township 49 south, Range 25
east, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 73 plus or minus acres
subject to conditions by providing for the repeal of ordinance numbers
2000-06 and 2004-33, as amended and by providing an effective date.
Page 118
January 24, 2012
So do you want to swear in --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. Let's -- anyone who's going to give
testimony in this petition, please stand to be sworn in.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, ex parte disclosure. We'll start
with Commissioner Hiller this time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I've spoken to Rich about this as it
related to the zoning exception that he was bringing forward earlier,
but not specifically to what we're hearing today. And I've briefly
spoken to staff but without really much detail provided.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I've had no conversation with
anybody, nothing to declare.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, I have talked about the
Community School in the past about other issues related to it. But
other than that, nothing about this specific item.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I have reviewed the staff
report dated 12/15/11. And that's it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I spoke to staff.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then Mr. Yovanovich?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm trying to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have three minutes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Good afternoon. For the record,
Rich Yovanovich, on behalf of the petitioner.
With me today are John Allen, who's the chairman of the board
of trustees for the Community School; Bobby Sullivan, who's a trustee
and chairman of the building and grounds committee; Jeff Hassel, who
works with the Community School on this project; Patrick Vanasse,
with RWA, who's the professional planner; and Chris Wright, who's
the professional engineer on this project.
Page 119
January 24, 2012
We were on the summary agenda for this particular item because,
in a nutshell, what we're simply trying to do is create a PUD for the
entire Community School campus because it through time had various
different zoning designations on the property and through those
different zoning designations, buildings were constructed at different
heights. As you will recall, we came through a few weeks ago after
we had recognized that the upper school had been constructed at 33
feet zoned height when the existing zoning designation was
community facilities at the time, which allowed a maximum height of
30 feet.
Recognizing that as that was coming through the process to do
the addition to the upper school at the same height that existed, the
way to make that happen would be to rezone the property to PUD,
which we are doing. We're meeting all -- it's currently zoned
community facilities. We're asking for the same uses that are in the
existing zoning. We're asking for the same development standards that
are in the existing zoning except that we're asking for zoned height of
45 feet to accommodate the structures that exist today and an actual
height of 71 feet to accommodate the structures that are there today.
We went through -- your staffs recommending approval. We got
unanimous recommendation of approval from the Planning
Commission. That's the summary of what we're requesting. If there
are more specifics related to the petition, we'll be happy to address
those, or if you need a more detailed presentation I can make one. But
since we're on the summary agenda we usually give a brief overview
and then we respond to any questions from the person who's pulled
this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, you pulled this, so
do you have specific questions?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I did. Because while I understand
the reason that you're doing this, and it does relate back to that one
building that you discussed in front of us, what I would like to know is
Page 120
January 24, 2012
will there be any other buildings at these taller heights, at the 71 feet
or 45 feet, or, I mean, have you basically maxed out your development
and you have no intention of building more and nothing is going to
change, or do you have plans for the future?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, let me give you a quick summary
of what we know today and why -- what started this is the expansion
to the upper school, which is right here. There are future plans to
modify the -- this is the lower school area, correct? To modify the
lower school area to perhaps put a new building here where there are
already existing buildings. And that would be within the 45 feet
maximum height criteria.
There is also a plan some day in the future and -- to maybe do a
performing arts building here. And that would also be capped at the 45
feet. And if we ever wanted to go higher than the 45 feet, we would
have to come through and rezone the property. Those are future plans.
This is going forward as we speak, and we talked about that a few
weeks ago. But that would be at the 33 feet zoned height, similar to
what already exists.
And putting it in perspective, if you'll allow me another second.
The improvements I was talking about future for the lower school
would be in this area right here where buildings already exist. The
upper school expansion is right here. And the potential some day of a
performing arts building would be right here on the campus.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But you're going to come back to
modify the PUD to adjust for these additional buildings, or is that part
of the proposed plan today?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Only if we go taller than 45 feet zoned
height we would come back. Otherwise, you know, we would be
capped at 45 feet zoned height for any future buildings on the campus.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are there any other changes that
you're incorporating through this PUD?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I think I hit them all, right?
Page 121
January 24, 2012
Commissioner Hiller, not that I'm aware of. We're talking about
those two -- what we're talking about today and the two potential
future projects.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, how many public speakers do we
have, Ian?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we've just one public -- no, sir, we've two
public speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's call the public speakers.
MR. MITCHELL: The first one is Kathleen Raimondi.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I think she spoke on the last item.
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, but she registered to speak to this?
Okay, sir, you've no public speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Do I hear a motion?
Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, motion by me to approve, second
by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #8C
ORDINANCE 2012-06: ADOPT AN AMENDMENT TO
ORDINANCE NO. 2011-07, THE FLOOD DAMAGE
Page 122
January 24, 2012
PREVENTION ORDINANCE (FDPO) WITH AN EFFECTIVE
DATE OF MARCH 30, 2012 — ADOPTED 5/0
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item 8.0 was previously Item 17.E
on your summary agenda. It's a recommendation to adopt an
amendment to ordinance number 2011-07, the Flood Damage
Prevention Ordinance, with an effective date of March 30th, 2012.
This item was moved from the summary agenda at Commissioner
Hiller's request.
And Mr. Casalanguida can present.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'll answer any questions. Nick
Casalanguida for the record.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think we need a full presentation.
This issue of the drainage ordinance has been one that has been of
great importance to the community. And I think the community needs
to understand what this ordinance provides for and what function the
Board will have with respect to these map amendments and how they
will be processed and how the communities will be affected. So I
would like a full presentation on this for the benefit of the public.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can give you what I have,
Commissioner and maybe some history a little bit just for the benefit
of the public.
We've been in front of the Board several times on this item, and
you rightly say thank you to the Board. We just presented to the
community just a few weeks ago. We had two community meetings,
community center at IFAS Center with about two or 300 people
showing up. And we put about 20,000 homes out of the flood zone by
the updated maps that we're hopefully going to adopt.
But going back in time in the early 2000 period, you know, and
this is before my time, but I guess we've had some arguments with
FEMA about our flooding -- flood maps and they've wanted to
propose certain amendments to the flood maps and the county has
Page 123
January 24, 2012
stepped up and gone forward to meet with FEMA and challenge those
proposals.
We flew a LIDAR, it was adopted about 2003, and then more
recently in 2008 and adopted in 2010, that showed a lot of
discrepancies with that flood mapping as well. The discrepancy was
about a foot, but it didn't pick up a lot of the development that
occurred in 2003 til 2008 or so. And that's when we had a huge
building boom as we know in Collier County.
So what we have in front of you now is a federal requirement to
stay in the program, to adopt the updated maps. The good news is out
of the 12 basins two were updated with the new current LIDAR. And
you've agreed with a contract with our consultants, Tomasello, and I
understand Stan Chrzanowski, our former professional engineer,
county engineer, wrote you all a letter applauding what you've done,
supporting it and asked if we could go faster. Unfortunately we can't
because he has other commitments.
But what you have in front of you is the compliance with the
FEMA flood program to get the FEMA maps adopted prior to May
16th. We have an effective date of March 30th. And what it will do is
it will give us a chance to meet with our building community, we have
been already, to let them know that that effective date is coming up.
Because it's not when you apply, it's when you get approved. And
we've already done a public outreach where I think, our staff,
commended them, superb, a lot of good feedback has come to the
County Manager on what we've done in terms of reaching out to our
citizens. Really, it's been at the Board direction.
So you've got the adoption of the maps that's required by the
FEMA program in front of you right now with the ordinance. And the
ordinance sets us up to monitor as the local agency. And that's it
pretty much, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you explain how the
ordinance will allow for the adoption of these maps?
Page 124
January 24, 2012
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, you get the maps delivered to
you and you've got six months to adopt them. So you have to have a
mechanism to adopt them. We have a flood damage prevention
ordinance now. That's the mechanism, is the update and the adoption
of that, putting an effective date in. So that's how they become
effective.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And when are the other districts
that have been improperly measured going to be updated?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: They'll be updated within the next 18
to 24 months. And we've asked Tomasello to go as quickly as
possible. When you say improperly measured, I want the community
to know it's just better information. The LIDAR that was flown in the
early 2000 period, they didn't have I guess the technology they have
now. It's evolving as we speak. So we're more accurate now, so it's
more accurate information, not --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And we had approved 500,000 on
an -- was it 500,000 on emergency basis to expedite this?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: 400,000, I believe it was.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Was it 400?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are we going to approve
additional funding or does that encompass the modification to all the
other districts?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That should include everything,
ma'am, unless we get a change order request and is an issue. That
assumes FEMA doesn't turn around and doesn't give us too many
comments --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we can anticipate that in a year
and a half from now we'll be done.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're never done with FEMA.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I know, but hopefully on this
issue, correcting the less than perfect information.
Page 125
January 24, 2012
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am. Hopefully that will be
the case.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, that's great. Then I'll make a
motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion for approval by Commissioner
Hiller, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, you have a time certain hearing at
2:00 p.m. You have a few minutes. You can choose between the
airport security plan or the annual performance appraisal of your CRA
executive director for the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle CRA. Or you
-- I suggest probably --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Where is Mr. Jackson?
MR. OCHS: Mr. Jackson's review, if he's still present.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't see him.
MR. OCHS: I don't see him. Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then we're probably not going to do
that. What we could do is start with Commissioner comments and
correspondence.
We can start with Commissioner Hiller. You've got four
minutes, Commissioner, would that work for you?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, it could be the preamble.
Page 126
January 24, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right, we'll -- we're going to take a
three-minute break, okay.
(A recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're back from recess for a 2:00 time
certain.
Item #10B
REVIEW THE PHASE II MASTER MOBILITY PLAN REPORT,
ACCEPT THE REPORT AND DIRECT THE COUNTY
MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO MOVE RECOMMENDATIONS
INTO PHASE III OF THE MASTER MOBILITY PLAN - MOTION
TO ACCEPT THE REPORT AND DIRECT STAFF TO RETURN
WITH SPECIFIC DETAILS — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: That is Item 10.B on your agenda, Mr. Chairman.
It's a recommendation to review the Phase 2 master mobility plan
report, accept the report and direct the County Manager or designee to
move recommendations into Phase 3 of the master mobility plan.
Mr. Casalanguida will present.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And let me emphasize what you just
said, okay. Accept the report, not approve it. Accept the report and
move all the recommendations into Phase 2 of the plan where you'll
come back --
MR. OCHS: Phase 3 --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Phrase 3, I'm sorry, Phase 3 of the plan
where you'll come back and give us detailed recommendations about
these recommendations.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Right?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. Otherwise we'll be tied up for
Page 127
January 24, 2012
two weeks trying to go through --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, I'm going to make this really
brief, hopefully, and answer some questions.
First of all, for the record, Nick Casalanguida, Deputy
Administrator, Growth Management Division.
This is exactly like your watershed management plans. Same
process. We had 14 some-odd recommendations and we said we're
going to come back over the period of the next 14 to 28 months and
bring these in in more detail a little at a time.
Same thing you have in front of you today. As the Chairman
pointed out, you're directing us to do a more detailed analysis and then
bring these back kind of individually as they vet themselves up.
Because they're all going to take a different timeline. So I'm not going
to spend a lot of time on that but I'll give you a little history.
First project team that's here, the public and the stakeholders and
the agencies, I've got to give them a lot of kudos, this has been an
amazing participation process. We're actually going to submit this for
a review for an award on public transparency, because this has gone
through quite a process. So we'll see where that goes.
But our consultants are here, Tindale Oliver, Wilson-Miller,
Mulhere and Associates. We have also other consultants who have
worked on this as well too.
Three key phases of the project. And this actually started in
2009. And why it started, because we've got a long-range
transportation plan that has a needs plan and a cost feasible in the delta
in the billions of dollars. And we had to look at things a little bit
different. We applied for a grant that ran in parallel to what we were
trying to do, which was reduce vehicles miles traveled. And in doing
so complements our analysis to try and get that cost feasible needs
plan in alignment. So we embarked on this process starting in 2009.
Most of 2010 was data and analysis. Let's see where we are,
what we have, compare ourselves to the rest of the country, who's
Page 128
January 24, 2012
doing what, who's -- you know, what we're doing in Collier County.
And then in 2011 we started the work of vetting all these data
and analysis and the proposals with the groups that were involved.
And they were numerous, to say the least.
What was our goal? Develop a high level conceptual county
mobility vision plan with the goal of reducing vehicle miles traveled.
And as I said, you have a parallel goal, which is that reduction in that
delta between the needs and feasible plan, reducing the demand for
infrastructure, which we know we can't afford, both to build and
maintain, and sustainable land use and mobility options that don't have
to do with vehicles as well. And also, we can't do anything anymore
because we're so tight on land without considering environment and
habitat preservation.
And I want to talk a little bit about achieving public participation
with transparency. I think your speakers will talk about that as well
too. We really went through quite a bit of time inviting them to all of
our project meetings with the consultant. That's never been done
before in Collier County. They actually attended our workshops
internally where we vet things. And I think to the public's surprise,
because the groups that showed up were less and less and less over,
time, they realized there was nothing behind the curtain besides people
working and vetting ideas.
And I think at first we were resistant to that process only because
we thought it would bog us down. But I've got to tell you, in the end I
think we came up with some really good ideas that they endorsed.
Now, most of the mobility planning is, I would say, obvious to
anybody. You know, connectivity, smart land use, encourage things
that work and disincentivize things that don't. So we got a lot of
support at the Planning Commission. Almost all your 20
recommendations were unanimous except for one. And I'm going to
take you through really three slides that talk about the ones that have a
little bit of what I call discussion, and we'd like to get maybe some
Page 129
January 24, 2012
Board direction.
The recommendation number two talks about a mobility fee or a
multi-modal fee -- I'm sorry, transfer of development rights. I'll get to
the mobility fee. And it's important, because -- I want to get you to a
map -- it talks about what happens in Golden Gate Estates and other
rural parts of the county.
Now, in your watershed management plans, we had said in areas
that we want to rehydrate and we think environmental resources, water
resources are important, what can we do to protect that and still
protect private property rights. Well, that's that area in kind of orange
that we've looked at. And then at the southeast portion of Golden
Gate Estates as it abuts I-75, the most rural portion and far removed of
our Estates residents, what can we do to encourage them to build more
next to the urban area.
So we said potentially looking to the TDR program for the
watershed plans and mobility would make sense. And the question
that came up is our recommendation to put an advisory group
together, who should be included. And the recommendation was that
it should be just Estates residents. We said well, I think we're past
that. You need to probably bring in a couple people from outside the
Estates, because that transfer of development rights has to end up
somewhere, and it's not going to be just in the Estates, it could be in
the receiving areas, it could be in the urban estates. So there was a
little bit of a discussion, and that's why you got a six-one vote for
recommendation. Not unanimous. One commissioner thought that we
should include one or two people from outside the Estates, because we
are one community.
So as staff I agree with that, but we're comfortable saying that
when we're ready to bring this back to you as an advisory item to set
up this committee, we can have that discussion then. But I wanted to
let you know that was one issue that came up at the Planning
Commission.
Page 130
January 24, 2012
Recommendation 10 gets into what we call our mobility fee.
And what is a mobility fee? Steve talked to me before we started, it's
a multi-modal fee, which basically says right now you have the impact
fee districts, and we look at only building roads. Well, as the urban
area gets built out, and we're getting close, we have a couple more
roads to finish up, Collier Boulevard, Santa Barbara, Logan. But your
urban area grid is starting to finalize itself. So now you look at what's
left.
Well, transit systems are left, connectivity and sustainability.
And your multi-modal fee allows you to be more flexible with your
money. So if we needed to build a transfer station or buy some buses
or provide some pedestrian interconnects, with a multi-modal fee you
can use that money to do that.
Now, it still covers the same issue as the impact fee does, and it
may increase the impact fee to one to three percent. So we wanted,
you know, full disclosure. But it makes your money much more
flexible.
And other communities in Florida are doing this too, or so we're
not the pioneers on this one. There's about five that have done it, and
there are five that Tindale Oliver are working on to do it as well, too,
typically, as a community builds out.
So the recommendation is to look at it, bring it back and let you
know what the cost would be, the impacts would be to it. So I think in
that sense it would be a good idea for us to continue with that
recommendation. But I certainly would entertain thoughts and
discussion on that, if you wanted to.
Last one is we get into in 15 and 16. When we met with the
agencies in the past we've done projects, they've expressed their
concern, we don't know the big picture in Collier County. You're
nickel and dime-ing us with all these little road projects and
development. If we could see the big picture -- and they supported a
habitat conservation plan, which kind of almost broadly permitted
Page 131
January 24, 2012
everything in a sense, if you can look at it that way. We know where
the roads are going to be, we know where development's going to be,
we know what conservation's going to be. By doing that and setting
up a mitigation process, we could have a vision for Collier County.
Certain agencies have been against that. I know I've talked to
Nicole about it. She's been vocal on why, because she says, you
know, we really need to look at that and we need to go through a
different process maybe, and I respect that. And I think there was a
discussion at the Planning Commission, should we leave out those as
examples. So as staff we recommended leaving them in. And in 16 it
kind of talks about that as one of your recommendations.
The Planning Commission voted 7-0 but they wanted to delete
the examples, and in doing so eliminated two examples. One was to
explore an HCP and the other one was to keep the mitigation in the
basin that we impact. And I think that's important. Because we send a
lot of our mitigation dollars in other areas. If we build roads and
expand in Collier County, if where we impact we mitigate, I think the
people that feel the impact of the new infrastructure would also
receive the benefit of the mitigation. And I think that's a good thing.
So that's an area that we probably want to get a little guidance from
you on.
The rest, as you look forward, I'll just -- you know, to show you
how easy this is, enhance e-government while we're doing that. So
some of these recommendations I think are pretty innocuous, and to
go forward.
With that, I'll answer any questions you have and maybe take
guidance on those three topics.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think I'd like to hear what the
speakers have to say before I comment on any of this. I've been
taking some notes but I would like to have their input first.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Call the first speaker.
Page 132
January 24, 2012
MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker is Tim Nance, and he'll be
followed by Nancy Payton.
MR. NANCE: Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, Tim
Nance.
I'd just like to confine my remarks to recommendation number
two, which is stated to reduce density in north Golden Gate Estates.
I'm very troubled by some of the things that resulted from
recommendation number two, particularly the geographic application
section, which apparently has taken the goal of reducing greenhouse
gas emissions and turned it into a land and habitat preservation plan to
be achieved by restricting the use of private platted lots in north
Golden Gate Estates by the use of future land use regulation.
It outlines some fairly specific recommendations on a TDR
program, even when the existing transfer of development rights
program we have in the rural fringe as a dysfunctional plan. I don't
think anybody in this room would say that it's working properly. So
we've expanded that.
But the most objectionable part in my mind is the conceptual
land use scenarios which were the maps you just saw there published
there. The publication of such maps defining properties is going to
immediately devaluate -- devalue properties, especially improved ones
in those stated areas. It's going to obligate real estate sales agents to
notify buyers that some of these lands are being classified with an
overlay. It could potentially effect foreclosures and bank owned
properties in these areas and effect future road paving and
infrastructure demands for these people.
I think the problem has been the process. Further, it suggests
opportunities for increasing densities in different areas of Golden Gate
Estates via guest houses, which is a density shift. And all of it is
suggested to take place through an advisory board within an 18
months time frame, including GMP and LDC amendments. All of this
and all these maps haves been published without thorough public
Page 133
January 24, 2012
vetting of this habitat preservation program or notification of the
property owners in those properties that were shown on those maps.
I think that these policies and suggestions were improperly
unilaterally proposed by staff and special interests without the input or
notification of the actual people that have money in the game. I think
it's a very bad policy. I think it sets a bad precedent for how Golden
Gate Estates platted lots should be treated now and in the future.
And that having been said, I do not object to some of the
environmental goals. But I really think that this is way out ahead of
itself. I don't think it's been advertised properly. Certainly hasn't been
communicated to the people that are impacted the most. I think -- I do
not think these maps should be published at this time in this report. I
think it's very counterproductive and could result in some very, very
bad things going forward.
Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Nancy Payton, and she'll
be followed by Nicole Johnson.
MS. PAYTON: Good afternoon. Nancy Payton representing the
Florida Wildlife Federation.
We'd like to lend our support to the master mobility plan and the
recommendations. We were very impressed with the process. It got
off to kind of a bumpy start, but it was opened up and it was
tremendously successful from our perspective in terms of getting
public input. Anybody and everybody was allowed in and allowed to
speak at the team meetings. There were a variety of other forums.
The ability to provide information, provide comment in this process is
unprecedented in my 20 years of working with the county.
So I wanted to get that on the record, that if you wanted to
participate and you wanted to help influence, there was more
opportunity through this process than any other.
And now I'd like to make a few comments about the
recommendations.
Page 134
January 24, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: As long as they're not bad.
MS. PAYTON: No, they're constructive.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good.
MS. PAYTON: The first one is recommendation two, that we do
have a similar position as staff, that the ability for people to apply for
the Golden Gate Estates task force or whatever it would be called
should be open for the entire county, not just leaseholders and
property owners in the Estates. You can make your decision by who
applies, who is best to serve on that, but we have to remember that it is
integrated with North Belle Meade, as we heard this morning about
the issue of the canal and access, North Belle Meade is part of that
discussion. Moving density possibly into the urban area and North
Belle Meade or other rural fringe, that's also an issue that people
outside the Golden Gate Estates ought to be able to be involved
directly with that decision-making process.
And I remind you that if the rural land stewardship area five-year
review committee had been just leaseholders and property owners, the
roar in this building would have been deafening. So what's good for
the goose should be good for the gander.
We do have additional comments about it's not just individual
property owners and impact northern Golden Gate Estates, but the
impact on the rest of the taxpayers in Golden Gate, and are we
contributing to that area and by how much.
And lastly, I wanted to comment on 15 and 16, the one
particularly that talks about exploring a countywide habitat
conservation plan. Maybe we ought to think of that in small letters as
a countywide mitigation program, and the habitat conservation
program through the Endangered Species Act might be one of the
options that is looked at. But the goal is to have a comprehensive
countywide approach.
And my comment in the last two seconds is that maybe we
should be thinking about Conservation Collier as a forum to do that.
Page 135
January 24, 2012
And to extend Conservation Collier and the quarter mill to meet the
conservation goals that are outlined in the master mobility plan and
the watershed management plan and some of the other programs that
we have. It's kind of set up. We already have staff that are
knowledgeable. You have to have resources coming from somewhere.
So the Federation is putting that on the table for consideration.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, but we were going to take that
money and use it to build some bridges somewhere.
MS. PAYTON: That's why I wanted to get it on the table of the
other option of using it for conservation purposes, which is consistent
with what people voted to tax themselves.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, the next speaker is Nicole Johnson, and
she'll be followed by Brad Cornell.
MS. JOHNSON: Good afternoon. For the record, Nicole
Johnson, here on behalf of The Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
As you'll probably recall, The Conservancy did have initially a
lot of concerns about the master mobility plan process and our concern
that it would be a vehicle to try to justify some massive road build-out
plan or program. And I think that having that sort of map was initially
part of the staffs thought process. But your staff has been very
willing over the past year during this Phase 2 to take public input, to
listen to the concerns of the public, the stakeholders, to be flexible and
redirect their efforts, which often does not happen in a county
planning process, to react to public impact, to answer questions, to put
all of our comments, or a lot of our comments at least into the final
product. So we appreciate the time and effort that staff and the
consultants had taken. I know The Conservancy had hours and hours
and pages and pages of questions, and they were very good about
walking us through that. So we very much appreciate that.
That being said, I think we really have to go back and focus on
the intent of the master mobility plan and the grant. And it's to find
Page 136
January 24, 2012
mechanisms, programs and incentives, along with regulations, that
will result in reduced vehicle miles traveled, or VMT. And we believe
that all the recommendations that have been proposed in Section 5 do
this, but we do have a concern about one of the examples that the
county is requesting for further exploration, and that's the habitat
conservation plan, or HCP.
The ultimate result of pursuing an HCP is to obtain coverage
under the Endangered Species Act for harm to listed species. We
believe there's very little nexus between this and the master mobility
plan's goals of reducing vehicles miles traveled.
In addition, The Conservancy believes that broad, long-term
HCP's cannot adequately determine the extent of take and impact of
all proposed developments on all the species that should be covered
under the plan.
Also, there are a lot of costs associated with development of such
a plan. We would have concerns that after many years and hundreds
of thousands of dollars in exploring an HCP that it would not be
adequately protected, which then leaves the county vulnerable to
additional adaptive management costs. So we just believe that there
really isn't that nexus that would allow an HCP to move forward under
the master mobility plan. It's being pursued by private landowners
under the RLSA and we believe that that's where it should be pursued.
The Conservancy will be participating in that.
But for the master mobility plan, let's keep it clean. Let's keep it
focused on those policies to reduce vehicle miles traveled. And we
ask that in recommendations 15 and 16 that the exploration of habitat
conservation plans be removed.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Is that the last speaker?
MR. MITCHELL: No, we've got Brad Cornell.
Sorry, Brad.
MR. CORNELL: That's all right. Good afternoon,
Page 137
January 24, 2012
Commissioners. I'm Brad Cornell and I'm here on behalf of Collier
County Audubon Society and Audubon of Florida.
And we -- Audubon collectively supports the findings of the
master mobility plan study and strongly recommends moving all the
recommendations forward into Phase 3 implementation in the LDC
and the Growth Management Plan.
I'm not going to equivocate, I think there's a very public process
that will be engaged as it has been for this in the next phase of
implementation. I'm not worried that we won't be able to vet whatever
concerns anybody has.
I think all of these recommendations have a lot of merit and we
need to see them. I think the public needs to see more of them. I
think there's some great ideas in this plan, and they need to see the
light of day, much like your watershed management plan a couple of
weeks ago that you moved forward into an implementation phase.
We're here for some obvious reasons. Good transportation
mobility depends on efficient land use, and that's what provides the
ability to protect wetlands and habitat and water resources and flood
protection. But in addition, you know, we also are very concerned
about the community benefits that this is going to provide for us.
Mobility is an issue for all of us. There are people who can't afford
cars or can't drive anymore, thinking of our elderly population. This is
a really important concern. Public transportation is a big component
of addressing many of those issues, and we would be very unwise not
to aggressively move forward on some of these ideas.
I think -- again, I want to compliment the staff in particular for
managing a very public process very well, including many
stakeholders and many different points of view. Not an easy thing to
do, as you all know from firsthand experience.
And I want to underscore also the complementary nature of the
master mobility plan recommendations with the watershed
management plan that you looked at a couple of weeks ago, as well as
Page 138
January 24, 2012
the rural land stewardship area overlay and the rural fringe mixed use
district. All of these plans, some implemented, some potential, have
some very complementary and synergistic ideas and concepts that we
need to explore to make the most of our money. When you don't have
a lot of money and you can't buy everything, you can't pay for
everything, then we need to be looking at efficiency and
complementary kinds of strategies. And I think that's what we're going
to find as we examine these more closely.
So again, I support this. Audubon urges you to move forward
with implementation promptly, and we will be very willing
participants in that process.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, Brad.
And the whole board is lit up here with Commissioners who want
to talk. So I'll just briefly take a minute to express my appreciation for
the staffs excellent work. The public speakers were originally
concerned about the way it was going to be done, and we made a
commitment that it would be an open process. And we fulfilled that
commitment. And so I'm proud of staff and what you've been able to
do. It's a complex process, and I'm very happy that you got such
widespread public support for this study.
And with that, I think Commissioner Hiller is the first
Commissioner who wishes to speak.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Nicole, could you come back up to
the podium. I want to address what you said. You made a very good
point when you were talking about the HCP study program, whatever
you want to call it.
It wasn't my understanding that anything to do with that would be
incorporated in the master mobility plan. I mean, the master mobility
plan wasn't supposed to be an umbrella for a conservation study. Is
that correct?
I mean, was that anywhere in the scope of the grant or am I
Page 139
January 24, 2012
missing something?
MS. JOHNSON: No. And I think staff can address that also.
But certainly environmental aspects were in the scope of the grant.
Our concern is that an HCP is really a broad-based incidental take
permit. It allows take under the Endangered Species Act. And we
believe that that's outside the focus of what the grant is about and
really what the master mobility plan should be focused on.
Certainly some of the other components of good use land
planning that direct development away from important areas that
intersect, it's just the HCP, we're just not finding that connect.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't see it either, and so I'm
really glad you brought that out. And maybe my wording to describe
my concern wasn't perfect, but I think you articulated it absolutely
correctly. So I don't believe that component of this study should be
carried forward and incorporated at the end of the day.
On the positive side, I am very happy to hear that there was an
opportunity for open communication and that you found it
satisfactory. Because I know that you and Nancy and some others
were very concerned about that. So I was very glad to hear that on the
part of both of you.
Thanks, that's all I wanted to address with you.
The only other issue that I'm concerned about is what Mr. Nance
raised about those maps. And I would have to agree that having those
maps does definitely have an effect on property values. And I don't
think that they should be included. And I wouldn't -- I couldn't
support moving those forward either.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, I actually tend to agree
with you, as I listened to Tim speak. Because you put the maps in to
give people a feel for the area you're talking about, but if you're not --
until you vet it, you don't know where it's going to be exactly. So I
have no problem if we take direction and say let's move the maps out
of the plan itself and just reference the concept.
Page 140
January 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think that's necessary. I think the
maps and the HCP both need to be pulled out. But aside from that, I'm
-- and the only other issue is the mobility fee. I'm not, you know, to
suggest -- can you -- you did give us the opportunity to ask you to
present more on the mobility fee. And I think that needs to be more
fully heard today. Because I think taxpayers across the board are
quite frankly at their limit. And I think if you're proposing a fee, I
think everybody needs to understand what that fee is and what is the
nexus between the fee and the underlying cost and what's the goal
here.
And what is the fee going to be? How much will it be? And
who will be it be imposed on?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We'll go down one at a time as I wrote
them down. One, if it's the Board's will, I think taking the maps out
and just -- is a good idea because it overlays a certain property.
Two, on the HCP, I think we heard from the agencies, they want
to see the vision of protected land versus developed land. I'm not
proposing as part of your recommendations that we do an HCP as
county staff, that we leave the option open, if we can get a grant to
somebody to fund it. Because they've actually said, Fish and Wildlife
has said, look, if you guys are interested as a county to do it, we may
be able to give you a grant. This is coming from U.S. Fish & Wildlife.
We may be able to give you the grant to do the HCP. I said, okay,
that's an interesting prospect, rather than to be funded by county
money. So I think it does tie into mobility. I think it is environmental
preservation, defining where it is, but I think that's up to the Board.
As far as the mobility fee, you currently have an impact fee that
basically looks at how many times you drive a day and how far you
drive a day, and then how much capacity you chew up. Your
multi-modal fee -- and right now that impact fee doesn't take into
account that some people take the bus and that your new, say,
commercial development may have people taking the bus to get there
Page 141
January 24, 2012
or they may be walking to it in an urban type area.
So with an impact fee it's still in your mobility fee. You are still
paying for that replacement capacity for vehicles but you're also
recognizing that the county spends money to provide other forms of
mobility, that pedestrian connection, like a pedestrian overpass
between, say, two different commercial pods, or the bus system and
transfer stations. So you're taking your impact fee and you're
basically saying, okay, you are providing other services and we're
going to replace the impact fee with a multi-modal fee. So it's not
meant to be a new fee, it's meant to be a replacement fee that allows
for a little bit more flexibility with the county, if I'm saying this right.
And the upside, one to three percent. And the Board could direct
us to say we want it to be cost neutral. But you still get that
flexibility. So certainly when we do our analysis we come back to the
Board and say you now have a fee that's for mobility, it's not going to
change what a person would pay under the impact fee, but you've
made it more flexible.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So now developers are going to
pay?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: They do now.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no, the mobility fee is for the
developers and they are going to be paying between one and three
percent?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, no, they -- say if I -- if you build a
single-family home today in the urban area and your impact fee for a
single-family home was $7,000 for a roadway impact fee, we would
propose eliminating the roadway impact fee and going to a
multi-modal fee and still paying that $7,000.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we're just changing the name?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, but you're doing an analysis that
shows that you're not just doing it to build lanes. Now in your urban
areas you get built out, I may have to widen an intersection.
Page 142
January 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, so we don't have enough
money to build lands but now we're going to take the limited money
we're going to get and spread it over more than just lanes?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, you don't have enough money to
build lanes because you're not getting development paying an impact
fee right now. But as development picks up again, you're going to
have that flexibility to use that.
Now with the mobility fee you're broken up in districts in the
urban area. You may look at a broader area with a mobility fee that
allows you more flexibility.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you're not proposing on
increasing the impact fee, you're proposing on putting more projects
within the impact fee umbrella?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Putting more projects' flexibility with
that impact fee umbrella, that multi-modal fee.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: My concern is is that you're not
calling it a multi-modal -- I can't say it -- a mobility fee and then
having in effect an increased impact fees, because now you're going to
consider not only roads but you're going to consider sidewalks,
pathways, et cetera.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. But you could make it the
same. What I'm saying is you could just change the name of it and
consider other options. When you consider other options, you're
replacing other capacity.
I'll give you an example.
In the urban area we build an intersection, six-by-six. We later
come back later and find out that, you know, adding a turn lane or
putting in one of those free-flow lanes adds capacity to that
intersection. It's questionable now whether you could use a true
impact fee on a project like that.
With a mobility fee, it gives this Board flexibility to look at
different projects. When we build the transfer station, we're doing one
Page 143
January 24, 2012
now, proposing one at the government center. The match is
approximately a million dollars from our money and then obviously
grant money that comes in. In the future if we do another transfer
station your mobility fee may do that. And as congestion rises, more
people would look at those options. And we're not the pioneers on
this one, so it's going on in the State of Florida.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Who else is doing it?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Steve, if you want to take that?
MR. TINDALE: Actually, I had them written down. I think
we've got a list of six that have been adopted and we're currently
working on five. Orange County, City of Orlando, Pasco County has
fully adopted one. Aventura has adopted one. They're built out and
they need buses and they couldn't build any roads, and they've adopted
mobility fees to buy a few buses because they can't build any more
roads. At Aventura they call it a mitigation fee. I think we have a list
of six. We've given a report of the six that have been adopted.
Alachua County's adopted one. Jacksonville has done a calculation,
and been on hold in terms of giving them flexibility.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're going to come back to us with a
recommendation of this thing. We don't need to dissect it right now
because you don't have all the information. Why don't we do that
when you come back to talk to us about a mobility fee, okay?
Let me just make one comment about the maps.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I really don't know how you can possibly
complete a study without identifying the areas that are going to be
impacted and how they're going to be impacted. I don't know how
you can notify the public so that they can come into the meetings and
talk intelligently about what you plan to do with their property unless
you have defined what you're going to do with their property or what
you're even talking about doing with their property.
We are time and again running into problems with people who
Page 144
January 24, 2012
say to us why didn't you tell me you were going to build a road here
and condemn part of my property years ago? Why are you just telling
me that now?
You're getting yourself into a lot of problems in my opinion if
you fail to properly inform the public what you're thinking about
doing. You might not do it based upon the public input, but the public
can't possibly respond and participate in your public meetings unless
they have an understanding of what you're likely to do that will have
an impact on them. You need to think this through very, very
carefully.
There is nothing wrong with transparency on these things.
Because they're affecting people's lives. And yes, some temporary
unfavorable things are likely to happen, but that's what -- that's the
way long-range planning works. There's no way to avoid it. And the
penalties for trying to avoid it are much more severe than the
unfavorable circumstances that occur.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you.
I just had a couple of concerns. One of them is in
recommendation two where it says comprise -- the advisory board a
task force to be comprised only of residents or property owners from
Golden Gate Estates. And I'm thinking I don't think that's such a good
idea. Other people have an interest in it as well. It affects the whole
county. You see Golden Gate Estates people entering into other
communities and participating in their things, and nobody denies them
that. I don't think anybody should be denied. So that is one of my
concerns there.
And another thing, they were talking about -- in 10 and 11 they
were talking about appropriate signal timing plans, et cetera. Now,
that does affect the whole county, right? That's something poor
Norman hears me talk all the time about the fact that you can travel
down U.S. 41 from the Philharmonic all the way down and up U.S. 41
Page 145
January 24, 2012
until you get to Davis Boulevard and then -- and you can go through
every single light because just it's timed so beautifully, and then all of
a sudden you have a mish-mosh and you can't get through any further
than that. I'm hoping that --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Like this morning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. These guys all know it
because they have to travel in that stuff. So I'm hoping that that
timing plan will extend beyond just that road to other areas as well.
So those were the two comments. And I would guess that if
anybody outside of Golden Gate Estates is allowed to also be on this
committee, they would probably mention that as part of their concern.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: One way to address that,
Commissioner, is when we come back with that advisory list, we
could give you a couple options. You could talk about it. We'd said
primarily Estates residents with an influx of some of the, you know,
folks in the urban area to participate as well too. Again, we're going
to have to come back --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It doesn't really say that --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I know. That was the Planning
Commission's. And staffs was to make it a little bit broader. We
thought you should include some folks because you are a bigger
community. So that's our recommendation is to make it opened up a
little bit.
Commissioner Coyle, one thing, I agree with you on the maps.
Here's the problem I saw: When the map went up I said, the point I
see is when we drew these lines -- and I'll use the viewer -- that was
exactly what I was going to say, Steve. Rather than make them
squares where someone could almost say, look, I'm not in the area
because I live here, we should probably just put an identifier in this
area, and again, maybe an egg shape identifier, and say we're looking
in these areas for the advisory committee. So it's more broad.
Because I do get complaints from some residents that say, well, I don't
Page 146
January 24, 2012
have to participate because I'm out of the green line.
So I think to kind of solve that a little bit I think we just say in
this general area, in this area we're looking at that, and then through
feedback we refine it as to where it should be if in fact it becomes
successful. So if that's an adequate compromise, I think --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is from my standpoint. The important
thing is give people enough information about what you're planning
on doing to their property and the surrounding property so they can
respond effectively.
And whatever you do to do that, certainly in a conceptual area
little balloons of uses would be appropriate. But to eliminate the maps
I think would be a horrendous mistake.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, I was thinking about that, a
good compromise that wouldn't cloud the property exactly but give
people notice of what's going on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- and basically that is a
watershed area; is that correct?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. The one that's in that maroon --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So convince me that has
something to do with greenhouse gasses.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, I will. I'll talk about that a little
bit.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And global warming.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The farther you are the east of services
or away from, say, your destinations, hospitals, work, employment,
school, the more you drive. So if you have a complementary effect --
because we talked about in the Estates if you took some of that and
pushed development into the more receiving lands from some of these
areas that were far removed, they would drive less. The total distance
would be -- we had done that trip length study I think about two years
ago and what we determined was, and with no shock, folks in the
Page 147
January 24, 2012
eastern Estates drive twice as far as everybody else in the county.
They just live a lot farther to where they need to be. There's no
services out there.
It just happens to coincide that the eastern Estates is in the same
location as the watershed areas that we want to protect. So there's that
overlapping kind of benefit that you may get.
And I'm not going to say we have the answer on this. This is
going to have to be vetted. Because we did get a lot of favorable
response about the watershed management plan. And then we said,
well, if you move a home out of the watershed area and you move it to
a location such as a receiving area, you get a twofold benefit. You
preserve that area and they're living in an area that has services within
literally walking distance where it was not before. So you've reduced
that trip. That's where that complementary benefit is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you have no anticipation
that there's going to be industry in the future Big Cypress stewardship
district?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And that's up in this location over
here. We do, hopefully. I mean, hopefully that will be one of the
destinations as well. But right now there's nothing in your future land
use map for these locations that are substantial of any size that will
provide a destination there. So you'll get some of that trip matching
that goes on.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we have that I would say
all over the county.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: What's that, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: To the east. There is no --
there's no areas for jobs.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's right. That's right. So again,
it's --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And to me if it's a watershed
management area, let's separate it out and say this is a separate
Page 148
January 24, 2012
process. To me it has nothing to do with the grant.
And the second thing, the habitat conservation plan, we've tried
that before. And in fact, the committee, this is for the fringe area,
right, the HCP?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The RLSA.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Was it the RLSA? No, it wasn't
the RLSA, it was for the fringe. They met for years, years and years --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Red-cockaded woodpecker.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and then they failed and then
they said well, we're going to try to implement it in Immokalee. And
you know how well that went over, right?
You know, I don't -- again, I don't see what this has to do with
greenhouse gasses.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't either.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So, you know, implement what
the grant is all about and that should be the direction.
The other thing is we never -- we've never been told what the
cost of implementation of it, you know, Land Development Code,
Growth Management Plan, and who's going to implement those.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That will be the next phase, sir. We'll
break down the cost on each one of those. And we're certainly not
married to the HCP if it's the Board's direction to say that's a big
hurdle, you know, leave that for another time. We've talked about it
internally how much that would be a lot of work. But it did come
from Fish and Wildlife, so it would not be -- we wouldn't be doing our
job if we didn't bring it up. So that's not the major portion of this
project.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who's going to be implementing
the Land Development Code changes and the GMP changes?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Debbie Armstrong is our project
manager. We have Jeff Perry from Wilson-Miller making some
consultive advice to us, but it will be staff that will do sign-off to bring
Page 149
January 24, 2012
everything to the Board.
And the only thing, again, like the watershed management plan is
I'll tell you is 18 months is a --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Debbie who?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Debbie Armstrong.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is she a staff member?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. She's the project manager of
this project.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. She's not a consultant?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. She's been managing this
project --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're not going to have any
consultants on the proposed GMP amendments and Land
Development codes?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. We do in Phase 3 have
consultants that will work with us to give us guidance. But ultimately
when we come to the Board it will be staff that will be presenting
those analyses and those recommendations.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They will be writing them?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: With advice from the consultants. But
staffs the final sign-off, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who are the consultants? Did
the Board approve the consultants?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, they're in the -- the grant contract
is Wilson-Miller right now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So this grant, this action is not
closing out this grant, correct?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And Bob Mulhere.
No, this is not the final. This phase 3 is part of the grant.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Are you through --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Time for a motion.
Page 150
January 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just have a lot of concerns.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Remember that we're not implementing
it right now, we're not making any decisions with respect to funding
yet.
But I'm sorry, go ahead, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's okay.
Well, one of the biggest concerns is in the end who pays? I want
to make sure that -- because this is going to effect an area of the
Estates dramatically in the end. Somebody's going to be paying for it,
and it's always going to be the guy next door, I would assume. You've
got existing landowners out there that haven't maybe built yet, they're
going to build their homes, they're going to have to pay extra fees over
and above to be able to cover this. Are we going to have fees coming
in from other parts of the county to be able to cover the cost?
In order to get a buy-in by the people that live there that are
going to be affected the most, they've got to see a benefit.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that benefit's got to be in
direct proportion to what they're going to have to go through. That's
one of the biggest concerns. They can't become the water storage area
of Collier County just because it's convenient to do it. I want to make
sure that we don't go to that point.
In all honesty, I have more things that I'm looking at with this
program that I like than I dislike, but there's a lot of questions.
Another thing too in my concern is the discussion that we're
having regarding who's the people on the committee. Okay, you have
a wide open committee for the whole county. Okay, I can tell you
right now, the people that I represent in that part of Golden Gate
Estates are going to say these aren't our people, they're not our
neighbors. You're just going to have this top heavy with the people
that live in the area. They're going to be directly impacted. They're
going to be asked the questions. And maybe a couple of
Page 151
January 24, 2012
representatives from outside the area.
You wouldn't put an MSTU together with people from outside of
the area, and this is basically the same thing. You're going to have
these people giving up rights or paying fees. They're going to have to
do something to be able to make the program work. And if we're
going to do that, you have to have a total buy-in from them and they're
going to have to be sure that they're part of the process.
So we have to be darn careful about the idea that it's going to be a
countywide panel that's going to sit on this. That's not going to work.
You're not going to get a buy-in by the people out there. You
wouldn't get a buy-in in East Naples if you had people from all over
coming in to determine how East Naples is going to function. Has to
be by that nucleus of people. We got the right to be able to override
some of the suggestion and go forward.
Now, of course we're not at the point where we're ready to be
able to pick a committee, or we are?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir.
And I think what you said was true. I think our suggestion from
staff was primarily folks from Golden Gate Estates but include some
folks from the other areas.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, and I also agree with
Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Henning as far as the maps
go. People have to have an idea what they're dealing with. Has to be
realistic.
Now, is that going to affect the value of their properties? I don't
know. But we can't get down to the 11th hour and suddenly start
drawing lines on the map. People are going to freak out. It can't be
done. If you want to keep it generalized, I don't think that would be a
big problem. But it's going to have to be enough that people will be
able to look at a boundary and say, well, I fall within this particular
area, my property would be affected, so I want to get directly
involved.
Page 152
January 24, 2012
I'm not a real estate agent. I don't know when you have to
declare something like this. I don't know if this map would have to be
declared at the time of closing. That I can't answer. But it's always a
concern, no doubt about it.
See if I covered everything. Who pays, what's the burden. That's
pretty much it for me. And with that -- and I just want to make one
more comment.
Nancy, thank you for your contributions to this. I really like
some of the things I'm seeing. I like the potential TDR wildlife
corridors. I think you probably played a direct role with that. Kudos
for you, kid. All working to some day that goal that we can make a
beautiful environment out there for everybody, not only the animals
but the people who live there too. Any way I can help you, I will.
With that, I'd like to make a motion for approval with the
understanding that this is just the first step, that you're going to do
more work on it and bring it back. Even though I have some concerns
with this, I want to see what the next product's going to look like.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Actually, it's -- I think for format it
should be a motion to accept the report and recommendation -- or
direction to staff to come back with specific details about all of the
recommendations that we can do.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And you said that so well, I'll
second your motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's your motion if you accept the
phraseology.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll accept the motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Fiala seconds it.
And Commissioner Hiller's light is on, but I want to either do one
of two things: I want to get this voted on right now fairly quickly,
Commissioner Hiller, or else we'll take a break and give our court
reporter a rest.
Page 153
January 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let's go ahead and vote on it. My
only comment is that the effect of maps is to manipulate the value of
properties ahead of purchase or sale. And, you know, if we're going to
be buying properties for conservation, then if we put a shadow over
these properties we're automatically reducing the values and those
people will be adversely affected. And we --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's always an evil motive in --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's not an evil motive, it's a direct
consequence. And that happens every time you create these maps. I
mean, people's property values are directly affected by that. And quite
frankly, you know, if it serves to reduce the value and government is
intending to buy it, then government will pay a lesser price. It's just a
matter of fact.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Transparency.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We're not even committing to
buying these and you're affecting the value.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have to do this. All in favor, please
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes 3-2 with Commissioners
Hiller and Henning dissenting.
And we're going to take a 10-minute break for the court reporter.
(A recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, Board of County
Commission meeting is back in session. It would be nice if we had a
County Manager here.
MR. OCHS: Yes, it would.
Page 154
January 24, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Where are you? Where are we going
now?
MR. OCHS: Thank you, sir. We're going --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Going to do the time certain at 3:00?
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2012-16: DISCUSS CURRENT REGULATIONS
LIMITING THE "STRETCHED MESH" SIZE OF MARINE
FISHING NETS TO TWO (2) INCHES AND POSSIBLE ACTIONS
BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO SUPPORT
EFFORTS TO RESCIND THESE REGULATIONS — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, that's Item 9.A on your agenda. Request
to discuss current regulations limiting the stretched mesh size of
marine fishing nets to two inches, and possible actions by the Board of
County Commissioners to support efforts to rescind these regulations.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Very well, do we have staff
presentation or is this going to be a presentation by someone else?
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure. Yeah, no problem. As
you can we've drawn a little bit of fire from some elements out there.
But still the recommendation we originally had, and that was to write
a letter to the Florida Wildlife Commission regarding support for the
issue, is still valid. I mean, we're hearing some counterpoints about
how this is not appropriate. But I'll tell you right now, it's still
appropriate. And at some level in time we have to weigh into it.
I'm looking for the sample letter in our package, which is -- here
we go. Page 652. If you take a look at that letter. That's the letter
that I would like to make a motion that we pass.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Then I'll second that motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
Page 155
January 24, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion to approve the
item by Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Henning. Is
there a -- we have public speakers?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir, we do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many people are speaking in favor
of the letter asking that the net sizes be changed?
How many are speaking against the letter?
Okay, you've got a motion and a fair chance of it passing. Is
there any need -- do you want to talk? You want to snatch victory
from the jaws of defeat, or defeat from the jaws of victory or -- okay,
all right.
Commissioner Henning, do you have something to say?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta's item on
the agenda, staff did a -- and his aide did a wonderful job to really
clarify what the Board's intent was and not deviate from the
Constitution. It's very clear.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then all in favor, please signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. So you won.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Stay for the rest of the meeting,
it's going to be very interesting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It goes downhill from here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Especially keep that baby here.
Page 156
January 24, 2012
Look at how cute he is.
Item #13A1
COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PROVIDE DIRECTION TO THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AS TO WHETHER COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS SHOULD BE PROVIDED A COPY OF
COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT SECURITY PLANS - MOTION
TO ACCEPT THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY'S EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING SHARING
ANY AIRPORT SECURITY PLANS — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 13 on your
agenda this afternoon. 13.A.1 is a request for the Collier County
Board of County Commissioners to provide direction to the Airport
Authority executive director as to whether County Commissioners
should be provided a copy of the Collier County airport security plans.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Johnson, good to see you.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Curry will present, Commissioners.
MR. CURRY: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Chris Curry,
Executive Director of the Collier County Airport Authority.
A few months ago I appeared before you and was given direction
by the Board of County Commissioners to enhance the security of the
airport, specifically Immokalee. Since that time, we have developed
initiatives to include the creation of the ground vehicle access plan and
updating the airport security plan.
The airport security plan is a requirement of the State of Florida
that an airport update this plan every two years to remain a
functioning airport. If you don't update the security plan, then you
cannot function as an airport or a general aviation airport.
Over the past two weeks I was contacted by Commissioner Hiller
Page 157
January 24, 2012
requesting a copy of the security plan for the Immokalee Airport. And
I denied her request. There are two Florida statutes that speak to this
distribution of airport security plans. As a contract employee of the
county, I understand that my -- that I serve at the pleasure of the Board
of County Commissioners and not necessarily one Commissioner.
However, this is the first time that I've ever denied a request for
information from any one commissioner.
Therefore, I'm before you today to seek direction as to whether
the Board of County Commissioners feel that these plans should be
distributed to you. And these -- and your decision today would apply
to Immokalee Airport and Marco Island Executive, because they're
required to have security plans. Everglades City is not because the
runway length is not long enough.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning, did you
have your light on because you wanted to say something or is that left
over from before?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I mean, I guess I can start.
The executive summary states the airport securities are exempt
from public disclosures according to Section 119 and 133, Florida
Statutes. And I have 133 here and it says certain information exempt
from disclosure, public security plans of aviation authority created
under the act of legislator or at aviation department of the county or
municipality operating an international airport. They're exempt. They
are exempt from the provisions of 119.07.
We're not running an international airport, we're running a
general aviation airport. And I don't think, it's in my opinion, that an
employee of the county or in this case the airport director working for
the Airport Authority is to implement policy that affects the general
users of the airport.
And, you know, I looked all the way -- and furthermore, you're
referring to Section 330.30(2)(F). I looked at the Florida Statutes, and
it stops at D. I can't find an F.
Page 158
January 24, 2012
MR. CURRY: Well, Commissioner Henning, as we discussed
via e-mail, I thought after the part that talked about international
airport the in addition to applied to the general aviation airports.
However, the first time that we submitted this plan to FDOT, who is
the final approval authority, they rejected it because they wanted this
statement to be put on every page of the document. This airport
security plan is exempt from public disclosure according to the
provisions of Section 119.071 and 331.22, Florida Statutes. To avoid
jeopardizing the security of the airport, distribution of the security
plan is restricted to individuals with a legitimate need for the
information contained wherein.
In our security plan there are five entities that have this plan,
which is FDOT, the Department of Homeland Security, Florida
Department of Law Enforcement, the Airport Manager, airport
operations limited distribution and the Collier County Sheriffs
Department. I have tried to interpret these statutes as well, and of
course my legal expertise is not that much, so I would rather refer any
explanation as to the Florida Statutes to the county counsel.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You say you received
correspondence from FDOT saying that they wanted that statement in
there?
MR. CURRY: Yes, that had to be included in every page of the
security plan.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that a written
correspondence?
MR. CURRY: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you going to share it with
us?
MR. CURRY: I can share the e-mail that we received from
FDOT as we were coordinating the plan.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, because I think that
FDOT's attorney needs to take a look at it.
Page 159
January 24, 2012
You know, the public records law in the State of Florida is pretty
tough. They're only exempt for certain reasons. And clearly we're not
an international airport. And it is just saying below, the statutes that
the international airports are exempt from is certain items that are
exempt. That statute's very clear.
So, I mean, I don't know how we can not provide the public
records to people that are inquiring about it, personally.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm next.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're next? Okay, let me make one
observation. Anybody who gets onto the Immokalee Airport and flies
off in an airplane can get access immediately into an international
airport. It is important to us that we exercise extreme care and
reasonable security at the Immokalee Airport to assure that no one
uses it for a launching pad for a terrorist attack against an international
airport or to otherwise gain access to one. So there are lots of good
reasons why we should have tough security standards at the airport.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That item's not on the agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Airport security is on the agenda. And
the issue of whether or not you disclose your security plans to other
people who don't really have a need to know is an important
consideration. And there's absolutely no reason for any Commissioner
to have to have access to that security plan.
The vehicle mobility plan of course can be published. But the
security plan itself is something that should be fairly closely guarded,
otherwise it provides anyone who wishes to breach the security a good
blueprint for doing it. And that's why you do these kind of things. It's
just not something you talk about publicly. Nobody's brought up the
security plan for this building, this room, the government complex.
Nobody talks about what procedures we employ here to keep things
safe. And it's just common sense.
This isn't something that should become a contest between a
Page 160
January 24, 2012
Commissioner and the Airport Director. If there are concerns, then
each Commissioner can get a private briefing on how good the
security is at the airport. But releasing the plans themselves is just not
a good thing to do.
But anyway, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I'm next.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Maybe I look like him.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, you're prettier than he is.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: By far.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I truly believe that an airport
security plan must be kept secure. That's what it's all about, security.
And in the 11 years and two months I've been on this commission, I've
never had a reason to look at the airport security plan or this building
security plan. That's to be kept in a secure place and so that other
people can never take advantage of extra knowledge that they might
receive from that. You never can tell when it could get in the wrong
hands.
And let's all face it, folks, we're living in a world of terrorism.
It's a different world than it used to be. And we all know that the
terrorists started in a little tiny airport where they didn't have any
security measures.
And when they find that one airport -- right here in Collier
County has lax security because it's been viewed by the public and it's
-- and people are fighting that security measure. If I were the
terrorists, that's the first place I would go because I know I'd be safe
there. Not only that, but what takes off from that airport are a lot of
fertilizers. What do you make bombs with? Fertilizers. And sprays.
And that's, from what I understand from what I've read in the outside
world a little bit, that they've been trying to get their hands on some of
these sprayers so they can spray nerve gas and things. These are all
methods that they're working on.
Page 161
January 24, 2012
And I think we should do everything in our realm to keep our
airports, all of our airports, secure. We ought to be keeping them --
we ought to have Homeland Security giving us direction. We don't
need to give anybody our plans. Anybody. That should be staying
with the airport manager.
So I have very strong feelings about that and about our world
today and what could happen to us if we allow these plans to be
opened.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Actually, I'm after
Commissioner Hiller.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry. Okay, Commissioner Hiller. I
should have asked earlier, do you want to listen to the public speakers
first or you want to go ahead and comment.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to start by commenting.
To begin, let me just say that we have to address the -- if we're
going to talk about security plans, the question of who authorized Mr.
Curry to prepare these plans according to what standards and to
submit them to FDOT. And quite frankly, there's an ordinance that
clearly defines what Mr. Curry's role is. And his role is to recommend
to the Board and for the Board to decide what the policy should be or
what the program should be. And then it's his role to implement the
Board's directive.
And quite frankly, what we have here is a security plan which
was developed by a junior member of Mr. Curry's staff, Mr. Vergo.
And Mr. Vergo really doesn't have any experience in airport security.
I have his resume, I had the opportunity to review it. He went ahead
and edited an existing plan and submitted it to the state because the
airport was running up to a deadline and its license was not going to
be renewed unless it got its airport security plan updated.
Page 162
January 24, 2012
Now, what Mr. Curry read as the footnote required on that
security plan by the -- by FDOT says exactly what allows the
members of this Board to receive a copy of the security plan. It is not
for public dissemination. It is not for public debate. And obviously
security would be compromised if it was. But, and I read, to avoid
jeopardizing the security of the airport -- and in this case it's actually
the Sebring Regional Airport because I actually received Sebring's
plan -- any distribution of the security plan is restricted to individuals
with a legitimate need for the information contained therein.
We are the airport board. We have a legitimate need to know. In
fact, we are fully responsible for the security of the airport. At this
point in time we have no idea whether the security plan that has been
approved by FDOT as presented by Mr. Curry on behalf of this county
without our approval, without our review, in any way satisfies what
we see as the necessary amount of security for the public safety at the
Immokalee Airport. And quite frankly, at the Marco Airport as well.
So I have serious concerns. It is our liability, it is our
responsibility as the airport board, it is our duty to set that policy. It is
our duty to know what that policy is. We are bound by confidentiality
once we receive a copy of that security plan. It will not be released, it
will not be improperly used. And essentially what is done is you sign
a confidentiality agreement such as this one that I signed with Sebring,
and you guard it safely.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let me just add one thing.
Sebring, because I had been told we did not have a security plan, I
reached out to Sebring to get help from Sebring to find out how they
had developed their security plan, because their airport is similar to
ours, and they were very kind. And I said, you know, can I share this
with my Board, understanding that we would keep it confidential and
with staff. And they said absolutely. And what they put as a footnote
is they added that this plan is not for public dissemination. This plan
Page 163
January 24, 2012
may be shared with the Sheriffs Department and necessary staff as a
guide to develop our security plan.
They even volunteered to send me their plan in a Word format so
that we could just edit it with the details that relate specifically to our
program.
One last thing I will say, and this concerned me the most, I found
out that -- when I actually got a copy of Sebring's plan, I had called
the Sheriffs Office to find out if they had a copy of our airport plan,
and they did not. And what I found out is that our plan went to FDOT
without even consulting with the Sheriffs Office, which is normally
done. No one brought it to the Chief of Operation's attention. No one
brought it to the Chief of Investigation's attention. So they didn't even
know what the security plan was that had been adopted by staff.
It's not staffs role to adopt policy without Board approval. And
it is our duty to know what is in a security plan when we as the Board
are responsible for the security of that property.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, we're also responsible
how our sewer and water facility runs, but I really don't want to know
what's going on.
You just heard a whole bunch of comments. I'd love to hear your
response to it, and then I'll ask a question or two.
MR. CURRY: Well, the first thing is that, you know,
Commissioner Hiller always wants to attack the credentials of
anybody that's doing work on behalf of the airport. I'm the final
reviewer of that. And Tom Vergo actually does have some experience
doing that. But I am the final approval authority coming out of the
Airport Authority for the three airports.
There's a template that's provided by FDOT as to how you do
these plans. If you don't follow the template they don't approve your
plan. By law the airport is required every two years to update this
plan. And the way that it works is that we send in our draft, they
Page 164
January 24, 2012
make recommendations, we input their recommendation, we send it
back, they may send it back with more recommendations, and then it's
finally approved. So I don't know what the process would be, since
FDOT is the approval authority, to bring it to the Board when I don't
know it's approved until FDOT says that the document is approved.
You know, you mention about Sebring and editing from another
airport. But funny enough, last time we met that was an issue for the
ground access plan, that we were editing from a well developed plan
that we saw in Boulder, Colorado. So you were not for that the last
time that we had this conversation.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. May I clarify?
MR. CURRY: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: First of all, Boulder has very
different characteristics compared to our airports. I was addressing
specifically the airport security plan, not the transportation, the
supplemental plan.
And you are right, it is a template. And in fact I have the
template right here.
MR. CURRY: When we --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I received it from FDOT.
MR. CURRY: -- got the final approval, again, what we edited
that was recommended by the Florida Department of Transportation
did not affect the Collier County Sheriffs Department role from the
previous plan. Therefore, once it was approved we did send it out to
the Collier County Sheriffs Department. So if they don't have it, it's
not because we didn't mail it out. And I will certainly follow up to
make sure, because they are authorized to have it.
And again, every two years there's a law that we do this. Does
the airport manager or director come before the Board and say it's two
years now, are you guys giving me authority to update the security
plan? I mean, that doesn't make such sense to me when the law is
clear that that's what we have to do to be an operational airport.
Page 165
January 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I think your answers
suffice for my needs.
What I'd like to hear at this point in time, I'd like to hear the
speakers that are signed up. I'm especially looking to Ted Soliday,
who I consider to be one of the ultimate authorities in the area on
airport operation.
You owe one for that one. But I hope you're going to be one of
the speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many speakers do we have?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have two speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Call one of them.
MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker is Marvin Cartright (sic).
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's the wrong one. Call another one.
MR. COURTRIGHT: Commissioners, Marvin Courtright, no
relation to Ben and Hoss Cartright.
This today is a real pleasure. One of the few things that I really
feel that I can comment on honestly, because I know Mr. Soliday, I
know Mr. Curry, and I'm comfortable with all of you.
And to clarify my reason for being here, I have a small business
in Immokalee called Hummingbird Flight Service. It was just
renewed. I paid 200 and some dollars for it, I'm good for another year.
I am a commercial pilot, flight instructor, helicopter, airplane,
multi-engine. I'm also an aircraft and engine mechanic. I'm also an
inspector for aviation maintenance.
What is not being addressed here, and not having access to the
plan, I don't have the right to even ask the question, I guess. Have we
addressed TSA, Terminal Security Agency? If anybody has impact
into our security, TSA certainly does. I know, because they
confronted me because I was accused by a past airport manager of
operating a flight school. I don't operate a flight school, I give
instruction under Part 61. I have a man who works with me who
teaches flying.
Page 166
January 24, 2012
But let me make my point here real quick. I'm mandated as an
Aircraft Mechanic and Inspector to report to the Airport Manager or to
Security or to the Sheriffs Department or FAA any aircraft that I work
on that has obvious equipment on it that could be used for terrorist
activity. That's number one. I have to do it.
Second one, as a flight instructor or owner of a flight business, if
we give flight instruction, we must document to the TSA, identify who
we're teaching, photographs, birth certificates and all of this.
Now, is he going to be my policeman? Is he going to come out
and check what I do, or is TSA going to do it? Who --just answer me
this, Mr. Curry, is the TSA part of your plan?
MR. CURRY: Yes, they're on the distribution list.
MR. COURTRIGHT: They're on the distribution list?
MR. CURRY: Yes, they have a copy of the Immokalee security
plan.
MR. COURTRIGHT: Are they implemented into it or are they
just going to be notified that it exists?
MR. CURRY: I think I've answered your question.
MR. COURTRIGHT: Okay, fine.
Anyway, I know I'm on a short fuse here, but you are in charge.
Don't forget it. No matter what position we take, I take, he takes or
anybody else takes, Mr. Soliday takes, remember, the monkey's on
your back.
And Mr. Coyle, you made it perfectly clear, and I want to
congratulate you, in a previous discussion about freedom of
information. We need insight, we need to know what's going on. And
I'm looking forward to a copy of it. Because you certainly hit it right
on the head. You agree we need it. Not lock the door and say, hey,
I'm the Almighty here, I'm telling you what's going to happen, and
then not bother to tell you.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Courtright, you've taken two entirely
Page 167
January 24, 2012
different circumstances and tried to tie them together. That is
dishonest.
When I talk about transparency in land use planning, that has
nothing to do with airport security plans and the need to safeguard it.
So don't try to play those games with me, okay.
MR. COURTRIGHT: I just look at the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You just make up your own stories as
you go along.
MR. COURTRIGHT: I'm congratulating you. You did a great
job. Cut me a little slack.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Ted Soliday.
MR. SOLIDAY: Commissioners, Ted Soliday, for the record,
414 Tory Pines Point. I'm in Donna Fiala's -- Commissioner Fiala's
district, and I am a county resident.
I've been told by our attorney I can't get away from the fact that
I'm also the Airport Director of the City of Naples Airport Authority.
Just trying to deal with some of the things I heard today. First of
all, I have am here because I believe that the security plan -- and I
thought you did a very good job, Mr. Chairman, of saying why.
Security plans are secure and they should be secure. They should not
be debated by people without need to know or without the ability to
deal with it. I have 45 years in aviation, 25 years as an airport director
of international airports and also a Bar Part 139 airport.
But I'm going to take another step into this. I've heard over and
over again for the last 18 years -- 18 years ago I interviewed with the
Collier County Airport Authority for this job, the job that Chris has.
And I was selected, but we couldn't negotiate because I was coming
from the northwest and it was a pretty distant ship.
But every time over those 18 years I've heard how much that the
Immokalee Airport means to us and our county and we're going to
have cargo and scheduled cargo and we're going to do maybe even
some non-scheduled large aircraft charters for the casino. All that's
Page 168
January 24, 2012
great. I support it. And I think you all have been working very had in
g pp Y
that direction. We as a county taxpayers have spent a lot of money in
that direction. If you think that the state's little guidelines for the state
general aviation thing is onerous in any way, to be what I just talked
about, you need what is called a Bar Part 139 security plan. No
comparison to this, much more onerous and much more requirements
for security.
My commissioners do not have a copy of the security plan. The
City Council does not have a copy of the security plan. The city
police does, the Sheriffs Department does. And we coordinate with
them. I think it's a real important thing to allow security to stay with
security, and as a county taxpayer I encourage you to look at it very
carefully.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Okay --
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right, very well. Thank you.
Did we have a motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We didn't?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to hear from the County
Attorney. And I'd also like to get an opinion on Commissioner
Henning's observation. Because I just pulled up the section of the
Florida Statute and he's right, it basically says that the exemption
applies to international airports and seems to be limited to that. And
that's a -- I'm glad you pointed that out. And we certainly --
Immokalee and Marco are not international airports.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That doesn't keep any Commissioner
from making a motion. Is there a motion that we can then discuss?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I'd make a motion that we
recognize the executive director's authority and that the plan be only
available to the secured entities that he previously mentioned, such as
the Sheriffs Department, Department of Transportation, and I'm not
Page 169
January 24, 2012
too sure who it is, and it's not made available to the Commissioners or
the Airport Authority -- representing the Airport Authority.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that. And I go back to
what Mr. Courtright said. He said I'm looking forward to getting the
plan. Well, that right there shows the breach.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, sure does.
Okay, now, Commissioner Henning was first on the discussion.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, just an observation. We
have I don't know how many executive summaries on today's agenda
and other airport items on the agenda and this is the only one that
doesn't have a legal consideration on it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that's a question for the County
Attorney.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, there's -- but yet
there was communications, as I understand, from the County Attorney
to the Airport Director.
Is there any reason why you didn't review and make any
recommendations or considerations?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. This was an executive summary by
Chris seeking direction -- well, let me --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sir, you have another item of
the airport on there with a legal recommendation. Did you not write
that?
Actually, Colleen Greene did.
MR. KLATZKOW: You have two issues: You have an issue of
whether or not this is a public record and then you have an issue of
whether or not you as members of the Airport Authority wish to view
this thing, all right. And you have no policy on this.
The statutes are not the best on this, Commissioner Henning.
You've mentioned one statute on this, and it's a bit in conflict with this
particular statute on some security. There's no AGO opinion on this,
Page 170
January 24, 2012
there's no case law on this.
I'm just going on 119, which is your basic statute dealing with
public records. And 119, this type of document is exempt from public
records, all. Right. But that does not mean that you as a Board or
members of the Board don't have the opportunity to go to Mr. Curry
and say I'd like to review this at your offices and sit down and see
those documents. Now, that's a matter of policy for you as a Board to
determine what procedure if any you want to do on that matter. And
you don't have that policy.
What is clear under this is that these documents, even if you view
them, you must maintain the exempt nature of them. You can't
distribute copies of it, all right. You would be within the statutes if
you authorized yourselves in some sort of written policy not only to
maintain the exempt nature of these documents and keep them from
public view, and I think that's appropriate, but you're the governing
board of these airports. I mean, you're responsible for the operation of
the airports at the end of the day. Mr. Curry works for you. And you
may have concerns about the security.
And I've always been concerned when I have one person telling
me, well, don't worry about that, I know more than you and they won't
share that with anything. We've had that happen in our government
many times over the years. If a Commissioner is concerned about the
security, I have no issue with them going down to the airport, looking
at the security plans, asking Mr. Curry questions. And if they have a
concern, they can come back in a public forum and discuss that with
the rest of the Board, saying I have concern about the security on this
airport. And then the Board can do what they wanted to. Perhaps you
hire an outside consultant to look at this with some expertise in this. I
don't know. But that's a policy for you, okay.
I do think that they're exempt from public records. Whether or
not you wish to authorize yourselves to do this, that's a policy for this
Board.
Page 171
January 24, 2012
The reason there was not a legal consideration, didn't really have
time to do the research on this and get this before it hit the agenda, to
be blunt. Ms. Greene and I spent a lot of time going through this. We
spent a lot of time talking it back and through. There's not an easy
answer on this one.
Commissioner, you make good points about that other statute,
where it only talks about the international. I can't disagree with
anything you've said. I can only be conservative on this and hang my
hat on 119 and say that I think all security documents should be
protected and not distributed, whether it's the plans for this building or
an airport or a warehouse or EOC building or what have you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: With that said, what's wrong
with asking our legislators to include aviation in Statute 330?
MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing. I think that's an excellent
suggestion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I mean, just, you know,
one of the other Commissioners said it just makes common sense to
have that disclosure. And then it's clear, there's no ambiguity in it.
And the second thing is there's also an AGO on delegation of
authority. So I would hope that the Commissioners in favor of the
motion vote on it. I can't support it. Although I think that we need to
take it a step further and ask the legislators to provide further
exemptions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we have -- is your light on again
for --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It was. And I'll tell you what, if
you're ready to take a vote --
MR. MITCHELL: Commissioner, we've had another speaker
slip handed in. It was -- too late? Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I'm trying to think of maybe a way
to combine both these actions, but maybe it would be better to do
Page 172
January 24, 2012
them separately, take into consideration Commissioner Henning's
suggestion for the legislature.
But you're really asking us to make a judgment right now as to
whether or not we should have copies -- or copies of the airport
security plan should be given to the Board of County Commissioners.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, what I'm saying is I think you need a
policy. And you have many airport policies. I think one of them has
to be these plans. And as part of that policy, and this is a Board
decision, all right, you can give each other access through Mr. Curry,
your Airport Director, to view these plans where they are regularly
maintained for business. You wouldn't necessarily have a copy of
them, you'd just go down there and be able to view them. That's one
approach. There are other approaches that we can come back.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, the policy, if it were up to me,
would -- but we would not be given copies of the plan. And if we
have any concerns, we have a private meeting with Mr. Curry and ask
him questions.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We have to be able to see the plan.
We can't --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, here's my concern with
being able to view the plans. Okay, you view the plans, you've got
questions, you want to bring it back for discussion, now it's open
public. Either we got trust in our Airport Director or we don't. We've
never had this issue before, mind you. I say that enough of this
nonsense, let's get on with the people's business. Let's recognize the
fact that there's some places that we do not belong and this is one of
them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That sounds like a policy to me.
Does the seconder -- does the second agree with that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, you've already
Page 173
January 24, 2012
made comment, you need to make more?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I do. And my concern is I
think Mr. Klatzkow is correct. In fact, I don't think your policy can
create an exemption where there isn't one. Who is exempted from
seeing these plans is clearly defined, and who is permitted to see these
plans is also defined by these statutes. And so my concern is is that in
effect you do not have an exemption that you can rely on to prevent
any individual Commissioner from being able to see those plans.
So I can clearly support the need for confidentiality, you know, a
requirement that we sign and commitment to that confidentiality, you
know, a commitment not to publicly disclose what is in that plan, to
preserve that confidentiality. But to deny the responsible board, and
quite frankly the board that is the property owner or the leaseholder
from being able to see that plan, quite frankly I believe would be a
violation of the public records law and the disclosure laws.
So I quite frankly don't think that you can recommend a policy
that precludes a board member from being able to do what the law
allows, because there is no exemption that applies. I read the law. I
just got a copy of it myself that you just put up there and I went
through it all. And in fact, I also see here exactly how Sebring gave
me a copy. It does provide in the law that information made exempt
by this paragraph may be disclosed to another governmental entity so
it can perform its duties and responsibilities. And again, it's done with
the understanding that that information will be kept confidential and
will not be disseminated or in any way compromised.
So I quite frankly don't think you have the legal ability to do, to
set policy to exclude this Board. We are the leaseholders.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor of the motion, please signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Page 174
n 24, 2012
January ,
I'm sorry, did you want to say anything?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I did. I'll be up in Tallahassee
next week and I'd be happy to present this to the legislators that I
speak to and suggest to them that we need a policy or we to be
included, you know, all airports need to be included in that rather than
just international.
I wanted to ask Ted Soliday, Ted, you're not an international
airport and yet you have a secure plan; is that correct?
MR. SOLIDAY: That's correct. We don't consider ourselves
international, and of course we do have international customs now, but
we're not international. And we still maintain our 139 security plan.
But as of this past year we were required to meet the general
aviation requirement. And I think it really comes under 333, and I'm
not sure the paragraph and sub-paragraph of that. But I believe you'll
find that there. I'm very surprised that Sebring did what they did and
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're talking about 331.22, and --
MR. SOLIDAY: Actually, 333. And I'm sorry, I don't have any
of my guidelines with me. But I would be glad to go back and look at
it. Because that's typically the aviation sections. Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, I'm not just surprised at Sebring, I
am shocked at Sebring. They had no way of verifying who was on the
other end of that telephone call. To release a security plan is
absolutely irresponsible and I think we ought to phone up there and
talk with Sebring and find out just what they did and why they did it.
But in any --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll finish my comments.
And my last comment was also, if indeed we decide through our
policy making that it's okay for Chris to, by request from a
Commissioner to go in and look at it in his office, I don't think we
should be walking around with a copy of it, quite frankly, but we
would also have to consider will that be a Commissioner individually
Page 175
January 24, 2012
or can that Commissioner bring an entourage in there. That's
something else we have to decide, right?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right. But there's something --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't even know that there's any
need. I mean, we've never had --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What would you do with the
information --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Something I need to get out of the way.
We didn't get the vote completed. We got a vote of the ayes, we didn't
get a vote of the nos. So we had Fiala, Coyle and Coletta saying yes.
And all opposed, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, so Commissioner Henning and
Commissioner Hiller are opposed.
Now, the question Commissioner Fiala raises is absolutely a
valid question. There are procedures for dealing with that, and they
include you cannot take notes, you cannot leave with anything. You
cannot talk with people about what you've heard. But we have no
control over that, as you can see right now. People will talk about
anything they want to talk about, no matter what they've signed. And
it's ludicrous even to get into that and that's why we should have a
policy that says no, okay, you don't get a copy of it. If you've got
questions, ask Chris Curry, he'll try to answer questions.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, next item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. Thank you very much.
We don't owe you another break yet, do we? It seems like
forever since the last time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we give direction on the
airport item? I think it's an appropriate --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Which one are you talking about?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, since it -- section of the
Page 176
January 24, 2012
Florida Statutes that's in the executive summary, 333.30(2)(F), clearly
says international airports. And I think the legislators need to provide
further exemptions like discussed. So can we -- County Manager,
would it be appropriate being that the legislation -- or the legislators
are meeting early, would it give the staff direction to seek some
assistance from our delegation to create law, or should we bring it on a
future agenda?
MR. OCHS: I think we've taken guidance from a majority of the
Board in the past on these items that are, you know, timely with regard
to the session being active. So I would say if a majority of the Board
wants us to pursue that, all they had to do is advise and we'll move
forward to make contact with the delegation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I would love to do that,
get that done.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I think it would be a good thing to
do. But let me offer another observation. Let's suppose that the
legislature has reason not to do that for reasons that have nothing to do
with Collier County. I don't want them to be telling us that we can't
define who should receive our security plans. You see what I'm
saying?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, it has -- if you read the --
here, I have the Florida Statutes for you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I know, and you can read them one way
and I can read them another.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no, no, I'll give them to you.
It doesn't say who's exempt from the record, it just says what facility
is exempt from the record.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It refers to general aviation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It refers to international. And I
think that we should -- that executive summary is not what the law
says, Commissioner. That was written by a staff member, okay?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
Page 177
January 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So if we include general
aviation in it, that gives the security exemption under 119,
Commissioner Coyle. You see where I'm going?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, they're already citing 119 in
331.22 Florida Statutes under Florida law. To avoid jeopardizing the
security of the airport, distribution of airport security plans is
restricted to individuals with a legitimate need for the information
contained within the plan.
I'm merely saying that we should be the ones who would define
who the individuals are with a legitimate need, not with state
legislature. That's all my only concern.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That isn't what I was saying at
all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I understand.
MR. CURRY: Can I suggest one thing before I leave is that the
Florida Airports Council was responsible for driving the law to make
that requirement for general aviation airports. Would it be helpful to
you in any way for me to write to the Florida Airports Council and get
more clarification on those statutes and the intent of them and who it
applies to?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess we could do that
individually.
MR. CURRY: Yeah, if you'd like. I can do it for you or you can
do it yourself. It matters not to me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Whoever writes should copy us all
so we see what questions went out and we can then see what comes
back. I'd like to see what that question actually is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, are we finished with this? Okay.
No, she doesn't need a break yet, do you?
THE COURT REPORTER: Unless you want to.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You do?
THE COURT REPORTER: No, I'm fine.
Page 178
January 24, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, what do we have next, County
Manager?
Item #13B1
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FY2011 ANNUAL
PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL REVIEW FOR THE BAYSHORE
GATEWAY TRIANGLE CRA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR -
MOTION TO APPROVE — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 13.B.1. Community Redevelopment Agency, FY
2011 annual performance appraisal review for the Bayshore/Gateway
Triangle CRA Executive Director.
And Mr. David Jackson, your Executive Director, is here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Jackson, please proceed.
MR. JACKSON: David Jackson, Executive Director of the
Bayshore/Gateway Triangle CRA.
I do apologize, the first two times I was called I just happened to
be in a budget and debt workshop, so I was working on that for the
next fiscal year.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who cares about that?
MR. JACKSON: I was busy earning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Earning your salary, right?
MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. But I'm here.
In the package I've given you the synopsis of my evaluation, self
appraisal, and the two Commissioners in accordance with the CRA
resolution that dictated that the two Commissioners of which my area
is in their districts evaluated it. And it's there in your package at this
point in time.
At this point in time it would be up for discussion in the motion
section to approve the evaluations by the two Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
Page 179
January 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, the evaluations I felt were very
good. And I know that I've sat in on a number of your meetings and
I've talked with a number of your board members who all are very
pleased with the work that you've been doing. And we can see the
progress, it's very evident.
So I make a motion to accept this annual performance appraisal
process, understanding that there will be no merit pay award this year,
nor any cost of living raise.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'll go ahead and second it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Discussion?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the ayes have it 3-1 with
Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think Henning didn't vote one way
or --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sorry, I was busy.
I'm going to vote in the majority. It's not time to raise the issue.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, so the vote is 3-1,
Commissioner Hiller --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Here's Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- in the negative and
Commissioner Coyle absent from the room for a moment.
Page 180
January 24, 2012
The next item I believe we already have done, B.2?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He can vote now, right?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Too late. Your opportunity is
gone forever. Back to you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, are we finished, County Manager?
MR. OCHS: Sir, you have public comments on general topics.
Item #14
PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do we have any public commenters?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, you've one request to speak. Larry
Basik.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Larry.
MR. BASIK: Good afternoon. Larry Basik, 42-year resident of
Collier County.
I don't know if I'm in the wrong place at the wrong time or what,
but I was just -- it was pointed to me in this direction that I might
throw it out, either for discussion or to bring it up later on.
But right now up at the state legislature they're going through
approval of a destination resort licensing situation for casinos. And
there's only going to be -- one of them shows three licensing --
non-Indian casino licensing approvals that will be issued. It's not a
matter of whether they're going to, it's just a matter of time -- or
possibly five.
And already they're jockeying -- different counties are jockeying
for position as far as being able to sponsor a license for one of these
destination resort casinos. There's some qualifications, million dollar
nonrefundable application fees. There's a line of credit of two billion
dollars to be invested within the county that it's approved in.
Page 181
January 24, 2012
And so I'm just trying to find out what the atmosphere would be
with the Commissioners about sponsoring a voter referendum, which
is required, for the voters to vote whether they're in favor of this type
of a situation or whether they wouldn't be. But it would have to go on
the referendum I think in November. So I just want to throw this out
and see what the comments are, since there's a lot of work that has to
be just in the application process.
I guess what I'm asking is that is there any problem with the
Commission sponsoring a voter referendum to sponsor a license in
Collier County for one of these destination resort casinos.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm very supportive of Lee
County having enhanced gambling up there. But we are considered a
family community. And we do have a casino in Collier County, and it
serves the community of Immokalee well. That would -- if we had
one in the coastal area, I'm not even sure if the voters would approve
of it. Let's say they did approve it and it's built in the coastal
community, what would the effects be to Immokalee and the existing
casino?
MR. BASIK: Well, apparently when Governor Christ negotiated
the casino situation -- I'm not an authority about it, I'm just in reading
up on it that there was a provision that the state could issue these type
of special licenses. And the Seminoles signed on to it and -- so that
provision is there. And that's what the state legislature right now has a
committee going through the bill that will allow these licenses to be
issued.
Now, it brings in a tremendous amount of funds into the county
because the two billion dollars letter of credit that has to go with this
thing has to be outside of whatever the acquisition of the land is. So
they have to, you know, like Lee County for instance is proposing a
convention center, huge convention center.
The one I seen in New York, the State of New York, they're
Page 182
January 24, 2012
building, an outside company is putting up four billion dollars to add
to the infrastructure and everything in the New York area. And it
looks like more and more the states are coming on with these types of
licenses.
Now, there was provisions, I understand, to compensate the
Seminoles or other Indian tribes that have signed on to where their
burden is cut down based on the amount of payment made to the state.
There's a formula, it's a real involved formula, but the -- that for
instance if the Seminoles are paying $150 million a year for five
years, that runs out, and then, you know, you have to negotiate another
situation.
But anyway, just -- one of the comments in the legislation is that
you have to show that the county is in favor of sponsoring a license.
And it would bring a lot of funds in for jobs and for infrastructure and
just many things.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. I had the opportunity
of meeting the representative of the casino that is going to develop in
Lee County. And what I did, because for informational purposes I do
think it's important that we know what's going on on a regional basis,
have asked that we bring him in and speak in front of the Tourist
Development Council.
I don't know anything as -- I don't know, I don't have any of the
details as to what's being proposed and whether it's good or bad, but I
think we need to be fully informed. And at the last meeting that we
had on Tuesday, the TDC did agree to invite him to do a presentation.
So I'm going to make that phone call. So when that meeting comes
up on the calendar, I can have staff call you and let you know --
MR. BASIK: Yeah, I'd like that --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- and then you can come and hear
what's being proposed up in Lee.
And I think the first step to any opinion as to whether something
Page 183
January 24, 2012
is good or bad is first researching and getting an understanding of
what's being proposed.
MR. BASIK: Okay, sounds good. Appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But thank you so much for
thinking of, you know, economic development.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd love to know when that is too,
because I'd like to sit in on it as well. I bet that will be interesting to
get a --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Not only that, with the TDC, of
course everything is televised on Collier County TV. So if for some
reason the meeting is held on a day you can't come, everybody can
view it in real time and subsequently on replay on our Collier County
website.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But then coming from a personal
point of view, I'm kind of like in the same boat as Tom Henning. It's a
family community. I like being -- I'm extremely conservative so I'm
probably not into that. I know that all of the things that are involved --
there are so many extenuating businesses that come from a big
gambling casino, and I really like our community the way it is. I can
see other communities wanting it and that's fine, and people can go
there. But then people who want a family community or who want a
place that has a little class, a step above, maybe would want then to
come to us if we don't have one.
MR. BASIK: Well, it's a tourist destination situation. And when
you've got a situation where some of the streetlights aren't turned on or
some of the library places are closing up because we can't afford to
operate them, something like this, like for instance, the overpass on
951 or --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I understand. And you're right,
big business is that way and we have to recover or plan on recovering.
But personally, I'm just telling you personally, I would have a hard
Page 184
January 24, 2012
time moving forward with anything. You see all of the things that
emanate from the casinos, the adult bookstores and the -- many of the
shops that are opened for other types of businesses. I just don't think
we're the place for them. But that's just my opinion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. And if I may offer you
some insight. Immokalee is a unique place. The people that own the
casino live nearby. They're very controlative (sic) of it. The Indians
have -- the Seminole tribe that lives out there and basically runs the
casino, they have very high moral values. They have great control
over it.
The community of Immokalee has not been impaired by the
casino going in there in a negative way by any means. If anything, it's
been a positive thing.
I would be very reluctant for all the reasons that was mentioned
here to support a casino other than the one in Immokalee. If one ever
opened on the coast it definitely would have a tremendous negative
impact upon the Seminole casino in Immokalee to the point that not
only would it hurt the Seminole tribe but it would hurt the whole
community of Immokalee. They employ a tremendous number of
people. They're one of the biggest attractant in South Florida. As far
as I'm concerned, everything the way it is at this point in time is just
fine. I'd rather not change anything. That's my own opinion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Manager, do you have any
communications --
MR. OCHS: Staff communications? No, sir.
Page 185
January 24, 2012
MR. BASIK: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Nothing from me, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, Jeff, I'm concerned that
there was no legal consideration on that item. And I want to further
discuss this. You pointed out in section of the Florida Statute the
Public Records Law 119.07, the security items. Those security items
are -- belong to the agency; is that correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The agency is the Airport
Authority in this case.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And the Board
prohibited the agency from reviewing that security under the action
that they did.
So now if the Board would have said that, you know, you're
allowed to look at it but you cannot distribute it, and if one of the
members did do that, wouldn't it apply -- let's see. This is in Section
119.110. A public officer who violates a provision of the chapter
commits a non-criminal infraction punishable not to exceed $500.
That's in A. B, morally (sic) violates provisions within statute 119.07,
which we discussed on that item is subject to suspension or removal or
impeachment, and so on and so forth, and also commit a
misdemeanor, first degree and punishable by another Florida Statute.
So if that member of the Airport Authority would have disclosed
what's in the security policy, wouldn't they be subject to that
violation?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Then the same thing
Page 186
January 24, 2012
applies to the Commissioners who voted for blocking the other
members and themselves from seeing that policy. Because that is
119.07. It applies both ways.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's all I have.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, a couple of items, if I may.
We had a little bit of a situation that got a little out of control
regarding the former Flamingo Ben Nursery now known as Anne's
Green Acres. I put out a news release explaining what was taking
place, because I think the public had a right to know.
Nick, thank you for coming up front. And you kind of jumped
the gun on it, but I appreciate it. This has a long history. Some time
ago I brought the situation to the Collier County Commission and
explained to you about the many problems they were having out there,
everything from large fires to wanton ignoring our codes and
regulations. And the County Commission directed the County
Attorney to go ahead and sue them.
And at that point in time we held a community meeting, went
over everything that was taking place, reviewed all the different
issues. And they were looking at that time to expand their operation
to be able to include such things as concrete crushing, to be able to
serve different purposes. And I told them at that time it was very
simple, that in order for them to get that kind of a land use, they would
have to come back to the Collier County Commission for a conditional
use.
And somebody misunderstood the intentions of it and what
happened was is that a permit was issued to them to be able to do
some agricultural work wholesale as permitted by our laws and
ordinances. Some people got that mixed up with the conditional use.
Page 187
January 24, 2012
And Nick, would you elaborate on this a little bit, please?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. As you received many phone
calls, so did our officer with a scramble that the folks in that area
thought that they were doing something illegal and inconsistent with
the public meeting that was held.
So I sent Code Enforcement out to the site and I also called the
applicant's agent, Mr. Yovanovich, and said, what's going on?
Looked into it. We issued an occupational license for a wholesale
nursery, which is what they're allowed to do. But they cannot do any
retail sales.
So when we went with our site visit, Code Enforcement went out
and made sure that there were no retail sales going on and that they
were consistent with the accessory use of mulching and some dirt
storage within 20 percent of their property.
We found nothing that was inconsistent. We're checking on a
couple of things such as signage that says, you know, dirt for sale.
But right now they haven't violated any rules.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How about access?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Access is what they have. No issues
with access either. So we're going to look into that as well. But right
now we're not finding them breaking any rules, that they're consistent
with the rights for wholesale nursery. And I think that was the concern
with the public, that if they want to do something past that, retail sales
or crushing, that they would have to require a conditional use. And
they haven't decided whether they're going do that yet or not, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question. The county, what is it
going to do about the access driveway of the business in Riggs Road
when it is not a legal entrance and they are tearing up the road?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We're going to make sure that as part
of anything we make them maintain that if that's the case. They have
expressed to me that they're going to approach FDOT to get access off
U.S. 41. And FDOT's opined that they would give them access off
Page 188
January 24, 2012
U.S. 41.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, but how are we going to
make them do this?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If they've got legal access off Riggs
Road, which I believe they do right now, the only way I can make sure
that they do from the a county perspective, make sure they don't
damage the road. But if they're using that road consistent with the
occupational license they're entitled to, I may not be able to do
anything about that either.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can you look into that and issue
us a written determination on that?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Why are they allowed to
conduct business when they haven't completely complied with the
violations that they've been cited for and were under a stop work
order?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Unless -- they're under a stop order for
the things they were doing that were inconsistent with the property use
there. So unless they've broken our laws, which right now they
haven't, they've complied with the stop work order, I have to issue the
occupational license. I have no choice, because they're consistent with
what that land use is.
And I think that was some of the calls I received from the
residents, Commissioner, was why did they get an occupational
license. I said even if someone files suit against somebody, and until
that -- and it's civil, first of all, it's private and they come to our office
to apply for an occupational license, I have to issue that license if they
meet the intent of what's required in that land use.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Who will monitor what they're
doing and if they're doing wholesale only, because they can't sell
retail, correct? And they already violated that early on.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right.
Page 189
January 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Who will be monitoring on a
regular basis? I hate to have the residents calling me up and telling
me there's a violation. We should be on top of it.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. And then what we're doing right
now is we're put them on our regular route as part of Code
Enforcement. We're checking on that. So everything that's been
registered to us as a complaint, Code has it on their list. And correct
me if I'm wrong, you guys will be taking a look at it on a regular basis
to make sure that they're complying.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. When is the owner of the
property required to have everything cleaned up, by what date?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Notice of violation, it would be 30
days for them to comply before they have to get in front of that Code
Enforcement Board. But he is right now clearing that site as we
speak, putting the soil where it belongs and getting rid of the material
that's not supposed to be there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But it's supposed to be done
within 30 days of when?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Tomorrow. Thirty days from
tomorrow, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thirty days from tomorrow the
site's got to be cleaned. If not, they're in violation?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: They're in violation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And if they're in
violation, what kind of action should be taken? You can't take their
license away, can you?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. I can go in front of the Code
Enforcement Board and then go from there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The question regarding the
lawsuit, if I may, County Attorney. The Commission here directed
you to take this concern -- this company into a lawsuit because of their
noncompliance. If we institute a lawsuit, aren't we the ones that have
Page 190
January 24, 2012
to end it?
MR. KLATZKOW: Depends on the lawsuit. I mean --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Jeff, I have it here. It was dismissed
by the court.
MR. KLATZKOW: We had asked to dismiss it. I had a request
from Diane Flagg that at one point in time let's take this into court.
The reason for that was the nature of the representation at that time as
well as the prior owner at that time as well as what they were doing,
all right.
We had a change in the ownership, change in the representation
of that ownership, and quite frankly, we had -- I had thought we had
reached a point where they were simply going to agree to do business
under what they could do business under. At that point in time Diane
Flagg says I don't want this in court, if you have any problems I'll take
them before the Code Enforcement, it's quicker that way.
I said, sure. I didn't think I needed to take that back to you. It's
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, it kind of leaves a little bit
of a void in there. This is one of the problems the residents have in
that area. We started what they wanted us to do, to be able to get
some sort of satisfaction. And I'm not saying what we did is wrong,
what I'm saying is the notification to the residents suddenly ended, and
next thing you know to their surprise and my surprise we find out
we're issuing them a permit to be able to do business. And I had no
prior knowledge of it, they had no prior knowledge of it. Everything
that took place up to that point in time has left them with the opinion
that we're not working for them, we're working against them. It's
extremely concerning.
Now, where do we go from here, that's a question. We have a
number of people out there that have been dealing with a business
entity for many, many years. Most of the time they've been totally out
of compliance. The county ignored them for the most part because at
Page 191
January 24, 2012
that time somebody was convinced that they had the right to do what
they were doing under the Right to Farm Act. So they kind of slid for
a long time. We finally get to the point where we start a community
group to be able to oversee what's taking place and to witness how the
county's going to act, and we're all of a sudden there with them having
a permit and everything's fine, there's no more lawsuit. And
meanwhile we're trucking along, the road hasn't been resolved yet. A
whole bunch of issues still haven't been resolved.
And without coming back and consulting this Commission or me,
we just went ahead and did it, you know. And that's the part that
makes it extremely difficult. Somewheres along the line we've got to
remember that we serve the people out there and not ourselves. We're
not here for our own convenience, we're here to make sure that the
people that we represent are duly served and that they get the answers
and the system seems fair and honest to them from beginning to end.
Now, we've got -- at 30 days we're going to have a review of
them to make sure that they're compliant, is that what we're going to
do to make sure that the ground is cleaned up, we're going to have an
answer as far as the road goes and the legal access to it?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'm not too sure where to
pick up from this and whether we should have another community
meeting to brief on it, but we made some serious mistakes in
procedure here in how we handled it. It's the first time I've seen
anything like this in many, many years, and I'm really disturbed by it.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, Commissioner, as to what
County Attorney Klatzkow pointed out, it did change ownership
hands. In my understanding, I did not attend the public meeting but I
spoke to the owner's agent. The promise that was made to the
community -- and someone said there's a tape of it or an audio tape of
it, I'd like to hear it -- was that they will not pursue anything or do any
work that obviously they can't that would not require a conditional
Page 192
January 24, 2012
use, but they would comply with whatever is required in the
underlying land use. And I think from the public's perspective,
because they don't understand what conditional use means when
someone says that, I think they thought, the public thought they can't
do anything.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, we don't know what was
said until we actually can see that tape. Would you make it your
business to get that tape and to review it, and then we'll try to figure
out what kind of action to take past this point to make sure that they're
in the loop.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. I'll work with your aide,
because I haven't seen this tape, I don't know that it exists. It's been
said on the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, there was somebody taping
at the time. And I would assume that they do have a valid tape.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'll check with Paula and see if they
can us a copy of the tape --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That would be most helpful if
they did have it. It would help to set some record straight. If we did
something that was wrong by the lack of communications, then we'll
just admit and go on from there to try to make it right.
Thank you so much, Nick, I appreciate everything you're doing
out there.
One last thing. I'm not going to get in too much detail about it,
but I'm a little bit excited about it. We have a gentleman by the name
of Tobin who is going to be become coming before us in the next
meeting under the presentation part of our agenda to talk to us about
consolidation.
He represents the fire union. And I heard his presentation at the
Golden Gate Estates Civic Association, and it was totally dynamic. I
mean, everybody there really got into it. And Chief Metzger was
there to offer some counterpoints. And in the end he just bowed his
Page 193
January 24, 2012
head and said, yeah, we need consolidation. It was kind of a short
play on everything else that took place. But it's going to be about a 15
minute presentation, and I think we'll all benefit from it. That's what I
have. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: When is that, did you say?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Next meeting. First meeting in
February.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Nothing from me.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, excuse me, just a point of
clarification on that issue. If that's a request to be placed under
presentations and not Board of County Commissioners, then am I to
assume that the Board's, at least a majority of the Board's fine with
placing that? It's not a public petition.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have no problem where we put
it, to be honest with you. It just seemed presentations was the most
logical way. Because rather than get into a large discussion on it, to
be able to hear these points.
MR. OCHS: I understand, sir. It's not a staff item, so normally
those would either come through public petition or under Board of
County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why don't we put it under public
petition, but it would be really helpful if he provides us all of the
information he's going to present in advance.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That sounds reasonable.
MR. OCHS: Very good.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We consider this -- we can take
this letter and actually consider that as his request for a public petition.
MR. OCHS: Yeah, we'll take care of it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Nothing from me.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I wanted to let everybody
Page 194
January 24, 2012
know that I'm working very hard in trying to get a traffic light
installed and stepped up to get it done rather than wait another six
months for something that we've been working on for about a year and
a half. And that's the one at the Eagle Lakes Community Park. But
the people at the other area, which is the Whistler's Cove Southwest
Boulevard have been pleading for a light also.
And I mentioned before but I'll mention one more time. The
state has said that they don't meet warrants. But when I asked the state
what does meet warrants, they were talking about vehicular traffic.
But the problem is in this area it's walking traffic, walking traffic and
bicyclists. And the people that live on the one side of the street have
no store around them except the convenience store on the other side of
U.S. 41, six lanes of 55 miles an hour traffic plus.
And so I'm asking people to help me with a letter writing
campaign, as well as writing the state and our traffic department to tell
them we need something there to be able to allow these people to
cross safely, and we need it now. We can't wait six months.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's direct the Chair to write a
letter on our behalf asking the Department of Transportation to look
into this and see if they can resolve the issue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And this is a light to stop people from
walking across the street on 41?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, to allow them to walk safely
across U.S. 41. You know, they have different things, like for
instance just yellow flashing lights. But if somebody walks up to the
light and pushes the button, then they turn red and stop the traffic,
otherwise the traffic continues to flow smoothly. Or they have
something like Marco Island where they have the lights in the street,
and as soon as somebody steps off of a curb and onto that, these things
flash, stopping the traffic. And whatever works for that particular
area.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's have Fred here write a
Page 195
January 24, 2012
letter.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, that would be great with me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'll write a letter.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. County Manager, make a note of
that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: He's got to write a letter.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I have three things I want to
talk about. The first is is I want to repeat my request to the Airport
Authority's custodian of records, who I assume is the same. Jeff,
would that be the same thing as -- same person as --
MR. KLATZKOW: It would be Chris.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Would it be Chris?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I guess so. Chris or whoever it is.
But basically to the Airport Authority to view the security record --
I'm sorry view the security plan. And if I'm being denied, I'd like the
-- who should I say, the custodian of the security plan to provide me a
written response and to state with particularity the exemption they're
relying on. So that's number one.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wait a minute, can I respond to
that?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yup.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think the agency is the Airport
Authority, and I have no problem with that. However, the other
members of the authority directed the Airport Director not to give it to
you. That's my understanding.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I'm going to address it to the
Airport Authority Board. I'm going to make the request to the Board
as well as to the Airport Director, as well as to the attorney for the
Page 196
January 24, 2012
Airport Authority. Bottom line is I do not believe that the exemption
applies to the members of the Board. And I think that I'm being
wrongly denied what I have a right to see as a matter of law by way of
this policy that has been enacted by this Board to try to circumvent
what the law requires them to do.
And so I would like a written response. If I'm going to be denied,
I want a written response, I want to know the statutory exemption
you're relying on and I want you to state with particularity how and
why you are relying on it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I ask why you're so intent on
getting this security plan? I mean, what value is it to you?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like to see what the
security -- first of all, I don't have to answer why I want to see it, you
know, that is a matter of public record --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You don't have to. I mean if you
say I don't want to answer, fine. I would just like to know.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like to know what the
security plans are for the Immokalee Airport. I have had repeated
concerns about the security at the Immokalee Airport. I want to know
what the plan provides, and I would like to assure myself that what the
plan provides is in effect being implemented by the airport staff.
Because quite frankly, I have no idea whether the implementation
is being done in accordance with the plan. And as I said before, the
policy needs to be at the Board's direction, not at staffs direction. It
can be at staffs recommendation. But if the plan should be bolstered,
if we need to bring in a security consultant to help with security at the
airport, those are issues that need to be addressed. And I'm not
satisfied that they have been. So that's number one.
Number two, Commissioner Coyle in a very accusatory way
challenged Mr. Gaddy when he presented on Arthrex and said, you
know, why did you wait till yesterday to send us this memo about the
contracts. You know, this has been going on for months, why didn't
Page 197
January 24, 2012
you address this prior during that period of time.
Well, I'm going to enter my e-mails on the record. I asked for
those contracts starting July the 18th. And in a series of e-mails over
time, December 7th, January 4th, up through January 17th, I did not
get those contracts. First time I got drafts was last week, last Tuesday.
A week ago Tuesday was the first time I saw the drafts. And that's
me. And I'm a Commissioner. So I don't know how you could be
expected. I did not see the final contracts until the agenda was
published.
Yes, would you like to come to this podium? So I really have a
problem with this. You know, if this is going on, then I'd like to know
why I didn't know about it. And I certainly can understand why the
public doesn't know about it. And this goes back to getting
information to the public ahead of the meetings more than just on
Thursday and having a meeting on Tuesday.
Yes, sir.
MR. GADDY: For the record, Peter Paul Gaddy.
Commissioner, I believe we had a conversation on numerous
occasions over the last several months regarding getting a copy of
drafts of the proposed Arthrex agreements, because we knew those
were in the pipeline. I think that was public knowledge to everybody.
We had a number of conversations about it and I said do you
have -- have you gotten a copy or a draft. And you said no, I'll request
one. And I said oh, okay, would you send it to me when you get it.
And you said yes. So I never made a public records request because I
did not want to duplicate double the work of staff in providing
information.
So I think on several occasions in November and December I
asked you. I said have you gotten the plan yet. You said no. And I
think you said well, I'll ask again.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I did. And I --
MR. GADDY: So those agreements were never available.
Page 198
January 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. And in fact on December 7th
it says that the -- I asked, I have not seen any proposed contracts yet
and my understanding -- I'm sorry, this was Jeff s response to me,
because I asked Jeff, obviously, since he has to review the contracts
before they come before us. And Jeff said on December 7th I've not
seen the contracts yet. My understanding is that staff is in discussions
with Arthrex with the hope to bring something to the Board in early
2012. I'll probably get something for review in January or so.
So even Jeff didn't have them December 7th --
MR. GADDY: Well, you know, as I stated in my statement
earlier, my main concern was that there be a legally enforceable
agreement in effect both for the benefit of Arthrex and the county.
And we have something that's going to be available to the clerk to pay,
we're going to have something available -- not going to be a --
something that's going to be immune from a potential taxpayers
action.
And, you know, I was very disappointed when -- you know, I
thought I would have heard if those contracts were going to be on the
agenda. So I really didn't check until the last minute because it was a
busy weekend. But it's sad that what I saw was just more of the same
old contracts. The same contracts which were good enough for Lucy's
Hair Salon --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And quite frankly were not good
enough for Lucy's --
MR. GADDY: -- you know, are being applied to a multi-
national company. And it's a big disappointment. And why the
information was withheld from you, I have no idea.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Hiller, if you
want to continue, no problem. But we need to take a short break for
the court reporter.
Will you mind?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure. Do you need --
Page 199
January 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wait a minute, I'm going to
make a motion to adjourn, okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I just say one last thing?
Do you need a break right now?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, she does. I just asked her.
So why don't we just take a short break and we come right back --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because we're at the end. We're
at Commissioners comments and we're right at the end. Why take a
break when we can dispose of this and let her go about her business.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Because it could run on 10, 15
more minutes. And I figured I want to make everybody comfortable
as I possibly can. We are taking a short 10-minute break. We're
going to come back and finish up.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sounds good.
(A recess was taken.)
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The last thing I wanted to address
is that, you know, I really think the Naples Daily News is doing a
great job on reporting things that are going on in the county that I
don't even know about. And to me, that concerns me. Because to give
you an example, I found out that there was some sort of
embezzlement, theft of monies at the pool, padding of payroll in some
other division, I mean, and it just goes on and on.
And I guess, Leo, I have a concern that the Naples Daily News is
getting information, as I said, that but for reading the paper I would
never hear about. And I really think that it is your duty to tell us as
Commissioners what's going on when there are problems. You know,
for me to be reading the paper and finding out that, you know,
employees have been found to be padding their payroll and the Clerk
is initiating an audit, that's really not good. That's issue number one.
Issue number two is why are these things happening? Why are
we having such a slew of issues in Parks and Recs? And we had the
housing issue, we had the milk program. What's the resolution on the
Page 200
January 24, 2012
milk program issue, do we know where we are on that?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, we do. I've actually got a meeting
with the state in Tallahassee February 1st to see if I can't get it
resolved amicably.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Great. We've got the issue with
the guy who basically was checking his own cash drawers and
basically taking, I guess, cash or he admitted that he took cash at the
pool and now -- or at the water park. And now we have this payroll
issue with the problem with the time cards and recording time that
actually wasn't earned.
So my first question is why aren't you telling us, and maybe
you're telling them and not me, but I want to know. So I don't know if
you're telling them and not me or not telling them and not telling me,
but we all should know.
And secondly, why are we having so many problems like this?
In that one division? And what are you doing about it? And when are
we going to get that housing -- and the housing issue was one other
issue that was a problem there. When are we going to get the housing
update? Are we going to get a status report on that, or is that done?
MR. OCHS: On the NSP program, ma'am?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. Was there anything else?
Is that an ongoing audit?
Okay, so that's still an ongoing audit. So we don't know yet what
has transpired incorrectly in total.
MR. OCHS: Right, it's not final yet. That will be released by the
Clerk when they consider it to be final and ready to be released.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So can you help me?
MR. OCHS: Well, Commissioner, it's a large organization. I
told you we're not perfect. We're going to make some mistakes.
You've got a $868 million budget. This error by one timekeeper on
Parks and Recreation was a $6,000 error. And we're working to
resolve that. We're going to make some mistakes. We work very hard
Page 201
January 24, 2012
to maintain our internal controls and our operational standards. But,
you know, if the Board wants me to report every time there's a mistake
made in public session, I'd be happy to do it but, I mean, you pay me
to run the operation --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think these are -- right, to handle
that, I understand. But I think these are more than mistakes. And I
think the newspaper finds them worthy of note in a very material way.
And when I read them, I was concerned.
And like I said, it seems to be just one division that seems to be
having the bulk of these problems. So maybe there needs to be
something that you need to do to maybe give more oversight to that
division and, you know, help them protect the public assets. Because
everything that we're reading about is, you know, some sort of a
compromise to the public assets. So I'm concerned. And I hope you'll
do something about it.
MR. OCHS: I am, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do I hear a motion to adjourn?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We spent five minutes on
Commissioner Hiller's issues but we spent more than 10 minutes on
break. We have a lot of staff members back here that are very
expensive, and by the way you had a motion on the floor that you did
not act on.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, Commissioner
Henning, I didn't. But you can see that we did run a little bit longer
and I did ask the court reporter if she wanted a break, she nodded her
head and gave me that high sign. I didn't want to make her wait any
longer. So if I erred in letting the court reporter go on a break, then
forgive me. And if anyone out there needs to take a break, let me
know and I'll give you 10 minutes too.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's just money, don't worry
about it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, Commissioner Henning, I
Page 202
January 24, 2012
kind of hoped we could end this on a happier note than trying to play
the games of I got you on something. Let's try to end it with good
evening, sir, I hope you have a wonderful day.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I hope that we have a
productive meeting and use our staffs time wisely. And I'll second
Commissioner Hiller's motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much. We are
officially adjourned. Appreciate you all being here.
*****
**** 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 #16A1
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR THE TRIANGLE PARCEL, 14250 TAMIAMI
TRAIL NORTH AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER,
OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE ANY UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER
OR DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED AGENT — ON-SITE WATER
AND SEWER UTILITIES WILL BE MAINTAINED BY OWNER
Item #16A2
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER UTILITY FACILITY
FOR CITY GATE COMMERCE CENTER, PHASE 1 AND
AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE,
TO RELEASE ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY TO
THE PROJECT'S ENGINEER OR DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED
Page 203
January 24, 2012
AGENT — PUD MONITORING STAFF HAS REVIEWED THIS
REQUEST FOR ANY ISSUES THAT COULD BE RAISED BY
THE APPLICABLE PROPERTY OWNER'S ASSOCIATION AND
IS UNAWARE OF ANYTHING THAT NEGATES RELEASE
Item #16A3
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR CITY GATE COMMERCE CENTER, PHASE 2
AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS
DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE
SECURITY TO THE PROJECT'S ENGINEER OR DEVELOPER'S
DESIGNATED AGENT — PUD MONITORING STAFF HAS
REVIEWED THIS REQUEST FOR ANY ISSUES THAT COULD
BE RAISED BY THE APPLICABLE PROPERTY OWNER'S
ASSOCIATION AND IS UNAWARE OF ANYTHING THAT
NEGATES RELEASE
Item #16A4
ACCEPTING AN ALTERNATE SECURITY IN THE AMOUNT
OF $1,758,578.20 FROM THE CURRENT OWNER OF THE
SUBDIVISION KNOWN AS COPPER COVE PRESERVE, AND
AUTHORIZE THE CLERK OF COURTS TO RELEASE THE
PREVIOUSLY POSTED SECURITIES — THE NEW DEVELOPER,
LENNAR HOMES, LLC, HAS PROVIDED THE SECURITY
Item #16A5 — Withdrawn (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
DIRECTING THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE
TO HAVE THE CONSULTANT PROCEED WITH DESIGN OF
Page 204
January 24, 2012
A PATHWAY CONNECTION ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
IMMOKALEE ROAD, ALSO KNOWN AS, ALTERNATIVE 1
Item #16A6
A JOB CREATION INVESTMENT PROGRAM AGREEMENT
WITH ANIMAL SPECIALTY CENTER OF FLORIDA, LLC,
A/K/A ANIMAL SPECIALTY HOSPITAL OF FLORIDA, LLC,
CONSISTENT WITH PROVISIONS IN THE JOB CREATION
INVESTMENT PROGRAM AND THE COMPANY'S APPROVED
INCENTIVE APPLICATION (FY12 FISCAL IMPACT: $14,666) —
A STATE OF THE ART SPECIALTY VETERINARY HOSPITAL
LOCATED ADJACENT TO COLLIER BOULEVARD AT 10130
MARKET STREET
Item #16A7
A JOB CREATION INVESTMENT PROGRAM AGREEMENT
AND ADVANCED BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE
INVESTMENT PROGRAM AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA
SPECIALTIES LLC, CONSISTENT WITH PROVISIONS IN THE
JOB CREATION INVESTMENT PROGRAM AND ADVANCED
BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT PROGRAM
AND COMPANY'S APPROVED INCENTIVE APPLICATION
(FY12 FISCAL IMPACT: $18,333) — IN IMMOKALEE AND
SPECIALIZING IN PROCESSING & PACKAGING PRODUCE
Item #16A8
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF A CORRECTIVE DEDICATION/
RESERVATION FOR THE PLAT OF THE QUARRY PHASE 3,
AND DIRECT THE CLERK OF COURTS TO MAKE NOTATION
Page 205
January 24, 2012
ON THE RECORDED PLAT MAKING REFERENCE TO THE
RECORDED CORRECTIVE DEDICATION/RESERVATION —
SUBSEQUENT TO RECORDING THE PLAT, THE DEVELOPER
RECOGNIZED QUARRY COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC.
SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED AS OWNER ON THE PLAT
Item #16A9
RESOLUTION 2012-06: DIRECT THE COUNTY MANAGER TO
REVISE AND EXPAND DUTIES OF THE FLOODPLAIN
MANAGEMENT PLANNING COMMITTEE AND AMEND
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-200
Item #16A10
RESOLUTION 2012-07: APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT
PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT NO. 1 THAT PROVIDES
ADDITIONAL REVENUE IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,342 FROM
FY 2011/12 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION SECTION
5311 AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT
(ARRA) FUNDING
Item #16A 11
THREE (3) LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS
WITH CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATIONS TO ENSURE THE
MAINTENANCE PATHWAY ALONG THE NAPLES MANOR
NORTH CANAL IS UNOBSTRUCTED BY REQUIRING THE
PERIODIC MAINTENANCE OF HEDGES THAT WILL BE
PLANTED TO REPLACE AN EXISTING LANDSCAPE BUFFER
ALONG SOUTHERLY BOUNDARIES THAT WILL BE LOST
DURING CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS TO THE CANAL
Page 206
January 24, 2012
AS PART OF LASIP PROJECT #51101 (FISCAL IMPACT: $132)
— WITH ABBINGTON VILLAGE, FOUR FOUNTAINS AND THE
BRADSTROM CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATIONS
Item #16Al2
AN AGREEMENT W/ABBINGTON VILLAGE CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION PROVIDING CONVEYANCE OF A DRAINAGE
ACCESS AND MAINTENANCE EASEMENT FROM THE
ASSOCIATION TO COLLIER COUNTY WITHOUT
COMPENSATION FOR THE NAPLES MANOR NORTH CANAL
SEGMENT OF LELY AREA STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT (LASIP) #51101 (FISCAL IMPACT: $35.50) — THE
EASEMENT WILL ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A BERM
AND MAINTENANCE PATHWAY AND FOR INSTALLATION
OF A DRAINAGE PIPE TO CARRY STORMWATER FROM THE
ASSOCIATION'S PROPERTY TO THE CANAL
Item #16A13 — Moved to Item #10I (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16B1
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) APPROVE
AN EXTENSION AND FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE LEASE
AGREEMENT WITH BUDGET RENT A CAR SYSTEM, INC.,
PERMITTING THEM TO CONTINUE OPERATING AN
EXISTING BUSINESS ON CRA OWNED PROPERTY AT 1933
AND 1965 TAMIAMI TRAIL — TO KEEP THE CURRENT
TENANT EXTENDING THE LEASE FROM JANUARY 31, 2012
TO JANUARY 31, 2015 AND REDUCING THE RENT FROM
$7,000 TO $5,000 PER MONTH TO REFLECT THE DECLINE
AND WEAKNESS OF THE CURRENT REAL ESTATE MARKET
Page 207
January 24, 2012
Item #16C1
AGREEMENT MOA100 #12-5842 AMENDMENT NO.1
BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR
CONTINUED AMBIENT AIR MONITORING IN THE COUNTY —
EXTENDING THE AGREEMENT COMPLETION DATE TO
JANUARY 29, 2014
Item #16C2
LICENSE AGREEMENT #12-5841 WITH DISTRICT SCHOOL
BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY ALLOWING THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TO
CONTINUE OPERATING THE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY
(OZONE) MONITORING TRAILER THAT IS CURRENTLY
USED AT LAUREL OAK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL — FOR AN
AGREEMENT THAT EXPIRES DECEMBER 31, 2016
Item #16C3 — Continued to the February 14, 2012 BCC Meeting
(Per Agenda Change Sheet)
REMOVE UNCOLLECTIBLE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE AND
THEIR RESPECTIVE BALANCES FROM FINANCIAL
RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY'S PUBLIC UTILITIES
DIVISION IN THE AMOUNT OF $423,644.77
Item #16C4
INCREASE THE ANNUAL ESTIMATED NOT TO EXCEED
AMOUNT FOR CONTRACT #11-5698 WITH N. HARRIS
Page 208
January 24, 2012
COMPUTER CORP. FOR MAINTENANCE, LICENSING AND
TECHNICAL SERVICES, FROM $140,000 TO $220,000 TO
INCLUDE CREDIT CARD PAYMENT PROCESSING
TRANSACTION COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH IWEB, A HOSTED
PAYMENT SYSTEM PROVIDED BY TRANSACTION
WAREHOUSE (A HARRIS SUB-CONTRACTOR) THROUGH
CONTRACT #11-5698 — AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16D1
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT PROVIDING A $35,000 STATE
HOUSING INITIATIVES PROGRAM (SHIP) GRANT TO THE
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF SW FLORIDA,
INC. (HDC) TO PROVIDE HOMEBUYER EDUCATION,
COUNSELING AND/OR PRE-PURCHASE, EXTENDED CREDIT
AND/OR FORECLOSURE PREVENTION COUNSELING TO
BENEFIT PERSONS EARNING LESS THAN 120% OF FAMILY
MEDIAN INCOME OF COLLIER COUNTY
Item #16D2
MODIFICATION TO DISASTER RECOVERY INITIATIVE
GRANT AGREEMENT #10DB-D4-09-21-01-K09 BETWEEN THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
(DEO), FORMERLY KNOWN AS FLORIDA'S DEPARTMENT
OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (DCA) AND COLLIER COUNTY
TO CHANGE THE GRANTOR'S NAME IN THE AGREEMENT,
REALLOCATE FUNDS IN THE IMMOKALEE CRA'S
STORMWATER PROJECT AND SIGN ASSOCIATED
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENTS
Page 209
January 24, 2012
Item #16D3
RESOLUTION 2012-08 : AUTHORIZING AN UPLAND LEASE
APPLICATION WITH THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT LAND TRUST FUND OF THE
STATE OF FLORIDA FOR THE PARKS AND RECREATION
DEPARTMENT TO MANAGE THE NEWLY CONSTRUCTED
ISLES OF CAPRI PADDLE CRAFT PARK CONSTRUCTED BY
ROOKERY BAY NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH
RESERVE
Item #16D4
EXECUTING A UTILITY FACILITIES WARRANTY DEED AND
BILL OF SALE TO CONVEY THE WASTEWATER UTILITIES
INFRASTRUCTURE AT THE COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC
BEACH FACILITIES AT BLUEBILL AVE. TO THE COLLIER
COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT, AT AN ESTIMATED
COST OF $35.50
Item #16D5
AWARD CONTRACT #11-5791 TO PINELLAS POOL FOR
RENOVATION OF THE INTERACTIVE WATER FEATURE
AT VINEYARDS COMMUNITY PARK IN THE AMOUNT OF
$206,800; APPROVE A NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT
TO PROVIDE FUNDS AND ESTABLISH 10% CONTINGENCY;
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT
AFTER A REVIEW BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Item #16D6
Page 210
January 24, 2012
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN ONE (1) RELEASE OF LIEN FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS AGREEMENT
FOR A UNIT SOLD WHICH IS NO LONGER SUBJECT TO THE
TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT
Item #16D7
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN ONE (1) SATISFACTION OF
MORTGAGE FOR OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE
HOUSING UNITS THAT REPAYMENT IN FULL HAS BEEN
PROVIDED TO COLLIER COUNTY
Item #16D8 — Moved to Item #10F (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16D9
AN AMENDMENT WITH THE CITY OF NAPLES FOR $30,365
IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
RECOVERY (CDBG-R) FUNDS
Item #16D10 — Moved to Item #10G (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16E1
EXECUTING A CORRECTIVE EASEMENT TO FP&L AT A
COST NOT TO EXCEED $19
Item #16E2
CONTRACT #06-3939 AMENDMENT NO. 5 W/ "NORTHEAST
REGIONAL UTILITY PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND
OVERSIGHT SERVICES" WITH MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC.,
Page 211
January 24, 2012
FOR SERVICES DURING PROGRAM HIBERNATION AND
REACTIVATION OF THE NORTHEAST FACILITIES
PROGRAM PROJECTS #70899, #73156, #70902, AND #75012
Item #16E3 — Moved to Item #10H (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16E4
A DONATION AGREEMENT WITH GINNIE EVANS POOVEY
KANIA FOR 10 ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION
COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT
TO EXCEED $3,000
Item #16E5
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE JANUARY 10, 2012
BCC MEETING. RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AND
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN A CONTRACT
ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT FROM TECTRANS, INC. TO
KEOLIS TRANSIT AMERICA, INC. D/B/A TECTRANS, INC.
FOR THE COLLIER AREA TRANSIT (CAT) FIXED ROUTE
AND PARATRANSIT PROGRAM
Item #16E6 — Continued to the February 14, 2012 BCC Meeting
(Per Agenda Change Sheet)
A CONTRACT WITH COMMERCE BANK NA FOR LETTER OF
INTENT (LOI) 10-5562 E-PAYABLES FOR THE AUTOMATION
OF PAYMENTS TO VENDORS AND OBTAIN ADDITIONAL
REVENUE/REBATES TO THE COUNTY
Page 212
January 24, 2012
Item #16F1
RESOLUTION 2012-09 : APPROVING AMENDMENTS
(APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS
OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE FY 2011-12 ADOPTED
BUDGET
Item #16F2
PREPAYMENT OF THE 2007 STATE INFRASTRUCTURE
BANK LOAN RESULTING IN A INTEREST SAVINGS OF
$59,983 AND APPROVE ALL NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENTS
Item #16F3
COUNTY ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS TO TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX
ORDINANCE NO. 92-60, AS AMENDED, AND RETURN TO
BOARD FOR FINAL APPROVAL. AMENDMENTS INCLUDE
(1) REVISE LANGUAGE RELATING TO CATEGORY B USE OF
FUNDS; (2) DELINEATE ALLOCATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
COSTS FOR TOURISM PROMOTION AND BEACH PARK
FACILITIES & BEACH IMPROVEMENTS; (3) REALLOCATE
FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR, $100,000 FROM FUND 193,
MUNICIPAL OWNED MUSEUMS AND MUSEUMS OWNED
AND OPERATED BY NOT-FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, TO FUND 198, COUNTY-OWNED OR
OPERATED MUSEUMS TO BE USED FOR A ONE-TIME
PAYMENT PURSUANT TO A CATEGORY C(2) AGREEMENT
WITH THE MARCO ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY
Page 213
January 24, 2012
Item #16G1
A LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH WALKER INTERNATIONAL
EVENTS, INC. AT THE IMMOKALEE AIRPORT FOR A TWO
(2) DAY CIRCUS EVENT
Item #16H1
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE, SHE ATTENDED THE U.S. COAST
GUARD CHANGE OF WATCH ON JANUARY 7, 2012, THE
SUM OF $50 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S
TRAVEL BUDGET — LOCATED AT HIDEAWAY BEACH
CLUB, 250 SOUTH BEACH DRIVE, MARCO ISLAND
Item #16H2
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A
FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE, HE
ATTENDED THE EASTERN COLLIER CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE BREAKFAST AT ROMA HAVANA RESTURANT,
IMMOKALEE, FL ON JANUARY 4, 2012, $15 TO BE PAID
FROM COMMISSIONER COLLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET —
LOCATED AT 1025 W. MAIN ST., IMMOKALEE
Item #16H3
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A
FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE, HE WILL
Page 214
January 24, 2012
BE ATTENDING THE LEADERSHIP COLLIER FOUNDATION
ALUMNI BOX LUNCH SPEAKER FORUM AT THE
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT CENTER, NAPLES, FL ON
JANUARY 26, 2012, $10 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET — LOCATED AT 615 THIRD
AVE. SOUTH, NAPLES
Item #16H4
COMMISSIONER HILLER'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A
FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE, SHE
ATTENDED THE PRE LEGISLATIVE BREAKFAST WITH
FLORIDA SENATOR RICHTER, $25 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER HILLER'S TRAVEL BUDGET — HELD ON
DECEMBER 14, 2011, AT THE HILTON NAPLES, 5111
TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH
Item #16H5
COMMISSIONER HILLER'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A
FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE, SHE WILL
BE ATTENDING THE CATO INSTITUTE NAPLES LUNCHEON
FEBRUARY 6, 2012, $75 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
HILLER'S TRAVEL BUDGET — TO BE HELD AT THE RITZ-
CARLTON, 280 VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD., NAPLES
Item #16I1 & #16I2
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH
ACTION AS DIRECTED — NOTHING SUBMITTED
Page 215
16I1
THERE WAS NO
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
AGENDA ITEM #16I1
FOR THE JANUARY 24, 2012
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS MEETING
January 24, 2012
Item #16J1
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF DECEMBER 24, 2011
THROUGH DECEMBER 30, 2011 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J2
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF DECEMBER 31, 2011
THROUGH JANUARY 6, 2012 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J3
ACCEPTING THE INVESTMENT STATUS UPDATE REPORT
FOR THE QUARTER ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2011
Item #16J4
PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 318.18(13)(B) THE
CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT IS REQUIRED TO FILE
THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC INFRACTION SURCHARGES
COLLECTED UNDER FLORIDA STATUTE 318.18(13)(A)(1)
WITH THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Item #16K1
AN AGREED ORDER FOR EXPERT FEES AND COSTS AND
ATTORNEY'S FEES FOR PARCELS 105FEE/TCE AND
106FEE/TCE, AND STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT FOR
COMPENSATION AS TO PARCEL NOS. 106FEE/TCE, IN THE
Page 216
January 24, 2012
COMBINED AMOUNT OF $41,219.17 IN THE LAWSUIT
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V ANNETTE POCCHI, ET AL.,
CASE NO. 10-2682-CA (COLLIER BOULEVARD PROJECT
#68056) (FISCAL IMPACT: $28,819.17)
Item #16K2
MAKING OF AN OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENT,
ARIAM LOPEZ, FOR PARCEL NO. 173 SE IN THE AMOUNT OF
$1,000 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V.
PABLO GARCIA, ET AL., CASE NO. 10-2683-CA (COLLIER
BOULEVARD PROJECT #68056) (FISCAL IMPACT: $300)
Item #16K3
AUTHORIZING THE LAW FIRM OF HENDERSON FRANKLIN
STARNES & HOLT, P.A. AND JOHN POTANOVIC, ESQ. TO
REPRESENT COLLIER COUNTY IN THE MATTER ENTITLED
DONALD EDWARDS V. COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; CASE
NO. 09-6111-CA
Item #16K4
MEDIATION SETTLEMENT PRIOR TO TRIAL IN A LAWSUIT
ENTITLED MA UREEN BENES AND LADDIE C. BENES V.
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, FILED IN THE TWENTIETH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, CASE NO. 11-1879-CA FOR THE SUM OF $15,000
AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Item #16K5
Page 217
January 24, 2012
ADVERTISE & BRING BACK FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION,
AN ORDINANCE WHICH WOULD ESTABLISH LIMITATIONS,
IN ADDITION TO THOSE SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 538, PART
II, FLORIDA STATUTES, ON THE SALE OF REGULATED
METALS (SECONDARY METALS)
Item #16K6
RESOLUTION 2012-10: DIRECTING THE COLLIER COUNTY
SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS TO TAKE APPROPRIATE
ACTION WITH RESPECT TO COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOL
DISTRICT RESOLUTION 12-01, WHICH SEEKS A MILLAGE
REFERENDUM ON THE NOVEMBER 6, 2012 BALLOT FOR
THE SCHEDULED GENERAL ELECTION
Item #17A — Moved to Item #8B (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #17B
ORDINANCE 2012-03: AMENDING THE COLLIER COUNTY
CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE, ORDINANCE
NO. 2001-13, AS AMENDED, TO INCORPORATE A PROVISION
CLARIFYING IMPOSITION OF WATER AND SEWER IMPACT
FEES ON GEOGRAPHIC AREAS IN THE COLLIER COUNTY
WATER-SEWER DISTRICT UNTIL SUCH A 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
Page 218
January 24, 2012
Item #17C
ORDINANCE 2012-04: AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2004-12,
AS AMENDED, FOR A PURPOSE OF REVISING THE CLASS 2
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE & NECESSITY FOR
POST-HOSPITAL INTERFACILITY TRANSPORT SERVICES
Item #17D
RESOLUTION 2012-11 : APPROVING AMENDMENTS
(APPROPRIATING CARRY FORWARD, TRANSFERS AND
SUPPLEMENTAL REVENUE) TO THE FY 2011-12 ADOPTED
BUDGET
Item #17E — Moved to Item #8C (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Page 219
January 24, 2012
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:47 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
BOARD AND AIRPORT AUTHORITY
6"ajk
FRED W. COYLE, Chairman
ATT S '
.
DWIGHT S. y
: ROCK, CLERK
•
44bitidaf if(
as. to ;asinine 4
tgNti r* +o ;
These minutes aped by the Board on 2'$ , 20 Z ,
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM.
Page 220