BCC Minutes 01/10/2012 R BCC
REGULAR
MEETING
MINUTES
JANUARY 10, 2012
January 10, 2012
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, January 10, 2012
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as
the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board (s) of such
special districts as have been created according to law and having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Fred Coyle
Jim Coletta
Donna Fiala
Tom Henning
Georgia Hiller
ALSO PRESENT:
Leo E. Ochs, Jr., County Manager
Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Crystal Kinzel, Office of the Clerk of Courts
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
MEOW-WIMM
AGENDA
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor
Naples, FL 34112
January 10, 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 -249 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS
SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE
BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
January 10, 2012
Page 1
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 Charles McCracken - Naples Alliance Church
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for consent and
summary agenda.)
B. Public declaration of form 8B, Memorandum of Voting Conflict for County,
Municipal and Other Local Public Officers, in reference to Item 8A on the
Agenda of December 13, 2011, filed by Commissioner Tom Henning.
C. December 13 -14, 2011 - BCC /Regular Meeting
January 10, 2012
Page 2
3. SERVICE AWARDS
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation recognizing the contributions made by Myra Janco Daniels to
the cultural life of the citizens of Collier County and naming January 2012
as Myra Janco Daniels Month. To be accepted by Myra Janco Daniels.
Sponsored by the Board of County Commissioners.
B. Proclamation recognizing the Remodelers Council of the Collier Building
Industry Association for their efforts to rehabilitate the home of Janice
Bronstein to make it wheelchair accessible and increase her in -home
mobility. To be accepted by Kathy Curatolo, Tom Wegwert, Chris Alley
and Brian Conell. Sponsored by Commissioner Coyle.
C. Proclamation recognizing Chabad of Naples for its growth, contributions
and success in Collier County. To be accepted by Rabbi Fishel Zaklos.
Sponsored by the Board of County Commissioners.
D. Proclamation designating February 11, 2012 as Baby Basics Day in Collier
County. To be accepted by Dick and Jean Ann Lynch and Reg and Sandra
Buxton. Sponsored by Commissioner Coletta.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation of the Collier County Business of the Month for January 2012
to Naples Botanical Garden. Accepting the award are Brian Holley, Shannon
Palmer and Chris Brighton.
B. Recommendation to recognize Sheree Mediavilla, Administrative Assistant,
Public Utilities Operations Department, as the Employee of the Year for
2011.
C. Selection of Chairman and Vice - Chairman
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
January 10, 2012
Page 3
A. Public Petition request from John H. Marker regarding flooding on 18th
Street Northeast.
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 Pm unless otherwise noted.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item 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.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of member to the Consumer Advisory Board.
B. Appointment of alternate member to the Value Adjustment Board.
C. Recommendation to oppose the U.S. Postal Service plan to consolidate or
close the Ft. Myers Processing and Distribution Center which would have a
$40 million economic impact on the five counties served, including Collier
County. (Commissioner Henning)
D. Recommendation to approve a resolution acknowledging the Board of
County Commissioners' support of Senate Bill 192 pertaining to amending
the procedures for merger and dissolution of two or more independent
special districts. (Commissioner Henning)
January 10, 2012
Page 4
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to reject an offer to waive all fines and all County
operational costs on a Code Enforcement Action entitled Board of County
Commissioners vs. Sergio G. and Patricia Salinas, Code Enforcement
Special Magistrate Case No. CESD- 2010 - 0004913 and Case No. CESD-
2010- 0004916, relating to property located at 2756 47th Street SW, Collier
County, Florida. (Diane Flagg, Director, Code Enforcement, Growth
Management Division/Planning and Regulation)
B. This item continued from the December 13, 2011 BCC Meeting.
Recommendation to review the procurement of services from Suncoast
Moving & Storage, Inc. for moving the County Property Appraiser's offices
in July 2010 and make a determination regarding the request for final
payment in the amount of $6,556.50. (Len Price, Administrative Services
Administrator)
11. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
12. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
13. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND /OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
A. AIRPORT
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, acting as
the Airport Authority, adopts the attached Airport Ground Vehicle
Access Plan for the Immokalee Regional Airport.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, acting as
the Airport Authority, adopts the attached Resolution approving the
proposed rate schedules for the Everglades Airpark, Immokalee
Regional Airport and Marco Island Executive Airport for 2012.
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Community
Redevelopment Agency Chairman to sign a Grant Agreement and
January 10, 2012
Page 5
associated forms between Fifth Third Bank Enterprise Investment
Fund and the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment
Agency (CRA) to accept a grant award in the amount of $25,000; and
authorize a budget amendment for grant revenues in the amount of
$25,000 to be applied towards the CRA FY -2012 TIF grant program.
14. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. CONSENT AGENDA -All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately
A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
1) This item requires that ex carte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
authorize the Clerk of Courts to release a security which was posted as
a development guaranty for work associated with Excavation Permit
No. 59.835 — Livingston Lakes Commercial Excavation.
2) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water utility
facility for Foxfire Entrance Revisions, Kings Way and Davis
Boulevard 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 sewer utility
facility for Waldorf Plaza (fka — Boca Bargoons), 4424 Tamiami Trail
West, 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
January 10, 2012
Page 6
4) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Fiddler's Creek, Phase 3, Unit 4 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.
5) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water utility
facility for Landscaper's Choice, 218 Sable Palm Road, 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.
6) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the final plat of Regal Acres Phase One,
approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security.
7) Recommendation to approve an Easement Agreement with The
Country Club of Naples and an Easement Agreement with Royal
Poinciana Golf Club for the conveyance to Collier County of two
Drainage, Access and Maintenance Easements necessary to complete
maintenance work within the Gordon River Extension to prevent
upstream flooding. Fiscal Impact: $46,164.50. Project No. 60117.
8) Recommendation to approve Change Order No. 2 to Contract #10-
5206, with Atkins North America, Inc., for Design Services for
Collier Area Transit Transfer Station, in the amount of $99,900 for
redesign and post design services, and to extend the contract by six
hundred seventy seven (677) days to account for the inclusion of
construction and the completion schedule; and to authorize the
Chairman to execute the change order.
9) Recommendation to consider approving a request for a one -year
extension of the required time frame for job creation for ValueCentric,
LLC, an approved participant in the Job Creation Investment Program
and the Advanced Broadband Infrastructure Investment Program, due
January 10, 2012
Page 7
to unforeseen delays experienced by a key customer and challenges in
identifying qualified software development candidates.
10) Recommendation to approve an economic development agency report
required by Section 125.045, Florida Statutes and authorize the
County Manager or designee to submit a copy of the report to the
Office of Economic and Demographic Research (EDR).
11) Recommendation to accept the FYI 1-12 Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) Section 5310 Grant award in the amount of
$262,050, authorize the necessary budget amendments and approve
the purchase of three (3) paratransit vehicles utilizing those funds.
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
to approve and execute an extension of Commercial Building
Improvement Grant 05/2011 Agreement between the
Bayshore /Gateway Triangle CRA and BE Home Realty, LLC due to
certain permitting and site development plan change requirements.
(1712 Commercial Drive, Fiscal Impact: None)
2) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
to approve and execute a Commercial Building Improvement Grant
Agreement between the CRA and a Grant Applicant within the
Bayshore Gateway Triangle area. (2595 Tamiami Trail East, Fiscal
Impact $3,603)
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to a) approve a Utility Work by Highway
Contractor Agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation;
b) approve a Florida Department of Transportation standard form
resolution authorizing the Chairman of the Board of County
Commissioners to execute the agreement; and, c) approve a
Memorandum of Agreement with the Florida Department of
Transportation and Florida Department of Financial Services,
Division of Treasury to establish an interest bearing escrow account.
January 10, 2012
Page 8
2) Recommendation to approve budget amendments associated with
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Agreement Number 11HM- 3E -09-
21 -01 -026 with the State of Florida, Division of Emergency
Management, totaling $360,945, to apply toward the costs associated
with the installation of 1,430 linear feet of six -inch High Density
Polyethylene leachate pipe at the Collier County Landfill.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to authorize the Chairman to sign a Subrecipient
Agreement for a Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) funded Continuum of Care Grant (CoQ Shelter Plus Care
(S +C) grant that was accepted by the Board on October 11, 2011.
2) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign
certifications required by the State of Florida, Department of Children
and Families (DCF) in order to be eligible to accept the awarded 2012
Challenge Grant funding.
3) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment in the amount of
$18,080 to recognize revenue and its appropriate expenditures from
the collection of co- payments and contributions from the Housing,
Human and Veteran Services, Services for Seniors program.
4) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign an
amendment to the Subrecipient agreement for Catholic Charities to
recognize Board approved changes in the HPRP Administrative Plan.
5) Recommendation to accept funding from the Collier County 4 -H
Clubs Foundation Inc. in the amount of $45,000 for the 4 -H Outreach
Program managed by the Collier County University of Florida/IFAS
Extension Department, $3,000 in anticipated revenue from private
contributions of 4H outreach participants, and to approve a budget
amendment in the amount of $48,000.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve a License Agreement with SpectraSite
Communications, LLC, for communications tower space needed for
January 10, 2012
Page 9
the County's SafePoint Location System, a component of the
County's 800 MHz public safety radio network, at a first year's rent
cost of $7,800.
2) Recommendation to approve an Antenna Site Agreement and an
Addendum to Antenna Site Agreement with SBA Towers II, LLC, for
communications tower space needed for the County's SafePoint
Location System, a component of the County's 800 MHz public
safety radio network, at a first year's rent cost of $7,800.
3) Recommendation to approve selection of firms under RFP #12 -5809 —
Engineering Design for Renovation/Replacement of HVAC Systems
in J -1 Section of Collier County Naples Jail Center - and direct staff to
bring a negotiated contract to the Board for subsequent approval.
4) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign the
Assumption Agreement from Tectrans, Inc. to Keolis Transit
America, Inc. for Management Contract for the Collier Area Transit
(CAT) Fixed Route and Paratransit Program.
5) Recommendation to approve Amendment #1 to Contract #11-5666
"Barefoot Beach Concessionaire Agreement" with Day -Star
Unlimited, Inc. d/b /a Cabana Dan's and authorize the Chairman to
sign the amendment.
6) Recommendation to accept reports and ratify staff - approved change
orders and changes to work orders.
7) Recommendation to approve and ratify the addition of the
classification of Business Development Coordinator to the 2012 Fiscal
Year Pay and Classification Plan.
F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS
1) Recommendation to approve and adopt the Resolutions adopted by
the Board of the Pelican Bay Services Division at a Special Meeting
on December 14, 2011, with respect to the 1998 Joint Coastal Permit
of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the Clam
January 10, 2012
Page 10
Bay Restoration and Management Plan authorized to be implemented
under that Permit.
2) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
to the Fiscal Year 2011 -12 Adopted Budget.
3) Recommendation to approve In- Market Meeting Planner Site and
Familiarization Guidelines for the Tourism Department to provide
payment or reimbursement of expenses related to attracting group
meetings to Collier County and authorize payment of covered
expenses up to an annual total program cost of $150,000.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
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 ENCA Luncheon on October 20, 2011. The sum of $18
to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
2) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the Donald Rumsfeld Luncheon on November 9, 2011. The
sum of $125 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
3) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the SCORE Naples Luncheon on December 5, 2011. The
sum of $22.50 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
4) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the Women's Network Lunch on December 8, 2011. The
sum of $7.50 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
5) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
January 10, 2012
Page 11
Attended the ENCA Luncheon on December 15, 2011. The sum of
$18 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
6) 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 December 7, 2011. $15
to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
7) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the Physician Led Access Network (PLAN) Holiday Open
House at Plaza Walk, 2500 Tamiami Trail North, Suite #202, Naples,
FL on December 8, 2011. $5 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's
travel budget.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous correspondence items to file for record with action as
directed.
2) Advisory Board minutes to file for record with action as directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
November 26, 2011 through December 2, 2011 and for submission
into the official records of the Board.
2) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
December 3, 2011 through December 9, 2011 and for submission into
the official records of the Board.
3) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
December 10, 2011 through December 16, 2011 and for submission
into the official records of the Board.
January 10, 2012
Page 12
4) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
December 17, 2011 through December 23, 2011 and for submission
into the official records of the Board.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS WHICH ARE QUASI -
JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
A. Recommendation to adopt two Ordinances amending the Code of Laws and
Ordinances as it relates to public solicitations of contributions and the
issuance of permits for charitable solicitation at road intersections.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252 -8383.
January 10, 2012
Page 13
January 10, 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 Charles McCracken.
Item #1
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
REVEREND McCRACKEN: Father in heaven, we thank you
for people who are willing to give of themselves to take care of the
world that you made. We thank you for people like Ms. Daniels, who
has given so many of her years to serve us.
Guide these, your servants, our elected officials, as they do the
business of Collier County. Give them wisdom and insight to know
what's right, and give them courage to do it. Watch over this meeting.
And we give you our praise and thanks because we know it's really
about you, not us. We pray in the name of your Son, thank you.
Amen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Please remain standing and join us in the
Pledge of Allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank vou.
Our first order of business this morning is to determine if there
are changes to the agenda.
County Manager?
Item #2A
APPROVAL OF TODAY'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND
SUMMARY AGENDA AS AMENDED — APPROVED AND /OR
ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
Page 2
January 10, 2012
MR. OCHS: Good morning, Commissioners, and Happy New
Year.
These are your proposed agenda changes for the Board of County
Commissioners meeting of January 10th, 2012.
First proposed change is to move Item 2.B on your agenda to
become Item 16.I.3. That change is made at the County Attorney's
request.
Next proposal is to continue Item 8.A to the January 24th, 2012
BCC meeting. That is the proposed amendment to the Orangetree
PUD. That continuance is requested at Commissioner Fiala's request.
Next proposed change is to move Item 16.A.8 from your consent
agenda to become Item 10.F. That change is requested by
Commissioner Hiller.
The next proposed change is to move Item 16.A.10 from your
consent agenda to become Item 10.E. That change is also requested
by Commissioner Hiller.
The next proposed change is to move Item 16.13.2 from your
consent agenda under your CRAs to become Item 13.13.2. That move
is requested by Commissioner Hiller.
The next proposed change is to continue Item 16.E.4 to the
January 24th, 2012 BCC meeting. That's at staff s request, to make
some minor corrections to the assumption agreements.
The next proposed change is to move Item 16.F.1 from the
consent agenda to become Item 10.C. That move is requested
separately by both Commissioners Hiller and Commissioner Coyle.
The final proposed change is to move Item 16.F.3 from the
consent agenda to the regular agenda, becoming Item 10.D. That
move is made at Commissioner Hiller's request.
Commissioners, you have two time certain items scheduled for
today's meeting. The first is Item 10.13 to be heard at 11:30 a.m. And
the second time certain item is 10.C. That is scheduled to be heard at
1:00 P.M.
Page 3
January 10, 2012
Those are all the changes that I have, sir. I know that
Commissioner Hiller had some other time certain requests, and I'm
sure she'll make those as you go through your agenda changes with the
individual commissioners --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What was your first item? Did you cover
the County Attorney's request?
MR. OCHS : Yes, sir, that was the first item on your change
sheet. It was 2.13.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I wasn't sure if the County Attorney was
going to do that or not.
County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: No changes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No changes. Okay, then we will start
with Commissioner Henning today for ex parte disclosure and any
further changes to the agenda.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good morning. I have no ex
parte communication for today's agenda, and I have no changes to
today's consent or summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I have no changes to the
agenda, and I have nothing to add as far as ex parte.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, I have no ex parte disclosure for
any item on the agenda.
I do request that Item 2.13 remain on the regular agenda, so I'm in
opposition to the County Attorney's request to have this moved.
And I'll go to Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. I have no changes
to the agenda. And I have -- other than 8.A, I have nothing at all on
the consent agenda to declare.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
And Commissioner Hiller?
January 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. First of all, with respect to
Item 16.A.7, which is now Item 10.F, I was able to finally get
information from staff at the end of the day yesterday that clarified my
concerns, so I have no problem if that item stays on consent.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That would be 16.A.8, not 16.A.7, I
think; isn't that correct?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, it's about the drainage
easements, A.7. It says --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Going to 10.17?
MR. OCHS: That is not on your change sheet, based on the
communication with me last evening that you just said you had
comfort with that. So we were able to leave that on your consent
agenda based on your communication last night.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So -- but where you say move
Item 16.A.7, the change sheet, you have an update to reflect that?
MR. OCHS: I do indeed, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we're sure that that's not going
to be on the general then.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, that's great. Because on my
change sheet it's still here. So I just --
MR. OCHS: There's an updated change sheet that comes out
before the meeting that has been corrected. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I didn't get it. It's not the one in
front of me.
Then the other thing that I'd like to say is again, as a result of
discussion with staff, and this was really at staff s request and I'd like
to respect their wishes, and that is instead of bringing what would be
new Item 10.E forward to today's meeting, they requested that it be
continued so they would have time to, you know, edit and correct
what needs to be done with respect to that report.
And, you know, I have no problem with that. So I would suggest
Page 5
January 10, 2012
rather than have Item 16.A.10 become 10.E, instead continue 16.A.10
until Leo, you feel that that report is ready for review and approval.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. The only thing that staff was going to
do during the presentation was two things: One was to ask the Board's
permission to request the extension from the department -- the Office
of Economic Development to allow us additional time. Then to
continue the item based on that continuance to get the issues clarified
that had been discussed, and bring that back to the Board. If the
Board's comfortable with that as part of this change sheet discussion,
then we can just continue that item, knowing that the Board --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: They will get an extension for this
date --
MR. OCHS: Yes. If the Board has no objection to us requesting
the extension, then we don't have to present that item, we can just
continue it, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What would you prefer, Commissioner
Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would prefer that we just
dispense with it now and take it off the agenda so we can move
forward to other items.
MR. OCHS: So on that basis, Commissioners, we would then
continue Item 10.1) on your change sheet --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, 10.E.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 10.E.
MR. OCHS: I'm sorry, 10.E, yes --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Would be removed -- would be
continued.
MR. OCHS: To the next meeting. In fact, let's just say to the
first meeting in February to give us enough time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The next item refers to what was
16.F.3, which would be now Item 10.1), related to the tourist
January 10, 2012
development program.
And I had a brief discussion with Crystal and with County
Attorney Klatzkow, and it would seem to me that in light of the fact
that this is not a settled issue, rather than have a discussion about it, if
we continue this and allowed staff and the County Attorney and
finance to work through whatever issues they have with this item, it
might be a time saver for everybody.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, there is some urgency on the part
of Mr. Wert. And I'll ask him to come forward if he needs to explain.
But we're in the heart of the marketing season, and the ability to move
forward with some of these items that are in this agenda on that
particular issue ought to be, in our view, discussed and hopefully
settled today, if we can.
Jack?
MR. WERT: For the record, Jack Wert, your Tourism Director.
As Mr. Ochs indicated, this item is a very big initiative with our
tourism industry, especially our hotels that have significant meeting
space. This is a program that really has carried over from last year.
We have refined it this year based on working with our hotels and
with meeting planners. We have a much better understanding now of
how they operate, how they like to book their travel and so forth. So
this whole issue, which went before the TDC, is now before you.
I do think that it would be helpful to have the discussion today
and try to work through whatever issues we might have so that our
hotels can in fact use this process right away. We -- as Mr. Ochs said,
we are in the height of the season, we have a lot of planners in the
queue that are really waiting for this -- these guidelines to be approved
so that we can bring some of these here. I think there's some
significant meeting business that we can bring here based on this
procedure being in place.
So I ask that the County Commission give us the opportunity to
discuss it with you today and see if we can resolve the issues.
Page 7
January 10, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Do you have anything else,
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I do.
First of all, the issue is a little bit different than Jack presents.
What was approved by the TDC is not what is before the Board today.
And as to the modifications as to what's being presented, I think
that's where we've got the County Attorney and Crystal that need to
work with Jack. The program in and of itself as approved by the TDC
is a good one. The process and the modifications I think are the issue.
And I don't think that anyone would be hurt by waiting two weeks to
the next meeting to have these issues approved and resolved by legal
and finance, rather than to have a public debate and have it
unresolved.
So I would still like to suggest that this be continued to the next
meeting to be expeditious about it and ask the County Attorney and
Crystal to work as quickly as possible with Jack to get it resolved in
the best way you can.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And Commissioner Fiala, I'm
sorry, I skipped over you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
Coming from that industry, I realize how important it is to move
forward on these things. As I read through this, I was very impressed
with how tight this thing was compared to when we used to do these
things. It's a much better program than I ever followed. Ours was
rather loosely structured and there were a lot of things that could go
astray. This one is very tight and I'm impressed with it. And I'm also
concerned that the hotels are able to get out quickly and follow
through on the business they have lined up, and they're just waiting for
this.
And I respect Commissioner Hiller's feelings about this, that's
great, but I think it's so important to move forward. So I -- you know,
of course it's up to everybody, but I would vote to keep it right where
January 10, 2012
It is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have an unusual situation
here today. We have two items where the Commissioners are in
opposition to staff recommendations. So we're going to have to work
those out.
But let's see if we can't deal with this one first.
Commissioner Hiller says that this is not what was approved by
the TDC. Let's make sure we get a clear answer to that. And advise
us as to how you might be able to proceed to make sure it is in
compliance with the TDC's wishes, okay?
MR. WERT: We can do that, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can you do that?
MR. WERT: I absolutely can.
And do you want to wait for the item to come forward or would
you like to try to resolve that now?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, what do you
think?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, again, I think that this needs
to be addressed with the County Attorney and with Crystal. I mean,
the County Attorney expressed to me that it would be his preference to
see it continued, and I respect his opinion.
And I understand what you're saying, Commissioner Fiala, the
industry certainly will benefit. But at the same time it has to be
legally correct and it has to be fiscally prudent, and two weeks will not
hurt the industry in this case.
So that's why I still recommend, rather than spending time
debating issues where we've got concerns, let's, you know, save the
public's time and let staff work everything out and bring a clean
package forward.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta, you want to
discuss this issue?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just for a moment more.
Page 9
January 10, 2012
Crystal, any input from you, please?
MS. KENZEL: Excuse me, for the record, Crystal Kenzel.
The issue that we had asked Jack about is clarified, that I had a
concern regarding the purchasing. The citation in the document that
he attached to the agenda indicated they would be using personal
credit cards. That concerned us because we would expect it would be
purchasing cards of the county. He is authorized by his ordinance and
by the resolution to use these types of trips and travel, okay. That was
the primary concern from a finance perspective.
After I saw the e -mail going back and forth, there are other
changes to that document that do differ from the tourism, but those are
management decisions about inclusion of the family trips versus the
marketing end trips. Those aren't really a finance or clerk issue, it
would be a management decision as to whether that additive language
could be included at today's meeting.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may continue, sir?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Jack, is there a possibility that
we might be able to do this item today and resolve the credit card
issue so the Clerk's Office would feel comfortable?
I understand what that issue is. We had the same problem within
the Office of the Commission as far as personal credit cards versus
issued credit cards.
MR. WERT: And I might say, and Crystal and I have discussed
that, the intent was, and I may have left out that word purchasing card.
But that was the intent all along, that it would be using a county
employee's purchasing card within the tourism office. They are
authorized to use the purchasing card for this type of travel
arrangement.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Chair, I feel comfortable
enough to have this item go forward. After we hear everything, we can
make a decision whether to pass it or continue it.
Page 10
January 10, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then could we ask that Jack
concentrate specifically in his presentation when this item comes up to
address Commissioner Hiller's concerns and any concerns that the
Clerk might have? And if we feel that additional time is necessary,
we can continue it at that point.
MR. WERT: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, that's fine. As long as we
have the ability -- and again, like I said, unless it's approved by the
TDC, it cannot be approved by this Board, that's just the law.
So we will happily discuss it and then decide how to proceed.
Although I do think it's a waste of time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right, very well. Thank you --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have one more item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The other item is with respect to
the airport agenda items. I would like time certains this afternoon for
the airport issues. My understanding is there are airport tenants and
citizens that would like to address this. And I think there should be a
large enough number where a time certain would only be fair.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, how does 2:00 sound to you?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is 2:00 sufficient in light of 10.0
being at 1:00? I would hate to run -- 10.C, I see a lot of people from
Seagate. One so far. I just want to make sure that the Seagate people
are not cut off and make sure that they have their opportunity to be
heard.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They won't be. The Pelican Bay people
might.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If that's the case, as long as we're
sure that no one is cut off, then 2:00 should be fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If we have to extend it, we will.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, sounds good. So 2:00 is
Page 11
January 10, 2012
good then. So 2:00 time certain for the airport items.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
There's more?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
It was brought to my attention yesterday that I believe it's staff is
going to bring the Immokalee Area Master Plan up under
communications, that Commissioner Coletta requested an extension
from the state to be able to submit the proposed amendment. And I do
want to make that clear for the benefit of the public.
There is an Immokalee Area Master Plan. The vote that occurred
in December does not leave Immokalee without a master plan. In fact,
it leaves Immokalee with a master plan that has been in existence and
has been repeatedly amended from, I think it's like 1997 or 1991 right
through 2008. And I think there's a general misunderstanding in the
community. Immokalee has a plan, and quite frankly, a very good
one.
That being said, I don't believe that this item should be a
communication item. I think this is an item that should be on the
agenda so that, you know, if people would like to comment on it or
refer back to it in the future that it is given its due consideration.
So I would ask that it either be considered as an agenda item for
today or at the next meeting, but not a to be addressed and voted on
under communications.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It wouldn't be voted on at that point in
time anyway, but --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, not the amendment. What
was going to be voted on was to direct staff to move forward with
looking for ways to allow the Board to bring this matter back. And I'll
enter the memo that I received yesterday from staff as an exhibit.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I thank you for bringing it
up, Commissioner.
Page 12
January 10, 2012
I was going to save it for communications, because it wasn't
advertised and I didn't want to get into the problem of people coming
forward and saying, you know, we didn't have input on this. So the
reasons it's under communications is to direct the County Attorney to
bring it back for our consideration at the next meeting with possible
alternatives. And that's the only reason for it. Seemed like the most
logical way to go.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let's put it on the agenda. Make it
an agenda item --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then we get into the problem
that it's not advertised.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We don't have a problem that it's
not advertised. It's no different than having it under communications
and asking the County Attorney --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I respectfully don't agree,
because what we're doing is we're asking the Commission under
communications to be able to bring it back for consideration, just to be
able to hear what the possibilities are --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that will call for a vote --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- total different world.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It will call for a vote.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I make a comment also?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, Commissioner Fiala, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think Commissioner Hiller is right
about this, I think it would be good to bring it back to the next meeting
when everybody can be available to speak on it. I spoke with Penny
Phillippi yesterday, and she said, I won't be in town because you have
no subjects on the agenda for me. So it would be better to --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's my point --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. It would be better to wait till
the next meeting and do that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Here's the thing: Commissioner Coletta's
Page 13
January 10, 2012
intent was to get the Commission's permission to direct the County
Attorney to prepare a position to be brought back to the Board at a
public meeting later.
What you're really asking us to do now is to have a vote right
now on it, which we can certainly do. But those items are generally
covered under communications because we will be changing the
agenda merely to find out if the Board wants to bring something back
for a public hearing in the future. And so there's nothing that will
happen here that will keep the public from being heard on this issue.
But the Board has a chance to vote on that issue if you wish now,
or you can wait for the correspondence and communication at the end
of the meeting and we can vote on it then to instruct the County
Attorney to bring it back.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Maybe the County Attorney
would like to weigh in.
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner Coletta, this is your call. It's
your prerogative during communications to raise this. You've heard
some concerns that have been raised asking you to bring it back as an
agenda item instead. It's your call whether you want to raise this as
communications or bring it forward to the next meeting.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Well, if we brought it
back as an agenda item at the next meeting, is that what you're talking
about?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. And that way Penny could
be here --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And at this point in time, rather
than --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- and people could be here --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- rather than under
communications, I make a motion that we have this -- first that we
recognize the fact that the state has granted a nine -month extension,
something they've never done before. We recognize that, we send a
Page 14
January 10, 2012
letter recognizing it, and then bring it back to the next meeting -- I'm
sorry, sir.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, you can bring it back yourself at the
next meeting. This could be a County Commissioner item if you want
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll be happy to do that.
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm sure staff in my office would be happy
to work with you on that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, okay. I think that would
probably clarify the whole situation and keep it moving forward. I
really didn't want to act on anything solid today without having it duly
advertised. And that gets us to where we need to be.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's great. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You made a motion, second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We don't need it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, we don't need a motion now.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: As far as ex parte
communications, I have none.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Fiala, do you have --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I'm done, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We -- we've resolved the issue
with the TDC and Mr. Wert, I think.
Right, Mr. Wert?
MR. WERT: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now we have a disagreement
between me and the County Attorney on Item 2.B. I think Item 2.13
should remain on the agenda. County Attorney has asked that it be
moved to the consent agenda where there will be no debate. So what
is the pleasure of the Board?
Page 15
January 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's my item. I have no problem
if you want to talk about it, leave it on the regular agenda. I think the
County Attorney's issue was it doesn't have to be on the record.
MR. KLATZKOW: My issue is it's not an action item. There's
nothing for the Board to vote on. It's simply a procedural process
where Commissioner Henning is allowing his form to be put into the
official records.
If you guys want to talk about it, that's your prerogative.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it will stay on Item 2.B.
Now I will entertain a motion to approve the agenda as modified
during this discussion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 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: The item passes unanimously.
Page 16
Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
January 10, 2012
Move Item 2B to Item 16I3: Public declaration of form 8B, Memorandum of Voting Conflict
for County, Municipal and Other Local Public Officers, in reference to Item 8A on the Agenda
of December 13, 2011, filed by Commissioner Tom Henning. (County Attorney's request)
Continue Item 8A to the January 24.2012 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. (Commissioner Fiala's request)
Move Item 16A8 to Item 10F: Recommendation to approve Change Order No. 2 to
Contract # 10 -5206, with Atkins North America, Inc., for Design Services for Collier Area
Transit Transfer Station, in the amount of $99,900 for redesign and post design services, and
to extend the contract by six hundred seventy seven (677) days to account for the inclusion
of construction and the completion schedule; and to authorize the Chairman to execute the
change order. (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Move Item 16A10 to Item 10E: Recommendation to approve an economic development
agency report required by Section 125.045, Florida Statutes and authorize the County
Manager or designee to submit a copy of the report to the Office of Economic and
Demographic Research (EDR). (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Move Item 16132 to Item 13132: Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment
Agency (CRA) to approve and execute a Commercial Building Improvement Grant Agreement
between the CRA and a Grant Applicant within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle area. (2595
Tamiami Trail East, Fiscal Impact $3,603) (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
January 10, 2012
Page 2
Continue Item 16E4 to the January 24.2012 BCC Meeting: Recommendation to
approve and authorize the Chairman to sign the Assumption Agreement from Tectrans, Inc.
to Keolis Transit America, Inc. for Management Contract for the Collier Area Transit (CAT)
Fixed Route and Paratransit Program. (Staffs request to make corrections to buyer's name
within agreement)
Move Item 16171 to Item 1OC: Recommendation to approve and adopt the Resolutions
adopted by the Board of the Pelican Bay Services Division at a Special Meeting on December
14, 2011, with respect to the 1998 Joint Coastal Permit of the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection and the Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan authorized
to be implemented under that Permit. (Commissioner Hiller's and Commissioner Coyle's
separate requests)
Move Item 16173 to Item 1OD: Recommendation to approve In- Market Meeting Planner
Site and Familiarization Guidelines for the Tourism Department to provide payment or
reimbursement of expenses related to attracting group meetings to Collier County and
authorize payment of covered expenses up to an annual total program cost of $150,000.
(Commissioner Hiller's request)
Time Certain Items:
Item 10B to be heard at 11:30 a.m.
Item 10C to be heard at 1:00 p.m.
1/10/2012 8:38 AM
January 10, 2012
Item #2C
DECEMBER 13 -14, 20119 BCC REGULAR MEETING MINUTES —
APPROVED AS PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have -- I'm going to jump, if I can,
from 2.A to 2.0 and see if we can't get an approval for the December
13th9 14th9 2011 BCC regular meeting minutes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Fiala.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Ave.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
It passes unanimously.
Item #2B
PUBLIC DECLARATION OF FORM 8B, MEMORANDUM OF
VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL AND OTHER
LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS, IN REFERENCE TO ITEM #8A ON
THE AGENDA OF DECEMBER 13, 2011, FILED BY
COMMISSIONER TOM HENNING — DISCUSSED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, that brings us to Item 2.B. And
since I wanted to make sure it stayed on the agenda, it's only because I
Page 17
January 10, 2012
think this is something that needs to be clarified to keep to a minimum
any kind of criticisms of Commissioner Henning for his actions in
abstaining.
So the concern is twofold with the form, Commissioner Henning.
One is it is not dated, there's a blank in the date. So there's no
indication as to when it was filed, when you signed it.
The second is that at the time you abstained from voting, you
said that it was because of a potential for a personal private gain on
property that you owned in Immokalee. On the form it states that it's
because of a personal private gain of a business associate. That leaves
questions which have not been answered.
And I would like to provide you the opportunity, if you wish to
do so, to explain that. But if you don't, then we'll just move on to the
next issue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I will file -- I'll have the
Clerk -- I forwarded the information to the Clerk in the time frame
provided by law, okay, so that will answer your question there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, not really, because the document
should contain your data. And I'm not arguing with the fact of
whether or not you made it in the deadline, I'm certain you did. The
point is it's a document that is not dated, and I think that it should be
dated if we're going to have it as part of our agenda. That's all -- my
only point.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the other one is the reason for the
abstention. Because people are going to be raising questions now,
well, it wasn't really a personal private gain, it was a gain to a business
associate. And that's a question that's going to be raised.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think the Florida
Statutes are very clear, Jeff, on this, you know, it is personal gain,
business gain, family member gain, or loss.
MR. KLATZKOW: I think your explanation is in the disclosure
Page 18
January 10, 2012
itself where you set forth that this is the Rogers Trust that owns this
but you're the sole beneficiary.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There are two boxes to check on the
form. One box is I abstain from voting because I have a personal
private gain. The box just below it says because my business
associate has a personal private gain.
MR. KLATZKOW: I understand, sir. And I think -- I think
checking both boxes are appropriate in this context. Commissioner
Henning gives forth the explanation below what the Rogers Trust is.
And I think that explains the exact relationship that he has with respect
to this property. Whether it's in his special private gain or it's because
he's the sole beneficiary of a trust, I think the end result is the same. I
think the proper disclosure to the public is there --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The Trust is a business associate?
MR. KLATZKOW: I probably wouldn't put it that way, but with
the explanation Commissioner Henning gave in the disclosure, I think
it's fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I would ask that before it becomes
a part of the official record that it at least be dated, okay? That's --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is that your motion?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's my motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wait. It's filed. There is no vote
on this item, okay. It was filed at the proper time. And if you would
like the e -mail on that, I'd be happy to provide it to you. But to -- you
know, again, it's not an issue of voting whether you approve it or not.
It's a simple matter of complying to the law. And I've done that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And any item that is in the official
record should be complete and dated. And if you don't want to date it,
then that's okay. All right? You don't want to date it, good.
All right, we'll go on to the next item. By the way, is it
appropriate at this point in time that we then ask for -- ask the ethics
committee in Tallahassee if they will give us a ruling as to whether or
Page 19
January 10, 2012
not a conflict of interest exists here? Because we could potentially
have the Immokalee Area Master Plan coming back for consideration
sometime over the next six or eight months. We don't need another
surprise about a voting conflict. So I'd like to just clear the air on that.
And I don't think you have a voting conflict, quite frankly, but
I'm not the authority here. So I'd just like to clear it up. I'd like to find
out what the answer is.
Is there anything that keeps us from doing that, County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: You can do that personally. You can
personally contact the State Ethics Commission.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why can't the Board --
MR. KLATZKOW: Or as a board you can vote and direct me to
do that. Whether or not they will do that, I'm not sure at this point in
time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you sir.
At this point in time, I'm trying to mend some bridges to try to
keep everything going forward. The objective is to get the Immokalee
Master Plan passed in a way that's going to be the will of the people in
Immokalee. I'd rather that we didn't have anything in there
questioning a form or the date in or out of it. I would just as soon let
this go by and accept it for what it is, and the explanation for what it
is. I don't see anything to be gained. I mean, we can always consult
with the County Attorney if we have a like issue as to what we should
do.
MR. KLATZKOW: We had a very close issue with this where
Commissioner Halas had asked for a ruling on property that he owned
with respect to a variance. And based on what we got back from the
State Ethics Commission, I think they would be very supportive of
what Commissioner Henning did.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then why don't we find out?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Excuse me, but I don't agree.
Page 20
January 10, 2012
I'd just say let's let this go.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Okay.
And if we get three months down the road and the conflict still
exists, you're still going to have the same problem you had before.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, let's trust everybody's
better judgment and go forward from there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I'm actually concerned by
what I'm hearing from you, Commissioner Coyle. And I've actually
heard the same thing from Commissioner Coletta, and that is neither
of you believe that what Commissioner Henning recognizes as a
conflict, and that is potential profit as a result of a vote he might cast
with respect to this property, would not be a problem.
I mean, I guess I'm going to ask both of you a question. Have
you guys voted on issues where you have owned property and that
property potentially would have appreciated in value either directly or
indirectly through family members or a trust or anything like that?
Because I mean, that would leave me really concerned. And I'd
like to hear whether or not you've ever voted on anything like that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I respond first, sir?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The truth of the matter is, every
time when we have issues come forward like we had the Golden Gate
Master Plan, and I own commercial property in Golden Gate City and
I own property in Golden Gate Estates where my home is, yeah, I
consulted with the County Attorney. It was a concern on my part.
And it was explained to me at the time that there wasn't a conflict.
In Commissioner Henning's case he perceives there's a conflict
and that's all that matters. I'm not arguing with that. I don't know
where you think I'm trying to argue with Commissioner Henning's
stance on this. His perception is the only thing that matters.
Page 21
January 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think he's definitely going to
profit. I mean, if there's going to -- you know, and quite frankly, that
whole Immokalee Area Master Plan, as I said, seems to be a density
intensity grab where there are a lot of people who are going to profit
an awful lot.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And we'll get into that disc --
may I continue?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why not?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. We'll get into that
discussion when we get near it. But what we're going to be dealing
with is to first to be able to get this going forward again with some
sort of process, which we don't know what it's going to be. Then we're
going to be dealing with the issue of the process itself and step by step
through it and when it's going to come to conclusion.
When it comes to a conclusion and you vote on it, there may be a
perceived conflict if somebody owns property. At that point in time
maybe they won't own property at that time or some other avenue will
be able to be discovered to be able to go forward.
But the thing is, is that if we -- if you own any particular property
within the county and that's going to be an impediment just because
you own the property, then I think this Board would be totally
ineffective and we should probably hire Lee County Commissioners to
govern Collier County.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Obviously that's not the case in
this particular situation. I mean, this is, you know, obviously a change
of use that will affect specific properties --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, it --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- and not generally.
But let me ask you this --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It won't, though.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner, it's my turn, I'm
the one who's speaking --
Page 22
January 10, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioners, calm down.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why did Commissioner Coletta
not recuse himself on the Estates Master Plan?
MR. KLATZKOW: He doesn't have to. We all own property. I
own property in this county, my house.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I know. Specifically on the --
MR. KLATZKOW: There's -- there are two elements to this,
okay. One is when you get a vote that nears to your personal gain.
And it has to be direct, all right.
But the other statute talks about a perception of an impropriety.
So that you can vote on something based on one thing and not vote on
it based on the other statute. And the state ethics opinions are very
clear on that one.
The State Ethics Commission gives you a great deal of latitude
on your ability to abstain on voting from that standpoint. And they
understand that there are certain communities that are more sensitive
to these things than other communities, which is why they give you
this wiggle room.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you're fine with what
Commissioner Henning has done?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
Now to get back, had there been a rezone of property that
Commissioner Coletta owned half the property, at that point in time
it's an absolute direct effect on him and he would have to abstain.
But if you own one personal residence in Golden Gate and you
have a Golden Gate Area Master Plan, you're just one of a large group
of people who are benefiting from it, and from that standpoint you can
vote.
Every time you vote on the millage, each and every one of you
owns property that is being affected by that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: In the case of Commissioner
Henning, given that he has a specific property that, as I understand it,
Page 23
January 10, 2012
will have its use affected as a result of this vote, that would be in
effect a direct benefit to him.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, but he's just one of --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because -- it's not just --
MR. KLATZKOW: But he's just one of a large number of
people being affected by this --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it directly -- but it doesn't
matter, it directly benefits him.
MR. KLATZKOW: But he's such a small part of the population.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it directly benefits to him.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's stop this, okay.
First of all, there is a one percent rule that the ethics commission
uses as a guideline. It's very simple. All you ask them is does it
violate the one percent rule, and they'll tell you yes or no. So it's a
simple process, and -- but let's let it go, as Commissioner Coletta has
suggested, and we'll move on. Okay?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE CONTRIBUTIONS
MADE BY MYRA JANCO DANIELS TO THE CULTURAL LIFE
OF THE CITIZENS OF COLLIER COUNTY AND NAMING
JANUARY 2012 AS MYRA JANCO DANIELS MONTH.
ACCEPTED BY MYRA JANCO DANIELS — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS : That moves us to item four on your agenda this
morning. I believe the Commissioners are going to join us down in
front of the dais for this first proclamation this morning. It's 4.A on
your agenda, Commissioners. It's a proclamation recognizing the
contributions made by Myra Janco Daniels to the cultural life of the
citizens of Collier County and naming January, 2012 as Myra Janco
Page 24
January 10, 2012
Daniels month. To be accepted by Myra Janco Daniels. And this
item is sponsored by the entire Board of County Commissioners.
Commissioner Coyle I believe is going to read the proclamation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The Board of County Commissioners
has approved this proclamation, or will soon approve the
proclamation, which I will read to you.
WHEREAS, Myra Janco Daniels is honored by the Collier
County Board of County Commissioners in recognition of the
contributions she has made to the arts in Southwest Florida, and in
particular her leadership from inception of the Naples Philharmonic
Center for the Arts, a symbol of cultural excellence;
AND WHEREAS, 1982 was the year this remarkable woman
focused her drive to begin the journey that would lead to the Naples
Philharmonic Center for the Arts as we know it today, a 30 -year
commitment;
AND WHEREAS, through this journey the consistent elements
were the vision, passion and leadership of Myra Janco Daniels,
forging alliances of like- minded people who shared her dream of a
center for the performing and visual arts, and with a supportive board
built an organization that provided a solid foundation for the
development of the Naples Philharmonic Center for the Arts;
AND WHEREAS, as a reflection of the respect that Myra Janco
Daniels has engendered in Southwest Florida, financial support has
built the Philharmonic Center, an architectural triumph that provides a
home from which the performing arts flourish and visual arts continue
to grow, ensuring continuous development of cultural excellence in
Collier County and Southwest Florida;
AND WHEREAS, as a county we recognize the debt of gratitude
we owe to Myra Janco Daniels for her commitment over the past 30
years and the tenacity of spirit that will still be present at the Naples
Philharmonic Center for the Arts, even after her retirement. The
heritage Myra Janco Daniels is leaving is interwoven into the fabric of
Page 25
January 10, 2012
the Naples Philharmonic Center for the Arts.
The Collier County Board of County Commissioners recognizes
the contributions made by Myra Janco Daniels to the cultural life of
the citizens of Collier County, and proclaims this month, January,
2012, as Myra Janco Daniels Month in recognition of the county's
heartfelt appreciation.
DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of January -- we have
accompanying music -- this 10th day of January, 2012, Board of
County Commissioners, Fred Coyle, Chairman.
Myra, it gives me great pleasure to make this presentation to you.
I'll probably be doing a similar one on Sunday.
MS. DANIELS: So you'll take it back?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, I'm going to let you have this one,
okay.
(Applause.)
MS. DANIELS: I might just say to you, I have one mission and
that is to help make this a better place to live. And when I pulled my
curtain last January and told them I'd be retiring, I did it with a
bittersweet, because I love this community and I love what I have tried
to contribute. I want you all to help keep that alive. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MS. DANIELS: I'm very touched by this.
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE REMODELERS
COUNCIL OF THE COLLIER BUILDING INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION FOR THEIR EFFORTS TO REHABILITATE THE
HOME OF JANICE BRONSTEIN TO MAKE IT WHEELCHAIR
ACCESSIBLE AND INCREASE HER IN -HOME MOBILITY.
ACCEPTED BY KATHY CURATOLO, TOM WEGWERT, CHRIS
ALLEY AND BRIAN CONELL — ADOPTED
Page 26
January 10, 2012
MR. OCHS: Sir, Item 43 is a proclamation recognizing the
Remodelers Council of the Collier Building Industry Association for
their efforts to rehabilitate the home of Janice Bronstein to make it
wheelchair accessible and increase her in -home mobility.
This item is to be accepted by Kathy Curatolo, Tom Wegwert,
Chris Alley and Brian Conell. And the item is sponsored by
Commissioner Coyle.
Would you please come forward and accept your award.
(Applause.)
MS. CURATOLO: I just want to mention that we have folks
from Waste Management who were very instrumental in the project.
We also have Janice Bronstein with us and we'd like her to come
forward. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm going to present this to you, Kathy.
Thank you very much.
This is an unusual day. We generally don't read them.
WHEREAS, the Collier County Building Industry Association is
an organization of dedicated industry professionals who are inspired to
make a real difference in the Collier County community through
advocacy, education, networking and philanthropy;
AND WHEREAS, CBIA has been one of the most influential
and important associations in Collier County since 1984;
AND WHEREAS, the CBIA Remodelers Council is an
empowered and respected team of remodeling professionals dedicated
to the leadership and service of its members and the community;
AND WHEREAS, the Remodelers Council is active in
community outreach and lends its expertise to renovation projects for
Collier County residents in need;
AND WHEREAS, the Remodelers Council has partnered with
title sponsor to Waste Management to renovate the home of Janice
Bronstein, the widow of a decorated World War II veteran with
Page 27
January 10, 2012
multiple sclerosis to make it wheelchair acceptable and provide
increased in -home mobility;
WHEREAS, this effort is a tribute to the community
contributions of Ms. Bronstein through her work with the Multiple
Sclerosis Walk and Forum Club, as well as her late husband's service
to our nation.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioner of Collier County, Florida that the Remodelers Council
of the Collier Building Industry Association be recognized for their
contributions to Collier County residents in need.
DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of January, 2012, Board
of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Fred Coyle,
Chairman.
And thank you very much for the wonderful work you're doing.
Appreciate your service to the community. And I wish you wonderful
luck, good health.
(Applause.)
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING CHABAD OF NAPLES FOR
ITS GROWTH, CONTRIBUTIONS AND SUCCESS IN COLLIER
COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY RABBI FISHEL ZAKLOS —
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item 4.0 is a proclamation
recognizing Chabad of Naples for its growth, contributions and
success in Collier County. This award will be accepted by Dr. Art
Seigel, President of Chabad Naples, and it is sponsored by the entire
Board of County Commissioners.
Please come forward, sir.
(Applause.)
Page 28
January 10, 2012
ART SEIGEL: Thank you. For the Chabad of Naples Jewish
Community Center, thank you very much for this honor.
I first started coming to Collier County in 1971, and I must
admit, I did not see this day coming in 1971. The graciousness and
the welcoming of the Commissioners to all faiths in Collier County is
really remarkable and should be a role model for everybody else. So
thank you.
The grand gala opening celebration at the Chabad of Naples
Jewish Community Center will be this Sunday at 4:00 at the Chabad
with Governor Rick Scott as our featured guest, and everybody in the
room is invited. So thank you very much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Doctor, since you invited
everybody, do you want to, like, tell them where to go? Just a
thought.
ART SEIGEL: Yes. The Chabad Jewish Center is at 1789
Mandarin Road, which is one block west of the Coastland Mall. It's
off of Orchid. See you there.
Item #4D
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING FEBRUARY 11, 2012 AS
BABY BASICS DAY IN COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY
DICK AND JEAN ANN LYNCH AND REG AND SANDRA
BUXTON — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4.D is a proclamation designating February
11, 2012 as Baby Basics Day in Collier County. To be accepted by
Dick and Jean Ann Lynch, and Reg and Sandra Buxton. This item is
sponsored by Commissioner Coletta.
Please come forward.
Page 29
January 10, 2012
(Applause.)
MS. LYNCH: On behalf of the board of directors of Baby
Basics and all the families that we serve, I want to thank you all for
allowing us to have this proclamation.
As many of you know, Baby Basics is a program that provides
diapers free to families in Collier County who are working and their
babies are three and under. Currently we have over 300 babies in our
program. And this proclamation is regarding our biking/walking
event, which is our major fundraiser. And we are honored to have
Commissioner Jim Coletta as our honorary chairman.
We also are having another portion of our biking/walking event,
which will include riding outside the park, inside Collier North
Regional Park, and a walking event inside the park. We have
refreshments, entertainment. It's a wonderful day.
But we're also having a second aspect, which is inviting those
people in our county, as well as some statewide who are running for
office to have a little spot at our event where they can meet the many
participants that are coming and also have an opportunity to tell about
what they believe makes them wonderful viable candidates.
So we invite you all to come. We certainly hope that it will be a
great day. Last week we froze to death -- last month. This is our third
event. But I do appreciate this. And it's an honor to be here. Thank
you so much.
(Applause.)
Item #4
PROCLAMATIONS (ONE MOTION TAKEN TO ADOPT ALL
PROCLAMATIONS) — ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve today's
proclamations.
Page 30
January 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, motion to approve by
Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item 5.A is a presentation of the
Collier County Business of the Month for January, 2012 -- I'm sorry?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Hold on.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Before we jump to the next agenda
item, can I sort of have like a little mini proclamation that's not on the
agenda? And that is to proclaim how great our workers are and thank
you so much Leo and the facilities staff for everything you have done
in terms of changing the lighting here. I don't know if people notice,
but they really deserve credit for doing an incredible job of working
through the Christmas holidays to make this better for everybody.
MR. OCHS: Thank you very much, ma'am, on behalf of the
staff. They did in fact work hard on that, and glad to get the positive
feedback.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's an unofficial proclamation on
behalf of the Board of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second that.
MR. OCHS: We'll accept it, thank you.
Again, 5.A, sir --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We didn't -- did we approve -- accept the
proclamations?
Page 31
January 10, 2012
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, Commissioner Henning just made that
motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right, that's right.
Item #5A
PRESENTATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BUSINESS OF
THE MONTH FOR JANUARY 2012 TO NAPLES BOTANICAL
GARDEN. ACCEPTING THE AWARD ARE JOYCE ZIRKLE,
SHANNON PALMER AND CHRIS BRIGHTON — PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: So 5.A is a presentation of the Collier County
Business of the Month for January, 2012 to Naples Botanical Garden.
Accepting the award are Joyce Zirkle, Shannon Palmer and Chris
Brighton. Please come forward.
(Applause.)
MS. ZIRKLE: On behalf of everyone at the Naples Botanical
Garden, including our incredible board of directors, all of our staff and
remarkable volunteers, I'd like to say thank you for this award. It's
very much appreciated.
And if you haven't been to the Garden lately, please plan a visit.
And you can check our new revamped website. It's naplesgarden.org.
Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I give a personal note? And I
know that this is no place to do it but I want to anyway. I'm lucky
because I get to sit up here and the Chairman said I could.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's my mistake.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Every year I give tours at different
things around the county that I feel would be of interest to people.
And this year I took a tour over to the Botanical Garden. And the
Page 32
January 10, 2012
volunteers, the staff, they were so wonderful. It was just great dealing
with everybody.
But one of the volunteers told us a story that I thought maybe
you'd get a kick out of. We were in the butterfly garden and there was
this gorgeous butterfly, it was almost iridescent green. It was so pretty.
And this volunteer, I think his name was Mike Sullivan, and he said to
us, he said, do you know what that is? No. He said, that's the luna
moth. He said it's got a wing span of six inches, which amazed me.
He said the most amazing thing is they're born without a mouth. And
without a mouth they can't eat and so they die in two days. And so in
those two days they have to find their mate, make some eggs, lay the
eggs and then they die. And I thought that was the most interesting
thing I've ever heard, so I thought I'd pass that on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I would like to explore that process --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not with me.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You know what, Commissioner
Coyle, you're right, can you imagine how our Board meetings would
go if that were the case? Wow.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It would be so much better.
MR. OCHS: Is that a motion, sir?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: For all of us, yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: A promise.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Item #5B
RECOGNIZING SHEREE MEDIAVILLA, ADMINISTRATIVE
ASSISTANT, PUBLIC UTILITIES OPERATIONS
DEPARTMENT, AS THE EMPLOYEE OF THE YEAR FOR 2011
—PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 5.B on your
Page 33
January 10, 2012
agenda this morning. This is a recommendation to recognize Sheree
Mediavilla, Administrative Assistant from our Public Utilities
Operations Department, as the Employee of the Year for 2011.
Sheree, if you'd please come forward and accept your
recognition.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Sheree, if you'd stand still there for a minute, I'm
going to embarrass you with a few remarks while you get your photo
taken.
Commissioners, Sheree was selected by a committee from a list
of several employees of the month during the year to be our Employee
of the Year for 2011.
Sheree's been an employee of the county for over 12 years. She's
been an administrative assistant in our Public Utilities Division since
January of 2010. Since that time, and certainly before that, she's
always used her positive attitude, her training and her expertise and
experience with the county to have an immediate impact on any place
that she works.
She provides excellent support for the division, particularly in the
area of hiring and staffing needs. She also contributes to many
different projects within the division, most notably close coordination
with the Clerk's Office on all of the division's financial reporting. And
she also works very closely with her colleagues inside the division in
the preparation of the budget, which is a large undertaking each and
every year, and she does it with wonderful skill and attitude.
Sheree is certainly a treasure to have here as an employee of the
county, a valuable contributor to our organization and obviously very
deserving of this award.
Commissioners, it's my distinct honor to present to you Sheree
Mediavilla, Employee of the Year for 2011. Congratulations, Sheree.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You can make a five - minute speech.
Page 34
January 10, 2012
MS. MEDIAVILLA: I've been blessed with working in Collier
County for almost 13 years. In fact, on March 3rd of 1999 was my
first day. And I've had wonderful experience with directors who have
taught me.
I spent eight years in Risk Management and learned the business
of this county, the financials, the insurance, the claims, and I've grown
a lot through the help of Jeff Walker. I have learned and been
stretched amazingly by Dan Rodriguez, who has helped me grow to
other lengths. And I'm very thankful to be with Tom Wides, who has
allowed me to reinvent myself and use the talents that I've learned
these 13 years to bring it to this position. And I am honored and
grateful. Thank you for this award.
(Applause.)
Item #5C
SELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE - CHAIRMAN: MOTION
TO APPOINT COMMISSIONER COYLE AS CHAIRMAN —
APPROVED; MOTION TO APPOINT COMMISSIONER
COLETTA AS VICE - CHAIRMAN — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 5.0 is the selection of chairman and vice - chairman.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Fred Coyle is the person I'd like
to nominate for the chair.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'd like to, if I could,
explain why. I was very much looking forward to being the chair, I
enjoyed being the chair two different times. We're in the middle of a
political year where three commissioners are running for office, and I
think at this point in time for -- to be politically prudent it would be
best that I do not serve as the chair for this year. But I'd welcome the
opportunity in a future year.
Page 35
January 10, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: At the risk of my mental health, okay.
Are there any other nominations?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Pick yourself up off the floor and --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have, I think, Commissioner
Henning or Commissioner Hiller, I'm not sure which is first.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let Commissioner Henning go
first.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you know, it seems
interesting, if we want to keep politics off it, there has been nothing
but politics over the last year. In fact, the Chairman has supported
every political County Commission race in Collier County. So it is
going to be continued to be political. If you want it to not be political,
pick Commissioner Hiller, she hasn't been involved in any race.
But Commissioner Coyle has supported -- is supporting my
opponent, he's supporting Commissioner Coletta, and he's supporting
Commissioner Fiala. So it is nothing but politics, and it has been over
the last year and it will continue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
By the way, I'm not supporting every political candidate in
Collier County.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Every race for County
Commission.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, in every race, okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. You know, you served
three terms, Commissioner Coyle, is just too much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Tell me about it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let's face it, we really need
rotation in leadership. And to eliminate any politics, what should be
done is there should be a natural rotation so that all Board members
have the opportunity to chair this Board, and this community has the
opportunity in each of the districts to have at a point in time their
Page 36
January 10, 2012
Commissioner as the chair.
It just -- to go -- for you to be chair for three years goes against
what good leadership is all about. So I support what was proposed last
year, and that is that Commissioner Coletta would be chair and
Commissioner Henning would be vice chair, and I certainly don't
support you as chair for year three.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, of course I'm still -- my mind is
still going at this thing, because I had expected to nominate Jim
Coletta. But, you know, I understand where he's coming from also,
because it's a tough race ahead of us, and we've got a lot of opposition
right here on the Board, and we've got three candidates running, and
it's a tough -- when you're running for office, it's very tough anyway.
You've got to be at a lot of places, got to do a lot of things, doesn't
give you much time to do anything else. And I can understand where
he's going. And I think if it were me, I would probably do the same
thing.
And so I second that motion. It's a big step. I think it will be the
first time in history that anything like that has ever happened. As a
matter of fact, I don't know of any other time. Not that I've looked
and researched it. But I don't remember anything, and I've been here
almost 38 years now. But anyway -- and maybe this year will be a --
maybe after this first contentious year maybe this will be a cooling off
period as the three candidates are running for office, and hopefully the
other two can lead us.
But I would certainly nominate Jim Coletta as vice chair so that
he becomes chair next year. Anyway, of course I don't have an
opportunity right now to nominate him, but I will when this is
finished.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, and the other thing is, I don't
Page 37
January 10, 2012
think who is nominated should have the ability to vote for themselves.
I think the vote has to be determined -- if a motion is made, then who
is nominated should not vote, as is always the case --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, it's not always the case. We've
never not voted.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I think that's a problem. And
I don't think that's appropriate. Because obviously, you know, voting
for yourself skews the outcome. Obviously you're going to have a
bias towards yourself, I'm sure. So I don't think that's acceptable.
So, you know, to the extent that there's a vote, whoever is
nominated cannot vote for themselves and it should be determined by
the balance.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, let's let the County Attorney --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because there's very clearly -- I
mean, there's very clearly a conflict to vote on your own election.
MR. KLATZKOW: The chairman serves at the pleasure of the
Board. All board members can vote.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And should vote.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's your rules, yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I think those rules should
change. And I also think the rules should change to -- so that -- to
eliminate the politics, as is being played out right now, that this Board
have a natural rotation where it's not a question of vote but it's just
natural succession, and everyone has an opportunity equally to be
chair and to have their district represented in a chairmanship role.
Because that's obviously not happening. And you're basically being
unfair to the other districts.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala, do you want
to say anything more or --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was going to, but maybe I'll just let
it lie right now. You know --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You want to let it lie or --
January 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I guess I'd better.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you very much.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it passes 3 -2 with Commissioner
Hiller and Henning dissenting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to make a motion to select
Jim Coletta as the vice - chairman for next year.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'll second that motion.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It's opposed by Commissioner
Hiller and Henning. Passes 3 -2.
Okay.
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION FROM JOHN H. MARKER REGARDING
FLOODING ON 18TH STREET NORTHEAST — MOTION TO
BRING BACK TO THE FEBRUARY 14, 2012 BCC MEETING
AND STAFF TO MEET WITH PETITIONER REGARDING HIS
SPECIFIC PROBLEM — APPROVED
Page 39
January 10, 2012
MR. OCHS: That takes us to 6 -A, sir. A public petition request
from John H. Marker regarding flooding on the 18th Street -- excuse
me, on 18th Street Northeast.
MR. MARKER: Commissioners, my name is John Marker. I
live at 18th Street Northeast, 831. This last year we've been flooded
several times. And obviously the canal back there, what needs to be
done to help control this, 16th Street Northeast, that canal appears not
to be dug there. You can walk across the canal when the water's at low
level at the weir west of 10 Street Northeast, and you don't need high
boots. It just barely goes over your tops of your shoes.
This goes on for at least 400 feet to the west from that point. If
you're in an outboard motor with an 18 -inch draft up into there, you
have to raise your outboard motor engine up because you're churning
up mud and rock, even at high water levels.
The other issue on up into there is that my neighbor across the
street from me at 710 18th Street Northeast, his culvert pipe is 28
inches above the invert elevation of the swale. That's his invert. This
water is backed up continually right there. Once it hits 29 inches, it
does go through his culvert pipe. Most of the time, the only time his
culvert pipe sees pipe water is when it rains in it.
It has caused his well to be contaminated, and which I helped
him clear up. I've had road and bridge out there, water management
out there, the whole bunch of them.
Mark Burtchin with the county, I went with him over the culvert
pipes out in there. And 310 -- let's see -- 370 18th Street Northeast,
that apron, concrete apron and culvert pipe was installed. And the
culvert pipes are not out at the end of the culvert pipe, just the
concrete, to code. And it's undermined the concrete so much that the
way that the concrete itself is breaking down, that apron needed
guardrails on it for those homeowners. That home is vacant right now
as I can see.
Page 40
January 10, 2012
Once you come on down to the west there -- or to the north,
excuse me, and get down past 391 or -- about halfway down the street,
these are unimproved lots. And all those ditches on that side of the
street are way down below the bottom of the culvert pipes. This water
holds there, stagnates, everybody on our street has got a respiratory
cough and have went to the doctor over this, over the recent flooding
we had. These things need to be addressed out into there to get this
situation straightened up a little bit.
Mostly the water that comes in across my property comes on the
backflow from the canal. It runs from the west to the east. That canal
runs from the east to the west. It comes down underneath, hits an
amphitheater such thing at 16th Street Northeast this way, shoves the
water straight up, comes in on 16th and comes across our property.
The last time we had three- and -a -half inches of rain in two days,
it quit raining, and all of a sudden I'm sitting there doing a takeoff on
some work that I do as a small businessman, it caught my eye that I
had a wall of water about a foot deep came in across our property
from the west to the east.
Called water management on this problem. They said it didn't
impact me very much. It cost me $3,000 and a customer. I think
that's impact enough at times like this. They also told me the bottom
line was it would go down an inch a day, that's bottom line. It didn't.
I called WINK News. They came out. And I informed water
management they were coming out Monday morning at 8:30. WINK
News came out, and as they were coming I was going out to a job site
out in Golden Gate Estates, I saw water management at Golden Gate
Boulevard and 10th Street bridge, so to speak. And they also went
down 10th Street. I went to the job site. When I came home at 6:00
that night that water dropped a foot. WINK News came the next day,
did it, a takeoff. And I explained to them what was going on and
everything.
They proceeded -- on a Friday we got six inches of rain. That
Page 41
January 10, 2012
water accumulated in my backyard 28 inches deep in the ditch almost
over the crest of the road. Water management still did nothing. I
don't think there was anything they could do.
The Hydrilla that they clipped in the canals and piled on the side
floated down and came in my ditch so deep, and it was about 18
inches deep, they had to come out and remove it, the stench was
awful. It was also piled up against the bridge at 10th Street, at Golden
Gate Boulevard, and endangered that bridge of collapsing. It was over
halfway up on the bottom of it. Right now this morning coming in,
that Hydrilla is still piled up in front of that bridge. It will not take a
heavy rain.
I had Travis Gossard out there with road and bridge, if I might
continue with that. He proceeded to tell my neighbor and myself,
aren't you aware of the fact that you live in a buyer beware state? I've
lived here since 1977, I've never heard anybody tell me anything like
that. Very upset.
He also walked back on my neighbor's property. His well was
contaminated. He told him as soon as he cleared the back end of his
house his well was illegal, that's why it was contaminated. It's
supposed to be as high as the septic tank and it's not. It's very even
with the ditches, a blatant disrespect of codes out there during this --
yeah, whatever word I'm looking for. I get like Rick Perry right now.
Just on the inspection, that's what it is.
They're turning their back on -- Mark Burtchin, with road and
bridge also told me that they ignore the elevations on the permit for a
culvert installation in Golden Gate Estates because they want the
property to flood. We do not fill our properties completely out there.
We all know it's just a mound to put your house on. God put enough
water out in there, don't need any help from the county. That ditch
should flow as long as the canal will take the water. If the canal does
not take the water, we all know what happens after that.
I'd like to see this stuff addressed and taken care of. Get this
January 10, 2012
water to flow out in there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, John, thank you so much
for coming in and taking advantage of the public petition process.
MR. MARKER: I didn't know you was talking, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know, the voice sounds like
it's coming from above.
MR. MARKER: I got hearing aids, it came from back there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I suffer the same thing, only I
forgot to wear my hearing aids today.
But going back, you brought up some issues that I got to ask staff
some questions, if you don't mind, and maybe we will get to a point
that we have a better understanding of what can be done and what
can't be done.
Nick, or whoever, the issue of the flooding there, there's a couple
questions I got. One was the 28 inches difference in the culverts in the
-- that are draining the water out. Is that true, is it 28 inches
difference?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Within a portion of the swale that's out
there the ground next to a culvert, one of the crossings is lower than
the culvert itself. The applicant of that property could surely raise that
grade up if they wanted to. That's not an issue.
Commissioner, just to point out a couple of things. I want to be
clear on the record. Again, Nick Casalanguida from the Growth
Management Division.
We absolutely do not let people set culverts without us going out
there and supervising that grade elevation. That's -- I want to make
sure that's clear on the record.
When you permit a driveway, we set the grade with you to make
sure that those culvert crossings --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Your staff has never -- has ever
Page 43
January 10, 2012
said that they wanted it to flood out there?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Maybe it was something about
the fact that there was some water that will back up. I'm not too sure
how to explain it, but that would be a terrible statement to make.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Absolutely not. That's not --
incorrect, sir. So let me take you a little bit of what happened. I asked
Clarence to be here as well.
First of all, we received rainfall that end of October, almost five
inches in one weekend. And then for the month of October, where we
typically get an average of three- and -a -half, we got almost 10 inches
of rain. My property in the Estates was flooded for almost five weeks.
At my father's backyard you could see the water just standing there for
quite a bit of time.
The property where the gentleman sits is on 18th Street
Northeast. I'm going to put on the viewer if I could a couple of
diagrams, and I think it might shed a little light on what we're dealing
with.
North is heading this way. This is the Golden Gate canal. And
this red dot is the location where the gentleman's home is. It's on 18th
Street Northeast. On another map -- I'll go overlay them one at a time,
Leo, to give you a rough idea.
The red in those areas is jurisdictional wetlands. And this is 18th
Street Northeast. So there's a large amount of jurisdictional wetlands
that's in that location.
This is a LIDAR of the general property.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: One second. Nick, can you go
back to that? Where on 18th Street is the subject property?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Subject property is up in this location
here.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Where?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Tip of my pen.
January 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Between 22 and 21?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: In that location, yes, ma'am.
And then when I put the LIDAR on, and I'll put it -- it's not to
scale but in the general location so you see what I'm talking about, the
man's property is here. The blue is the elevation 10.4.
And then what I did is I went specific to the lot. And this is
really, you know, eye opening for us. And this is by LIDAR. And
this is going to be a little bit out of scale but I'll give you the feel for it.
This is the gentleman's property here. His grades in the back are
10. 15 10.55 10.2. And I would say these are all plus or minus a half a
foot. The grades around, 12.6, 13.15 12.75 12.3, 125 12.8. And you
can see by the color of orange and yellow, that's about 12 and a half.
I'm going to go back one slide to give you a feel. Whenever the
house was built, typically they clear the lots and they excavate out a
little bit, so he is in the middle of a bowl there.
Back to this map. Speaking of clearance, this staged up to 12.8
during that recent storm. So the water of the canal was 12.8 and his
backyard was roughly at 10. 1, 10.4. So he is getting water coming
into the canals, as my lot did on 19th Street Northwest as well. A lot
of us did. As the canal staged up, water came back in.
But again, I want to remind you, we had 10 and a half inches of
rain in a month we typically get three and a half. So not uncommon.
And then when you have a lot that's in an area, you know, water
flows to its least resistance, you're going to have a significant amount
of ponding there. And with the grade change in a short distance of
two and a half feet, I can certainly see where the gentleman would
have received and seen that as soon as the canal banks crested, water
would have been gushing into his backyard. And that's not untypical
in the Estates. And this is not a singular complaint we received.
So to that I can answer other questions you have, but I would
think it was just a rain event, a lot of rain, one period of time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I do have some more questions,
Page 45
January 10, 2012
if I may continue here.
The backflow from the canal, I understand that now. But
possibly Clarence Tears, if he could come forward for just a moment.
Would you mind, Mr. Tears?
MR. TEARS: If I said yes?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If you said no, we'd chase you
out to the elevator.
MR. TEARS: Good morning. Clarence Tears, Director of Big
Cypress Basin, South Florida Water Management District.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Tears, one of the things we
realize, there are certain things that are not fixable. In other words, we
have a canal that has excess capacity, you get a certain amount of rain
over and above the ability of the capacity of the canal. Water's always
going to flow downhill to the lowest level and it's going to seek out
people's yards. And for what it's worth, what would it take to fix the
canals in Golden Gate so they might be -- what are they rated now, for
one out of 10 -year event?
MR. TEARS: One in 10 -year storm event, which is what we had
in October at the end of a wet season.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, just some long -range
thinking, what would it take to bring these canals up to something that
might be like one out of a 20 -year?
MR. TEARS: Let me explain what we have. We have a system
where it drains a 128 - square mile area, which drains out by Bear's
Paw. And so I try to equate it, it's like a bathtub, you know, the drain's
only so big. And the drain, you can look at the drain and the water's
moving, but if you look at the back of your bathtub, it doesn't look like
it's moving. But then you start to see the film as the water levels go
down.
During major rain events, we can only move about a tenth of an
inch a day -- or a tenth of a foot a day of water during peak events.
That's all we can do, you know. It's a gravity flow system. What we're
Page 46
January 10, 2012
looking at is we -- you know, long -range plans of Henderson Creek
diversion, the Belle Meade diversion, those are answers, those are the
key. But the challenge is land acquisition.
So I'm working with Nick and his staff, transportation corridors,
we're trying to find the best way to move the water. Because it ends
up in Naples Bay, and water in itself can be a pollutant in large
amounts. So we're trying to redirect surface flows. Those are some of
the long -range plans.
Some of the short -range plans we're looking at is the C -1
connector, which goes from the Golden Gate main canal to the Miller
canal. And there's a couple bridges that cause constrictions. We'll be
removing one in the near future.
In addition, there's one that's permitted to the county and we're
working with the county to see if we can upgrade that. During peak
flows, we believe that the water will move through that system and we
may be able to reduce the peaks.
But when you have canal stages of 12 and a half, water seeks its
own level. And with the sandy type soils we have, it goes wherever it
can. And what we saw after this last rain event, actually some of the
stages in this area, actually, two days after the event it went up instead
of down. And then it sort of -- you know, it moves into the
neighborhoods, seeks its own level, and then we start to drain the
system.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There was a comment made,
and maybe Nick might have to answer it, about the bridge being
endangered by the amount of Hydrilla that's backing up against it.
MR. TEARS: You know, exotic vegetation is always a
challenge. This year in, I think it was March, February or March time
frame is usually the driest part of the year where we treat the system.
This year we had some abnormal rain events so our treatment schedule
was changed.
Some years we don't get the control that we like through
Page 47
January 10, 2012
herbicide applications. So we're actually looking at purchasing some
mechanical equipment that if we do not get the -- because herbicide
applications is the cheapest route to take to control aquatic vegetation
in the canal system. But we're looking at obtaining mechanical
equipment to assist us with that so -- in areas where we don't get the
best results from our chemical treatment, so we'll use mechanical
means to remove it --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is there a possibility -- this is an
ongoing concern and every once in a while we need to address it --
that you might be able to prepare some white paper on the subject
matter that we could share with everyone out there and you put on
your website? In other words, the limitations of the canal, what's
being anticipated to be able to be put into place to be able to try to
alleviate -- and John, as much as your situation is an aggravation, the
thing I'm concerned with is that major flood event that we may have
and the capacity of the canal to carry that water and people's homes
getting flooded.
That's my biggest concern. I mean, not that I'm not concerned
about flooded yards, I am. But if we could have paper prepared with
some sort of idea where we're going with it. We can't cover it here in
a matter of 15, 20 minutes. It would be most appreciated.
In other words, we're going to doing (sic) this step, we're doing
that step, and there may be another alternative that we could go down
-- look at down the road to be able to improve the system even more.
MR. TEARS: We actually have a strategic plan, it's already
developed, that we're following to try to improve the system. But the
challenge we have is that from an environmental standpoint and other,
I just can't widen the canal and dump more water into the Gulf. So the
challenge is trying to move water in areas that provide the least impact
and allow water to filter back into the ground before it gets to the
Gulf.
And the challenge is if we get rid of every drop of water during
January 10, 2012
the wet season, we have problems in the dry season because it's a rain
driven system and it provides us our water supply. So there's a
balance. And we're really trying to look at it regionally holistically to
come up with solutions.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have two other Commissioners
that want to speak, and I have some other questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Have you talked with Mr. Marker about
this?
MR. TEARS: I don't know if I personally -- I've talked with
numerous individuals throughout the community --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're not here to resolve this today.
We're here to make a decision do we want to come back for a full
hearing or not. I think it would be prudent if you and Nick got
together and met with Mr. Marker and talked with him about --
MR. TEARS: I'd be happy to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- what is planned and give him some
idea as to what he can expect, okay?
Commissioner -- was it Commissioner Hiller next or
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Hiller.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think it was Hiller.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I mean, these generalities
are all well and good, but at the same time this gentleman is having a
flooding problem. And the bottom line is it's illegal to displace excess
stormwater from your property to his property.
I was looking at the LIDAR of your property that they had on the
overhead and they show how all these houses are built on mounds, all
those red spots show the high elevations. And to the extent that you
have a depression in the back, the water that would not otherwise
percolate had that ground been level and instead slides off,
accumulates in the depression so you are not flooding your neighbor,
Page 49
January 10, 2012
okay. That's one of the reasons.
Now, what can't be done is the neighbors, and that includes the
canal, cannot basically say okay we're going to displace our excess
stormwater on your property because you happen to have a lower
point on your land. You can't do that, it's trespass.
So I understand it is trespass. It's absolutely trespass. He has the
duty to basically contain excess stormwater runoff on his property.
And no one else can drain their excess stormwater runoff on his
property, regardless of the elevation of that property.
MR. TEARS: Commissioner Hiller, every property that's
developed out in the Estates that raises the ground level and creates a
mound is displacing water.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Except to the extent, and we
actually had an LDC amendment that addressed this, is that to the
extent that you build on a mound you have to show the engineering
that basically allows for that displacement to stay on your property,
which is in effect what's happening. As he has a depression in the back
by building the mound, it displaces and flows to the back of the
property where it gets absorbed over there so it doesn't flow to other
properties.
Regardless of that, the issue still remains, no one can be
displacing their excess stormwater on his property.
MR. TEARS: These are county drainage easements. We only
through a cooperative agreement operate and maintain the system.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You have -- over his property?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, just a --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I want to know about his property.
I don't want to hear about the county generally. We're here to listen to
his problem, and his problem is mirrored throughout the Estates. There
are all these people who are suffering the same way.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, let me address this, because
I'm very familiar with it, as I had to listen --
Page 50
January 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: As am I --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- at my 84 -year old father tell me for
six weeks the same issue.
So you have to look at the system holistically. The whole
Golden Gate Estates right now, when they did that excavation to put
these canals in, and as I showed you with those wetlands jurisdictions,
it was intended to be wet. We artificially drained the system --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: He's not supposed to be part of the
wetland jurisdictions. That's why I asked for you to show me
specifically where his property was. You pointed it on this diagram
and showed that he is not part of that. So those surrounding properties
should be capturing that excess stormwater, it should not be affecting
his property. That's the whole point.
MR. MARKER: I agree.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, when you look at this diagram
here, this low point was not probably natural. It was caused by some
sort of construction or clearing that was done. So this 10.4 that's --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But that's not his property.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am, that is.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The other diagram, is that all your
property? Because the other diagram doesn't show that as all of your
property.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The 10.4 is only a -- go back to the
other diagram that shows his property, please. Can you show them
side by side? And can you elaborate and clarify what is and what isn't
your property, because --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's the black bold --
MR. MARKER: I got an empty lot down by the canal and then
there's a house and there's my house. I think that is five and a half
acres down there next to the canal.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no, I need to see it on these
Page 51
January 10, 2012
diagrams.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, his home is right here. I'm
going to put it on the tip of my pen.
MR. MARKER: That is right. That is true.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: So the back of his lot is 10.4, the dark
blue. Just north of his lot is 12.9. So I've got a two -foot difference in
elevation. Now this depression is probably mostly man made. It's
pretty evenly done. Maybe when you built the house, I don't know.
I'm not going to say the lot was cleared, but the lot was cleared --
MR. MARKER: Probably it was cleared all the way to the back.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
MR. MARKER: Because it was nothing but water oaks and
everything else, and high weed growth. And all, basically all that was
done was the pepper bushes were taken out and it was mowed for the
high grass that was there. That's it. That's what it was. So no
construction back there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a motion to bring this back?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, I'll make a motion to bring it
back.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, okay, Commissioner Hiller.
MR. MARKER: Commissioner, can I make one more statement
before I finish up?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, you certainly can. Yes.
MR. MARKER: Right now in 2011 there's more water on my
property, longer and more of it than I had in 2005 when Wilma came
through.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Me too, sir.
MR. MARKER: That's bottom line right there. I'm not
complaining so much about my property as I am everybody in the
Estates. This last flood went from that canal all the way to Golden
Gate Boulevard, from Desoto all the way down to 13th, which is the
street that the fire department is on. And that canal turns and goes in
Page 52
January 10, 2012
there and goes up by White and dead -ends up into there and flooded
those people completely out right there. This flood wasn't that kind of
water. It wasn't that kind of water.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I'd like to see the juris --
MR. MARKER: I lived out there 19 years.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to see the jurisdictional
wetlands highlighted on the same map as these properties so we can
see how they interface.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And ma'am, okay --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a motion to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'll be happy to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second it --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did you second it?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Not yet. I was just in the
process of doing that. I would be happy to second if we treat this not
as a specific property but as a global situation.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I was going to ask --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's the only way you can treat it.
Okay, can I suggest to the motion maker and the seconder that
the staff in the meantime meet with this gentleman and talk with him
about his specific situation, but also describe the global solution and
time frame, okay.
MR. OCHS: And cost.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And cost.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And sir, if I could be clear, because I
think this is an opportunity for us to get the message out, because we
are going with the FEMA flood maps and you just approved our
watershed management plans and we're having a workshop with the
City of Naples. A lot of good things are coming together to bring this
out. We come back and do a presentation about what the bigger issues
are, the rain events, issues in Golden Gate Estates that cause the
Page 53
January 10, 2012
flooding, what our long -range plans are to alleviate that.
I think it's a great presentation item to let the Board know and the
people know, and we're happy to meet with the gentleman
individually to go over the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good, good. So we'll bring it
back.
What's a reasonable time frame for you to prepare this?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Because of the agenda time, I'd say
just -- not this next meeting, the meeting after.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. First meeting in February?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mine is just simple, but he
mentioned Hydrilla and something about us cutting it down but then
it's all blocked up by a bridge. I won't even ask you to talk about that
anymore, because we're already voting on this, but if you could, when
you come back to us, could you talk about the Hydrilla removal,
whose responsibility it is, or if we're going to do it or what -- please
address that too.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Will do. We'll address operations and
maintenance and long -range planning for the area. We'll cover it all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We've already voted to bring it back.
Anything you have to say, you can say the next time. We're not going
to vote on this right now.
MR. MARKER: That's fair enough. I can live with that. I'd just
like to ask Mr. Jim Coletta to take a drive out my street. You're
welcome to call me.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll do that, sir.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I want to go. I want to go too.
MR. MARKER: All of y'all.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I want to drive up your street.
MR. MARKER: I want you to see what I'm talking about with
Page 54
January 10, 2012
the culvert issue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. MARKER: Thank you very much for your time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Okay, we're going to take a
10- minute --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think we have to vote.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, yes. Okay.
All in favor of the motion to bring it back for a full hearing,
please indicate 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: Okay, it passes unanimously.
We're going to take a 10- minute break. We'll be back at 10:41.
MR. OCHS : 10: 51.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, thank you.
(A recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, ladies and gentlemen, the Board
of County Commission meeting is back in session.
Where do we go now?
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2012 -03: APPOINTING JAMES R. THOMAS TO
THE CONSUMER ADVISORY BOARD — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, we'll go to Item 9 on your agenda,
Board of County Commissioners. 9.A is appointment of member to
Page 55
January 10, 2012
the Consumer Advisory Board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does anybody have a motion? I've
read them over and they were both excellent candidates, it was kind of
hard to make a decision there, but -- so I put down James Thomas as
my selection for Consumer Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, motion by Commissioner Fiala to
nominate James Thomas, and second by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Anybody opposed by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2012 -04: APPOINTING HENRY E. AHARI
(CITIZEN MEMBER CATEGORY) TO THE VALUE
ADJUSTMENT BOARD — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 9.B is appointment of alternate member of the
Value Adjustment Board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There's not much choice here, folks,
unless you want to readvertise.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The Clerk's Office wrote a little
thing of backup material that said that, you know, he was fine for
office. So I make a motion that we nominate Henry Altarri --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ahari.
Page 56
January 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Ahari, excuse me.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Fiala to
nominate Henry Ahari and seconded by Commissioner Coletta.
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.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #9C
OPPOSING THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE PLAN TO
CONSOLIDATE OR CLOSE THE FT. MYERS PROCESSING
AND DISTRIBUTION CENTER WHICH WOULD HAVE A $40
MILLION ECONOMIC IMPACT ON THE FIVE COUNTIES
SERVED, INCLUDING COLLIER COUNTY — MOTION FOR
THE CHAIRMAN TO SEND A LETTER TO THE
CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION IN WASHINGTON D.C.
EXPRESSING THE BOARD'S OPPOSITION TO
CONSOLIDATION, TO ADVOCATE COLLIER COUNTY'S
POSITION AND URGE THEM TO CRAFT A LEGISLATIVE
SOLUTION — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 9.0 is a recommendation to oppose the U.S. Postal
Service plan to consolidate or close the Fort Myers processing and
distribution center, which would have a $40 million economic impact
on the five counties served, including Collier County. This item is
brought forward by Commissioner Henning.
Page 57
January 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I was working with Deb Wright
and the Ferguson Group on this item.
What it is, the Postmaster is trying to consolidate to cut costs.
However, there are two facilities in the Tampa area, one in Tampa,
one in Clearwater. The Clearwater one was proposed to close, and
there were some objections, and all of a sudden they changed their
mind. And because of that they are anticipating to close the facility in
Fort Myers, and that is located at the regional airport.
The postal -- Postmaster owns the building, it's free and clear,
okay, so there's no cost savings there. The 400 -plus employees,
they're going to be relocated, all right. It's not that they're going to
lose their job. They have a contract where they will -- the postal
system will relocate them, and their cost. So it's an added cost.
The impact to the businesses in Southwest Florida is very
significant. Arthrex just purchased a building near the airport to fly
their goods to their customers. That's a very important fact that just
one business it will affect.
So what I'm asking is that we send a letter to our congressional
delegation to oppose the closing of the Fort Myers facility. I can tell
you that the Lee County Commissioners and John Manning was --
Commissioner John Manning was working on this. And I've been
working with him.
So that's my motion, is that the Board send a letter to the
delegation opposing closing of the Fort Myers postal sorting facility.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I strongly support your motion,
Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, motion by Commissioner
Henning to approve, second by Commissioner Coletta.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I was delighted to see this on
the agenda. I'm so glad you took that step forward. I think it's a great
step forward. To be without a post office altogether in all of Southwest
Page 58
January 10, 2012
Florida, not, you know, up until we get to Tampa, that really is sad.
So I'm so glad you took this step. I will certainly support it every
step of the way. When I go up to Tallahassee at the end of this month,
I will also speak to the FAC members about it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 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.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #9D
ACKNOWLEDGING THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS' SUPPORT OF SENATE BILL 192
PERTAINING TO AMENDING THE PROCEDURES FOR
MERGER AND DISSOLUTION OF TWO OR MORE
INDEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICTS — MOTION TO SEND A
LETTER TO SENATOR MIKE BENNETT AND COLLIER
COUNTY'S CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 9.1) is a recommendation to approve a resolution
acknowledging the Board of County Commissioners' support of
Senate Bill 192 pertaining to amending the procedures for merger and
dissolution of two or more independent special districts. And this item
is brought forward by Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
What I discovered is Senator Mike Bennett from the Sarasota
area has a similar situation where we have in Collier, where they have
Page 59
January 10, 2012
several independent fire districts. And there's a wish out there, just
like there is with the residents in Collier County, to consolidate those.
The Bill provides an easier way for independent districts to
consolidate instead of having to come back after the citizens vote to
merge or dissolve, then it doesn't have to go back. This bill provides it
so it doesn't have to go back to the legislators for codification.
I continued it at the last meeting -- actually, I continued it twice.
And the reason is, the first time I wanted to get input from the
independent fire districts. And you can see in the back -up material,
there is an e-mail I sent to Chief Metzger. I still haven't seen any
opposition of this bill by the independent fire districts.
The last time I continued it was because the bill was amended.
And it was amended to allow local general government the will to
seek to dissolve independent districts with the approval of the voters.
I'm not supporting that language for us to take over -- the Board of
Commissioners take over the independent fire districts, I just think it's
-- this bill is a more in tune to the citizens of Collier County has
spoken over and over again.
So I'm urging my colleagues to support this bill, send it to
Senator Mike Bennett of our support and our legislation delegation,
Florida legislation delegation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a motion. A second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm happy to second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta seconds it.
Discussion?
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm very supportive of this. I
think it's the right direction to go. It takes a little bit of the roadblocks
out of the process so you can get to where you need to be.
However, with that said, Mr. Billington sent a letter out to us, and
one of the things he brought up in the letter was very concerning.
He said, in your letter of support for the consolidated bill
Page 60
January 10, 2012
currently working its way through the legislature, please ask for a
provision that prohibits one district from annexing a portion of another
district.
North Naples had announced at a previous North Naples Fire
Department board meeting that they may consider annexing part of the
Golden Gate and Bonita district. Districts do not have to honor county
borders. Should one district be allowed to cherrypick the high tax
revenue area of another district? That's a question. Does the county
want to go into the fire service business because you allow one district
to financially cripple another? Let's stop this from happening and
request a provision that outlaws the partial annexation of districts.
And I think that's something that we should consider in that letter
to bring Senator Bennett's attention to it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, Jeff, can you explain a little
bit about the special districts? Is this all about fire? How does it
affect, you know, other special districts? And what about debt? You
know, if you have a district that voluntarily dissolves and is
encumbered by substantial debt, what happens to the debt?
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm not sure what happens to the debt at the
end of the day. You'd have to look at bond covenants, all right. The
Board of County Commissioners has not, to my knowledge,
backstopped any of this debt, all right. So under those bond
covenants, the bond holders I think get stuck. I don't think this
legislation changes that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like assurances that it
doesn't.
MR. KLATZKOW: I can't give you assurances, ma'am, I can
just --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, not you -- unless you
recently ran for Senate.
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't see that in the bill though, ma'am.
Page 61
January 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You don't see that happening,
running for Senate?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, I don't see this in the bill.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I know it isn't, but I want to
make sure that we're not in a position -- and I mean, I guess, going to
writing some letter in support or against -- I would hate to see a
situation where somehow this bill as it goes through debate somehow
gets amended and in some manner of speaking we're adversely
affected.
MR. KLATZKOW: I think that's a concern that's well merited,
because there's some talk in Tallahassee of doing exactly that because
there are a number of CDD's that are failed throughout the state and
nobody's quite sure what to do with those bonds. And there's some
talk in Tallahassee that somebody's got to pay. Tallahassee never
pays. They always try to shove it down to the local governments.
I would strongly suggest that we work with FAC on that issue.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I agree with that. And these
special districts would consider CDD's, for example. I mean, the
discussion here is focused --
MR. KLATZKOW: No, not CDD's. But what I'm saying, there
are bond holders that are --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, I understand --
MR. KLATZKOW: There are bond holders that are screaming
in Tallahassee that are not getting paid.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: My understanding is that these
special districts would consider CDD's.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, it specifically exempts CDD's.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Did it?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I didn't see that. That's good then.
But that CDD issue is still a big issue, especially here in Collier
County where so many of them are failing.
Page 62
January 10, 2012
MR. KLATZKOW: It's a statewide issue.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. No, that's good.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The bill requires majority vote of both or
all of the districts, independent districts that are going to be -- going to
consider consolidation.
Does that provide enough protection to make sure that issues like
debt are properly considered? Because if the people vote to dissolve a
district or consolidate the districts, they essentially would be accepting
responsibility for whatever financial repercussions there were to the
people who are the voters in that district.
And is it not your understanding, Jeff, that it requires the
majority vote of both of the -- well, actually more than the majority
vote, I think 60 percent.
MR. KLATZKOW: It requires the vote of the district that's in
essence dissolving the district that's taking them in, yes.
Now, whether or not there will be full disclosure of everything, I
don't know.
MR. OCHS: Sir, if I may. One of the provisions of the statute is
that if there is a merger approved by the voters in both of the districts
that are seeking to merge, that a unified charter for the merged district
must be submitted to the state legislature for approval. That is to --
the intent there is to contain the specific issues that this Board is
talking about right now, including assumption of debt and other
obligations.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner -- Commissioner
Coletta, right?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just never heard anything more
about partial districts, and I -- for some reason I don't --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't know how partial districts are
possible under this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'd like to address that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, go ahead.
Page 63
January 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I talked to Mr. Billington, and
looking at the bill, it doesn't address annexation of a portion of one
district into another, which still takes a legislative action. This is
merely a bill addressing mergers and dissolutions, not partial
dissolution or partial merger. It doesn't address that.
And I appreciate Mr. Billington's concerns; however, this bill
doesn't address annexation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Henning, is there
some way we can write that in just to clarify that and give people a
little ease with it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Klatzkow?
MR. KLATZKOW: This is just a -- your request, if I understand
it right, you're just asking the Board to support this bill.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
MR. KLATZKOW: If as part of that support you want to ask
Senator Bennett to amend it, you can do that as well. But that's not
what you've asked for.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, does this bill, when we --
when I was working with your office, does it address annexation of
parcels?
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't believe it does. I think this bill eases
the fire district consolidation, and that's how -- and that's how I viewed
it.
Does it address every possible issue? No. I think what it really
does is it eases the ability for these guys to consolidate.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The annexation still has to go to
the legislators to take a portion of a fire district and put it into another
one.
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know how you annex from one fire
district to another. I know municipalities do it.
Page 64
January 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, annexed portions -- the
legislators have taken it up in the past over the last two decades to
where one district was trying to get one parcel into their district. Never
went anywhere, except for the Vineyards back in the Eighties, what
was in the Golden Gate district and then it went to North Naples
district. But it hasn't happened since then that I'm aware of And that
took a legislative action.
So I think if you write a letter, you would -- may confuse the
issue. However, I have no problem in the letter putting a footnote in
there just saying that we don't support partial merging. Which really is
an annexation, it's not -- they don't call it a partial merger.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I agree. I don't see anything here that
would allow a partial merger of these things. If there's going to be a
change in the boundaries of a special district that was established by
the legislature, it seems to me the legislature would have to make that
decision.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So I don't see how that would be
possible under this legislation.
The question of course arises, is there anything about any
potential changes to this legislation that we would like to express our
opposition to as it works its way through the legislature? You're never
really sure what comes out the other end. And if there's anything in
general that you would object to, we could write a letter in support of
the legislation -- or the bill as it currently stands, and then make a
statement that we would oppose any modification of the bill that
would do such and such. So if there's anything that anybody has that
is a concern there, maybe we could handle it that way.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Such as not allowing the voters
of the district to vote on it. That would be a big one. Because you get
a lot of transparency during the voting process. The pros and cons.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, suppose we wrote a letter that said
Page 65
January 10, 2012
we support the bill as it currently stands but we would oppose any
modifications to the bill that would diminish the ability of the voters to
vote on the merger and/or consolidation of these districts.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll amend my motion to include
that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I amend my second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. All in favor of the amended
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. We'll need to
have somebody put that together.
Leo?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right, thank you.
Item # 1 OA
REJECT AN OFFER WAIVING ALL FINES AND ALL COUNTY
OPERATIONAL COSTS ON CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION
ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS VS.
SERGIO G. AND PATRICIA SALINAS, CODE ENFORCEMENT
SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CASE NO. CESD- 2010 - 0004913 AND
CASE NO. CESD- 2010 - 0004916, RELATING TO PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 2756 47TH STREET SW, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA — MOTION TO ACCEPT $2,500 SETTLEMENT
OFFER — APPROVED; MOTION FOR STAFF TO BRING BACK
'. - - •1
January 10, 2012
ALTERNATIVES TO THE CURRENT FORECLOSURE POLICY
THAT WOULD AMEND THE RESOLUTION BY PROVIDING A
FAIR MEANS FOR BUYERS TO REMEDY OR CORRECT
PROPERTY DEFECTSNIOLATIONS — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: That takes us to Item 10 on your agenda,
Commissioners, County Manager's report. 10.A is a recommendation
to reject an offer to waive all fines and all county operational costs on
a code enforcement action entitled Board of County Commissioners
versus Sergio G. and Patricia Salinas, Code Enforcement Special
Magistrate Case number CESD- 2010 -004 -- excuse me, 0004913, and
Case No. CESD- 2010 - 0004916, relating to property located at 2756
47th Street Southwest, Collier County, Florida.
Ms. Diane Flagg, your Code Enforcement Director, will present.
MS. FLAGG: Good morning, Commissioners.
This item is a recommendation to reject the settlement offer
based on the BCC Resolution 2010 -101. Pursuant to the resolution,
fines that accrued prior to the ownership by S &W Partners of this
property may be considered for waiver by the BCC.
Mr. Hamro, who represents S &W Partners, indicates he's a
realtor who purchased this property for his investors at a foreclosure
auction. Following his purchase our office was contacted for payoff
information. The payoff information, whenever requested, contains
code case information, lien information and also the OR book and
page numbers of the orders. And the orders outline what the fines are
per day that are accruing and that they will continue to accrue until it's
abated.
Two site inspections and affidavits of compliance were
completed by the area investigator. The compliance date and the
certificate of title that is recorded to a new owner serves as our basis
for the recommendation, based upon Resolution 2010 -101. Pursuant
to the Board's resolution, fines in the amount of $19,400.11 would be
Page 67
January 10, 2012
waived and the lien released after a payment of the fines that accrued
during S &W Partners' ownership.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have public speakers?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have two speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's call the first speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker is Steve Hamro.
MR. JOHNSON: Could I speak first? I'm Henry Johnson.
MR. MITCHELL: There's been a request for Mr. Johnson to
speak first from S &W Partners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you are the petitioner or are you
representing the petitioner?
MR. JOHNSON: I'm representing the petitioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you a lobbyist?
MR. JOHNSON: I am not.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're not paid for your services?
MR. JOHNSON: I'm paid for my services only as local counsel.
I'm Henry Johnson, I'm the attorney who represents S &W Partners
here in Naples.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, is that required, a registered
lobbyist?
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't believe it is. I'll double check.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right. Go ahead, sir.
MR. JOHNSON: Good morning, everybody. I'm Henry
Johnson. I'm not oftentimes before you. I'm an attorney here in
Naples, Florida. I practiced law here for 28 years. I'm normally in the
building next to you in the Circuit Court of Collier County, Florida.
My specialty is real estate litigation and construction litigation.
At the outset, respectfully we represent S &W Partners, LLC.
And I would also indicate at the outset that after some discussions
with staff in a spirit of compromise, we would be willing to pay
$2,500 and not zero, as indicated in the report, based upon -- and only
in the spirit of compromise for what has taken place since our clients
9.�" •i
January 10, 2012
took title at foreclosure sale.
It's important to realize, again, respectfully, that our client is not a
lender, it's not a bank, it's rather a private party who purchased lot
four, block 94 at a foreclosure sale, and immediately following its
purchase at foreclosure sale on August 9th of 2011 it diligently moved
forward to remedy five independent alleged violations regarding this
particular property, which were found against not my client, S &W
Partners, LLC, but rather a couple named Salinas, who apparently had
been mired in certain violations prior to our client taking title.
Our client, immediately upon taking title, remedied the five
violations, which included removal of a fence, removal of a barbecue
pit, removal of two wood frame sheds. And those were all been done.
And there's an affidavit in your file by a gentleman named Albert
Gaballi (phonetic) who was hired by our client to take care of these
matters.
They were done, according to his affidavit, which is a matter of
your record, within four days of August 9th of 2011. Those were all
taken care of.
And the final violation was an unpermitted pool. Which, by
Kennelly (phonetic) was a difficult task to try to remedy, because the
pool contractor was out of business, there was the necessity to get
drawings for the pool, to get county approvals and the like.
Ultimately our client takes care of everything by October the 13th of
2011.
Now, the application that we're saying needs to be examined is
the application of Resolution 2010 -101. That's what grants the Code
Enforcement Director the ability to settle various claims. Not just
claims that happened post -sale, but all claims relating to code
enforcement violations.
If you look at the criteria, and we'd ask the Commission to please
look at the criteria under Section 4 of 4.1 of the ordinance. Section 4
of the ordinance says several things quickly. One, it says that the fines
Page 69
January 10, 2012
can -- it says a code enforcement settlement recommendation can be
made to the Board based upon the following considerations.
Now, there are six different considerations. The first one is that
the fine or lien amount is fixed and no longer accrues on a periodic
basis. Done, accomplished, finished.
B, the underlying violation resulting in the fine or lien has been
abated or corrected. Clear, no issue, perfectly done.
C, history of violations regarding this party, S &W Partners.
Zero.
D, for code enforcement liens on property that have new
ownerships, fines that accrued prior to the transfer of title would be
considered for waiver so long as the new owner has diligently pursued
abatement and compliance has been achieved. County is recognizing
that as to the violations which involved the Salinas'.
But we're here today to look at the claim that the county should
impose fines and violations for activities which took place while our
client was essentially remedying the blighted area. And we say look,
if someone is trying to make that effort in Collier County given these
economic times, please take the opportunity to look at the whole of the
ordinance, because that gives the discretion to, we believe, code
enforcement and ultimately to settle claims and fines, to waive them if
someone's making diligent compliance post title.
Also, Mr. Hamro is here today to talk about some of the financial
hardship that that might impose upon his company in the event that
you want to see how those stack up to the rest of these particular
claims.
In the end we look at this particular ordinance by -- our ordinance
2010 -101 by the Commission in kind of a simple light. That is that
this is a generic ordinance, it's generic for the Commission and for to
authorize the Code Enforcement Board Director to make settlements
across the board, not just settlements for people who take title to terms
of sale across the board.
Page 70
January 10, 2012
We say in this particular instance, please give the opportunity for
a party such as S &W Partners who has been involved now in the
correction and remedying of, I understand, three properties
themselves, Mr. Hamro individually through another entity has taken
care of nine blighted properties, take into consideration that settlement
is just what the word says, it should be settlement. And there should
be an acknowledgment that someone works diligently, and the
position from the affidavit of Mr. Gabbali, couldn't have done it any
more quickly, couldn't have done it any more than within this 90 days,
particularly on the unpermitted pool issue, the fines we think
ultimately should have been waived, but we're here in the spirit of
compromise to say, look, to the county, we're here to help.
So thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Steve Hamro.
MR. HAMRO: Thank you. Steve Hamro, III, for the record, for
S &W Partners.
I think it's been established so far that obviously because we did
do this as quick as we can that the lien prior to us taking title would be
considered for waiver.
So the problem that I have and I guess why I asked to be here,
when I asked for the payoff information for, hey, we fixed all these
problems, now what do we owe, it was somewhere near $15,000. So
of course I think that's -- it's a whole new ballgame for this
investment, obviously, if I had to pay 15,000 for this. And especially
since we worked diligently to correct the problem.
After looking at the resolution here I see though that on F it says
so long as the amount recovered will equal or exceed the cost and
expenses incurred by the county for prosecuting this violation. So
perhaps that's why it was recommended for rejection, because we
were asking for a complete waiver. So that's why I told Mr. Johnson
to come here today and offer $2,500, which should cover
Page 71
January 10, 2012
administrative costs for the county. And in, like he said, the spirit of
cooperation to just, here's $2,500, we've corrected these problems, five
issues that a previous owner had caused and we've corrected them all.
The home has been remodeled, it looks great. The neighbors have
commented to me how it looks much better.
So what we're asking for is a motion to waive the fines from the
previous owner and, because we did fix all this as quick as we could,
to settle the remaining, I think it was at $200 a day from the day I took
the property, $200 that day started per day for the 74 days that I tried
to get these problems taken care of, which included, as he said, a pool
that was already in the ground that was not permitted. So I had to get
an architect to come in who would agree to take the responsibility to
say that I'll look at this, draw it up, get it to the county.
I paid the permit, the fees, and I had the inspector come out. So
we thought $2,500 would be a reasonable offer to settle this for S &W.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We have two choices here. We
can continue this, since it's what the public has -- different than what
was on our agenda, and wanting to pay our costs, or we can make a
motion for a settlement to cover our costs. And I do believe this was
done expedentially (sic) to cure the problem.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I agree. The -- in a situation such as this,
there's no way that a buyer can avoid a penalty, as I understand it.
They don't own it until the day the ownership is transferred. They
can't begin work on improving it until they own it. And particularly
with something like a swimming pool or other difficult problem to
resolve, there's no way they can do it without incurring a penalty.
And it seems to me that we should be interested in trying to get
the property improved without penalizing the people who are
improving it. So I agree with Commissioner Henning, and I would go
Page 72
January 10, 2012
even further and say that maybe we need to take a look at these
guidelines to see if we can't give the staff a little more flexibility under
certain circumstances, or modify them to give a new owner a
minimum period of time to correct violations. And maybe we do --
we can do both of those.
But nevertheless, do you have any comments about those --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I wasn't quite done, but go
ahead.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I think it's important to hear
from Ms. Flagg.
MS. FLAGG: Commissioners, this -- again, these
recommendations are based upon the resolution. And the resolution,
when an owner requests a payoff, this is what the form looks like.
And so the payoff form includes not only the liens that are on the
property, the code case numbers that are on the property, but it also
includes the OR book and page numbers for the property.
And then if you, as an investor, which we work with numerous
investors, and as an investor, then they go to the OR book and page
number and see that there's fines accruing, what the fine amount is per
day, and that -- once the property is brought into compliance, that the
fines will cease.
So what the majority of investors that we've worked with do is
when they are getting ready to go to the foreclosure auction and place
a bid, they contact our office before they buy the property and they
say what is the payoff. They do the research, identify what the fines
are, what the issues are, and then their bid amount is what they take
into consideration when they go to the foreclosure auction to buy the
property.
So that's how it's currently working, based on the resolution that
was executed by the Board.
It's the Board's decision. These are your fines. However you
Page 73
January 10, 2012
wish to handle it we're good with.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I understand what you told me,
but they're still left in a position of never really knowing how much
it's going to cost them. They understand what's accrued and that's
clear, and they also know that we have waived those in the past. So
they're encouraged to perhaps take a chance.
But in many cases they'll never know how much they're likely to
be fined the minute they take ownership, because they don't know how
long it's going to take to get the process through the county for
approval, if they have to prepare the designs for the pool and try to get
all that approved. It can be expensive.
So I'm not suggesting that we just ignore it, I'm just suggesting
that we take a look, see if we have a better way of dealing with these
things in the future.
Commissioner Hiller was next, I believe.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I finish up?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry. Go ahead, Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Johnson was lobbying the
Board to take certain action. The lobbying ordinance is clear, when
you represent and get reimbursed, you have to register yourself as a
lobbyist.
MR. KLATZKOW: The lobbying is for legislative matters, it's
not for quasi-judicial type matters. This is more of a quasi-judicial
type matter since you guys, based on an existing resolution, are going
to make a decision. You're acting more Board's court of equity here
than you are as a legislative body.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So registration as a lobbyist is not
required?
MR. KLATZKOW: It's not required. I just looked at the
ordinance, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Page 74
January 10, 2012
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to make a motion that we
settle this as proposed by the petitioner. And I agree with
Commissioner Coyle that obviously there's a problem if in order to
abate they're dependent on the county, for example, to get permits and
do inspections. Are we fining them for the time it takes for us to
review their permit application or the time it takes us to get an
inspector out there? Obviously that doesn't make sense.
So clearly that's why there is a provision under the various
options that are listed under which we can waive, and that is if they
were diligent in trying to abate as quickly as possible, once they
acquired, we should be giving them the benefit of the doubt and
waiving those fines that accrued subsequently.
MS. FLAGG: I will just offer the Commissioners, we've
consistently approached this with recommendations based upon the
resolution. However you choose to settle these is totally your decision.
We're happy with whatever you decide.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And this is one of the -- what was
presented is one of the means by which we can settle this. And I think
the settlement proposal is fair, it covers your cost, it eliminates the
fines and basically addresses the issue that Coyle raised as being
problematic.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Does it cover your cost?
MS. FLAGG: I was just checking. The 2,500 would cover the
cost.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just -- I don't want to mean to put
you on the spot, but normally you work with everybody to do this.
And in this case they had offered a higher amount, I believe, to settle
this originally and it was rejected. Is there a reason? Is there
something that we're not seeing here in this open meeting that needs to
be said?
Page 75
January 10, 2012
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioners, may I? Diane is following
your policy to the letter. Your policy basically says that we'll forgive
everything that occurred -- accrued up to the point you purchase. After
that they have to pay as a general rule. And the reason for that is
because you want to incentivize people to get those code liens secured
quickly. Because one of the problems Diane was having was people
were buying foreclosed homes and doing nothing with them. It was
just a terrible situation.
But you put a clause in there that gave you an out where they
said if it would impose a severe financial hardship on the owner, then
in that case you could waive those fines.
What I'm hearing now is sort of a softening of the Board's
position, saying that perhaps what we really want to do is if somebody
is expeditiously trying to cure it, we'll waive it as well. If that's what
you want, Diane's going to have to come back and change your policy
by resolution, because if she just does that, she'll be operating outside
your direction.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're not asking her to do that. We're
really asking for her advice on what changes we might make to the
ordinance itself that will make it easier to make decisions without
getting involved in the problem that you just defined, if somebody just
sits there and does nothing and then expects us to waive the fine.
I think it's an excellent incentive to start assessing those
immediately upon transfer of ownership. But should we not include
something in the ordinance that provides an opportunity to waive them
if they proceed expeditiously?
MS. FLAGG: Frankly, because we've presented multitudes of
settlements to you based upon this resolution and you all have waived
hundreds of thousands of dollars of fines based on this resolution, until
the resolution is changed, we would just continue to bring these to you
and let you make the decision on a case -by -case basis whether you
would like to further reduce the fine amounts.
Page 76
January 10, 2012
If you want to direct me to revise the resolution and bring you
some recommendations, I'd be happy to do that too.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I really hadn't finished yet either.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, that's all right.
Diane, I know that part of this ordinance says something about
expeditiously. But I would suggest that expeditiously is in the eye of
the beholder. Somebody might feel that they've done as much as they
can in two and a half months and the next guy would have it done in a
week. So then who's to argue and then interpret what expeditiously
means in each and every case?
And I'm concerned with this has worked all along and it's worked
well for us and it's helped us to get these things taken care of quickly,
and I fear that if we start tampering with a good thing, why fix it if it
ain't broken type of a thing, that I have a little problem with that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, Diane, what we're
looking at this point in time, if a person wants to purchase a piece of
property out there, the kind of fines we're talking about would be those
fines that would be incurred after the property was put in their name;
is that correct?
MS. FLAGG: Yes. What I -- I'll tell you how the process
generally works. And the many investors that we work with, what
they do is they identify a piece of property they want to place a bid on.
They contact our office for a payoff. They get a payoff guaranteed
within two business days. That gives them enough time to go and
look at the OR book and page to see what the issue is, look at the
information that we provided. And then the bid amount that they offer
the bank takes into consideration their cost to bring the property into
compliance and also the cost of the liens.
When the bank is looking at an offer, the bank is seeing the big
picture of the lien amount. So that's generally the way the process
Page 77
January 10, 2012
works. And the investors, we have many investors, we do 100 to 200
payoff lien searches every week.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So Diane, basically it's not the
buyer beware. The buyer knows ahead of time if they ask the
questions how long it's going to take to get the permits, the questions
they can also ask and they have to make a business decision to go
forward.
I agree with Commissioner Fiala, if it's not broken there's nothing
to fix.
MS. FLAGG: The potential buyers, if they'll take that two
business days to do their research, they have contracted -- what they
have told us is that they have contractors that they work directly with
and those contractors give them pricing, okay this is what the problem
is, this is how much it's going to cost to fix. So when they go to that
foreclosure auction, they have the information that they need to make
a bid based on the information.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. So you have to exercise
good business decisions and ask the right questions, which is just all
part of the process. And for us to go back now and start to forgive
after the person knew the cost or could know the cost up front I think
is counterproductive to where we're trying to go with it. We've been
extremely forgiving in trying to make this work. But, I mean, there
has got to be a point in time where we say, you know, this is past what
we could do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, you know -- did you want to
say something? You looked -- you were -- yeah, go ahead, you were
jumping up and down.
MR. HAMRO: Mr. Coyle, can I?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
MR. HAMRO: I just want to give an example of why I think this
resolution probably was made. And also, I mean, I can read the
Page 78
January 10, 2012
resolution, and I know, yes, I know what was wrong with the property.
And as Commissioner Henning said, you can factor that in. But you
never know truly how long is it going to take me to get this pool
permitted.
If it's not broke, don't fix it. I think that the problem is that I'm
not going to buy another property if this is the way that investors are
going to get treated. The reason I think this whole thing was put in
place in the first place is you have banks who let these sit for six
months before they even decide to do anything with it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That is absolutely correct.
MR. HAMRO: To say also -- and I'm liking what I'm hearing up
here, but then some of the other stuff not so much. But the reason
that, for example, the bank that you just -- in December, they brought
an offer of 5,000 to reject 50,000. When we make a bid at the auction,
the banks, most of the time, I know, I've done this for two years, do
not take into consideration what their fines are. And the way I know
that is because they don't know what they are.
As an example, just in December you rejected $50,000 of a
waiver for five because that bank did not know that there were fines
on that property. They waited until they had a contract. They had
already put it on the market, because I know this in particular case.
Then when they did the title search to get ready to close this, the title
company said oh, wait a minute, you've racked up $50,000 worth of
fines. So the banks don't know what's going on.
I made a bid on that house knowing that there was a problem.
Knowing also that there's a resolution that says that previous doesn't
matter. It could have been $90,000. And as long as I worked on it as
hard as I could, that would be waived.
So what I'm saying is, just like Commissioner Coyle said, I think
it would be a great idea to look at this to say, let's give you 30 days
just like the owner of the home was given, or how about an appeal
process. Because we are trying to make things better.
Page 79
January 10, 2012
And then I wonder too, we've talked about well, you've done this
all before. How many times has someone come here as a person, not a
bank, and asked for a waiver and then you didn't give it? They worked
diligently. How many times has that happened? This bank that you
did last month waited for over six months before they even found out
that they had it. That's why it was $50,000.
So I'm just trying to address some of the things I've heard against
us. And I can answer any more questions you have too, by the way.
If that's okay, I'll stay here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Henning, seconded by -- no?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have a motion by me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a motion by Commissioner
Hiller, seconded by whom?
I'll second it.
The motion was for acceptance of the settlement offer of $2,500,
if I remember correctly. And that was all the motion specified, okay.
All in -- Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, not to set precedence, how
are we going to handle these in the future? And I don't want to put
staff in a box where they have to make a determination that an
investor is doing something diligently to cure the fines or are they
more inclined to do something else.
MS. FLAGG: Commissioner, I will just tell you some of the
bank cases that Mr. Hamro were referring to, I brought just
December's. The banks are very aware of the liens and the fines.
Because as you know we have a foreclosure team that any time before
a bank even takes title, they've spent $2.6 million already to address
the code violations. So the banks are fully aware of the code
violations on the property.
After they take title they understand that they're going to be
responsible based upon this resolution for any fines that accrue after
January 10, 2012
they take title to the property. So what they're doing to their benefit is
that they're addressing all the code violations that they can address
before they take title and then the ones that require a certificate of title
such as a pool, where the county won't issue a permit until they have
the certificate of title, at that point those are the ones they're
addressing.
So to go to your question about don't put us in a bad situation,
unless you give me direction to come back with a recommendation for
a revised resolution, what we would continue to do is follow the
resolution as written and then leave it up to you to make a decision if
you want to go further than what the current resolution allows.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: See, the previous fines are being
waived. It is from August when you purchased the property on
forward. So your statement is not quite correct about the previous
owner and the bank, and those are being waived. It's going forward.
I do recognize that we do have a problem and we need to fix it. I
don't want to set precedent. I'd rather continue this and let staff bring
something back, you know, somehow we need -- I don't know if we
can recognize somebody curing the problem in a reasonable amount of
time. And this might be one. I think it is, personally.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I answer that question?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you have a buyer for this
property?
MR. HAMRO: No, because here's two problems, if I may --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, you answered my
question.
MR. HAMRO: Yeah, sure. Number one, I legally cannot start
work on the property until I get certificate of title. So anybody that's
been doing that has been doing that illegally, number one. I can't buy
a property at auction and get a certificate of sale only, and then I have
the legal right to go work on that property, because there could be
people still living there.
Page 81
January 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you don't own the property?
MR. HAMRO: No, I do, I'm just saying in general. I'm
answering this first question first.
And then the second question is I can't get a buyer for this
because I can't get clear title until this lien is released by the County
Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I understand that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: He's --
MR. HAMRO: That's why I don't have a buyer. I don't even
want to try to attempt a buyer or to make them feel like that they have
a home when I know that I can't get it until this is released.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Fair enough.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: When a private property is
purchased by an individual as opposed to foreclosed upon by the bank,
you're looking at two very different scenarios. If a bank can go in and
somehow do something on a piece of property merely because they're
the lender, and I'm not even sure they can, it certainly does not apply
to a prospective purchaser of a private piece of property.
MS. FLAGG: I'm sorry, go ahead. I just wanted to clarify --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Secondly, when a private
individual looks to acquire a piece of property, what you can provide
if you're looking to amend this in any way is that in effect they now
step in the shoes of the previous owner. And whatever rights were
afforded to the previous owner to cure basically starts the clock for the
new owner. So if the previous owner had 30 days from the time that
the violation was identified and if that's the code, give the new owner
the same period of time to cure the defect, and that's what -- you
know, that becomes the definition of the expeditious, if you will.
So he is similarly situated, he's just the new owner. And then
you can easily get it done. We still have the ability under the
circumstances because he did abate and he is covering the cost, to
Page 82
January 10, 2012
waive those subsequent fines, as I understand from the reading of, you
know, whatever you produced on that overhead, as one of the
conditions --
MS. FLAGG: Let me just clarify something for you. You are
correct, the bank can abate violations before they have certificate of
title based upon the mortgage note. So that's how the banks are
abating these violations before they have certificate of title.
Now, you'll see in the certificate of sale, this was Deutsche Bank
was at the foreclosure auction. And they received an offer, I believe it
was $80,000 for this property. So instead of taking title to the
property Deutsche Bank did a pass - through based upon S &W Partners'
offer of 80,000, and so they just passed through the property to S &W
Partners.
Because the way the banks work, when the investor comes in --
and I'm sorry, we've been living this world of foreclosures, so we've
been doing this for a lot of years. When investors come in and do
their due diligence, they have all this information. Then they go to the
foreclosure sale. The banks already have all this information because
they've been addressing the code violations before they took title. So
then when they get to the foreclosure auction they know what is on
that property. The investors know what is on that property. There's
no guarantee that the Board will waive the fines that accrued prior to
ownership, but they all make decisions based upon that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Irrelevant to the issue of the time it
takes to cure the defects, whether known or not, they should be given
the same opportunity to cure as the owner received, because he can't
do anything to cure those defects till he takes title, pass - through or not.
You can't compare the bank to a private purchaser, whether the
private purchaser is buying directly from the owner or whether they're
buying through the bank. It's not comparable.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we have a motion to accept
$2,500 in settlement. All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
January 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me tell you why I supported
It --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a
minute. The motion carries 3 -2 with Commissioners Fiala and Coletta
voting against it, okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And this is a new dawning. I want
the Naples Daily News to take note that Commissioner Coyle actually
voted with Commissioner Henning and Commissioner Hiller. Do you
have that written down? That's important, okay. It's 2012, it's the
Apocalypse.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I would like to make a motion for
reconsideration.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I have a second motion on this
issue?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute. Commissioner Henning
was first. You're going to have to calm down now, okay --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I was getting all excited.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Don't let your excitement overwhelm
you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: This is better than a date.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Not better than a date with me.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, it let's not push it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, get back on the topic.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, please.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Hiller did make a
January 10, 2012
correct statement. You have a new owner. There should be some
consideration for that new owner to correct the problem, okay? That
was clear, and that's why I voted for the motion. And that should be
the direction is for staff to bring back --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's the next motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, a direction for a time
period for the new owner to correct the defects.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. And that basically was
going to be my next motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that should be simpler than,
you know, giving them some kind of direction of what is reasonable.
MS. FLAGG: We'd be happy to do that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala is next.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
One of the things I've enjoyed and we as a county have enjoyed
and have been envied by other counties is the way we've tackled this
problem. And we have made great strides compared to some of the
other places around Florida and around the country, which is why of
course they've inquired with you, because you've had these rules in
place. They've worked well for us. They encourage people to get the
job done quickly because of the fines that are attached. They give
them an opportunity before closing on the property to at least get
many of the things abated so that the fines don't accrue on their dime
but on the last dime.
And so I just feel that we're just tampering with a success story
and I don't know what's going to happen once we dismantle it. And
that bothers me a lot. And that's why I voted against it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, do you need to say
anything more about this?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I do. And I actually, as I said
when the last situation was brought forward, and I actually praised
Diane, I had the benefit of watching this whole process develop by
Page 85
January 10, 2012
being a part of the discussion and debate against Diane and Nick. And
it was, you know, their very professional exchange of opposing views
that ultimately resulted in a consensus opinion and brought the current
process forward.
It's a process that has worked successfully and there are little
glitches. And I think that, you know, this is just a further refinement
of what has been well developed and actually will actually incentivize
those people, those private purchasers who acquire to expedite
abatement to avoid the fines. And that actually improves the process,
it doesn't take away from the process.
The banks are in the same position as before, now we're doing
something that incentivizes individuals like this gentleman, as
opposed to having individuals wait.
So I make the motion that we do what Commissioner Coyle and
Henning suggested, and that is bring it forward as a modification to
the resolution as to these private purchasers so they have the
opportunity, since the banks don't have the -- I mean, they don't have
the same opportunity as the banks to abate beforehand.
MS. FLAGG: Just as clarification, a resolution would apply --
any change to the resolution would apply to both the banks and private
purchasers, because we can't treatment them separately.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I remember. We had that
discussion. Oh, my God, great memory.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could we modify your motion to state
that the staff would bring back to us alternatives to dealing with any --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- any inappropriate treatments of
various parties in this process?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: To bring back alternatives that
provide a fair means --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And equal, yes --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- for them to remedy the defects.
January 10, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That way Commissioner Fiala and
Commissioner Coletta, who are opposed at the present time to fiddling
with the thing, will have a chance to make a decision as to whether or
not they agree that it is appropriate or necessary.
MS. FLAGG: That's true.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Got it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that all right?
All in favor of that motion, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Fiala objects to the
motion, so it passes 4 -1.
We have a time certain at 11:00 --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: 1:00.
MR. OCHS: 11:30. And then you also have now time certains
scheduled for 1:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. So I don't think -- depending on
when you want to break for lunch, we're going to have to push the
11:30 time certain into the 1:00 slot or just hear it and eat into your
lunch hour, one or the other.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's move it to 1:00. The gentleman is
here from -- is that going to cause you a great inconvenience? Can we
do this at 1:00?
All right.
MR. JOHNSON: Chairman Coyle, I apologize, just one
clarification from the last ruling. We want to be able to make
payment and get satisfactions of the liens that have attached to the
property. Is that something you wish to -- the Commission wishes to
instruct on how that should be handled?
Page 87
January 10, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, that will cost you another $5,000.
MR. JOHNSON: Just as a practical matter, is there some way
you want that to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: I've got direction from the Board. I'll take
$2,500 and the liens will be released.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right.
MR. JOHNSON: Done. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. With that, we're going to break
for lunch. We'll be back here promptly at 1:00 and we will take up the
time certain at that time.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
(Lunch recess.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, the
Board of County Commission meeting is back in session now. We're
going to go to our 10:30 -- 11:30 time certain.
Item #I OB
THE PROCUREMENT OF SERVICES FROM SUNCOAST
MOVING & STORAGE, INC. FOR MOVING THE COUNTY
PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICES IN JULY 2010 AND MAKE
A DETERMINATION REGARDING THE REQUEST FOR FINAL
PAYMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,556.50 — MOTION
FINDING THAT STAFF INTENDED TO PAY FOR SERVICES
PROVIDED IN THE 2010 CONTRACT AND THE
CONTRACTOR IS TO BE PAID — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. It's Item 10.B on your agenda. This is an
item that was continued from the December 13th, 2011 BCC meeting.
It's a recommendation to review the procurement services from
Suncoast Moving and Storage, Incorporated for moving the County
January 10, 2012
Property Appraiser's offices in July, 2010 and make a determination
regarding the request for final payment in the amount of $6,556.50.
And Ms. Price will present. And I believe the petitioner wants to
make some remarks at some point as well.
A point of order, sir, it's your pleasure whether you want to hear
from the speaker first --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What is your pleasure? Would you
prefer to speak first?
MR. DETHLEFSEN: I'd like to clarify some matters, just some
recent conversations in regards to how this whole thing played itself
out. I'd like to be able to give you the entire picture of how I came
before you to begin with.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How long will that take?
MR. DETHLEFSEN: I would say probably five, seven -- seven,
eight minutes if I go through the agenda fairly quickly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead.
MR. MITCHELL: Excuse me, sir, could you just identify
yourself for the record.
MR. DETHLEFSEN: Frank Dethlefsen, Suncoast Moving and
Storage. Dethlefsen, D- E- T- H- L- E- F- S -E -N.
This is an item that was before you in October of 2010 and that
was approved in 2010 for the remaining balance of moving the
property appraiser's office. So today I stand before you -- I received a
partial payment of that amount, but not the full amount.
So today I stand before you, Mr. Commissioners and Lady
Commissioners, in pursuit of the final payment owed to Suncoast
Moving and Storage for the successful relocation of the Property
Appraiser's office.
When I stood before you a few months ago in October of 2011, I
presented to you that Suncoast Moving and Storage was owed a
remaining balance, as it just was brought up, under the contract
number 10 -5443, for full service professional movers dated March
Mm
January 10, 2012
24th, 2010. That was a contract that you also approved that year
under which the purchase order number authorized us to move
forward with the services.
This becomes very important. I actually brought a copy of the
contract with me. I'm more than happy to display it after I read it.
The renewal contract for those services for that particular year of 2010
clearly state in paragraph two that a formal contract for these services
will not be necessary. Collier County department will forward a
purchase order which will serve as the county's agreement to this
proposal.
After successful completion of the property appraiser's office in
July of 2010, a review of our Suncoast Moving and Storage's invoice
by the Collier County Facilities' upper management department
forwarded Suncoast an e-mail dated September 22nd that informs our
company as to the payment compensation structure for the services
provided. And I have a copy of that with me as well, but I want to
kind of move along, and I'll be more than happy to show you that
correspondence if you so wish to and have a copy made.
The e -mail states how much Suncoast Moving and Storage will
be compensated and under which terms. My staff and I responded to
the request of the e -mail by forwarding our information to the County
Clerk's office, and the first payment was made.
On October 12th, the item needed to come before you because
the amount exceeded $50,000 of the original purchase order, so the
item needed to come before you to pay the remaining balance. And
that remaining balance was $9,100 and some, of which then I received
a partial payment.
So having said that, the item came before you on the October
agenda, October 12th, to be exact, for approval of final payment and
also approval of a renewed contract with our company to provide
continued moving services under contract number 10 -5443, the
original contract that was approved.
Page 90
January 10, 2012
And this was based on the County Manager's office, and also the
County Clerk's office was copied in on this. However, on October
20th, after the approval, we had not heard anything from the county
and had not received any balances in our -- there was going to be a
wire transfer made as to our previous e -mail in the agreement. And I
initiated an e-mail to the County Clerk's office and -- to find out where
the remaining balance was.
At that time, that e -mail, I have a copy of it as well, states that
our contract now is under review. After it's already been approved,
after it's gone to you for approval, everybody has blessed the amounts,
and now all of a sudden we're coming back and my contract's under
review.
November 30th, Suncoast Moving and Storage receives a wire
transfer without any communication for an amount of $2,550.56. No
explanations, no nothing, just the wire transfer.
My staff then contacts the County Clerk's office to find out what
the $2,500 and some are for. They said well, this is the remaining
balance that we're going to pay you because we've reviewed your
contract, made the determination that a previous contract that was
issued in 2006 now is the prevailing contract to pay to compensate
Suncoast Moving and Storage for the services provided.
Well, that contract absolutely was a contract that was renewed in
2009 and was renewed until June of 2010, June of 2010. Services
were not provided until July of 2010, not June.
Now, the argument has come through various different channels.
As I've been investigating this, you know, comments have been made,
well, you know, the contract actually started because you provided
additional boxes, boxes that needed to be -- there were special boxes
for drawings of the Property Appraiser's office, there were special
boxes. They were never part of any contract. Those were special
boxes that were never ever contracted for, they were just something
that the job required, and they were provided and they were not part of
Page 91
January 10, 2012
any contract.
So having said that, the Property Appraiser's provided in July,
issued in March -- not fully understanding what my staff was
explaining to me, I contacted the County Clerk's office myself and
was told that -- by Crystal, actually, Crystal Kinzel, that my -- let's
see, I was explained that the contract 06 -3984 had expired -- oh, no, I
explained to Crystal that our contract 06 -3984 had expired well
beyond our actual engagement of the Property Appraiser's office.
However, I was told that the decision had been made and that it was
final. No communication, just send me a check, do it wire transferred,
$2,500. And there was no explanation. And we initiated the contact.
So in December of 2010 I walked into the County
Commissioners' office and asked to speak with Mr. Ochs. And I want
to say that the staff has been phenomenal. They've kind of guided me
through the process and assisted me with Len Price -- to assist
Suncoast Moving and Storage, actually. Len then got in touch with
me right away in January of 2010 -- I'm sorry, 2011, and started
investigating as to what was going on.
Ms. Price spoke with everybody in the county. Exclusive of the
County Attorney's Office and the County Clerk's position, I have been
told that everybody has concluded that Suncoast Moving and Storage
should be paid the remaining balance it is owed. The County Clerk's
Office maintains that they have acted correctly. How they came to
that and what that decision was based on, I'm yet to find out. I just
kind of found that out over the last five minutes because I actually sat
the person down and said, what's going on here? Because I would not
be standing here in front of you if I didn't have a clear -cut case, I
would let somebody else handle this. I'm trying to avoid that,
actually.
So although the County Facilities Department, who originally
engaged my company to relocate the Property Appraiser's Office,
approved a final invoice under the contract, we never even spoke
Page 92
January 10, 2012
about the contract of '06 for this particular job. It was invoiced -- it
was purchased -- the purchase order was issued under that order
number. Because the contract actually says that the way this contract
for 2010 to 2011 will engage itself is through a purchase order.
So additionally, you can see based on the very thorough
executive summary that Mrs. Price provided to you guys that the
position hasn't changed. They're -- the County Clerk's Office I've been
told doesn't -- is not required -- I understand that they have to audit the
documents, but why did that audit not happen back in 2010 when we
completed the job, prior to it coming before the Commission for
approval? Not just the approval of the remaining balance, but also the
approval of a renewed contract with our company.
So I'm standing here asking you for assistance to renew your
commitment to our company in paying us the remaining balance that
is owed to us. That's all I'm asking. And I'll go away. Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, if Len could provide her comments,
please.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead, Len.
MS. PRICE: Good afternoon. Len Price, Administrator for
Administrative Services. And if you'll bear with me, I've still got a
frog in my throat that I seem to have brought back from Texas.
Commissioners, when we issued the new contract for this item, it
was specifically because the contract was to expire in June, the work
was to start in July. We knew that it was coming and we didn't want
there to be a lapse where one contract had expired and the other one
hadn't restarted. We contemplated this to be a substitute contract. We
acted as though it was a substitute contract. Therefore, we shelved the
old one and began a new -- with the contract let in 2010. The one
from 2006 was based on rates from 2006 that the vendor had held
through that period, and then we moved on.
The -- what seems to have come into question is Florida Statute
215.425, which speaks about extra compensation claims. This is a
Page 93
January 10, 2012
statute that dates back -- in my research dates all the way back to the
codification of the Constitution in 1985 and starts off as an Act related
to public employee compensation. However, it does say no extra
compensation shall be made to any officer, agent, employee or
contractor after the service has been rendered or the contract made.
Now, it was our belief when we let this that the new contract
substituted the old contract. And whether or not this statute even
applies to this was immaterial, because the contract being made was
the 2010 contract. And therein lies our dispute. It's not whether or not
the contract is actually valid. In fact, Crystal has said that had this
contract had lower rates, she wouldn't have had a problem paying it.
It wasn't a question of whether it was valid or not, our concern is over
the applicability of this particular statute on that order. And it is staff s
belief that it does not apply and that we acted in good faith and in
compliance with our procedures in trying to have an active contract in
place to move the appraiser's office, which we knew was to be a very
complicated move.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you finished?
MS. PRICE: I am. Unless you're not done with me --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I have a question. Let's suppose the new
contract had not been negotiated. The old contract expired, didn't it,
before the work was performed?
MS. PRICE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could you have paid under the old
contract?
MS. PRICE: Not unless we had renewed it -- I'm sorry, extended
it prior to that --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But you didn't.
MS. PRICE: And we did not.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Rather than extending it, you replaced it.
MS. PRICE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So you're wrong either way in the
Page 94
January 10, 2012
Clerk's eyes. If you used the original contract, you would be wrong
because the contract expired before the work was performed. But if
you negotiated a new contract, which extended the period of time,
you're still wrong because you didn't use the old contract. Do I have
this right?
MS. PRICE: Classic rock and a hard place, sir.
MR. DETHLEFSEN: I can answer that.
The job occurred after the new contract applied.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's what I said.
MR. DETHLEFSEN: The job actually occurred after the new
contract was put in place, and it was actually given to us prior to even
us bidding on the Collier County Property Appraiser's Office to move
them. So we always acted under the new contract terms because it
was very clear in the second paragraph as to how that contract was
going to apply itself.
And I had specifically had actually spoken to Facilities to see
whether or not -- because we've done much work. We've moved the
entire annex building in -- you know, we assisted in that. There were
other people obviously a part of that as well, but we were one of the
major players in that, and acted under the 2006 contract.
So when we went to Facilities at that time and said which
contract do you want us to apply -- when is the job going to be
performed, I did not ask which contract you want me to apply, but
when is the job going to take place, it was always hinted that it was
going to apply -- it was actually supposed to happen the first week of
July, during the 4th of July weekend. But there was some
hindernesses (sic) to make that happen so it didn't actually even
happen until the second week.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, the representative of the Clerk's
Office apparently disagrees with both of you.
MS. KINZEL: I do. And let me give some time line. Because
we have worked through this for a considerable number of time,
Page 95
January 10, 2012
Commissioner Coyle.
We have a handout, and I'm asking some -- Bonnie from our
office if she can put some items under the overhead.
There is no doubt this is a combination of perhaps oddities,
oversights, information that -- and we've tried to ferret through every
single element of both the defense and the offense to try to find a legal
way to make payment under this agreement.
The first slide that we have, and -- and do you want to pass out
the other handouts, they might be able to see it better in there?
Thanks, Bonnie.
The first contract was awarded and renewed through, as the
gentleman said, through June 19th of 2010. Now, a new Contract
#10 -5443 was awarded in March of 2010. So you did not have a
successor agreement. You in fact had an overlapping agreement with
the vendor for the same services.
Now, we didn't realize this at the -- you know, the first payment
that came in and the information that was requested, the purchase
order was issued for the property appraiser's job in May of 2010. That
is during the period that it was open under '06. There was also a '10
contract out there. The '06 agreement was approved by the -- and the
second slide shows you the statute that Ms. Price referenced, the 215
regarding the compensation.
Then if you go to the next one, the '06 contract was approved by
the Board in June of '06 and renewed according to terms that had been
approved under that agreement through June of 2010. The '10 contract
in March was approved by staff. So we have been in discussions, as
you know, regarding this whole issue of who can in fact enter into a
contract.
The vendor has indicated, well, it wasn't really a contract, we
were doing it by purchase order. But there was an underlying bid
structure that a contract should in our opinion have been issued. It
was issued under the '06 item. So the '10 was under a purchase order
Page 96
January 10, 2012
according to staff. But we're assuming that that was a contract
element, but the purchase order was issued in May when both
contracts were out there. Okay?
Now, under the '10 -- if you go to the next slide, Bonnie -- sorry,
I'll keep up with this. The next slide indicates the selected vendors for
'10 were Suncoast Movers and Modern Movers. The items quoted for
the Property Appraiser were Suncoast Movers, OFDC and Workplace
Resources. So two of the people that were even quoted on the
Property Appraiser's moves were off contract. Which is another issue
that we've been trying to work through with county purchasing.
You had two viable vendors, Suncoast and Modern. Modern was
not quoted, yet two additional vendors were quoted. And we have
followed up with Modern Movers and they indicate that they were not
asked to quote. And that was an irregularity that we detected after we
went back to research this entire issue of the payment and the process.
If you go to the next page, it shows you the quotes that were
issued and the dates. And we got all this from county staff on the
dates and times that the quotes were received. I think there may be a
date error. One of them says that the two of the quotes from Office
Furniture were actually done in February of '10. That really wouldn't
make sense that the -- because the contract wasn't even let until March
'10 under the new agreement. But there are some irregularities in that
timing in the quote process in general.
But we get down to the bottom line of in May of 2010 a purchase
order was issued to Suncoast Movers, and the original quote, if you go
back a couple pages, was 43,405. Okay? That was for a turnkey
relocation as indicated in Suncoast Movers' letter.
The purchase order was in fact open for about 5,000 more for
that, 48,000. And at the time there wasn't backup attached to the
reason for that increase in the amount. But there was an amendment
before the purchase order was even issued up to the 48,840.
Now, the vendors also indicated when no work was done there
Page 97
January 10, 2012
were some boxes delivered. But ticket information -- and remember
again, the purchase order was issued in May. The ticket information
of boxes being delivered for packing were June 7th. So it wasn't as
though it was in July or it was in August; both the purchase order was
opened in May when the '06 contract was still valid and in effect, and
the ticket indicates that the date and the moving and the box work was
done in the beginning of June when the '06 contract still would have
still been into effect.
Now again, there were some additional amendments to -- this is
how this all transpired, trying to unravel the circumstances. And I
think Len and I and Steve, we've all gone through this several times.
But the purchase order had additional amounts added. Another 780
was added in August to the purchase order. And then what triggered
our inquiry into the entire contract was the $9,000 payment pushed it
over 50,000 which was, according to Purchasing, their threshold for
the contracts. It also exceeded then the bids of the other two
individual companies that had bid in the first place.
And we went back and said wait a minute, the '06 contract should
have been ruling if the P.O. was issued in May.
Now, the vendor indicates, and he made some statements that this
was never explained to him. It wasn't. And I apologize if it wasn't
clear to him. But I had numerous conversations with his office staff
and I also spoke with him with people in my office. So I do have
people that heard me explain it. It was problematic. He was very
frustrated. We appreciate that frustration, because we don't want to
end up in this place either.
But I think as you can see as we step through this -- the other
thing that was indicated in the contract is when the bid tab was issued,
the bids were actually lower on the '10 contract. If you look at the
next slide for the bid tab comparison, you'll see that five of the
highlighted versus three, several of the items were less. That's
obviously true. The problem became when you do the comparison of
!M
January 10, 2012
the work and the items that were used and you do the longer version
of the side -by -side comparison of the actual invoice submitted under
the '06 rates and the '10 rates, the '10 rates are in fact $6,500 in excess
of the '06 rates. That to us is additional compensation that's being
requested because the '06 contract was still valid when the purchase
order was issued.
Now, is it a combination of perhaps errors? Yes. But statutorily,
going back to the provision that you can't agree to pay someone more
if you've got a contract out there for these services at a certain rate,
that's where we are. We've been trying to work through a legal way to
pay this. At this time the Clerk's Office does not see a legal way to
pay the extra compensation.
But I do want to make it clear, the vendor Suncoast was paid for
the additional work based on the Board's approval. And it is an oddity
that the contract had expired by the time he billed in October. But we
are also working through the purchasing issue of years ago and
ongoing we were allowing if the purchase ordered had been issued
during the active contract, the work could be completed under that
purchase order. Okay?
We have subsequently run into issues with that, as in the expired
contract issue that we just faced and some of those other issues that
have come forward, and we're trying to reel in that process and say no,
you know, really, the contract expires, you cannot do work or be paid
for work after that contract that's approved by the Board has expired.
So I guess the two points to be made is we don't see a legal way
that this can be paid. It appears to be additional compensation. Yes,
there are numerous errors that seemingly occurred. The simplest
solution would have been if we had truly had a successor contract. If
the contract had been good and valid through June 19th, the second
contract would have started June 20th. The purchase order would
have been issued under which contract it was intended to be. You
would have only had one contract for the same services at the same
Page 99
January 10, 2012
time. That did not occur.
So we're in an unfortunate position of trying to unravel what
legally can be paid. And we -- admittedly we didn't discover this until
it came before the Board as an item for the additional compensation.
And then we said, uh -oh, wait, there's another contract out there that's
valid when that purchase order was issued. That started to put us in
this position. We did try to communicate that through staff. I believe
that the vendor was communicated. But county staff obviously
disagrees with that position that there were two valid contracts.
We have asked for any indication out of the county documents
where the '06 contract was terminated or ceased to exist. We've not
been able to get that. I don't think it is in terms. As a matter of fact,
the original letter issued under the '10 contract said it was renewal
versus a new contract. So there's discrepancy in the information in the
bid in the timing. And I hope that didn't overly complicate it and
maybe tried to give you some dates and times that would make a
difference.
If you have any questions, we also have legal counsel here that's
willing to further comment on the legal position, or I'll be here to
answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Attorney, what's your position
on this?
MR. KLATZKOW: This whole thing's a mess. It isn't a
clear -cut, you know, answer on this one way or the other. At the end
of the day I don't have a great disagreement with the Clerk's position
to pay off of one contract as opposed to the other. I won't have a great
deal of disagreement if you decided to pay off the '10 contract instead
of the '06. But at the end of the day, if you as a Board want to direct
that the Clerk pay off the '10 contract, you can do that. Then the Clerk
will make his decision if that's sufficient enough. Other than that, you
know, I don't know where else to go with this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you have anything to add to this? Is
Page 100
January 10, 2012
there anything wrong with the Clerk's interpretations?
MS. PRICE: I disagree with their interpretation. I believe that a
more recent contract would just, under reasonable test, take
precedence. But clearly I'm not an attorney so I can't give that as a
legal opinion. But we truly believed that we were issuing a substitute
contract that essentially discharged the old one by issuance of the new
one.
Now, as a matter of policy, we will from this point forward be
extremely clear when issuing a new contract as to the termination of
the old one. But in this case we acted in that manner. We did not use
the '06 contract again and we moved forward on the '10 contract.
Basically we had started early because we knew that this was coming
and the contract ended in June and that the work was scheduled for
July. Had we issued the purchase order on June the 20th, I don't think
we would have had any questions here. We went earlier trying to be
proactive and be in a better position from a planning standpoint. As I
said, this was a very complicated project.
I would also like to state that we did go to the other vendor,
Modern, twice and ask them for a quote and they did not want to quote
because of the move of the computer equipment. When we -- so
because of that we went to two other firms, one of which also sent us a
quote that did not include moving the computer equipment.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, the only other thing I would add is
that it's clear from the record that the staff s intent was always to pay
from the new contract. The purchase order or work order that was
written for this work specifically referenced 2010 contract. So I just
want to make it clear that that was always our intent. We intended to
pay the rates that were part of that 2010 contract, knowing that the
work would not commence, the physical move would not occur until
July of 2010, after the 2006 agreement had expired.
This argument about unjust compensation was a new one on us,
frankly. And we sincerely don't think that applies, given the context
Page 101
January 10, 2012
of that legislation. Again, we're not attorneys, but when you read a
statutory provision that is a component of a larger statute all geared
towards compensation of public employees, it didn't appear to us to be
one that applied in this case.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Does the County Attorney agree with
that?
MR. KLATZKOW: Does the County Attorney agree with it? I
don't know what was in the staff s mind when they did this. If they
had --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, I'm talking about the application of
the statute concerning additional compensation.
MR. KLATZKOW: I understand the Clerk's position, if you
have an existing contract that's a valid contract, that's what you pay
under. You don't give additional compensation. I think that's where
the Clerk's coming from on this one.
It's like if you get into an employment agreement with any
employees during the course of that agreement, that's it. You don't
pay additional compensation during that. Somebody leaves you don't
give them a big severance package because of that, you know, the deal
is the deal here. That's the point of the statute.
Quite frankly, the Clerk's dealing with something that's -- this is
not clean, all right. If we would have done this right, and I'm not
casting aspersions on anybody, because we do thousands of these a
year, all right, if this would have been done right, then the second
contract by its terms would have voided out the first contract and
we're done. That's unfortunately not what happened here. You had
overlapping contracts here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many public speakers do we have,
Ian?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, just one.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And we just had that one?
MR. MITCHELL: No, sir, it's the attorney for the Clerk's
Page 102
January 10, 2012
department. So it's Tony Pires.
MR. PIKES: Mr. Chairman, members of the County
Commission, for the record, Anthony Pires, Jr., with the law firm of
Woodward, Pires, Lombardo, representing the Clerk of Courts. I'll be
brief, because you've had a number of discussions today.
There are a number of issues involved in this that have been
outlined by Ms. Price and by Crystal Kinzel. Based upon the facts
and law that I have reviewed, I've advised the Clerk that it would be
inappropriate and unlawful for him to pay the additional compensation
for the work under the rates quote, unquote established in which
outlined and purported to be contract number 10 -5443.
My advice to him is based upon the facts as well as concerns
about the validity of A, the number 10 -5443 contract, as it was not
approved by the Board of County Commissioners, contrary to the
black and white explicit language of Section 125.74, parens one,
parens M. like in Mary, of Florida Statutes, which authorizes the
County Manager to negotiate contracts for approval by the Board.
We've had that discussion.
And secondly, the after- the -fact increase in compensation in
purported contract 10 -5443, contrary to the provisions of 216 -425 of
Florida Statute. And furthermore, just as part of the factual issue, the
quotation as Ms. Kinzel indicated in her presentation, in April of 2010
by Suncoast for the turnkey job of $43,000 and some odd did not
reference the 10 -5433 contract, purported contract.
It is my understanding -- that's my advice to the Board -- I mean,
to the Clerk, that it would be inappropriate and unlawful to pay the
additional compensation. And it's my understanding that based upon
my advice that the Clerk will not be paying the additional
compensation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Who was first as far as
Commissioners are concerned? Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was.
Page 103
January 10, 2012
MR. DETHLEFSEN: Could I make one quick comment?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Not right now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Isn't this sad that things like this go
on? This gentleman in all good faith gets up there, gives us a quote
$9,000 less than anybody else. Now, as he's preparing to do this, here
he gets other orders to add on. Did he say no, I'm not going to do it
because that isn't in my original quote? No, he just did what he was
asked to do. This poor man is being held hostage and it's not even his
fault. It just makes me sick about something like this.
And I don't know, you know, he didn't jack up his prices at all.
It's almost inferencing that he jacked up his prices and they don't want
to pay him more than what his contract was. Turnkey operation. But
heck, at the time none of us knew that he had -- none of them knew,
he didn't know, that they were going to ask him to do this extra work.
Now, what does somebody being hired by the county do when
they're asked to do extra work? Nope, I'm going to have to check with
the Clerk's Office first before I can do anything, and then everybody
has to shut down the job until the Clerk gives them a yes or a no? I
mean, you know, this is wrong. This is wrong.
We're quibbling about $6,500 worth of work he did because he
was asked to do, not because he jacked up his price. He gave us a
$9,000 less quote than anybody else and then they inferred that the
other companies wouldn't have done it. Well, if they were to asked to
do the same things they would have to charge for it too, for goodness
sake.
And I'm afraid that what's happening is that people aren't even
going to want to work for the county anymore, they're not going to
want to do business for the county anymore, because no matter what
they do they're going to be challenged, they're not going to get paid,
and they're going to be hung out to dry.
I don't know how long you've waited for this money, but over a
year --
Page 104
January 10, 2012
MR. DETHLEFSEN: Almost two years.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that's a shame too. Two years.
That's a shame too. This should not happen. And I'm just -- I'm
embarrassed. I'm so sorry. I'm so sorry, sir, this should not happen.
And I've said enough.
By the way, this is all about interpretation too. I mean, you can
prove -- you get a lawyer up here, he could prove anything you want
him to prove. But so could other attorneys. You get them all up here
and they'll all have -- right? Everybody will have a different -- I'm not
done, Crystal. Everybody will have a different opinion and they'll all
fight to the death because they're right. It just seems that is so wrong.
And sometimes I -- well, I won't go on any further than that. You
heard everything I had to say.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who was next?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm last.
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner Coyle, could I respond to
Commissioner Fiala's --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Crystal, we've got three Commissioners
ahead of you, so just take your turn here.
Who was next? Commissioner Coletta was last so it's between
Henning and Hiller, and ladies go first. Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
Crystal, would you like to go ahead? I'd like to hear your
comments. And then I'll make mine. Because I'd like to make sure
that I incorporate what your thoughts are in reference to
Commissioner Fiala's.
MS. KINZEL: I only have a couple of comments. That number
one, first of all, remember that just what was said, 99 percent of what
we do, we pay, we clean, it's clean, it's clear. This is not a clean and
clear issuing bill.
Now, the Clerk did not create that purchasing process. The
Clerk's Office did not create, we ended up with the end invoicing.
Page 105
January 10, 2012
We're not accusing him of jacking up prices, that was never used,
never the terminology used. But the fact of the matter is he had an
existing contract under '06 at rates that varied from the '010 rates. He
had an overlapping agreement and the rates on the overlap were
higher. And county staff agreed to pay those higher rates for the same
services for which there was an existing contract that was not
terminated.
We asked county staff, and we've gone through all the
agreements in the contracts, we were looking as diligently as anyone
else for the out - clause that said that '06 contract was in fact terminated
and this was a successor agreement. We asked for evidence of that. It
was not included in any of the documents that we could discover.
And if we had that legal resource, that would occur.
We don't like to be in this position of not paying a vendor that
has an expectation either. But the errors occurred on overlapping
agreements, agreeing for extra compensation for the services. Yes, he
underbid the other vendors, but then he upped the services.
Now, and admittedly that was at county staff s request for those
additional services, but Commissioner Fiala, here's the trigger that you
have to watch for in these types of agreements, and it's the other issue
that we have with ongoing change orders to contracts, to agreements
and to purchase orders. You lowball bid, and knowing that those
services are going to have to take place, he had originally proposed a
turnkey operation, having inspected the site, that all the vendors were
authorized to inspect the site, and then those additional services that he
was requested by Facilities cost more money. That put him above the
other people that had bid for the services.
Now, had those other bidders under their turnkey been offered
that same opportunity, we have no way to go back and say would they
also have charged more, would they have charged less? At turnkey
you assume it's turnkey and there aren't going to be any additional
elements of cost. They had the opportunity to review the job.
Page 106
January 10, 2012
So those are red flags whenever you're looking at bidding and
purchasing that say, you know, you don't want to see that in your
bidding and purchasing process, because it undermines the integrity of
the initial bid and quote.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So are you saying that he knew that
these things would have to take place and he would be issued these
requests to do these things and he purposely didn't put that in the bid --
MS. KINZEL: No, I'm not saying that, but his initial bid that
came forward was for a turnkey, and the assumption -- and that is a
term of art, that turnkey would be that it would be done.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So then if they would have
said, now we need you to change it, we don't want the furniture this
way, and we want you to change it this way and we want you to do the
computers this way, is he -- according to the Clerk's Office, is he
supposed to say no, I'm not going to do that, I first have to check with
the Clerk's Office?
MS. KINZEL: No, this all starts back at the original bid for the
process. Those issues --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But he didn't know that --
MS. KINZEL: -- are supposed to be. But they're supposed to
ferreted out. When you do the scope of work for the bids that are to
come forward, you're supposed to include that. They were even given
the opportunity to go to the site and review the site. So then you omit
those --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How would he know that they
wouldn't like the way the furniture is distributed or designed or put
into place?
MS. KINZEL: But there should have been plans issued in that
regard. Or -- you know, I --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I go ahead and make my
comment now? Have you guys addressed your concerns?
I wasn't here when all this took place, so for me this is a matter of
Page 107
January 10, 2012
first impression. And first of all, Len, I'd like to compliment you, you
know, not addressing the legality of the argument but the manner in
which you articulated your argument was so professional, you could
be a lawyer. I have not heard lawyers talk as clearly as you did. I was
very impressed. So thank you for being as articulate.
And Crystal, thank you for giving us all this detail because, you
know, the evidence always helps.
At the end of the day, it's like Jeff says, this is a mess. And it
really goes to Purchasing and Purchasing's way of doing business, the
way Purchasing lets these contracts, defines what the parameters of
these contracts are.
This gentleman, whether it's because of Purchasing or the Clerk's
legal interpretation, it looks like he's not going to get paid. My
concern is that it does ultimately go back to the beginning of the
transaction and what transpired. And it goes even further than that to
our procedures. We have had problem after problem after problem
with work being done after the expiration of contracts. Since I came
on this Board I've seen it come up, I've seen Purchasing and the
Clerk's Office and the County Attorney's Office debate this issue.
And this is just another example of that.
The other problem that I see is where staff is basically modifying
agreements subsequent to the Board's approval without ratification by
the Board. And quite frankly, the ratification is a problem because the
Board should have the ability to pre- approve these contracts, not have
to approve them after the fact because it's a done deal.
So there are fundamental purchasing problems. And, you know,
however this has adversely affected this gentleman, I feel very sorry
for him that he's at the -- in effect at the -- on the bad end of this deal.
But the law is the law, and it was done wrong. And for everything
that I can hear, the Clerk is not going to pay it and has legal grounds
not to pay it. So it makes it very difficult.
So one of the things that I see coming out of this is that we go
Page 108
January 10, 2012
back, and when you work with that attorney who the county hired to
assist in developing purchasing protocols, that you work with the
Clerk to ensure we have purchasing procedures in place so that this
doesn't happen again. Because we are bound by the law, and we have
to have procedures that respect it.
But thank you again for presenting, because I really think you
just spoke eloquently.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner --
MS. PRICE: If I might, just to put on the record, the purchasing
policy was followed as it was written at the time that this was done.
We're now applying a new paradigm and we're working with the
Clerk's Office to change those policies. But I just need to state that we
did follow the purchasing policy as it was in place and had been
accepted up until that point in time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You know, I don't know about the
specifics of that, but I will tell you, if the purchasing policy allowed
for this to occur, it's wrong, and shouldn't be allowed. And if you did
what you thought you were supposed to do and it was a policy that
was adopted by this Board, this Board at the end of the day is fully
responsible for everything. No matter what purchasing does, no
matter what you do, it's not you, it's this Board.
So if the policy is wrong, it needs to be revised, it needs to
conform with the law. We should work with the County Attorney, we
should work with the Clerk, we should work with that outside counsel
and develop the right policy.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, I think it's your
turn now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the Board never ratified this
2010 contract?
MS. PRICE: No, because -- well, yes, they did. But not until
after it reached the $50,000 threshold. It was approved by the Board
in October of 2010 when we reached the $50,000 threshold. At the
Page 109
January 10, 2012
time that we issued this, this was competitively bid but it was
administratively awarded under our purchasing policy with the
expectation that it would be a contract that did not exceed $50,000.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The contract had certain quotes.
I mean, you're basing it upon bids from other contractors, correct, and
the lowest best price.
The other contract, the '06 contract, was renewed over and over
again, okay?
MS. PRICE: Until the end of the renewal options.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. So then you go out for
a new contract and that is a continuing contract.
MS. PRICE: The new contract was a continuing contract.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The new contract --
MS. PRICE: What we call a fixed term contract.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Fixed term contract with prices
in it.
MS. PRICE: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So how we can pay for work
prior to a contract that was ratified by the Board of Commissioners?
Legally.
MS. PRICE: Commissioners, that was part of your policy, was
to allow us to administratively award contracts up to $50,000. That
was part of the policy and it was part of our practice for a number of
years. That's the only way I could answer that --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So this is a fixed --
MS. PRICE: -- and still is, as a matter of fact.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This is a fixed term contract.
And all those fixed term contracts should be coming to the Board.
Now, a contract or a bid by a vendor to do work has that
threshold. But a fixed term is an ongoing contract. So I mean, I don't
see legally how we can even pay under this contract on work that was
done previously. It's a fixed term contract that goes on and on. And
Page 110
January 10, 2012
what -- the staff doesn't have any ability to approve contracts.
So why can't we pay it under the '06? That's the only one that
was in existence. Can we do that?
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner Henning, we did pay him under
the '06 rates. He was paid for the work done under the '06 rates.
Based on that exact argument that the '06 was in effect at the time the
purchase order was issued for the work on the job and it was valid.
And to at least compensate him for work that was done, it was at the
lower of the rates. So it did not violate the additional or extra
compensation element of the statute.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We paid him for the total job
under the '06 -- okay.
MS. KINZEL: After the Board approved in October the entirety
of the job, including the increased items.
I mean, remember, the way this came back to the Board, work
had already been performed in excess of $50,000. That's what threw it
over the 50 was the last $9,000 staff authorized change. And when we
received that, we said we can't pay this, it's over 50,000, you never got
Board approval. When we researched the contract, then the two
contracts became apparent that those two agreements were out there
and there should never be overlapping agreements, they should be
successor agreements.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So when we approved it you
were just trying to ratify -- when we approved the contract you were
trying to ratify -- have the Board ratify a contract that the staff has
already signed off on.
MS. PRICE: We asked the Board to allow us to use the contract
in excess of $50,000. And the Board approved in October to do that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But it's a continuing contract.
MS. PRICE: Correct. In our practice, and as part of our
procedures and policy, the staff could approve a contract that would
be -- would not be used over $50,000.
Page 111
January 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: A fixed contract?
MS. PRICE: A fixed term contract where the expected
expenditures are under $50,000 our practice has been and our policy
permits for staff to approve that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you're saying this is not a --
this was not a contract for a single job. You're saying it was a contract
for a single job?
MS. PRICE: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're saying it was -- could be
for multiple jobs.
MS. PRICE: Correct. But that our expectation was at the time
that we let it that we would not go over $50,000. In March when we
let it, we didn't have the $43,000 quote, but our guesstimate at that
time was to move the Appraiser and any other very small jobs that we
had coming up, because that was the extent of our planned moves,
would not exceed $50,000.
When it did, we brought it to you. And that's been practice,
we've done that with other contracts as well where we awarded
administratively a fixed term contract where the expectation wasn't to
go over 50,000. Most of them do not go over the 50,000. And in a
few cases we find a need to go over 50,000 and we've brought them to
you and you have then approved that for the over 50,000 expenditure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was my understanding when
we approved the policy it was an amount under the existing contracts
not to exceed $50,000. Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala, I'm as
frustrated as you are with this. You know, everyone's right,
everyone's wrong. Dwight Brock has said many times, and this is
good advice that I think we could apply here, if you find yourself in a
hole, stop digging. And here we are.
We have everything in the world why this thing is not workable.
Page 112
January 10, 2012
We have all sorts of arguments and counterarguments going back and
forth. $6,000 and some, which I'm sure by now between the Clerk's
office and our office, we've spent that much in staff time trying to
resolve this issue. It's a losing deal.
But meanwhile, let's look at this -- this is the part that bothers me.
Okay, you got the legality of the whole thing. And like you, I'm not
an attorney. And sometimes I'm thankful for that. No, I am, most of
the time. No insult meant, Jeff.
Here's the problem. The legal part of the whole thing and the
moral part of the whole part. The moral part of it is we owe this man
money. So I guess the only question I got to ask is how can we ever
come up with a way to be able to make the reimbursement that would
make this man whole? Not giving him for pain and suffering, just
make him whole on the whole thing. Could we send something to the
Attorney General and request something or is there something else
that can be done? That's an open question. Crystal, Jeff, whoever?
Or is this the end of the road? We have no options. This is it.
Or is there something left that can be done?
MR. KLATZKOW: You can make the finding that the intent
was to pay off the '10 contract and ask the Clerk to pay it. At that
point in time your work is done and it's up to the Clerk to decide
whether or not he wishes to pay it, because he's got his statutory
constraints, all right.
If he elects not to pay it, then the process is, this gentleman can
bring suit against the Clerk to compel payment. That's the process.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I've got to ask one more
question then. I have no idea what's going to be most advantageous
for you, sir. Can I ask the petitioner to come back up to the
microphone.
There's two options open to us. If we deny it, then you may have
a case against the Clerk. How's that work again, Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: What I'm saying is that you make the
Page 113
January 10, 2012
finding as a legislative body that it's your intent to pay this bill
pursuant to the '10 contract and ask the Clerk to pay the bill
accordingly. At that point in time you're done, your act as a
legislative body is done.
The Clerk now has the Constitutional statutory duty to review all
invoices and he'll make the legal determination whether or not, given
the facts presented, he can make that payment. If he elects not to
make that payment, then the process is this gentleman can bring suit
against the Clerk to compel the Clerk to make that payment.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It would relieve my conscience
that I have done everything I possibly can --
MR. KLATZKOW: That's all you can do --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- so I'm making that motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second it.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, if I could just make one closing
comment, and this may or may not help clarify the staff s intent. But
again I'll reiterate, the staff s intent was -- and in fact the staff action
was a purchase order issued on the new contract. We intended to
contract for the work under the new agreement. And in fact, and I
stand to be corrected if I'm wrong, but over 40 -- so we engaged the
contractor with that purchase order referencing the new contract. He
proceeded to do the work, submit invoices, was paid over $49,000 by
the Clerk's Office without question or objection that we know about.
And then it only reverted back to this other argument after we came to
the Board to ratify the agreement once services exceeded $50,000.
So that's why it was a little confusing to staff why, you know,
you paid up to $49,000 on that purchase order, what happened with
this other six? And I understand the argument. We spent a lot of time.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just trying to give you some
information on why the staff thought that we were proceeding in the
way that we in fact intended to proceed.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I have a question. With respect to the
Page 114
January 10, 2012
'06 contract, were the prices held for four years at the same level?
MS. PRICE: They were.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And was the work under the 2010
contract performed after -- the additional work performed after the
expiration of the '06 contract?
MS. PRICE: With the exception of the delivery of a few boxes,
all the work was done after the old contract expired.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So common sense would sort of tell you
that if June 19th, 2010 came and went, that contract is no longer valid.
MS. PRICE: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And if you have a 2010 contract that
happened to overlap it, although it's a little sloppy, the work that you
paid for under that contract didn't occur until after the expiration of the
'06 contract; is that a correct statement?
MS. PRICE: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that's -- you know, common sense is
being left behind here. You held your prices constant for four years.
And we came to you and we said let's negotiate a new contract, it will
carry us further so that we can get the job done. And you adjusted
your contract. Perfectly acceptable, considering you had held them
constant for four years. And the old contract expired and you did the
work under the new contract at the new rates, and you're being told
that we can't pay you.
You know, you can make arguments just about against anything
you want to stop.
MR. DETHLEFSEN: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And common sense gets lost in the
process, unfortunately. The point is you did the work, you did it at a
reasonable price and you did it within the time frame of the contract
that was in effect at the time.
MR. DETHLEFSEN: Absolutely. Actually, one of the big
reasons why we were awarded the contract to begin with is because
Page 115
January 10, 2012
we gave a 10 -day window on the project, which was actually 97
percent of the project was actually concluded from a Tuesday to a
Sunday because the county had marketed -- or advertised that the new
Property Appraiser's Office would be open that following Monday.
So we were under a time pressure.
And I want to make one other comment. We worked 18 hours a
day, about 30 guys, 35 guys. We faced every day, every day,
changes. Not just one. I have it, it's all documented. That's why the
county has worked with me diligently to come before you today and
they want to compensate me. I'm not overcharging. I can't overcharge
because I have an ongoing contract under the -- which the rates that I
charge are bound by.
However, the turnkey proposal that I originally provided back in
April of 2010, several months before the job was actually going to
take place, yes, we had walk - throughs. And yes, we agreed to carry a
turnkey in that written document. But that document also says as long
as there are no changes, this is a turnkey price. That part was left out,
okay. It's very clear.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think we understand.
MR. DETHLEFSEN: So I apologize that I'm even standing --
I'm not an attorney either. I just, you know -- I've got documents that
says you're awarded a new contract, the job's not going to happen until
July. I applied the rates based on what I was provided with. As far as
the technicalities and so forth, that's completely out of my hands. I
appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Of course there is some sloppiness in the
dates of these two contracts. Somebody needs to monitor these
contracts more closely. Because a simple matter of closing out one
contract and implementing another would have solved I think this
entire problem. But that's --
MS. PRICE: Those steps have been taken.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But that still is not reason enough to
Page 116
January 10, 2012
close one's eyes to common sense and award this man or pay this man
the money that is due him.
So we have a motion by Commissioner Coletta, seconded by
Commissioner Fiala to rule that it was the intent of the county staff to
award the services under the 2010 contract and to pay this man the
money that is due him.
And -- okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you bring up such a good point
about common sense. Sometimes common sense doesn't prevail. Jim
Coletta brought up a wonderful -- what's morally right. What's
morally right. And I will add to that and what is fair. What is fair to
this gentleman. And no matter how hard we try, and if we approve to
pay this gentleman, like his attorney just said, he's going to tell him
not to pay it anyway. And that's too bad, because they're not allowing
fairness and common sense and moral -- morally right into this. And
it's a shame. And I just had to go on the record to say that. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor of the motion, please signify
by saying --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I ask a question before we
vote?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I have the Clerk's attorney
come back up to the dais.
MR. PIKES: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Having heard everything that was
just discussed, do you have -- can you offer another alternative? Is
there any other position, or is the Clerk's position still the same?
MR. PIRES: Once again, I've indicated what my advice to the
Clerk is, and my advice remains the same to the Clerk.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Notwithstanding that the
gentleman just highlighted that his contract provided that it was a
Page 117
January 10, 2012
fixed term contract or a turnkey contract, I should say, however
without changes?
MR. PIRES: Once again, we go back to, as I mentioned before,
there's two statutes that I believe are in play. One is 125.74(1)(M)
Florida Statutes, where ostensibly the new contract that we all talk
about, the 10 -5433 was not approved by the Board of County
Commissioners, which is contrary to Section 125.74(1)(M). And
that's the basis for the rate differential is that particular contract.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So if this Board right now were to
ratify that contract, would that in effect give the Clerk the ability to
pay under that contract?
MR. PIRES: I don't believe so. I've not researched that, but I
don't believe so.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, you've already ratified the contract.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: When did we ratify it?
MR. OCHS: The Board did when we came to you with the
expenditure in excess of $50,000.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, way, way back --
MR. PIRES: That was after the work had already been
performed.
MR. OCHS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So the after- the -fact ratification of
a contract on work that was already done is --
MR. PIRES: I have issues with that, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So that doesn't work either.
MR. PIKES: From my perspective, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So no matter what action this
Board takes, the Clerk views this as an illegal expenditure and cannot
pay on it.
MR. PIRES: That's my advice to the Board. And the Clerk has
indicated he would be following my advice on this matter. Based
upon the Board's action today, we will consult with him further. But
Page 118
January 10, 2012
that's based upon my prior conversations with the Clerk.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you help me out again, Jeff? I
don't understand how us -- what exactly are we doing here today?
We've already, I guess going back, ratified this contract after the fact,
which Tony says we can't do.
You say we can do that? We can do after- the -fact ratifications
when work has already been done?
MR. KLATZKOW: All you can do is say that is the intent to
pay him under the 2010 contract, okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But could we -- but the first
question is --
MR. KLATZKOW: What Mr. Pires is saying is that the 2006
contract is a Board approved contract, 2010 contract is not, okay. And
the Clerk is going to be basically paying on the 2006 contract.
All you can do is make the finding that we intend to pay him
under the 2010 contract and ask the Clerk to pay that. And after that
it's the Clerk's decision.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it still goes back to the first
question I have, and that is can the Board after the fact ratify this
contract where staff authorized it then and staff authorized work done
under it --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, we do ratification after the fact all the
time, unfortunately.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is it legal?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, it's legal.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, the Clerk's attorney says not
MR. PIRES: Once again, we also have the issue about 215.425
for additional compensation after services have been provided. So
once again, we have a difference of opinion obviously between my
opinions and that of your County Attorney.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's your opinion on that, on
Page 119
January 10, 2012
services provided -- or payment for services provided?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We've already heard that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I need clarification.
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know what to tell you. I'm not
comfortable about this entire transaction, and I never was, all right.
So I'll just leave it at that. This one is not clean.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all in favor of the motion, 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 I'd like to just ask the petitioner to keep in mind that Collier
County is a business friendly place, okay?
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, would you like to go to your next
time certain item?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, we'll go to our 1:00 time certain
now, we're only five minutes late.
Item #I OC
ADOPTING THE RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY THE BOARD
OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION AT A SPECIAL
MEETING ON DECEMBER 14, 20115 WITH RESPECT TO THE
1998 JOINT COASTAL PERMIT OF THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND
THE CLAM BAY RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN
AUTHORIZED TO BE IMPLEMENTED UNDER THAT PERMIT.
Page 120
January 10, 2012
- APPROVING THE PBSD RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED,
ACCEPT THE INTERPRETATION OF THE MANAGEMENT
PLAN, THE INTENT OF THE BOARD CLARIFIED, AND
CLARIFICATION MADE TO THE INVOLVED AGENCIES AND
HAVE COUNTY STAFF PUT IN ALL COUNTY LAND SIGNS —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: That is 10.0 on your agenda, Commissioners. It's a
recommendation to approve and adopt the resolutions adopted by the
Board of the Pelican Bay Services Division at a special meeting on
December 14th, 2011 with respect to the 1998 joint coastal permit of
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the Clam
Bay Restoration Management Plan authorized to be implemented
under that permit.
This item was moved from the regular agenda at the request of
both Commissioners Hiller and Coyle. And Mr. Dorrill will present on
behalf of Pelican Bay Services Division.
MR. DORRILL: Good afternoon, Commissioners, and Happy
New Year to you.
In the interest of time, my name is Neil Dorrill, I'm the
Administrator of the Pelican Bay Services Division. With me here
today is your Chairman, Mr. Keith Dallas.
This board met in special session on December the 14th to
consider a resolution to both affirm and support and amend the
management plan for Clam Bay that accompanied a permit that was
issued in 1998.
The specific elements of the resolution are very important, and so
I will have the chairman address those because he had asked to speak
to you directly. And then I'm quite sure that there are other members
here that want to share the concerns of the community and the
adjacent community as well.
Thank you.
Page 121
January 10, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many speakers do we have, Ian?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have nine registered speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
MR. DALLAS: Afternoon. Keith Dallas. I'm speaking today as
Chairman of the Board of the Pelican Bay Service Division.
The Service Division passed the resolution that you have before
you because, first of all, we believe that canoe new markers are
consistent with the Service Division and the county's intent at the
point that the 1998 management plan and the DEP permit were
obtained.
We unanimously approved this resolution December 14th to
remove any ambiguity that some people contend exists in the
attachment to that plan -- it's some 200 pages, and there's one sentence
that has caused some ambiguity -- to make it as clear as possible that
the Service Division and the county in its approval never intended
anything other than the canoe markers to be installed in this
environmentally sensitive area called Clam Bay.
I'm going to pass this over to Steve Feldhaus, who is from the
Foundation and has also done a lot of the drafting of this. He can go
over some of the details. But I respectively (sic) request that you
approve this resolution so that we can start to put this subject behind
us.
Thank you.
MR. FELDHAUS: Thank you, Keith. My name's Steve
Feldhaus. I'm the Secretary of the Pelican Bay Foundation and the
chairman of our ad hoc committee on Clam Bay.
You voted on June 14th to approve canoe trail markers in Clam
Bay. You instructed the Director of Coastal Zone Management to
apply for a permit from Fish and Wildlife. He did. It was obtained.
He applied for the approval of the U.S. Coast Guard. He did. It was
obtained. He applied for the approval of the Army Corps of
Engineers. He did. It was obtained. He applied for the approval of
Page 122
January 10, 2012
the Department of Environmental Protection. He did, and it was
obtained.
The fact is that the only obstacle to achieving what you have
instructed the staff to do, which is to install canoe markers in Clam
Bay, is a lawsuit that's been brought by the community of Seagate.
They are seeking -- they've asked a Collier County judge to require
you to install something other than you've instructed to be installed,
something other than canoe trail markers, navigational markers. It's
their interpretation of a 1998 permit that that's what's required.
The only actor here is the Department of Environmental
Protection. They are trying to get a judge to instruct you to enforce a
Department of Environmental Protection permit to install something
that the Department of Environmental Protection is saying today isn't
right. They have now granted a permit to install canoe trail markers
there. There's -- they are not asking for the installation of red and
green navigational markers. And in fact there's a 2008 letter memo
from the Department of Environmental Protection where they say red
and green navigational markers aren't required under the 1998 permit.
So we're in a situation, and we've all been here, we've gone
through it for a long period of time. And I want you to go back just a
bit and remember how we arrived at canoe trail markers. Under your
leadership, the Director of Coastal Zone Management put a committee
together, a committee that included the Sierra Club, the Services
Division, the Foundation, the City of Naples, the Seagate, The
Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And we said let's look at this
fragile system and try to find out what's best. And I think we held
three or four meetings. A lot of talk. We had Fish and Wildlife on the
phone several times, trying to see what they would permit out there,
what they thought was appropriate. And as a result of that entire
process we came up with a recommendation to you for canoe trail
markers that went to the Coastal Advisory Committee. They
recommended that you vote to install canoe trail markers. You voted
Page 123
January 10, 2012
to install canoe trail markers.
Today we have a lawsuit that's seeking to overturn that, and it's
based on one sentence. Now, in the 1998 permit it wasn't a
navigational -- it was not a navigational permit. I've talked to the
lawyer in Orlando who represented you through the Services Division
in 1998, a very respected lawyer. He said this had nothing to do with
navigation. One sentence was put in a plan, not in the permit itself,
but in a Service Division plan, a 98 page plan on how we were going
to manage Clam Bay. One sentence was put in there that mentioned
the installation of markers in the main channel in accordance with
requirements imposed by the Coast Guard. They believe that that
requires the installation of red and green markers.
Now, I can tell you that the Coast Guard hasn't imposed any
requirements. In fact, your staff has an e-mail from the Coast Guard
saying canoe trail markers are fine. They are not imposing red and
green markers.
But the only basis for this lawsuit, which would drag on for
years, it could take your County Attorney, your Assistant County
Attorney. We just filed a few minutes ago, the Foundation, at the
request of the Services Division and with the support of the County
Attorney, a motion to intervene in that lawsuit. We've hired two law
firms to represent us. It's going to be tremendously costly to defend
that. It's going to take a long, long time, or it could. But it's all based
on one sentence.
And when we looked at that, and when the Services Division
looked at it, and our attorneys looked at it, they said, you know, this
sentence, first of all it doesn't mean, we think we're going to win this
lawsuit --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Steve, I --
MR. FELDHAUS: One minute sir, and I'll be finished.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'm concerned that we don't even
have the light on. Do we have the timer on?
Page 124
January 10, 2012
MR. MITCHELL: No, sir, because the two gentleman that have
just spoken were registered as public speakers but they were
introduced as representatives of the association, and so the question is
whether the Seagate people will get the requisite same amount of time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, the problem is that everybody here
is either from Seagate or Pelican Bay. So the time limit is three
minutes. You've been talking for almost four. And if you can --
MR. FELDHAUS: I'll wrap it up immediately. I'll wrap it up
immediately. We ask for your support. This is an important -- it's an
important matter. It's fair, it's what you have instructed staff to do.
It's what the working group, it's what the -- it's what's right for Clam
Bay. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would it be fair to say that the two
speakers from Pelican Bay who have already spoken, their time can be
used in the aggregate?
Neil, are you going to be speaking again?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right. So we've done two
speakers. Okay. You took his time.
MR. FELDHAUS: That's fair. And if I thought we were
introducing this and that I wasn't speaking as a speaker, I was telling
you what was before you, that's what I had been told by your staff,
that I was not speaking as a public speaker but as someone introducing
it. But I do understand your sensitivity to ensure that the other side
has an adequate time to speak.
I would like the opportunity since I thought that was the basis of
my presentation to take someone else's time to speak at the end if it's
necessary to answer any questions you might have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Only if I do the same thing with the
other side.
MR. FELDHAUS: That's fair.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So we'll see how that works out.
Page 125
January 10, 2012
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, your first speaker is Noreen Murray.
And she'll be followed by Rick Dykman.
MS. MURRAY: I'll cede my time to Mr. Feldhaus should he
need it at the end.
MR. MITCHELL: So the next speaker will be Rick Dykman,
and he'll be followed by Marcia Cravens.
We'll use both podiums, please.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ms. Cravens, if you'll come over to this
podium, please.
MR. DYKMAN: I'm Rick Dykman. I'm a Seagate resident. I'm
on the Board of Directors of Seagate. We've been -- I've been down
here a lot in the last three years, and it seems like we're kind of back to
where we were three years ago. We keep, you know, beating this
thing to death and we get back and nothing's happened. And that's too
bad, because we want something to happen too.
This document, I read this document this morning, and it just
kind of puts everything back those three years when you read it. It
still gives Pelican Bay a huge control over Clam Bay, which I don't
think is right.
You have to remember, this waterway was owned -- is owned by
the State of Florida. It's supposed to be managed by Collier County.
And it's classified as a navigable waterway. Unless something's
changed, that's what the facts are.
And, you know, this document also to me seems if you don't like
the rules, you just change it. And that's what I see happening here.
There are a couple of things that Mr. Feldhaus just said that I'd
like to address. One is he said the Coast Guard supported navigation
marker -- I'm sorry, canoe markers in lieu of navigation markers.
That's not true. The Coast Guard just said they take no exception to
signs are markers. But if you ask them what they'd put in for
navigation markers, I guarantee you, they'd be red and green.
Also, there's another item in here that's -- that bothers me and
Page 126
January 10, 2012
bothers all of us. Let's see if I can find it here. Basically says that
there's a way that PBSD can restrict motorized boats. All they have to
do is prove these that these boats are ecological -- that they affected
the ecological integrity of the bay system. Well, I mean, we've been
boating there since 1957. We've had small boats forever in there. So I
don't understand that. Does that mean I'm done?
MR. MITCHELL: No, sir, you have one minute.
MR. DYKMAN: Okay. I think that that definitely cannot -- I
mean, we can't support that, that's just terrible. And to me, we've
always been worried about Pelican Bay taking our boating rights
away, always have worried about that. And that's the kind of language
that does that sort of thing.
I guess in closing, I would ask you not to approve this. We're
going to go to court, we're going to have a judge look at this. Let's let
the judge decide what to do and we'll be done with it and we move on.
So I would like you to deny this request. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Ms. Cravens will be followed by Mary
McLean Johnson.
MR. CRAVENS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. And Happy
New Year.
I'm optimistic about 2012, that it will be one of increased
ecotourism. And I'm prepared to move this along as much as possible
in my newly added role of Sierra Calusa Groups outings chair by
highlighting our area.
I believe that you are serious about protecting safe recreation of
all persons who enjoy the many in -water opportunities of Clam Pass
and Clam Bay. I'm a resident of Collier County who has come before
you many times due to my commitment of keeping the Clam Pass,
Clam Bay NRPA preserve protected and preserved for current and
future generations. I'm one of thousands who regularly enjoy and
appreciate passive recreational opportunities at Clam Pass. I'm one of
nearly 500 paddlers of a local paddler club. I'm also one of millions of
Page 127
January 10, 2012
Sierra Club members. And I am on the executive board of our
regional Sierra Calusa Group.
I respectfully request that you approve the PBSD resolution
which would clarify the 1998 FDEP permit and it would clarify the
restoration and management plan attached to it.
There is just this one sentence, as Steve Feldhaus indicated, that
has been the source of so much divisive disagreement in our
community. And by clarifying the management plan by modification
of that one sentence, I hope that it will cure this divisive situation.
I additionally, however, request that you would consider
endorsing and affirming that the information and canoe trail boat
markers that were approved by the 2011 work group are appropriate
for modification, an administrative modification of Page 9 of the 1998
permit DEP permit. And I gave you a little background information
and the written comments, I won't take too much time with that. Just
that there is a defect on Page 9 of the DEP permit because combined
language of informational and regulatory was required for one set of
signs. DEP has determined that that requires an administrative
modification in that it would be done in consultation with Fish and
Wildlife Commission.
Your work group that met this past year and recommended
certain language for information and canoe trail markers was very
much in consultation with Fish and Wildlife Commission, thereby
meeting that consultation that DEP indicated would cure the defect on
Page 9 of that permit. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Mary Johnson will be followed by Sarah Wu.
MS. JOHNSON: Good afternoon. I'm here as president of the
Mangrove Action Group. The Mangrove Action Group seeks to
protect the environment of Clam Bay. And we support a marking
system for Clam Bay that consists of canoe trail makers and
information signs such as the one that has been approved by the BCC
Page 128
January 10, 2012
already and also by all of the permitting agencies.
There's been a lot of time spent reviewing this matter, and we
really want to go on record as supporting the resolutions that would
make this matter clear that canoe trail markers are the appropriate
markers for Clam Bay. Therefore, please approve these resolutions
with the changes suggested by Mr. Feldhaus. It's time that we were
able to move forward and implement this plan that you have already
approved.
Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Sarah Wu will be followed Robert Rogers.
MS. WU: Good afternoon. My name is Sarah Wu and I'm a
resident of Seagate.
There are many reasons you should oppose this resolution, but
there is one reason I'd like to talk about, and that pertains to the
whereas statement on Page 6. According to this statement, the U.S.
Coast Guard notified county via e -mail that they have no objections
for the placement of canoe trail markers. Should we really be relying
on e-mail statements when it comes to such a sensitive issue? E -mails
from federal agencies don't substitute for formal approval.
Furthermore, have you seen this e-mail? I haven't seen this
e -mail. No one from Seagate has seen this e -mail. I think Mr.
Feldhaus is the only one that has seen this e -mail.
At the December 7th Pelican Bay Service Division meeting, Mr.
Feldhaus made an impassioned plea to the Pelican Bay Service
Division to amend the 1998 management plan. He requested that they
delete the following language from the permit: finally, the main
channel will be marked in accordance with the requirements opposed
by the U.S. Coast Guard to ensure that those who use the system
clearly know where the channel is and the prohibitions of operating
their watercraft outside the same. End of quote.
And he wants it replaced with: Clam Bay will be marked with
canoe trail markers and informational signs. End of quote.
Page 129
January 10, 2012
At this meeting Mr. Feldhaus alluded to this e -mail from the
Coast Guard but he was very hesitant to give specifics. But when he
was pressed by a member of the Service Division board who was
confused on why there was now a need to amend the permit after the
Board of County Commissioners had already approved the canoe trail
markers, this person, board member said but there was a ruling by the
Coast Guard that says that red and green markers are not required.
And Mr. Feldhaus responded that is not what the Coast Guard
said, and I would prefer to spend time -- not to spend time in a public
forum detailing the specifics of my concerns. I will tell you
unequivocally I am concerned that there is a real possibility that red
and green markers will be installed. And because -- end of quote.
And because of this fear of red and green markers, the Pelican
Bay Service Division adopted this resolution to change the language
on the permit.
I believe that the public is not getting the whole truth. Seagate
representatives contacted the Coast Guard last week and they were --
the Coast Guard was unaware of any approval being formally granted
on these canoe trail markers. On many fronts there appears to be
something a little fishy going on.
Lastly, at the BCC meeting this past summer you approved of the
canoe signs. Seagate made it clear that the canoe signs did not meet
the requirements of the present permit. Pelican Bay and county staff,
albeit to a lesser extent, stated that they did. Now they want to change
the permit because what we told you all along was true.
At some point credibility of the parties has to be considered. Not
only should you vote no but you need to go back and change your
other vote and insist that staff put in the proper U.S. Coast Guard
approved markers.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. ROGERS: Robert Rogers, Seagate resident. I'm probably
Page 130
January 10, 2012
the single most impacted person by what goes on in Clam Bay. I can
literally walk out my bedroom, take 20 steps and I'm standing in the
water. And this is the perfect example of what Commissioner Coletta
said, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
You made your decision before to put in the canoe markers. In
our view that was an incorrect decision. However, I believe you had a
good faith basis for that decision based on the representations that you
were told at that time. You were told these canoe trail markers
satisfied the permit. You can go back and watch the hearing. That's
what you were told.
So you said, hey, Seagate, these satisfy the permit, let's move on.
We said, we don't think so, we will exercise our options in court. I
told you that myself personally. I was challenged by Commissioner
Hiller. You said, wait a minute Mr. Rodgers, staff has hold us that
these markers meet the permit. I said, that's not correct.
Now staff and Pelican Bay are back before you saying change the
permit quick, we're about to go to court and potentially lose.
Now, you could potentially win. You at least have a good faith
argument. And by the way, on the court, Seagate is stepping into the
shoes of DEP. We had to send a letter to DEP under the statute to get
authorization to bring this suit. DEP hasn't taken the position our suit
is void or moot. And your resolution today is not going to make it
moot either. The suit's going to continue. You're just going to
embellish our claim by bringing up more questions for the court to
consider.
What should happen really is what Ms. Wu just said, you should
go back up and do what the permit calls for. The reason you didn't do
what the permit called for after first voting to do what the permit
called for was because staff told you it was too expensive. You
formed a committee, the Clam Bay Advisory Committee, of which I
was on, which had representatives of all your communities, three
representatives of Pelican Bay, and that committee came back and
Page 131
January 10, 2012
said, you need to put in Coast Guard approved markers. That's what
that committee said.
That committee met for a year, not three or four meetings that the
second committee that was met for, we met for a year and we came
back and told you to put those markers in.
You're now at the point where they are saying, and I'm reiterating
it, don't let it go to court. And as Mr. Feldhaus said, and I completely
agree, it's not ambiguous. Read it. It's one line. And the reason the
line is highlighted is it's the only part of the permit that hasn't been
satisfied. And it's the part that was negotiated at the time to appease
Seagate so that the management of the mangroves could take place.
And now what's happening, exactly as Ms. Wu said, you're changing
the deal.
If you think you're right, you're going to win, you don't need to
change the permit. It's simply -- it's so patently unfair I don't even
know what to say. And if you ever go down there and go out in the
bay, why are we doing this? It's so ridiculous. Just put in the
navigational markers and that's it, it's over. You'll never hear about it
again. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was the last registered speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to take a 10 minute --
MR. MOFFATT: Excuse me, I had registered, Jerry Moffatt.
And I said I intend to cede my time to Steve Feldhaus.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Feldhaus had spoken. He didn't register
as a public speaker. So I mean -- Commissioner, if you want --
MR. MOFFATT: So I can't cede my time?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you have anyone else for a speaker?
Okay, cede his time to Mr. Feldhaus. And if we --
MR. FELDHAUS: And Noreen.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And Noreen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I can't let Mr. Feldhaus speak for six
more minutes.
Page 132
January 10, 2012
MR. FELDHAUS: Mr. Chairman, I will speak for 30 seconds.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's not possible.
MR. FELDHAUS: It's for 30 seconds.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You are a lawyer, right? You can't
speak for 30 seconds.
MR. FELDHAUS: I will try.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I bet you he can't.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right, then I will let Mr. Rodgers --
MR. FELDHAUS: I just want to answer something that Mr.
Dykman said about the intention of our community to deny them
access, watercraft access to the Gulf from their community. In order
to ensure that's not the case, I've made representations to you publicly
that that's not the case. Our board voted unanimous on Sunday 7 -0 to
pass the two following resolutions:
Resolve that the Pelican Bay Foundation, acting by and through
its board of directors, does hereby notify the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County that the Foundation will not take
any action to deny the residents of Seagate the level of watercraft
access to the Gulf of Mexico which they enjoy as of the date hereof.
And be it further resolved that the officers of the Foundation and
they hereby are instructed to take all action necessary and appropriate
to ensure that the Foundation complies with the undertaking set forth
in the foregoing resolution.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Steve, maybe you better not
leave the mic. yet.
I believe that your resolution is pretty much like a resolution, but
as a Board of County Commissioners, we can make a resolution and
the next County Commissioners can completely ignore it. Is that not
true?
MR. FELDHAUS: Well, there's a -- I'll let your County
Attorney give his interpretation of contract law here.
Page 133
January 10, 2012
MR. KLATZKOW: That's true --
MR. FELDHAUS: We're asking you to undertake --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's true.
MR. KLATZKOW: You can make an ordinance and then
change it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right. So, you know, if you really
want to do something that will guarantee Seagate their navigable
access in Clam Bay, it should be in a legal document that is
enforceable. And if you wanted to talk about that, that might be
interesting to some people. But nevertheless, absent that, I think most
people are probably right, that it's going to have to be decided by a
judge.
But nevertheless, we are beyond our break period for our court
reporter, so what we'll do is take a 10 minute break and then come
back here at 2:43 and a half.
(A recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you very much. Ladies and
gentlemen, the Board of County Commission meeting is back in
session. And I'm going to make a decision. Will somebody go get a
commissioner or two?
MR. KLATZKOW: It's easier this way.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I know it's a hell of a lot easier this way.
No, it won't be confusing. My decisions don't get confusing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Now, but they'll be challenged.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We changed government to a
kingdom. The king has ruled.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We probably should. We probably
should.
Okay, we are in session. We've got a quorum. Let's get started.
Who's next? We had all the public speakers, didn't we?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir, we did.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So Commissioner Hiller is the
Page 134
January 10, 2012
only one who's here with her light on. So go ahead, Commissioner
Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to make a motion that we
approve the resolution presented by PBSD and take whatever action is
necessary to ensure that the management plan and permits reflect what
was described in that resolution as the intent of the Board.
THE COURT REPORTER: You may want to put on your
microphone.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh. Can you hear me now?
Good. Yes, thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second the motion. But I
think we also need to recognize the rights of the Seagate residents for
motorized boats. And I don't know if this is an appropriate time to do
that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I'm not sure that we -- if my
understanding is correct, and I'd like Jeff to make sure that it is, it is
their right. There is nothing that we can say or do that would impinge
on the right that they have to use motorized boats.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe the appropriate -- the
Board in '97 or '98 passed a no wake ordinance dealing with Clam
Bay. Can we take a look at that and make sure that that ordinance
recognizes motorized vehicles -- motorized boats?
MR. KLATZKOW: Absolutely. I'll take a look at it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And if not, part of the motion I
think would be to direct them to bring it back for amendment if it
doesn't recognize that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure, I have no problem with
amending it to that. And the informational signs that we as a Board
approved did address motorized boats, canoes and swimmers, all
three. So it is very clearly the intent that, you know, all of those users
can avail themselves of the Clam Bay NRPA.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, I've got my light on now. It's not
Page 135
January 10, 2012
clear at all. There never has been a legal -- legally enforceable
statement by Pelican Bay in any form whatsoever that recognizes the
right of navigable access by other people in Clam Bay. The only way
we'll get that really is through a court decision.
Now, this resolution, and we're voting on a resolution right now
to change the record. And I appreciate Commissioner Henning's
initiative in trying to pin this down, because he and I both insisted at
the meeting where the canoe markers passed by the majority of the
Commission, he and I both insisted that there be informational signs at
the parking area that specifically said there would be motorized
vessels in Clam Bay and that they were authorized to be in Clam Bay.
I have not yet seen those signs. I have asked for a copy of them.
I have not received it. And I -- my belief is that there is a continuing
attempt not only by the staff but by Pelican Bay to keep that from
being recognized.
Now, let's go to the specific resolution. So I'll support
Commissioner Henning's effort to clarify that issue. But let's go to the
resolution. In my opinion this is unethical. How do you pass a
resolution to go back and change the record back 11, 12, 13 years ago
so that it makes it easier for you to dispose of a lawsuit?
The record is the record. Whatever is in the record is there. It
will be interpreted by the courts. It is not something we can just waive
by a resolution. I mean, if we could do this by resolution, we could
solve a lot of lawsuits we're involved in today. Let's just pass a
resolution and alter the record and then remove the opportunity for a
lawsuit. It's distasteful to me to be involved in that kind of an
argument. I can't believe people really want to do this. It makes me
even more suspicious of the motives than I was before.
So it's just a bad thing to do. I don't know if Seagate has a sound
basis in court. I don't think anybody else does either. And I think the
best thing we can do is let them find out. Let them make their
argument. Let's see who's right. And at that point in time it's solved.
Page 136
January 10, 2012
We'll have a court interpretation, a court order that tells us what we're
going to do.
We are no further along resolving this issue than we were five
years ago, 10 years ago. There have been committees formed, people
working together trying to get it resolved, and it just doesn't happen
and it's not going to happen until it gets to court. And so I strongly
oppose the motion. But I do encourage us to try to find some legal
basis for recognizing the legal right of Seagate residents to use
motorized vessels in Clam Bay.
So with that, Commissioner Fiala, your light was on.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm going to speak again.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I felt that this was a good attempt to
try and come up to some solution for everybody. And when I walked
in, I didn't have any problems with it at all. The only thing I was
going to say was that you would keep the navigational width and
depth that Seagate has always had to get their boats in and out. And
I'm really, really concerned that they'd be allowed to continue to use
their boats. I understand where they're coming from.
And I don't think Pelican Bay is trying to stop them from using
their boats. I hear the concern, but I don't think they're trying to do
that. I think that -- this is of course my own interpretation, and I
always take the positive side of things, but I think that maybe if they
could put something in this today to say motorized boating will never
be prevented, if we pass something like that today, that would make it
pretty firm that their motorized boats can still go in and out. Because
we're passing it at this level and it's a very legal thing at this level. So
maybe that would be something that we could consider.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It really isn't legally enforceable. The
next Board can change it. Any Board can change it. In fact, this --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you stay in office all along
Page 137
January 10, 2012
then for the next 10 years.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Stay as the chair.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But that's the problem. There has been
no legally enforceable decision which will provide the Seagate people
more comfort. And not only that, but this resolution is going back and
changing a record. Changing an official record to remove something
that would serve to undermine Seagate's ability to challenge this
legally.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And this is what it's all about, isn't
it? What it's really all about is can these people in Seagate continue to
use their boats on the water? Isn't it? They don't want to lose that
privilege of being able to get their boats in and out because it makes
them a boating community rather than a canoeing community, and
that's what their concerned with.
And I think that -- you know, we keep using these markers and so
forth, but that's really the basis of the whole thing is to be able to
continue to use your boats.
MS. RODGERS: Safely. Safely. That's why you need -- I'm
not supposed to be talking.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Not yet. Not yet. You get Mr.
Feldhaus's remaining six minutes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So those are just my concerns. I
really would love to do something to protect both sides. Well, that's
the way I always go. That's all. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, were you or
Commissioner Coletta next?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm before.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Coletta, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And Commissioner
Fiala, I do agree with you too. Somewheres along the line, even
though the scope of our authority is limited to our time in office, a
future commission can turn everything upside down. We all know
Page 138
January 10, 2012
that. I'll tell you, Commissioner Coyle, you made an extremely
compelling argument just a few moments ago. And I do have to ask
some questions. I'll ask the County Attorney.
Changing records, like we're attempting to do, is it morally
wrong? Is this something that's a normal course of events? Exactly
what is the terminology for it? And is it a normal practice?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, one, this is not coming from me, it is
not coming from your staff, okay. Understand that. What you're doing
is you have an existing permit. It expired, but you have an existing
permit. That permit had a condition in it. The permit also has
language in it that Board of County Commissioners can amend the
permit if it deems fit. What you in essence are doing is you're not
really changing the record, but after the permit has expired, you're
changing the language to remove this requirement. And they believe
that that will enhance their chances in the lawsuit, all right?
The other way you can do it is simply give a firm Board direction
that we do not want navigational markers within the channel, just
canoe markers. I think that does the same thing. They disagree. They
believe that it would be better for the lawsuit to amend the permit in
essence after the fact. And I guess we'll see.
I mean, I'm not sure how a judge is going to look at this. I mean,
some people might look at this as a little distasteful, quite frankly.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You want to use some of your
six minutes? Go ahead.
MR. FELDHAUS: Just one, to say that the permit by itself
authorizes the implementation of this management plan. Throughout
the management plan, and that's what it is, it's a dynamic document,
it's going to be changed. It was changed multiple times. It was -- you
look and see how wide the pass is, do you need to dredge this wide or
that wide? Do you have water quality problems? It anticipates
changes. It says probably 10 or 15 times that it's going to be changed
as it's being implemented. That's what we're talking about doing.
Page 139
January 10, 2012
This isn't an attempt to do something that's dishonest.
And in fact I argue that what you did in June was in effect to
change the plan. You went in and said, want to let you make sure,
want to tell you what it is we want to have installed out there. We
want to have installed canoe trail markers. And that's -- it was living
plan for the management of Clam Bay.
This isn't -- it's not fun and games. This isn't a funny move. It
isn't attempted to be an attempt to be dishonest, immoral or anything
else. It's to do what you've instructed to be done out there, which is put
canoe trail markers.
And by the way, you, in Ordinance 96 -16, you have instructed
that motorized boats can be used in Clam Bay. And that is the law of
Clam Bay, Commissioner Henning. And I think you don't need to
emphasize it. If you do, we will support you in that effort.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I remember the discussion we
had, and I was very supportive at the time as far as the informational
what's allowed to be posted out there. I thought we gave clear and
concise directions. And it's very concerning with the fact they haven't
been followed.
MR. FELDHAUS: Now, we have to get -- we have to go
through a permitting process. We had to get Fish and Wildlife, we
had to go through that entire process. We intend to put the word
motorized in those areas that you ask us to put it in. I guarantee you
that they will be out there as per your instructions.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And these are the informational
MR. FELDHAUS:
They go on either side of the pass --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're talking about when you
come in different parks.
MR. FELDHAUS:
Yes, that will be in our -- that's the
Foundation's launch site.
There will be one there and there will be one
on each side of the pass.
That's what you requested and that's what we
Page 140
January 10, 2012
agreed to.
There's no desire --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What do you recall?
MR. OCHS: I recall the same thing, sir. Additionally, the staff
indicated we will put another one indicating that motorized vessels are
allowed in that waterway at the entrance off the boardwalk at Clam
Pass Beach Park, which you -- as you enter the beach --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Very good, that's where we're
going. I was trying to fill that piece back in. So it's the county that's
making the commitment on that. When will that be done?
MR. OCHS: You have jurisdiction over those signs. You don't
have jurisdiction over the signs in the waterway or over the bridges,
and that's why we have to get these permits --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You brought up about the signs
going in the park. No, you didn't. Okay, well, I'm bringing it up. So
we were in that mode where we're going to be putting them in place.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. But we wanted to mobilize and install
them all at one time. And as Mr. Feldhaus indicated, until you get the
permit from all the regulatory agencies, we can't install the signs.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One last issue. You say that we
have -- already have in place ordinances that recognize the right of
people to be able to have motor boats within that Clam Pass waters.
MR. OCHS: I don't recall the ordinance specifically Mr.
Feldhaus is referring to but I know that you do have an ordinance that
establishes a no wake zone in that area.
MR. FELDHAUS: I think it's Ordinance 96 -16. Again, the
County Attorney can look at it. And if you want to enhance the clarity
of that right, we will support you. We have no problem with
appropriate motorized boats in Clam Bay, none. We are not the
enemy of Seagate.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: When you say appropriate, what
does that word mean?
Page 141
January 10, 2012
MR. FELDHAUS: I don't want an 80 -foot yacht out there. What
the conditions allow. You know, in some places up there you can
only take a little electric motor for fishing. It's whatever the
conditions allow we support.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. ROGERS : You said equal time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, but I need to get rid of some
Commissioners here first. Well, that's not proper -- that's not the
proper term. I've got to give the Commissioners an opportunity to
speak, okay.
Commissioner Henning is next.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to wait for public
comment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, and I will once again make the
statement that a resolution, an ordinance, a sign can be changed at the
whim of another group of Commissioners, or by these Commissioners.
It is not a guarantee of anything. It does not solidify anyone's rights to
anything. And the only way you're going to get that is from a court.
MR. KLATZKOW: You can do an agreed order with the court, I
mean. If everybody gets on the same page, that would do it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That would be refreshing. But if we can't
get them on the same page, we've been trying for a decade.
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't think you will. Because I think the
issue is dredging. I've always thought that was the issue here. But
we'll see.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It changes, depending upon which
argument you want to try to make. But nevertheless.
Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, to address what is being
discussed today, it is not an amendment to the plan, it is a clarification
of what appears to be ambiguous wording based on the debate in the
minds of some, although it doesn't seem to be ambiguous in the minds
Page 142
January 10, 2012
of the majority.
And the reason I say that is because as a result of the decision of
this Board to put in these canoe trail markers and informational signs,
the FWC has determined that the signs are compliant with the intent of
the management plan and the permits, both of which are still open. It's
my understanding that the Coast Guard has said the same, as has the
Army Corps. So -- and DEP, for that matter.
So all agencies, all permitting agencies have deemed that the
markers that are going to be installed as requested and approved by
this Board satisfy the requirements of the management plan.
And Mr. Feldhaus is correct, this management plan is a living
document and is subject to amendment at any point in time. And
Commissioner Coyle is correct, that any action that the Board takes is
subject to change by this Board or by a subsequent Board at any time.
The one thing that is certain is that both the residents of Seagate,
the residents of Collier County and the residents of Pelican Bay all
have riparian rights to the body of water known as Clam Bay. And
this Board cannot take it away. Pelican Bay cannot take those rights
away. Seagate can't take those rights away. Those are a given. And
there is no marker that is going to add to or take away from those
riparian rights.
As far as safety goes, and I know you brought up the issue of
safety, Fish and Wildlife has made it very clear that there is no safety
issue in Clam Bay. There is no history of hazards, there is no history
of accidents, injuries, deaths. They will not mark a channel in the
absence of clear evidence that there are safety concerns. And that's
clear. I mean, they said that to us in our public meeting, the channel
will not be marked, there is no evidence of any safety issue.
So the intent of the plan was to provide informational markers.
The canoe markers are informational markers. The signs that provide
that motorists and boaters and canoers can all use those waterways are
informational waters -- I'm sorry, are information signs, and the
Page 143
January 10, 2012
requirements of the management plan and both permits have been
satisfied as a result. There is no agency that is objecting to that. And
we as a Board made that determination. That was our vote.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Mr. Rodgers, you've got three
minutes.
MR. ROGERS : I don't get however many he had?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. If we do that we're going to be here
all night.
MR. ROGERS: If what Commissioner Hiller just told you is
true, you don't need to take any action. We will lose that lawsuit on
summary judgment. If you believe what she just told you.
But no offense, almost everything she just stated is inaccurate.
The intent of this plan was to restore the mangroves. A group got
together because there was a mangrove die -off in two bays to the
north of where our bay is, Clam Bay. At that time there was actions
taken to take away any motorized boating in Clam Bay.
The residents of Seagate came and said, wait a minute we've
been motorized boating here forever, you need to do something for us.
What's the easiest way to address that issue that doesn't hurt anyone?
What's the easiest way? You put in Coast Guard approved markers.
Fish and Wildlife doesn't mark navigable channels. That's just made
up stuff that you're being told. The point of the markers was to mark
the channel for environmental reasons, for safety reasons and to
ensure the long term navigational rights of Seagate.
Riparian rights like easements are infringed upon every day.
They're infringed upon. There are things you can do to infringe upon
those rights. They were infringed upon when they put in no wake
ordinance. But Seagate agreed to that. All of this was worked out.
All this conversation happened back in 1998. And the resolution was
dig all these hand dug canals, all these channels to force the tidal
prism north to save the mangroves, which changes the character and
ability to use the estuary. Basically our bay is silting in. That's what's
Page 144
January 10, 2012
happening, it's getting more shallow.
So what they came to resolve the issue is, hey, put in Coast
Guard approved markers which leave Seagate out and you're done.
It's ridiculous to put canoe markers. They don't want them. We don't
want them. It makes no sense. You have canoe markers in a
serpentine path going in a navigable channel and then they stop when
you get to the pass where the interaction between swimmers, kayakers
and canoers takes place, where the danger arises. And
notwithstanding her position, many of our residents have had
confrontations with residents of Pelican Bay in that pass. It's good no
one got hurt. And let's hope it continues that way.
But if you put the red and green markers, and I've got to throw
this out, we started with, and Mr. McAlpin can confirm this, a plan for
28 poles. Then Seagate compromised to 21 poles. Then to something
like 16 poles. Then to 13 poles, because I was on the committee.
Then to three poles and nine buoys. How is that going to hurt
anybody? Anybody. And this issue is done. We don't go to court,
you don't spend the money.
Finally, your resolution is going to unilaterally amend an Army
Corps of Engineers permit? That's what you're being told. That is not
going to happen. There's no way. I can tell you how a judge is going
to look at that. He's going to find this so repugnant, and I'm quite
surprised that you all don't. Let the facts play out, let them rely on
what they told you before and let us go to court, and whoever wins,
wins.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Okay, all in -- there's a
motion by Commissioner Hiller that was, I believe, seconded by
Commissioner Henning, but Commissioner Henning wanted to make
an addition to that motion; is that correct, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I did.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you did.
Page 145
January 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could you repeat the motion,
please.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead and repeat the motion,
Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That we approve the Pelican Bay
Services Division resolution and recognize the interpretation of the
wording in the management plan as reflected in the resolution
presented by the Pelican Bay Services Division and take any action
necessary with -- you know, through the County Attorney with -- and
Coastal Zone Management with any of the agencies to ensure that the
clarification -- and this is not an amendment but rather a clarification
-- to that wording is on notice with them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And as I said, has been -- and
really, this is nothing more than a clarification, because we have
already voted accordingly, historically when we voted to put those
markers in. And the agencies recognized that what we have done is in
fact correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Here's the problem I need to get
clarified. If we're voting on something to approve it but we don't have
specific language that we're approving, it seems to me that the only
way we can deal with this is to bring it back.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, the specific language, and
we're not going to bring it back, we're going to vote on it today. And
what we're going to vote on is to accept the resolution in its entirety,
as presented by PBSD. By the way, I just want to compliment PBSD.
I think the resolution was very well articulated. It correctly stated all
the facts. And it gave a very succinct corroborated history of where
we are today.
And to additionally recognize that the interpretation of the
management plan as part of both open permits is as described in that
PBSD resolution. And that is an actionable item. And I would ask
Page 146
January 10, 2012
that you call the vote.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then the vote is to approve the
PBSD --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And to accept the interpretation of
the management plan as it relates to this specific issue as to the
sentence that seems to have ambiguous interpretation, to eliminate that
ambiguity, and for the interpretation to be as provided for in the PBSD
resolution.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, but that is redundant. That's what
the Pelican Bay Services Division resolution says, is to remove that
reference to markers. So would it be accurate to say that your motion
is to approve the resolution as it stands in our agenda?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And to amend or if needed the
management plan so that the wording properly reflects what the intent
of the Board and the PBSD has been all along.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Isn't that what the resolution says?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I help?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The amendment to it was to
direct the County Attorney to look at previous Board's action to
recognize Seagate's motorized craft use on Clam Bay. That was the
amendment to your motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's your amendment to add to
my motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But you didn't mention that amendment.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I said I recognized his
amendment --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, you did.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- in addition. I'm just not
repeating it. I don't want to put words in his mouth. I just respect
whatever you say.
Page 147
January 10, 2012
I'm not eliminating what you're saying and saying what I'm
saying, I just am trying to repeatedly in 25 different versions clarify
what I have said from the beginning for the benefit of Commissioner
Coyle so he has the ability to vote on it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I had three fast questions, so
I'm just going to -- just before you call that vote. The first one, I was
just going to mention that. But then that's done and I'm glad that's
included.
I was going to ask that the people who have -- it was mentioned
here that people are jeering and harassing some of the boaters. I
would ask that you please don't do that anymore. If you know
anybody who does that -- you might not, I don't know. But if you ever
do, you know, just suggest to them please not to do that.
And the last thing is we were talking about signs, and Leo said
that we couldn't -- it's better if we install -- or maybe it was Gary, put
all the signs in at the same time. Maybe we could put the land signs in
now just to get those in. And that's just a county thing, we don't have
to wait for approval for the permitting agencies, because sometimes
that takes years.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll add that to my motion. I think
that's a really great suggestion, get those county signs in that, you
know, recognize that swimmers, canoers and motorized boaters all
need to live harmoniously.
I want to add one last thing and that is the court will never
substitute its judgment for the Board's discretion or the Board's right to
make decisions as to what it wants to do with respect to a certain
matter. We were not required by the state to put in those kind of
markers. It was a recommendation in our plan to put in those
informational markers. And the real reason you have those
informational markers, as explained by Mr. Moreau from FWC, is to
basically keep the canoe -- it's an unintended benefit, it's not a direct
result. But it's the unintended positive benefit of keeping canoers to
Page 148
January 10, 2012
one side, motorized boats to the other and swimmers in their own lane.
So, you know, it certainly accomplishes what our objectives are
as a Board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You can't keep -- there's not a
need to keep motorized vessels separate from canoers or kayakers,
because it's a no wake zone.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But what I'm saying, it's an unin --
what Mr. Moreau explained from Fish and Wildlife in our public
meeting is that it's the unintended benefit that canoes know this is the
way to go. So motorized boats know canoes are over here and they
can proceed over here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. But it's such a small
area. I was just out there Sunday. It's such a small area where the
markers are. And you have to follow the markers because it's very
shallow out there. If Mr. Rodgers, what he stated is the understanding
of the Seagate, this all started when the black mangroves were dying
off in there and the intent by some to stop the rights. I think we need
to take action to recognize the rights and somehow codify it, whether
it be through the permit or some other third party agency.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, their rights are their legal
rights.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, that's -- and that is
exactly the point. If we approve this, we accomplish nothing. You
don't convey any rights to anybody for anything. Seagate will still
have to go to court to get some interpretation of all this. So you
accomplish nothing by approving this resolution. So the only way this
will ever be resolved is in a court of law.
Putting it in a resolution, putting it in an ordinance accomplishes
absolutely nothing because those things are valid only until a different
group of Commissioners gets here and they change their mind. So it
starts all over again.
Page 149
January 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to call the vote.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. 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: All those opposed by like sign? Aye.
So it passes 4 -1 with Commissioner Coyle in opposition.
Okay. Let's go to which item now, County Manager?
Item # 13A 1
AIRPORT GROUND VEHICLE ACCESS PLAN FOR THE
IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT - CONTINUE TO A
FUTURE BCC MEETING WITH A PROPERLY DEVELOPED
PLAN THAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY ALL REQUIRED
AGENCIES — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Sir, you had a 2:00 p.m. time certain on the two
Airport Authority items on your agenda. Those are items 13.A.1 and
two. 13.A1 is a recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners acting as the Airport Authority adopts the attached
airport ground vehicle access plan for the Immokalee Regional
Airport.
Mr. Curry is here to present, sir.
MR. CURRY: Good afternoon, Commissioners, Chris Curry,
Executive Director, Collier County Airport Authority. And joining
me is Thomas Vergo, the Airport Manager at Immokalee.
What you have before you is the access plan for the Immokalee
Airport. It is a recommendation by the FAA that all airports have
such plan. The airport has never had one. So this is the start of a plan
Page 150
January 10, 2012
to make the airport a little bit more secure and to detail some of the
finer points for operations in and around the airport area.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I, Commissioner Coyle?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's all you're going to say? I mean,
you don't have a presentation to go through anything?
MR. CURRY: No, there's no presentation. Myself and Tom
Vergo is here to answer any questions that you may have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many public speakers do we have?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, you have seven speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Hiller, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. You know, I'm very
glad, Chris, that you're moving in the direction of coming up with
some security protocol with respect to the airport. However, from
what I've determined through my research, it can't be done in the
manner in which its being proposed.
We can't arbitrarily go and pick, you know, some sample vehicle
access plan, which is in fact part of the security plan and say, oh, we're
going to use this for the Immokalee Airport. And we can't have the
Airport Advisory Board sit there and say, oh, yeah, we think that's a
good idea or no, we don't, and then this Board just say yes, and then
all of a sudden that's it. That's not the way it works.
In fact, the guidelines for setting up security plans, which
includes vehicle access plans, is very strict. There are two governing
bodies of law that direct how that's supposed to be done, and in fact
FDOT is in the process of sending those to me. And FDOT actually
has to approve your plan.
I went ahead and I pulled -- because I had a concern that you
called Boulder, Colorado as the model, if you will, to develop this,
since that's not really a comparable airport at all. You know, we are in
Florida. And so what I did is I started looking to other airports in
Florida that either didn't have a tower or didn't have an active tower
and that had recently adopted security plans that included the vehicle
Page 151
January 10, 2012
access component. And found that Sebring is probably most closely
related to what we have to consider here. I was able to get as copy of
Sebring's security plan. And it is a confidential document. It is
restricted information. And I was also as a result of my
communications with their airport officials, I was able to secure access
for you and for the Commissioners and our staff and the Sheriff s
office to study this plan as a starting point for an overall security plan.
And the component for vehicle access in there is readily
reviewable by you. MOT has to approve what you're proposing.
You can't just sit here and have this Board say, yeah, we're going to do
it, and be done with it. It's not going to work that way.
So this is a very serious matter. I've told you from the beginning
that I had very serious concerns about security. I continue to have
serious concerns about security. The Sheriff needs to be involved. He
has to have the opportunity to review it because he has to have the
ability to enforce it. That's what they did in Sebring. I've already
taken the liberty of sending what I received from Sebring to Chief
Bloom of the Sheriffs office.
So I would ask that rather than us vote on this matter, that this
matter be continued, that you review this information. And I have
really great news for you, and the timing is opportune, so I commend
you for bringing it forward now. I believe, starting January 12th,
MOT actually has a security training program which you can take
online which would allow you to learn how to implement and train
security protocols in your airport. And it's going to be featured three
days, like January 12th and then I forget the other two days. But I can
get those specifics for you, I've already requested the information.
So I would like to make a motion that we continue this, and that I
will give you everything I have and that you review it, and that when
you develop the protocols that they be properly handled. Because
again, my understanding is, you know, these are, first of all,
procedures that have to be approved by FDOT, and secondly, are only
Page 152
January 10, 2012
to a limited degree public information.
So -- and the vehicle access plan would be a component of that.
So as I said, that's my motion. I'd like to make that motion. And
I'd like to ask someone to second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, the motion dies for lack of a
second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wait a minute, wait a minute.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I have -- and like I said
before, I can't, because we can't give this to the public, I have
everything here for all of you and I'll make sure everything is
available to you, to Leo, and to the County Attorney and to the
Sheriff. But it is limited distribution because it is a security document.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning, go
ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You want to continue it and
provide more --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. And then --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But I would like to --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And it, you know, goes through
the FDOT training on security, develop the plan properly, coordinate
that, you know, all the protocols with respect to vehicles and access is
okay with the Sheriff. Matches -- that it conforms to the requirements
of the law. Because like I said, there are two like major bodies of law,
I guess, I suppose they are law, that basically state how this is all
supposed to be done.
The way we are doing it is not the proper way of handling this
issue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think there needs to be
communications with the users out in Immokalee prior to coming to
the Board.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That too. That makes sense.
Page 153
January 10, 2012
Oh, and I'm -- can I just build on what you just said. Not to
interrupt you, but I do want to say I did address that when I actually
spoke -- because I spoke both to FDOT and to Sebring. And, for
example, Sebring, from the standpoint of the users, they have --
they're developing a different protocol for access to T- hangars. But
what they're doing with their fence is they basically have their
businesses outside of the fence except for the T- hangars. And they
have a separate protocol that in fact they're in the process of
developing for access to the T- hangars, because that's a unique
situation. But otherwise what they do is they basically, you know,
fence it in such a way that it minimizes the adverse impact to
economic development at the airport facility.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question for Mr. Curry.
When will we see the Everglades and Marco Island vehicle
access plan?
MR. CURRY: Well, I think if we can ever get past this plan then
we'll move on to the other airports. We just started at Immokalee
because that was the one that needed the most attention. So it will
follow in some sequence at some later time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- under this plan, how
would airboats fuel at the -- with this plan in place?
Do you have airboats that fuel -- go get aviation fuel?
MR. VERGO: Currently right now we're working with the
airboaters that had access after hours. We're encouraging them to
come during business hours only. The fence, we have a gate right
next to our building that we're able to control remotely for access.
And then the ones that cannot come during business hours will go
through the same process that our tenants go through and have
separate passes that give them access only to the tanks.
MR. CURRY: We have also considered the fact of outlining
certain days that may be workable for them after hours somewhat and
we could just adjust the scheduling accordingly. Let's say if it was,
Page 154
January 10, 2012
you know, chosen as a Monday or Wednesday, we could adjust the
schedule of one person so that they could be around to properly escort
and watch them as they fuel.
MR. MITCHELL: Excuse me, Commissioners, could the
speakers just identify themselves for the court reporter.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
MR. VERGO: Thomas Vergo, Airport Manager. V- E- R -G -O.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you not want to hear from the public
speakers before you take a vote on this, Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. Not if we're continuing it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. I think we should continue it
and bring this back with a properly developed plan that, you know,
properly addresses -- that, one, conforms with the law and has been
properly approved.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many airports have you managed,
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, it's not a question of
managing airports, Commissioner Coyle. But it is a question of doing
due diligence and talking to whoever is responsible to oversee these
issues. And again, this is subject to approval by FDOT, and there are
guidelines.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And we don't want anything approved
by FDOT that we haven't seen, right?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. But we have to -- I'm sure
Mr. Curry doesn't know the documents he's supposed to rely on to
develop this. And I'm sure he hasn't taken the security training course
that FDOT is developing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, let's take some of the operating
requirements here. Is there anything wrong with having a proof of
automobile insurance? Is there anything wrong with having proof of
current vehicle registration? Is there anything wrong with having an
access application filled out by people who want access to the airport?
Page 155
January 10, 2012
Anything wrong with having them display the permit in their vehicle?
What is it that you think is wrong about the vehicle access plan?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I am not going to critique a plan
where I haven't studied what the legal requirements are as provided by
the State of Florida and the FAA. I'm going to say that it needs to be
prepared in accordance with those laws subject to a review and a
determination that it is complete and accurate as it needs to be.
To do this haphazard -- you know, to pull a plan from Colorado
-- if I look at the Sebring plan, the Sebring plan as far as vehicle
access goes doesn't provide the same thing that Mr. Curry is
proposing. So --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You don't have to have it the same way.
I'm just trying to -- you're telling us that Mr. Curry is not qualified to
make the plan, you're telling us that it is not in accordance with --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to call the motion --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I absolutely didn't say that --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're not calling anything --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I am, because all this is is
an argument between the two Board members --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely. And you're putting
words in my mouth, Mr. Coyle --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- I'm calling the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We can have her read it back, if you like.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure. I'm going to call it too.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you want to delay it, the Board has to
understand that if you have an accident because you don't -- have not
taken prompt action to resolve safety issues or perceived safety issues
and you don't have a proper vehicle operating permit, you're exposing
the taxpayers of Collier County to substantial liability.
And I have taken the time to review --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How long have you been a
Commissioner?
Page 156
January 10, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I've been a Commissioner a long time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How long?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: At least 10 years.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. And in 10 years you
haven't done this?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, haven't done it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, you know what, it needs to
be done properly. And the reason it's being done is because I have
repeatedly called for a security plan for our airports where there is no
security. I'm calling the question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the point is that if you want to delay
it, that's all you're doing is delaying it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I want it done right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You wouldn't know if it was done right
one way or the other --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Calling the question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No offense, it's just that calling
the question and everything, everybody else speaks and they want to
call the question.
Mr. Curry, if you would, please, what is your experience in this
particular direction?
MR. CURRY: I've done several of these. This document is
internal to operating within the boundaries of the Immokalee Regional
Airport. I have no clue what a lot of Commissioner Hiller is talking
about.
I don't have a problem delaying the document to gather more
information and truly research all the things that she has mentioned
today. I would appreciate if she would write them down and please
send them to me so I can verify them because --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We're actually sending you the
whole package --
Page 157
January 10, 2012
MR. CURRY: -- you know, even what you look at as
comparable airport, I'm not sure you have the expertise to know what
a comparable airport is.
But I will delay it to get more information, but not because I
agree with a lot of things that was stated by Commissioner Hiller. So
we have no problem with that.
But this is an internal document for the familiarization, issuing
passes, how you navigate in and around the Immokalee Airport only.
Simply.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The reason I had my button on was I
thought everything you put together was good, I mean, because you've
got to start someplace with coming up with a safety plan.
But the reason I seconded Commissioner Hiller's motion is I
think it's a good idea to search others as well because, you know, you
have a lot of opposition at that airport to a lot of things that you do.
And this way you'll have in writing from other airports what they've
done and it gives you some support and everybody else can see it as
well.
So I think it's a good thing. If you need some security measures
right now, you know, I think you could put those in place. But I think
a good vehicle access plan, a security plan for the future would be
good to go out and get a complete look at others, not all airports, but,
you know, just some that compare, and then you can come back and
that will help other people at the airport accept your plan because they
can see it's done other places.
MR. CURRY: Well, the security plan for the airport has just
recently been approved by FDOT. The security plan has. The vehicle
access plan, as far as I know, has nothing to do with an FDOT
approval. It's an internal document for how we will control the inner
operations of the airport. Commissioner Hiller may be confused with
Page 158
January 10, 2012
the security plan. Maybe she is, maybe she's not.
But again, this is strictly internal to Immokalee. And what we do
when we typically look at rules and regulations, minimum standards,
those are basically industry standard type of documents. And then you
take parts of it and you tailor it to your specific airport. So if you look
around at multiple airports, you'll see some of the same common
language used over and over. And it's basically industry standard
language. This is not a complicated document.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right, right, that's what I like. It
was pretty basic. For instance, having a valid driver's license. Well,
my goodness, I would hope you would have one of those, you know,
things like that. But anyway, so I think that you can put a basic plan
together for your people until we discuss it at another meeting and
come up with a broader plan, but -- you know, based on other people's
airports as well. But I think a basic plan for vehicle access would be
good.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Suggestion?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, go ahead, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, we can play with
this thing here for weeks on end, keep bringing it back for revisions
and revisals. We want to make sure that the users understand what it
is. But the truth of the matter is in the past there was just about a total
lack of security. Now there is some securities being put in place.
I think what we need to do is, one, defeat this motion. Two, be
able to hear what the tenants have as far as their issues with the plan
that's coming before us today. And then three, if we need to modify
this plan or a part of it, or maybe even send it back at that point in
time with some clearer direction, then let's move forward.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to hear what they have to
say too.
MR. CURRY: Let me just add one thing. Yesterday it was put
before the Airport Advisory Board. It was passed unanimously except
Page 159
January 10, 2012
for one particular issue that had to do with how to get the chemical
trucks to Mr. Fletcher without providing an escort. And the
recommendation was that Airport Authority, Mr. Fletcher and Skip
Camp would get together and determine a solution for that one
particular item. But outside of that, the plan passed the Airport
Advisory Board unanimously.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That sounds like a good
direction.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We do have a motion on the floor. And I
also think we should defeat it.
The way to deal with this is to deal with specifics. Vague
generalizations and accusations about inadequacies are meaningless.
And you go through this thing and you say, does that make sense?
Yeah.
I have been into a lot of airports and I have to tell you, this is
pretty much standard stuff. You can argue about whether or not it's
appropriate for Immokalee, and if it's not, give us some reasons. Tell
us what is inappropriate for Immokalee. That's the way to get this
thing ironed out. You can't just say it's all bad, you don't know what
you're doing and so we need to send you back to the drawing board.
So I would like to hear from the public speakers too to find out
what they think is wrong with this plan.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What about the motion?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion, I'll call the motion. All in favor
of the motion, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Before listening to the speakers?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's what everybody's been saying,
call the motion. Commissioner Henning and Commissioner Hiller
want the motion called. So let's, let's --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Fiala would like to
listen to the speakers. So I'm happy to listen to them first too.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's call the first speaker.
Page 160
January 10, 2012
MR. MITCHELL: I will be using both podiums. The first
speaker is Tim Nance, and he'll be followed by Marvin Courtright.
MR. NANCE: Mr. Chairman, Tim Nance. I want to speak a
little bit about the adoption of regulations at the time and the negative
impact that it might have on certain tenants, particularly Steven
Fletcher of Fletcher Flying Service.
Fletcher Flying Service is a valuable business for Collier County.
It deals with specialized equipment and pilots. It's a community asset
in two important ways. The first one is an agri- business, because
they're major applicators of pest control products and they've been
directly involved with the development of control measures for citrus
greening disease, which is a major threat. It's my understanding that
they apply somewhere between 400,000 and 500,000 acres of citrus
applications in each annual year.
Secondly, they are very valuable for public safety. They are
certified fire flyers. They have wide experience in Florida and
throughout the United States. They've worked on important fires such
as the Slope fire in Golden Gate Estates last year, applying fire
suppressants by air. This capability of theirs is going to be extremely
important this coming year because of the absence of State of Florida
forestry helicopter due to funding losses for the current season.
They're probably going to be the only people that can help us if we get
a serious fire.
Regarding passing of regulations at this time, I think there are
significant management problems at the Immokalee Airport that
impact not only Fletcher Flying Service but other tenants and their
ability to work and provide services, especially specialty services such
as the things they do. I think the problems with the management at the
airport center on heavy- handed managers and management practices.
They're not business friendly. I think they're either incapable or
unwilling to deal with anything other than routine small aircraft
business. But the most problematic I think is there is a history of
Page 161
January 10, 2012
selective enforcement in application of regulations. And I think that's
very egregious with things such as aviation where regulations are very
important.
The net effect is I believe the Immokalee Airport is becoming
increasingly dysfunctional and undesirable from the business and
tenant point of view. The reason that I have been looking into the
situation is because the Airport Authority really hasn't. And I believe
there's been a failure of the Airport Authority to recognize and address
the management problems and the fact that they need to address those
before they pass any further regulations.
Currently if they don't exercise caution, additional regulations
can only hurt ag. business, public safety, the development of the
Immokalee Airport and the credibility of the government. I urge you
to do a wider investigation on regulations and how they are to be
managed before you pass any further measures, thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Courtright will be followed by Tim
Willis.
MR. COURTRIGHT: For the record, Marvin Courtright, a
resident of Naples, but I'm in Immokalee all the time. I have been
operating off of Naples Airport, Naples Air Center, and I've been in
and out of all these airports. My entire life has been aviation.
We have a problem in Immokalee. I would like to endorse the
gentleman who just spoke. He laid it on the line, he identified the
problems. We do and would like to have a valid security system at the
airport.
I want to call your attention to something. I don't know how
many years they've been there, but the Sheriffs Department has the
only decent facility in the airport that could support a flight operation.
I don't know how long they've had it, but it's the ICE program. And
parked right outside their building right now is 11 cars, unidentified
law enforcement cars. Are we going to force them to have a pass to
get in with these cars? Are we going to recognize all their cars?
Page 162
January 10, 2012
There's more to this airport than is meeting the eye. Why are we
wanting to run people off the airport? Why are we shutting them
down? Is it an attempt to turn the airport into an industrial complex?
Is it a land acquisition program? There's something wrong.
Thank you for what you said. That's all.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Willis will be followed by Mike Klein.
MR. WILLIS: Good afternoon. I'm Tim Willis with the
McKinnon Corporation. We're a citrus grower in Collier County, also
Hendry, Lake and Orange.
Steve monthly sprays between three and 5,000 acres for me. If
we get too restrictive on people they tend to move away. If Steve has
to move, say to the Labelle Airport, my price per acre will go up about
$5 per acre, which is minimum 15,000 and as much as $25,000 a
month. I spoke to Mr. Vergo and Mr. Curry about working more with
Steve Fletcher so we can make everything work. I don't see where
that's happening yet.
Communication needs to be broad or else the decisions you
make, you're going to cost a lot of us a lot of money and could put
some people out of business. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Klein will be followed by Pam Brown.
MR. KLEIN: Mike Klein, from Everglades City. Please excuse
my disheveled look. I actually came in for groceries. I didn't expect
to stop by here, but I did. I'm also a member of the Collier County
Airport Advisory Board, although I'm not here representing the Board,
I'm just representing myself.
As Chris pointed out, we did talk about this for quite some time.
There was a lot of discussion about this plan. It is basically a
boilerplate. I've seen it at other airports that I've flown into and that
I've utilized. But we did have an issue at the end of the -- when it
came to vote regarding Mr. Fletcher's access for his service vehicles,
for his trucks and those sorts of things. And Chris agreed that that
would be something that would be revisited.
Page 163
January 10, 2012
And I think Commissioner Hiller's idea about delaying this until
we can get a full functioning integrated program that's going to work
for everybody -- and Chris has not just taken off -- and I must say in
his defense, this is a working document. And I think this is a start to
get -- should be included in some sort of comprehensive policy
document for all of the airports, and I think we need to start
somewhere.
And Commissioner Coletta, we did have security out there when
we had the Sheriffs cooperation at that time. So it never did -- was
any lack of any security.
And Commissioner Coyle, I'm sure you're aware of this being a
pilot, Mr. Fletcher operates under Part 137, which has very specific
rules for the aircraft, for the pilots, for how they operate, deviations
from standards patterns. It's a serious business for him. And it
supports a very important part of the Florida economic area, which is
agriculture and citrus development. So I think it does require some
further integration, study and definition to accommodate not only the
security at the airport, to be included in a comprehensive document
and to also help our current users who -- agricultural support.
Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Ms. Brown will be followed by Steve
Fletcher.
MS. BROWN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Pam Brown. I'm a lifelong citizen of Immokalee, Florida. I'm here
today to speak on behalf of the airport ground vehicle operations
program.
After we had looked at this program, I actually did some research
myself and looked at several different airports that were uncontrolled
with no towers. I agree with Commissioner Hiller that the Sebring
Airport would be a very good airport for everybody to look at. We're
not questioning, I think, Mr. Curry's ability as a professional here, but
I do think that this, Immokalee is a rural airport and maybe this is
Page 164
January 10, 2012
something that he is not familiar with, or Mr. Vergo.
I also did some further research about the Sebring Airport. They
have 1770 acres of commerce parcels right now, and 1200 are still
available. They're having an air event this weekend, January 12th
through the 22nd. They're having a U.S. Sport Aviation EXPO that's
having 20,000 visitors. They're having a pancake breakfast with a
drive -in and a fly -in. So I would hope that the Commissioners would
entertain looking at this further and doing some research before we put
these ground -- the access program in place.
Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Fletcher will be followed by Kris Kulpa.
MR. FLETCHER: Thank you, Commissioner. My name is
Steve Fletcher. I own Fletcher Flying Service, and I've been here
before, I guess.
This new plan would impact me in a great way. We get our
deliveries sometimes after hours and sometimes before hours. And
we've had some instances in the past where the trucks did try to drive
over to my hangar and they drove across the approach end of runway
3 -6.
Since that time we've written letters to all the customers -- I mean
all the chemical companies and made sure they were very aware of
their position on the airport they couldn't pass. And then since that
time one or two of the drivers has left the gate open. It's a couple
hundred feet over to where they would pick up their semi trailers or
their tanker trucks. And since that time we've left the gate open, I've
made arrangements, we put a sign that the gate has to be closed upon
entry and leaving. So I'm doing all I can to make sure that we keep
the airport secure and not accessible by the general public.
I've been there for 34 years and really never had any trouble until
about the last year, and it seems to be coming in spades, I guess you
might say.
But I'd just like for you to hold this document and let me come,
Page 165
January 10, 2012
talk to each one of you individually and tell you my concerns and see
if we can work it into the -- into the program that it's easier for me to
do business, because it gets harder every year to be in business
anyway, especially in this economy, because orange juice is another
commodity that they're not drinking as much of anymore, and the
production is down on a lot of groves because of the greening.
So I'd like to stay in business, and I'm afraid this program is
going to make it even harder for me.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I ask a quick question? Can
you explain what it is you do for the agricultural industry and
specifically the orange groves that's so important? I heard what this
gentleman was saying about you spraying for them, and that really
worries me, because if you're the only sprayer they have and if they're
dependent on you, and if what I'm hearing is is that these protocols are
going to have the effect of impinging your ability to service them, then
I'm really worried. Because the economic impact of cutting you off
from being a provider becomes very, very significant, both in terms of
dollars, in terms of jobs and in terms of an industry as a whole.
And boy, would it ever be, you know, foolish of us as a Board at
this time to do anything to hurt the ag. industry.
So can you explain what it is you do and how it ties into what
that gentleman said?
MR. FLETCHER: I've got the largest single engine airplanes
that are built today. They're the AT -802 Air Tractors. I have three. I
lease one and I have two. And I guess we're the biggest citrus sprayer
in the United States. We do more volume here in this part of the
world than anywhere else.
And also those airplanes also double as firefighting airplanes.
I'm the only two carded airplanes that are government carded and
certified by the government to do fires. We work interagency east of
the Mississippi River.
So we spray between four and 500,000 acres annually.
Page 166
January 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's the risk to the local
industry if you were to stop spraying?
Isn't there -- I had heard, and I'm not familiar with this as well as
I should be, but I heard that there is a bacteria that is killing our
groves.
MR. FLETCHER: It's spread by an insect, the Asian citrus
psyllid that was brought in about 10 years ago. And it would be
devastating, you can -- if a grove gets a big amount of psyllids in it,
and they pop up all the time, you can see it a month later in the grove.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And what's your role in that? How
are you helping with that issue?
MR. FLETCHER: We kill them.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You kill them. So without you the
groves would die?
MR. FLETCHER: Yes, ma'am. Well, they would certainly be --
it would certainly hasten their demise.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I don't want to see that
happen.
MR. FLETCHER: No, I don't either. I've been there my whole
life. I've watched most of those groves get planted, almost all these
groves get planted, actually. So I've been spraying there for about 34
years.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Were you also involved in
spraying when we had the fires in the Estates and --
MR. FLETCHER: Yes, ma'am, we worked on all the big fires
we had in Florida last year. We worked on the Slope fire. And then
one airplane was at the Big Cypress, I think that was the Jarhead fire,
the big one they had. And then there was another one fire, the Old
Pad fire and then the Monkey Palm fire.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is there anyone besides you that
does that?
MR. FLETCHER: No. Not east of the Mississippi River. And
Page 167
January 10, 2012
then when we finished those fires, I went in Texas and we worked on
the fires and the Walker County fires, the big fires you heard in Texas.
And then I came back from Texas and then I flew to Minnesota, there
were some fires up on the border. I took my airplane up there and it
was up on -- I forgot the name of the town we were at, up in northern
Minnesota about several hundred feet from the Canada border,
actually. Warroad, Minnesota.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You obviously provide two
invaluable services to this community, both from a public safety
standpoint and an economic development standpoint with respect to
the agricultural industry. And I certainly would hate to see anything
that we do impinge on your ability to service our community. It
would disturb me greatly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Steve, just a couple quick
questions. You attended the -- maybe you didn't. I wasn't there, I
know that for a fact -- the advisory board meeting yesterday?
MR. FLETCHER: Yes, sir, I was there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: At the advisory board meeting
the subject came up and the advisory board, and I maybe have it
wrong, but they approved the plan. The only exception that they had
for what was in it was your access to the airport, correct, for the
deliveries?
MR. FLETCHER: Yes, sir, but I wanted to leave that in the
hands of you Commissioners --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, no, that's fine --
MR. FLETCHER: -- more so than -- I haven't had good luck
negotiating with Mr. Curry, so I wanted to leave it in the hands of the
Commissioners. That's what I'm asking for right now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, so trying to cut to the
chase here, because this thing here could drag out, a simple thing as
this plan is to be able to come up with security could drag out for
January 10, 2012
many weeks and involve many hours of staff time, when we're
probably already there with the exception of how do you get the kind
of access that you need to be able to get your products to the plane at a
reasonable point in time. Am I correct, that's the biggest issue?
MR. FLETCHER: Yes, sir. And we've actually got pretty good
security there. We've got the gate codes and the fence, although the
gate codes haven't been changed in over a year. And I think that's a
lot of the problem, not changing the gate codes every couple months
like a lot of airports do. I called Okeechobee, their fences, their gates
are broken. Arcadia doesn't have a fence. Wauchula doesn't have a
fence. And it goes on up the road, Avon Park, you know, all the way
through. We've actually got better security I think than almost all
those other public airports --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's a good thing. But the
question is, is that the advisory board, and maybe you, too, the
objections that they had were not with the plan that's before us today,
it was with your access. They were very concerned about your access.
Am I correct?
MR. FLETCHER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And they did pass it with the
exception of the fact that they wanted us to deal with your access
issue.
MR. FLETCHER: Yes, sir. I would like for the Commission --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure. And I couldn't agree
more. And I understand, too, that Mr. Kant (sic), I guess it was, from
our security --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Skip Camp.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Skip Camp is going to be
working with you in the short time. But my suggestion would be is
that we pass this plan with the exception of the access issue for how
you're handled at this point in time and we concentrate on that in such
a way that will be amenable for you to be able to get your products in
Page 169
January 10, 2012
and still preserve the security of the airport. Wouldn't you agree that
would be a logical way to go?
MR. FLETCHER: Yes, sir. There's some things that said that
some companies, individuals may be limited to the number of stickers
that you get in your car. I'm probably going to need 20 or better
because—
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, you lost me there.
One more time.
MR. FLETCHER: You're going to have a sticker that goes in the
window of your car, and that plan says that you may be limited to the
amount. But I may need up to 20. I probably have 10 vehicles
myself.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So if we could go back
and say, okay, what you're going to do is take the advice of the
advisory board, approve this plan with the exception of how access is
given to your suppliers, and if anybody else is in the same boat, their
suppliers too. It would be an open ended thing that would come back
and we can concentrate just on that issue to be able to come up with a
way that would not only give the security in the airport, but be
affordable and be able to be on time to be where you need to be there
at 3:00 or 4:00 in the morning to have people show up. So we really
don't know what's going to happen at that point in time.
So my suggestion to this Board is that we pass this plan with the
exception of the part that has to deal with Mr. Fletcher and that we
direct staff to come back with some several alternatives, working with
Mr. Fletcher to be able to get us to where we need to be. Meanwhile,
giving him access that's comparable to what he has at the present time
so that it can continue, you know, until we can resolve this, and
resolve this in an expedient matter so that everybody is happy at the
end.
Would that be realistic?
MR. FLETCHER: Yes.
Page 170
January 10, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I would support that approach.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, your last speaker is Kris Kulpa.
MS. KULPA: Thank you. My name is Christina Kulpa and I
implore you, Commissioners, please don't act on this document now.
Listen to Commissioner Hiller. She understands. And this is only
causing more, a bigger rift between your tenants and the
Commissioners in the Airport Board.
That -- Commissioner Fiala, you even suggested a workshop.
That would be perfect. Let's have a workshop before we even act on
this. It's very important that you get your tenants and the stakeholders
in there and understand their concerns and not just isolate Mr. Fletcher
and his businesses, there might be other people in there that have
concerns. And here you want to throw out the worst case scenario
document as per Mr. Vergo, you said this was the worst case scenario.
And already you have proven to all of us that you're going to put this
document out there, Mr. Fletcher is going to do something in this
document already, and you're going to violate him.
You have done it every time. You're not going to work with him.
We've already experienced it for a year and a half. Please, please
listen, please listen to Commissioner Hiller. We need help. Steve
needs help as a businessman. He's there for the agricultural industry.
It is Immokalee, it is not Naples. It is a very, very different entity.
Please, I implore you to listen to her, and let's start over. You
have a document to start with, but please let's have the workshops and
get everyone involved in this. I implore you, please.
Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you very much.
We have a motion on the table to continue this item and have it
brought back. Okay?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. You know, I mentioned
Page 171
January 10, 2012
before, and this gentleman -- or this lady, I'm sorry, I can't say her
name right this moment, had reminded me about the workshop idea,
and I wanted to make sure each airport was represented there and at
least one or two tenants from each airport so that we get a
comprehensive look at the airport situation rather than just focusing on
Immokalee. Because each one has a different issue. We want to make
sure that we get all the sides heard. And that will help them possibly
form a plan while they're studying plans from other airports.
So maybe we could do that in between, eh?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll add that to the motion. I think
that's a great recommendation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: When you're talking about a plan, please
be specific. Are you talking about a vehicle operating plan or vehicle
-- ground vehicle access plan?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Vehicle access plan.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Vehicle access plan.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Which should be incorporated as
part of the security plan.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It becomes a component of the security
plan.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, exactly. It must be.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You can do them separately. The
question is do you want to narrow -- which I would recommend to
you, narrow this particular effort to what we're considering now, an
airport ground vehicle access plan?
And if you want to have a workshop, you can have a workshop.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all in favor of the motion --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You have some lights on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Turn mine off.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Turn yours off? Okay --
Page 172
January 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Turn mine off, but I do have a
comment too.
Once again, we had the advisory board unanimously pass -- am I
using the word unanimously wrong?
MR. CURRY: No, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So every member, every faction
of that board agreed to this with the exception of the Fletcher access
issue; am I correct?
MR. VERGO: Yes.
MR. CURRY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. The advisory board
makes up people that are of different persuasions on the -- for the
airport. They've come together in a common thing and agreed that
this was a great base plan. They had a problem with one small part of
the whole plan. And to make this -- make a mountain out of the mole
hill and bring this all back and start reviewing what kind of stickers
are going to go in the car, how people are going to register their cars,
how many forms are going to be used, it's going to be computerized,
how the Sheriffs Department plays into it.
You know, it gets to be a little bit redundant on where we're
trying to go, when the real issue has to deal with Mr. Fletcher.
Everybody's narrowed it down to it. Even Mr. Fletcher just said that
the rest of the plan was fine. It was the access part for him to be able
to get his materials in.
So what we're going to do is put another burden on the
Commission to be able to, one more time, review everything over and
over again, to come probably to the same conclusions we had before,
when we should be concentrating on the access issue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So what are you saying? Are you
saying -- just to clarify what you've just said. Are you saying that we
should pass part of this plan, the part that nobody has any problem
with and bring just that section of it back?
Page 173
January 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Exactly. Focus on the problem
rather than on the whole plan. The rest of the plan is just basic
common sense. The problem Mr. Fletcher is having, and it's going to
be addressed no matter which way we go here. We already know
that's underway. I think that you agreed that you're going to be
keeping him adequately supplied with materials and find a way to
make it work til we come up with an agreeable final solution to that.
Keep moving forward on it.
I mean, this Commission is going to get bogged down, it's -- I
know a workshop at some point in time is not a bad idea to be able to
cover all sorts of issues on the airport. However, right now we're just
focusing on one part. At that point in time we can take a look at the
access issue again. The access is the meat and potatoes of the whole
airport. There's not much really to that. We have one problem with
the whole plan, that's Mr. Fletcher, and we need to address it.
So if this motion fails, I'm going to make a second motion that
we approve the plan without the access issue for Mr. Fletcher and
bring that back with the alternatives to be able to come up with a
reasonable way to grant him the access he needs.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me ask Chris a question. Chris,
if we approve this motion as it stands, will that in any way set you
back, or will it give problems at the airports, or would you be able to
work with that?
MR. CURRY: Not at all. What we agreed is that he could
continue to do business as usual with his chemical deliveries until we
work out a viable solution. So this plan will not impact that area of his
business at all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I have to say, that's exactly what
you said an hour ago.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but I was wondering if put
this -- you know, if we continue this, will it disturb anything else in
Chris's, not this airport but all of the airports, or not, will it not be a
Page 174
January 10, 2012
problem? That's what I was asking.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute, you're asking if we
continue it, continue the whole thing, you're asking if it would be a
problem?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. CURRY: Well, if you continue it, there's several portions in
here that we will not be able to put into place.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Safety problems?
MR. CURRY: If you continue it, there's nothing in here that we
would move forward with.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Safety concerns or anything?
MR. CURRY: Well, I mean, we have some safety concerns as it
exists. I mean, we started work on this plan six months ago to get to
the point we are today. So we have safety and security concerns that
this document will help.
If we continue it, then we won't put any of these items into play
at the airport.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't believe you can put any of
this in play until FDOT approves it.
MR. CURRY: Well, that's what you think. I mean, that's not,
that's not --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's part of the security plan --
MR. CURRY: -- what I think for the ground access plan, the
internal document.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But the access plan is --
MR. CURRY: If you're talking about the overall security plan,
then I agree with it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But the access plan is a component
of the security plan. You can't pull out pieces to this plan. I mean, it
has to conform with the legal requirements, and it's subject to review
as a component of the overall plan. For example, when I spoke to
Sebring, I asked them do you have a separate vehicle access plan.
Page 175
January 10, 2012
And the answer is no, it's a component of the security plan and is
approved as a component of the security plan.
So I'm not sure -- and, you know, of course we can call FDOT.
But I'm not sure that you can just independently make up your own
rules and implement them. And of course we can verify that. But
that's why I don't believe that there is anything we can do really. And
again, that's subject to verification with FDOT but that's my
preliminary understanding --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all in favor of the motion, please
signify -- we will wait for Commissioner Henning.
All in favor of the motion to continue this plan, please signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All those opposed?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
It passes 3 -2 with Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner
Coletta dissenting.
Okay, we're going to take a 10 minute break. We'll be back here
at 10:18 -- or 4:18.
(A recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, ladies and gentlemen, Board of
County Commission meeting is back in session. We're going to go to
the next airport item, which is 13.A.2.
Item #I 3A2
(AA) RESOLUTION 2012 -05: RATE SCHEDULES FOR THE
EVERGLADES AIRPARK, IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT
AND MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT FOR 2012 —
Page 176
January 10, 2012
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, it's a recommendation to -- for the Airport
Authority to adopt the attached resolution approving the proposed rate
schedules for Everglades Air Park, Immokalee Regional Airport and
Marco Island Executive Airport for 2012.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many speakers, Ian?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have two registered speakers. But I
don't actually see either of them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MITCHELL: Oh, yes. Sorry, yes, I do, yeah. One, two,
yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Go ahead, Chris. What do you
have? Are you going to just take questions?
MR. CURRY: Sure, Commissioner. This is the second annual
rates and charges that we have brought to you since I have been at the
airport. They contain the rates and charges structure for Immokalee,
Everglades City and Marco Island.
And in a nutshell, T- hangars, large hangars, and storage facilities
were raised in accordance with CPI, which you approved last year that
CPI will be the governing factor for increases with those units. In
addition, especially for Immokalee, we have lowered cost for large
volume jet fuel users. For example, we have lowered the cost 10 cent
per gallon. We've also introduced a reduced price rate for flight
schools that we have never had before.
So with that, I'm prepared to take any questions that you have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, how many -- we've got two
speakers, you said, right?
MR. MITCHELL: Two speakers, sir, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Henning, do you
have a question?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. Usually when we receive
Page 177
January 10, 2012
fee resolutions that we get the old one and the new one or a
strikethrough and an underline comparable --
MR. CURRY: I believe this is the version that I sent to all of the
Commissioners. It was highlighted. And it was highlighted -- can I
bring it to you and just show you what --
MR. OCHS: Let's put it on the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Put it on the visualizer.
I usually go by my packet. If I have to look for documents all
over, e-mail or something like that, it just doesn't work. So in the
future --
MR. CURRY: This is the document that I sent that indicated
every single change that was done to the pricing structure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you leave it up there and I'll
just look at it when I --
MR. CURRY: And I guess next year when I submit it I'll make
sure that I submit this year.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If I pulled the existing contracts
that we have or we've recently entered into, are they going to be
straight contracts at, you know, this price times the square foot or, you
know, are there terms in these contracts that are making all of these
contracts different, notwithstanding this rate schedule?
MR. CURRY: If you're referring to the airport leases, if it's a --
if it's an aeronautical use, they will be at 10 cent for land leases. If it's
not an aeronautical, it will be at 14 cent. And that has been consistent
throughout the past year.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And so everybody that leases,
depending on the type of use, will have exactly the same terms and no
one will pay more or less as a result of any other provisions in the
contract.
MR. CURRY: That is correct. Until we have some type of new
appraisal that may indicate otherwise.
Page 178
January 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How does this compare to other
markets that are comparable? How are our rates?
MR. CURRY: You mean as far as the rates in general or --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Uh -huh. Like all these rates, you
know, T- hangar, T- hangar storage, large corporate hangers. How do
these rates compare to similar rates at comparable airports?
Or how do these compare to the rates at comparable airports?
MR. CURRY: I think in general what you'll find, especially at
Immokalee, is they're somewhat lower with same type units. Or you
will find that square footage cost is probably a little bit lower.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Have you done that analysis? Did
you do a comparables analysis?
MR. CURRY: The analysis was done on the hangars and storage
units last year when we put the rate schedule together. And then we
established a baseline and we just kept any increases based on CPI.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you just took last year's rates
which you based on comparables last year and then just adjusted those
rates by the CPI this year.
MR. CURRY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you haven't gone back out to
market to compare and see how competitive these rates are?
MR. CURRY: No, I have not. Not for this year.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do we -- what's our position in
terms of vacancies? Are we fully occupied? Do we have a waiting
list? Where do we stand?
MR. CURRY: Tom can speak on Immokalee. I know that
Marco has a waiting list of I believe about 50 people. I'm not so sure
how many is on the waiting list at Everglades City, but it would be a
very small amount if any. But Tom can comment on Immokalee.
MR. VERGO: Thomas Vergo, Airport Manager. In Immokalee
right now we have a waiting list of eight, I believe is the number,
around that number. And we have 100 percent occupancy at this time,
Page 179
January 10, 2012
with one becoming available at the end of this month.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do you have the list? Do you have
the waiting list?
MR. VERGO: Yes, we do. There's about eight people on it,
around that. It's either seven or eight.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How long have they been waiting?
MR. VERGO: What's happening with this list is some of, a lot of
these folks on this list have been asked two, three, maybe four times
since I've been out there if they want a hangar. Some are out of town
in other states that have delayed moving to this area. Others have long
term contracts for yearlong leases at other airports --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So they're not on the waiting list.
MR. VERGO: They're on a waiting list, they just go back to the
bottom, so -- and then we do have a gentleman that just added himself
to the waiting list about a month ago, so --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what they're doing is they're
just keeping their options open. If ever some day maybe they want to
be there, they'll be there. So it's not really a waiting list, it's not like
they really want those and when the next available one comes up they
will take it.
MR. VERGO: It depends on the person, yes, I'll agree on that.
We do have one person that added himself on that list. We're in the
process of going through the list for that February 1 st vacancy. And
I'm pretty confident he'll take it, because he wanted two hangars back
in December.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Uh -huh. And the rates of the most
recent leases that you entered into, were these rates here? Did you use
these rates or the old rate? Have you started using these rates yet?
MR. CURRY: No, we can't use these existing rates until it's
approved by the Board.
I think you can say we have -- the financial department has sent
out letters to inform of increases that will occur. But we can't
Page 180
January 10, 2012
officially implement the charge until this is approved.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the existing contracts will
stay binding pursuant to the old rates. It's only new leases that are
entered into.
MR. CURRY: Are you referring to T- hangars or --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, T- hangars, primarily, I
would assume.
MR. CURRY: The new T- hangar rate will adjust to the new
approved rate schedule.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: For everybody.
MR. CURRY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So the contracts for the T- hangars
is subject to whatever the most current rate is.
MR. CURRY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the corporate hangars are
negotiated rates, with all of them being different.
MR. VERGO: For the corp -- well, depends on what you're
looking at for corporate rate. I know that Mr. Fletcher's hangar is a
different rate, he has a bulk hangar, than our cargo bays, which we
have two of those, which right now we lease those out at the same
rate. And the other bulk hangar is different.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Does Mr. Fletcher have a lease or
are you still doing month -to -month with him?
MR. VERGO: He's still on a month -to- month.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why?
MR. CURRY: Primarily because we have had other priorities
with leases that had expired. And those were the first priorities. So
we had leases that were -- that had an expiration date, okay. Mr.
Fletcher month -to -month can continue like that because he's not in a
mode of expiration. For example --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Has he asked for a lease?
MR. CURRY: Excuse me?
Page 181
January 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Has he asked for a lease?
MR. CURRY: Yes, he has.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So he's basically expiring every
month but you're ignoring it?
MR. CURRY: No, his lease continues month -to- month. It
doesn't expire every month.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, every month it's renewed.
MR. CURRY: Basically.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So it's expiring every month and
then renewed. So at any point you could give him a month's notice
and evict him.
MR. CURRY: However you want to classify it, that's what it is.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm just concerned that he doesn't
have a lease.
MR. CURRY: I don't understand how this relates to rates and
charges.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm just curious. I mean, it all ties
in. How is he being charged versus these others? I'm trying to get a
relationship to how you're dealing with all these different tenants.
MR. CURRY: I think Thomas Vergo has explained to you the
rate structure for his unit and the other cargo bays.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Uh -huh. Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, first speaker?
MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker is Pam Brown, and she'll be
followed by Kris Kulpa.
MS. BROWN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Pam Brown for
the record. I live in Immokalee.
I have been involved with the Immokalee Master Plan Main
Street project and realize that Immokalee is in a rural area of strategic
economic concern. I was reviewing the rates, and we brought this up
as an issue yesterday before the Airport Authority Advisory
Committee.
Page 182
January 10, 2012
The T- hangar rates are almost 26 cents a square foot more and
the -- let's see, the T- hangar storage units are almost 37 cents more per
square foot more than Everglades City. And when I asked the
question why were these rates higher, because we're in a rural area of
strategic economic concern, it was said that it was because of the
demand of the hangars there.
So after the meeting I asked for a copy of the list. Is this where I
put the list?
If you can see -- we're looking at --
MR. OCHS: Ma'am.
MS. BROWN: Okay, if you will look at the list, this was
updated on November the 30th. One of them is from 2004. This
gentleman's in Wyoming living. And then they're not in order of
dates, but you've got a 2004, five, six, seven, nine and 11. And I don't
know for sure, but Commissioner Coletta, is Dean Daniels your
son -in -law?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct, he is.
MS. BROWN: I know that you did a lucky dollar because he got
the last hangar at the airport.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Did he? Good for him.
MS. BROWN: I think you did it at the Rotary. You gave a lucky
dollar for that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't understand the lucky
dollar.
MS. BROWN: At the Rotary meetings that you have. You give
a lucky dollar at the Rotary meetings.
MS. GREEN: Happy dollar --
MS. BROWN: Happy dollar. I'm not a Rotary member, but I
heard.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Maybe it was an unlucky dollar.
MS. BROWN: Well, if he has a hangar there, then why is he on
the waiting list?
Page 183
January 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think he wanted a second
hangar.
MS. BROWN: Ah, okay. Well, I'm just -- I'm just curious how
this works. And there really isn't a waiting list then. So I don't know
why our rates are higher than Everglades City. And that's my point.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Pam, did you research any other
rates for any other -- do you have any information on any other rates
from anywhere else?
MS. BROWN: No, but I would be more than happy to do that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, I'd like to know if there are
any other.
MS. BROWN: I'll do that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I'd like that. I just -- I'm
very uncomfortable with the fact that we don't have comparables.
And I think, you know, just adjusting it by the CPI without going out,
especially if we're in these hard economic times, I think it's really
important. Obviously we don't want to undercharge or overcharge.
And without comparables, I find it very difficult to understand how
we can be approving this.
Plus, I have no idea what we're doing with the corporate hangars.
There's nothing here to define what those rates are or how they're
determined.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, next speaker.
MS. BROWN: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Kris Kulpa.
MS. KULPA: Christina Kulpa again. Thank you.
I'm concerned from two years ago because I do pay the yearly --
I should say the monthly lease for Fletcher Flying Service. And I
have already paid the new amount because I send my bills out as early
as I can, so probably mid - December I paid the new amount that Chris
Curry had sent us the letter for, thinking that it was already approved
Page 184
January 10, 2012
and this was stated that I have to pay. So I did. I have already paid
January's rent with the new increase.
And I did ask for information on that, on how they based that
CPI, which I don't understand how he got that and how it affects, you
know, if it's Immokalee area because it's a rural area, if it's different,
you know, than this area here in Naples. I'm not sure.
But two years ago when the rates increased, we brought this up,
and we brought it up to the advisory board. They had some appraisal
that was done on a particular piece of property, and I think that's how
they based their base rates for the leases, which the appraisal was done
for something completely different, and it wasn't the use for T- hangar
rates. Which I was concerned about then. I brought it to their
attention. It was having to do something with an industrial piece of
property on the other side of the roadway, didn't have anything to do
with the property involving the airport, per se, because that's a public
use airport.
So that appraisal, I had a reviewer look at that two years ago and
he said there were plenty of good comparables out there that showed
half the value. And I'm just guessing by remembering it was in the
$60,000 range per acre that they were basing this value. And the
additional comparables out there from the reviewer said there were
plenty of comparables that were in the $30,000 range. And this might
even have something to do with that piece of property that was going
to be upzoned. So here it is again in inflated appraisal. I don't know.
But I did question that. And I asked them, you know, about this.
And they were to put that on hold. Those rates were to be put on hold.
The advisory board told them to put it on hold for them to do a study
the next month. It was never put on hold. And they brought it up
again and I understand that Mr. Curry went straight to the
Commissioners and, you know, said that to be approved, the rates to
be approved. There was never an analysis done. The advisory board
said to put it on hold and have a study for six months, and it was never
Page 185
January 10, 2012
done. So they came forth with a different take on it. But nobody
listened and it went ahead.
But what I'm asking for is a new appraisal needs to be done.
Because Immokalee is definitely economically disadvantaged. And
what you saw maybe a year ago is going to be very different again this
year. I guarantee values are not going up. They're going down if
anything. And you need to base your base rates on something that's
viable out there in the market. So I'm asking for a new appraisal to be
done, solely, you know, an appraisal for base rates for T- hangar rents.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Okay, Commissioner --
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Chris, are you running a social
service organization or an airport? Is this a business or what?
MR. CURRY: We're trying to run --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What was the directive.
MR. CURRY: I'm beginning to wonder what can you do there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What was the directive we gave
when you came aboard. We were talking about the cost of running the
airport and how much money had to be taken out of the county coffers
to be able to make up the difference. If I'm not mistaken, I think we
gave you a directive to try to bring the thing up to a break even point.
And we realized it was going to be some time to be able to do it.
Now, the reason we want to lower the price is because all these
hangars are empty?
MR. CURRY: No, they're not empty, they're all --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They're not empty is right. But
Pam Brown referred to my son -in -law, and I've got to tell you, I got
confused a little bit about lucky dollar. We call it a happy dollar. And
I did mention at the Rotary I was happy that he got one of the last -- or
the last, I'm not too sure which one it was -- hangars that was at the
January 10, 2012
airport. That was one of the things we've been hearing for a long time,
that you've been driving all the tenants away. Well, I don't see that.
Obviously we got -- I can see these hangars, and there's a waiting
list, which isn't a waiting list, but when you go down the list I'm sure
you're going to find somebody there who is going to want a hangar.
Little bit perplexed about the discussion that's taken place here
today. And I'm not too sure how to approach it. I'm lost for words on
this one.
You're supposed to say thank you, Commissioner Coyle.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, yes, thanks. That's very helpful.
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. What I was asking
for is information on what the present rate is to compare it with what's
being proposed. What's on the viewer is exactly what we have in our
agenda except for it's highlighted.
MR. CURRY: Right. But it mentions actually under most of
them that the rates remain unchanged except for the storage units and
those type hangars. Fuel prices in general to some degree have --
remain unchanged or have been lowered.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This is the draft 2012 resolution
-- fee resolution that's on the viewer. That's up on the TV right now.
MR. CURRY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's what we have in our
agenda. What I was asking for is the present charges. So just to
clarify that for next time.
MR. CURRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I was told that the airport
advisory requested that the rates actually be dropped for hangar rates;
is that true?
MR. CURRY: This was a request that the board had last year.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This Board.
MR. CURRY: The advisory board. And the issue with that last
Page 187
January 10, 2012
year was that we went out and did the comparables. Okay?
And what I said to the Board is that we're in violation of our FAA
grant assurance if we don't maintain a competitive rate and a
comparable rate. What they were asking me to do in my opinion was
against our grant assurances because we were not keeping up with the
market value.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What did they request?
MR. CURRY: They requested that all rates be frozen for four to
six months. And actually, when I -- when we came last year, not sure
whether I mentioned it to you or whether there was another Airport
Advisory Board member that showed up and expressed that, I told
them specifically that I am not going to go against what I believe is
the intent of the FAA grant assurance.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. But that's the Board's
advisory board -- or this case the Airport Authority's advisory board.
It would be nice to have their recommendation so we can start to
understand why they want to keep the rates the same.
MR. CURRY: That's not what they asked for this year. As a
matter of fact, this passed unanimously yesterday.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it was untrue what I heard is
the advisory board really wants the rates to lower, that is not true.
MR. CURRY: They did not mention anything at all about that
yesterday at this board meeting that these new rates and charges were
presented.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In the past.
MR. CURRY: They mentioned that last year when we came
before the Board of County Commissioners and had last year's rates
and charges approved. And my client is here from the advisory board.
If I'm saying anything wrong, please correct me.
MR. KLEIN: No, that's correct, that was --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, that's fine.
MR. KLEIN: That was discussed last year.
January 10, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You can't speak from back there. We
need you to go on a mic.
MR. KLEIN: The -- that was discussed last year. The advisory
board did ask for a freeze on the T- hangar rates until they could be
reevaluated. And that was done.
And this new proposal I think doesn't increase those rates.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, it's the CPI.
MR. CURRY: They're all -- the T- hangars, the corporate
hangars and the bulk hangars are all attached to CPI.
MR. KLEIN: And that was the agreement, that they would be
attached to CPI.
And again, Commissioner Coyle, as I'm sure you're aware, the
FAA does require to be non competitive in terms of land lease for
non - aviation uses. For aviation uses, that can be negotiated by the
Airport Authority because it is, after all, the Federal Aviation
Administration, not the federal economic development administration.
So that -- but what Chris said is correct. We did ask for a freeze on
the rates last year on the T- hangar rates, and that was done. And this
year the rates were only increased by the CPI.
MR. CURRY: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Could I add, our rates were never
frozen --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a motion to approve this?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, motion to approve by
Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor,
please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Page 189
January 10, 2012
Any opposed by like sign?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it passes 4 -1 with Commissioner
Hiller dissenting.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to 10 --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I want to address one thing
before we go any further. I'm really concerned about the fact that Mr.
Fletcher doesn't have a lease. And I believe that he wants a lease and I
think we have to give him a lease. And I'd like to know, Jeff, what do
we need to do to get a lease done so that Mr. Fletcher isn't on a
month -to- month. I mean, I don't understand it.
You know, Dino (sic) Daniels has a lease agreement. I mean,
what's the term of his lease? I want -- actually, Mr. Curry, what's the
term of these other leases? I mean, they all have leases. I want to
know what they are. What are the terms of those leases.
MR. VERGO: Mr. Daniels, Mr. Dean Daniels you're speaking
of, he's got a month -to -month lease for a T- hangar.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: On a T- hanger?
MR. VERGO: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do all the T- hangars have
month -to -month leases?
MR. VERGO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What does Mr. Fletcher have?
Does he have a T- hangar?
MR. VERGO: He's got a bulk hangar and just like our other
cargo bay is on a month -to -month as well with another tenant with the
last name Essert.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So bulk hangars are on a
month -to -month also?
MR. VERGO: Currently.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is your intent to change that? I
Page 190
January 10, 2012
just don't understand why you don't want to keep these tenants and
give them longer term leases --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, if you want to
have this considered, why don't you add it to the next agenda and we'll
do it. We've just finished with this item.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think that's a great idea. Let's put
that on the next agenda. And Mr. Curry, I would like to see a lease
agreement for Mr. Fletcher. Because I don't want to lose him. He's
our number one tenant --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to 10.1) now.
Item #10D
IN- MARKET MEETING PLANNER SITE AND
FAMILIARIZATION GUIDELINES FOR THE TOURISM
DEPARTMENT TO PROVIDE PAYMENT OR
REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES RELATED TO
ATTRACTING GROUP MEETINGS TO COLLIER COUNTY
AND PAYMENT OF COVERED EXPENSES UP TO AN
ANNUAL TOTAL PROGRAM COST OF $1509000 - MOTION TO
APPROVE GUIDELINES AS PRESENTED TO THE TDC WITH
THE EXCEPTION OF THE WORDING REGARDING THE
TOURISM DEPARTMENT PURCHASING CARDS AND TO BE
BROUGHT BACK TO THE TDC THEN ON TO THE BCC AT A
FUTURE MEETING — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Sir, It was previously 16.F.3 on your consent
agenda. It's a recommendation to approve in- market meeting planner
site familiarization guidelines for the Tourism Department to provide
payment or reimbursement of expenses related to attracting group
meetings to Collier County, and authorize payment of covered
expenses up to an annual total program cost of $150,000.
Page 191
January 10, 2012
Mr. Wert can present or answer questions. This item was moved
at Commissioners Hiller's request.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And let me say, the reason that I
had this moved was because what the TDC approved is not what is
before you today. And what happened was there is an additional
expenditure for the FAM expenses, if you will, that was added to, I
guess you can call it the in -house promotion. My terminology is not
perfect on this, and Jack can correct me.
The expenditures of TDC funds have to be pre- approved by the
TDC. I have no problem with the modification that Mr. Wert would
like, but it has to first be approved by the TDC and then by the Board.
And to approve it at this point basically goes against the statute.
So I think, you know, if he wants to take it -- and the other
problem I have is we shouldn't be approving something at the TDC
and then it's modified and then coming forward without disclosure of
that modification in the executive summary. Basically what the
summary is suggesting is that we're approving what the TDC has
approved, and that isn't true. You know, I'm glad to hear that Jack and
Crystal have resolved -- I'm assuming you've all resolved the issue on
your -- the P cards and all that?
MS. KINZEL: I think Jack's agreed that the guidelines are going
to be adjusted to specifically say the county P cards that the
employees have. So they'll change --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So the guidelines have to be
corrected and Jack is in agreement with Crystal's recommendation on
that. So I think that's positive.
Jeff, did you have any issues with it besides what Crystal raised?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, my only issue was I heard that -- what
Jack was presenting was different than what he presented to TDC --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It is.
MR. KLATZKOW: And the executive summary doesn't specify
the differences. That was my objection. But I don't know if that's true
Page 192
January 10, 2012
or not. That's just what I heard this morning.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It is. Do you know --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How is it different? Why don't you
tell us that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I did. I actually sent the
differences. And like I said, the difference being, I actually prepared a
document. Jack, can you present what I sent you, which shows the
change in the wording?
And it adds a category that -- what was presented to the Board is
everything that is -- or what's different, let me do it by exception, is
what's in yellow. And so essentially what's added to this as an
expenditure which we did not approve are the familiarization trips.
We approved strictly the in- market site expenditures.
So again, is a faro trip okay? Yes. Is it one of those things that
could be covered by this. But it first has to be approved by the TDC.
And so all I'm saying is it needs to go back to the TDC or just approve
it in part for the in- market site, let it go through again for the fam trips,
bring that forward separately. But what the TDC approved is what we
are limited to approving, and that is everything except for what's in
yellow.
So I would be happy to make a motion to approve everything
except what's in yellow, with the one modification for the P cards as
recommended by Crystal, and then let the fam trips come back as a
separate modification after approval by TDC.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, that's a motion by Commissioner
Hiller. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second it for discussion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Henning.
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, fam trips are the life blood for
the tourism industry. Have you said that -- was that discussed at the
meeting, was that approved, to your knowledge?
Page 193
January 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. I was there.
MR. WERT: The term familiarization trip, as Commissioner
Fiala, you're aware, that has been an industry standard term where you
familiarize people, whether they be meeting planners, journalists,
whatever, of your destination. That term in the industry has been
evolving and changing over the last few years. They are now called
sites. These in fact are interchangeable terms. They are exactly,
exactly the same process. It is simply a different term.
We felt when we brought this item to you, the County
Commission, it would be helpful to be sure that we were in fact
making everybody aware what all was covered. Familiarization trips
and site visits are one in the same. They are not separate programs.
They are both bringing people to the area to get a sight of the visit,
and that's how it's changed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So then that does say site on there,
right --
MR. WERT: We didn't use that term with the TDC, because
frankly, that group does understand that they are the same. And we
just felt that it would be important at this level, at the public level to
add that term so that there was no confusion when the hotels are
proposing folks that might apply to this program, our own staff, so that
we definitely understand, and that the finance folks, when they see
reimbursements coming through, if the hotel calls it a fam trip, it is the
same as a site visit. So that's the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What meeting was this that took
place? I mean, it's --
MR. WERT: Our --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you had -- I'm sure you don't
have an executive summary from the --
MR. WERT: Actually, I do from the TDC.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's compare, see if they're
Page 194
January 10, 2012
compared. And maybe we just need to modify our agenda or --
MR. VVERT: I'll give you the TDC version first. This is the
executive summary where we called it in- market familiarization sites.
The first document that I'm showing here is the executive
summary that went to the Tourist Development Council on November
the 28th. That was the last meeting we had in 2011. And the word
familiarization trip sites is in that document. That was how we
presented it.
The version that is coming to you, we did add some additional
language to this document because we had some input from both the
County Attorney's office to make sure that we were clearly asking the
County Commission exactly what action we wanted them to take.
There are also some subtle changes in this executive because we have
some new guidelines from the County Manager's office to include in
all future executive summaries. And in this particular agenda item
does include some of those new documents. It's making sure that the
dollar amounts are in there. The dollar amounts, by the way, have not
changed at all. It's still 150,000. It truly is the same program the TDC
looked at.
And I think it's important that we remember that the role of the
Tourist Development Council is advisory. They do not get into the
minutia of exactly how a program works. They recommend the
expenditure and they recommend the overall program. That's what
they -- that is their role.
This program truly has not changed other than some wording of
adding sites. You'll see a few clarification points that we put into this
-- to the guidelines document that I'll get into in a couple of future
slides here, that addresses each of the points that Commissioner Hiller
has highlighted in her document.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's go to the back -up material.
I mean, that's -- the executive summary is just a vehicle to approve the
back -up document. So let's compare apples and see if we have apples.
Page 195
January 10, 2012
MR. WERT: The first -- the three bullet points I put here on this
slide, we just talked about fams and sites.
The second area that you'll see is we added new points to better
define the travel booking methods and the requirements for funding.
They don't change the intent of the program at all, they simply do help
our tourism hotel partners and hopefully the finance folks as well
when they get reimbursement requests.
And finally, we did want to make sure that county finance
understood exactly what was being asked and approved by you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But if I may ask, isn't site specific
to facility and familiarization just generally to the area?
MR. WERT: It is a familiarization trip.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: As supposed to site specific. And
what we had talked about was, at the TDC was specifically visiting
sites, not just a general familiarization with Naples. What we were --
or Collier County. We were talking about specifically reimbursing
because the intent was to draw people to the hotels. And that was the
intent.
In fact, Murray Hendel was like concerned because he said isn't
that like bribery, or something like that. Well, obviously that doesn't
go to Collier County as a whole. So we didn't address familiarity as
an issue, we addressed site specific visits because of the focus of this
being -- so they're not interchangeable terms.
MR. WERT: Yes, they are, and they are not hotel specific.
Everything that our organization does is represent this destination. It
would be unfair to other hotels to pay for just a site visit to one hotel
and they see nothing more. That is never our intent, that's not how we
do familiarization trips. We would not use these funds for that kind of
a mission. That is the hotel's job to do that.
And we don't use these funds, never have. This is not a brand
new program. We do this all the time. We are simply refining --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I guess my question is, why are
Page 196
January 10, 2012
you adding the word and familiarization trips? It's sufficient. You
can leave your executive summary the way it is without adding the
term and familiarization trips if site visit and familiarization trip is one
and the same word.
MR. WERT: It's simply because some of the hotels call it one
thing, some of the meeting planners calls it another. You want the
meeting planner also to understand, if we have a policy, whether or
not --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So why not delete everything and
just put a footnote at the bottom and say the term site visit and
familiarization visit is used interchangeably.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He did in the last slide.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no, I mean, in what we're
approving, in the modification to the policy.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What's wrong with the explanation
of site and familiarization?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because from my perspective
based on the discussion we had at the TDC -- and of course it was a
meeting I was at, two different things. One was more specific, the
other is non - specific.
Like I said, in fact, the very issue that Jack is raising was raised
very well by Murray. You know, it -- so, I mean, just leave it the way
it is. If what we approved is fine and the terms are interchangeable,
leave our policy exactly the way it is and just add a footnote and just
say for clarification purposes fam -- no, no, not on his summary but
what we're approving, you know, what --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The back -up material.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. The guidelines that we're
specifically approving, you know, the document that we're approving
that -- and just delete all the changes -- delete all the changes that the
MR. WERT: No, I can't.
Page 197
January 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why not?
MR. WERT: Because they are very, very important to making
sure that our hotel --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you go back to the changes?
MR. WERT: I'm going to. Yes, I'd be happy to.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can I just point out something? It is
confusing, but you can read it two ways. You can read it as a
recommendation to approve in- market meetings, planner site visits
and familiarization guidelines for Tourism Department, or you can
read it as a recommendation to approve the in- market, planner site and
familiarization guidelines. So -- right?
MR. WERT: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So you can read it two ways. And one
way it's one thing, it's one meeting, it's one purpose, it's the meeting
planners site and familiarization guidelines, right? That's what you're
saying.
MR. WERT: Yes, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Planners site and familiarization are
essentially the same thing.
MR. WERT: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So you read it as if it is one meeting,
Commissioner Hiller is reading it as if there are two different
meetings.
MR. WERT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, either interpretation can be correct,
depending upon what it is that you're doing. But you're saying that it's
one meeting.
MR. WERT: It is one event, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: One event. And it's for planner site and
familiarization.
MR. WERT: And we could make those changes. You'll see in
some of the future slides the way I've done the title is it's site /fam is --
January 10, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That would be far better than the way
you've got it --
MR. WERT: Yes, sir, I agree. And that might be a --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- described now. Because it is
confusing.
But okay, we've got a motion by Commissioner Hiller to
disapprove -- or to send it back to --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, just leave it the way it was.
He presented -- if everything is -- if this familiarization and in- market
are one and the same, what we approved is everything minus the
yellow. So delete the yellow and leave it the way it was, and I'm
happy to approve it.
Because that's what we approved. So the documents should be
the same. So just delete the yellow and leave everything as is and
we're fine.
MR. WERT: My only concern there is there are some issues
related to the payment method. I think I would like to strengthen that
based on the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So then just add the one sentence
of CVB employee -- or not the credit card, but what the county --
MR. WERT: It would be Tourism Department purchasing cards.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. So in that one tab where
you've got the yellow that says a CVB employee credit card will be
used for some payments and instances where practical, just say a CVB
-- say that again?
MR. WERT: Tourism Department purchasing card for meeting
and expenses --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Tourism Department purchasing
card will be used for some payment instances where practical. And
then delete all the other stuff that's yellow. And then just pass it as the
TDC approved it and you're good to go.
So I make that motion.
Page 199
January 10, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Hiller with the changes as specified. Commissioner Henning, you still
second it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, but I haven't got my
question answered.
MR. WERT: Sorry, sir. I'm sorry. I'll try.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, everybody has an
agenda to do their presentation. I have specific questions. I was
looking for the back -up material that was presented at the TDC to do a
comparable. Okay? So what we have bullet point by bullet point --
MR. WERT: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- in our agenda where they
presented the same thing. Because bottom line, it doesn't matter what
-- it doesn't matter what the executive summary states, it's what is in
the resolution. And this one is bullet point by bullet point, okay.
So I would like to know -- and the Tourist Development Council
is by law the council that reviews and makes recommendations for
expenditures.
MR. WERT: They are, by Florida State Statute. They are. That
is correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And this is a program for
expenditures and what it can be expended upon. So they have every
right to give us recommendations. And if those -- if they were
presented something different, I want to know what it is.
MR. WERT: We've shown you what the changes were. None of
them change the program that they recommended at all. The dollar --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where's the back -up material?
MR. WERT: I don't have the TDC back -up material. What you
see that's highlighted is exactly what was changed or added from the
TDC version.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What meeting was -- that was
from November the 8th?
Page 200
January 10, 2012
MR. WERT: November the 8th, that's correct, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It appears to me that the information to
answer Commissioner Henning's question is not available. Is there a
motion to continue this until we get it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I want to -- again,
Commissioner Fiala articulated it very well, is, you know, we want to
give the industry the tools to do that. But if there is a disagreement,
can we agree to bring those issues back to the TDC?
MR. WERT: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Back to the Board of
Commissioners? You're agreeable to that?
MR. WERT: I'm agreeable as long as we can approve this
process today. Because we do have planners that are ready to commit
to come if we --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So just approve it. So again, I'm
going to make my motion to approve it as it was presented to the TDC
with one modification, and that is with respect to P cards. And that
way you can move forward with this program and then you can bring
back whatever modifications you want to make to the policy back to
the TDC, and then bring it forward. And it's something you can bring
on consent, Jack, and say that we've done, the TDC approved it, it's on
consent, and you're good to go. And then there is no concern.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion to approve
with the stated revisions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Henning. All
in favor, please signify by saying Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Page 201
Any posed by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
10.F.
Okay, that brings us to
Commissioner Hiller?
Item # l OF
January 10, 2012
CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 TO CONTRACT # 10 -52065 WITH
ATKINS NORTH AMERICA, INC., FOR DESIGN SERVICES
FOR COLLIER AREA TRANSIT TRANSFER STATION, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $995900 FOR REDESIGN AND POST DESIGN
SERVICES, AND EXTENDING THE CONTRACT BY SIX
HUNDRED SEVENTY SEVEN (677) DAYS TO ACCOUNT FOR
THE INCLUSION OF CONSTRUCTION AND THE
COMPLETION SCHEDULE; AND THE CHAIRMAN
EXECUTING THE CHANGE ORDER - MOTION TO DENY AND
HAVE STAFF LOOK INTO USING DEVOE BUILDING
INSTEAD — FAILED DUE TO NOT HAVING A MAJORITY;
MOTION TO BRING BACK TO A FUTURE BCC MEETING —
APPROVED
COMMISSIONER HILLER: 10.F is what item?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 16.A.8. It was moved to IO.F.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, no, that was -- no, no, no, I
said everything was fine with -- oh, no, oh, this is the -- oh, yes, oh,
yes, yes.
MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michele Arnold, Alternative
Transportation Modes Director.
This is a change order for Atkins North America, Incorporated.
And they're providing the design services for the intermodal transfer
facility on campus.
Page 202
January 10, 2012
This is to allow for post design services. Now that we have
funding available for the construction of that project, we're adding in
those post design services that were included in the solicitation for this
particular services, and we're adding that back in at this time so that
we can proceed with the construction.
The bid part for the actual construction will be brought back to
the Board in February. We did bring an item to you before, and you
all agreed to reject the bid. And the bids went back out on the streets
and will be expected back on the 18th. And at that time we are going
to negotiate with the lowest qualified bidder and bring back a contract
for your consideration. And then at that particular time the Board can
see the costs associated with the construction of that job.
If you have any further questions.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
I have a real problem with this project. This was discussed at the
MPO. I understand that we're moving forward on this design. The
design has not been brought to us in detail for review at the point that
we're at.
Commissioner Fiala at the MPO made a very, very smart
recommendation, and that recommendation was to consider buying an
existing building. We're going to have to do so much to improve this
site, because this site at the garage is not suitable for the construction
that's being proposed, on top of which we're going to be destroying
parking slots that we have paid for. It's a very expensive proposition.
Commissioner Fiala recommended we consider for example buying
the DeVoe building, which is there and done and empty.
And I heard, and we need to verify this, that the Supervisor of
Elections would agree to lease part of that building because she needs
additional space for her storage and for her operations.
So I don't understand, and I understand we spent 300,000. I don't
Page 203
January 10, 2012
approve expending another dime, because overall this project is going
to cost millions more than it has to. And we have -- it's going to
destroy the parking garage, and we have an alternative out there that
Commissioner Fiala came up with that I thought was a brilliant idea,
and now we have a Constitutional officer who needs additional
facilities. And you would be killing two birds with one stone.
So I cannot approve this. I have to recommend denial because I
would like to see us explore this further and see about the possibility
of acquiring that building instead of redesigning and spending monies
unnecessarily.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That wasn't the MPO's
recommendation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, it was just mine.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, it was, it was --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I, Commissioner Coyle?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, please.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was the recommendation by
the MPO to have alternative designs --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, that too.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- remove meeting rooms and
things like that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Fiala's
recommendation was well stated. Because of that, the MPO staff
forwarded those recommendations on to the Board of Commissioners.
We were fully aware of it was going to take a change order for the
consultant to redesign it. So this is actually a regurgitated item that
wasn't accepted by the whole MPO.
So as long as we're having full disclosure here, you know, that
this is an old item nobody else accepted, and now we're moving into a
new area.
Page 204
January 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. Can I comment on your
comment?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I'd much prefer you make a
motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I make a motion -- well, I
made a motion. I made a motion that we don't go forward with this
and we explore the alternative of possibly acquiring that property from
Devoe and seeing what we can do to collaborate with the Supervisor
of Elections to jointly utilize that property.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Fiala seconded the
motion. All in favor, please signify by saying --
MR. ARNOLD: We already did that in July.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It doesn't make any difference.
MR. OCHS: Yes, it does. We've been down all of these options
already, Commissioner, Michele.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead, tell us.
MS. ARNOLD: We brought that to the Board and we also
brought an analysis showing you all at the request of Commissioner
Hiller in July the steps that were taken and the alternate sites that were
evaluated prior to this particular site being selected.
We also inquired with FDOT, because understand that the dollars
that are using -- the majority of the dollars being used for this is state
funding. We inquired with the FDOT whether or not we could utilize
those funds on an alternate site. They emphatically said no. You will
have to return the dollars if you are going to use another location. This
is specific to this particular site. So we would not be able to utilize
those funds.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But could ask them -- well, we
should ask the MPO again. Because it's my understanding --
MS. ARNOLD: No, we didn't ask the MPO, we asked FDOT,
who the funding is --
COMMISSIONER HILLER:
I understand what you said. What
Page 205
January 10, 2012
I'm saying is we can, through the MPO, or quite frankly we can
through Mrs. Ayer ask FDOT if they would consider applying those
funds towards this alternative site, particularly if it would be less
expensive, given that the Supervisor of Elections would take part in
the acquisition.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, the Supervisor of Elections has no
budget other than what the Board authorizes, so that's an expense that
you would take on, not the Supervisor of Elections. Just so you
understand that.
The other thing I have to remind the Board is the county's 50
percent match on the construction was leveraged as an in -kind
contribution on the value of the investment that you've already made
on this campus. So if you're going to go a different route, again, we've
had this discussion in July, but you're going to have to find additional
dollars, hard dollars for your match that won't qualify off -site.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let me just say this: The cost to
improve this site is going to be substantial because this site does not
lend itself to this construction. This takes me back to the development
of the Emergency Operations Center when they relocated it to -- when
whoever relocated it to a site that required, you know, millions more
in site improvement to allow the construction in the different location.
I mean, to put money into this dirt doesn't make any sense. And
quite frankly, when I met with you yesterday, Michele, everything I'm
telling you here now I told you yesterday. And everything that you're
saying today is not anything close to what you said yesterday. So I
mean, I just --
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: My motion stands. And I want to
see it re- explored --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead. I'm going to call this motion.
Did you have anything to tell us that you haven't told us before?
MR. FEDER: Very quickly, we've gone over this before so I will
Page 206
January 10, 2012
defer to your vote. But I need to point out, just as was said, we went
through all of this before. The site being utilized is utilizing a portion
of the garage to reduce the cost. And the major issue is it's the right
site because you're on campus where many of the trips and the
demands are.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
All in favor of the motion, please signify --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have my button on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And the reason that I was pushing
for this DeVoe site is it's a much larger site, obviously, that could
accommodate passengers coming and going, the buses could pull in
and out, it's perfect for it. It's got 12 bays to repair them. It's also got
washing areas to clean them.
And, you know, when I went through the site and I went there
with Mr. DeVoe, I don't remember which -- and Leo was there too,
yes. Thank you. It has a second floor also. I know that Jennifer
Edwards would love to get her hands on some of that space, probably
to store some of her things but also to hold meetings with her groups
when she gives instructions and so forth. It is a much larger site. And
it's -- it might not be square on the campus but it's adj oining the
campus, and we could just have that road cutting through.
I mean, if we could make the money work. I mean, I can see
there's resistance and nobody wants to do that. I mean, I'm not blind --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I support you all the way. I think
it's a great idea --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just think it's a wise thing to do.
So anyway.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 207
January 10, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed by like sign?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
So--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Bring it back the next meeting.
Motion to continue until the next meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to continue passes unanimously.
Okay, that brings us to —
Item #13B1
A GRANT AGREEMENT AND ASSOCIATED FORMS
BETWEEN FIFTH THIRD BANK ENTERPRISE INVESTMENT
FUND AND THE BAYSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) TO
ACCEPT A GRANT AWARD IN THE AMOUNT OF $255000;
AND A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR GRANT REVENUES IN
THE AMOUNT OF $255000 TO BE APPLIED TOWARDS THE
CRA FY -2012 TIF GRANT PROGRAM — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Brings you to item 13.B.1, sir. This is your
Community Redevelopment Agency. It's a recommendation to
approve and authorize the Community Redevelopment Agency
chairman to sign a grant agreement and associated forms between
Page 208
January 10, 2012
Fifth Third Bank enterprise investment fund and the
Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Agency to
accept a grant award in the amount of $25,000 and authorize a budget
amendment for grant revenues in the amount of $25,000 to be applied
towards the CRA FY 2012 TIF grant program.
Miss Jourdan will present.
MS. JOURDAN: Good afternoon, Jean Jourdan --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, motion to approve by me, second
by Commissioner Henning and Fiala. All in favor, please signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good presentation.
MS. JOURDAN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now let's see what we can do with B.2.
Item #16B2
A COMMERCIAL BUILDING IMPROVEMENT GRANT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CRA AND A GRANT
APPLICANT WITHIN THE BAYSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE
AREA. (2595 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, FISCAL IMPACT $3,603)
— APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. That one was moved to the --
Page 209
January 10, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't think David is going to have as
much luck.
MR. OCHS: This is a recommendation for the Community
Redevelopment Agency to approve and execute a commercial
improvement grant agreement between the CRA and a grant applicant
within the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle area. This is moved from the
consent agenda at Commissioner Hiller's request.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I comment on why I moved
it?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I had the opportunity to sit in on
the Finance Committee, the county's Finance Committee as they were
discussing the financial problems of the Bayshore CRA, specifically
the obligation that the CRA owes to Fifth Third Bank. And Mark
Isackson basically said, and I think he's absolutely correct, and that is
we just can't have anymore contracts.
We don't have the funds to repay the obligation. And quite
frankly, what money we have has to be set aside to repay that debt. I
mean, it's as simple as that. I would love to, you know, see it
otherwise. But unfortunately that's the reality we're in. And so I think
we need to respect what the opinion of the finance committee was and
what Mark Isackson's recommendation was, and that is, you know, no
more contracts. At least not until such time as we know, you know,
with any more certainty as to what's going on. And it's a big problem.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I think it's important that
we do things like this in order to continue to spruce up that area and
improve the area. Because as we do, our property values will also go
up. And as the property values go up, the TIF goes up and that helps
us to pay off some of these things. So I don't think we should
overlook the fact that it's actually very important to the area. Each
project that is improved, each appearance that looks better, each
Page 210
January 10, 2012
business that is -- improves their entryway, as well as their insides, I
think it's just really important that we do that to help attract new
businesses to the area.
That's another good thing. Who knows, maybe we can really get
that area to be a vital area with a great amount of TIF. I don't think
we'll ever pay off that debt. $3,000, $7,000. $3,000 is not going to
help it any at all. We're not going to pay it off at this time. But as
Mark Isackson told me when we were talking to him, yes, but he says,
you know, we'll be able to borrow again on that. That isn't a problem.
He says, I think this can be extended. Just right now don't panic,
because we're going to move forward with this. So I had a talk with
him about this myself.
So I would say go forward with it and I'd like to make a motion
to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning -- oh, I'm
sorry, is there a second? I'll second it.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question. Leo, do you have any
knowledge of what the recommendation's going to be?
MR. OCHS: From the finance committee?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
MR. OCHS: No, sir. Well, I know there's been some options
discussed. And Commissioners Fiala and Henning are both right,
those were two, I think, of three different scenarios. But the
recommendation from the finance committee --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Hiller, not Henning.
MR. OCHS: I'm sorry. Hiller. Yes, sir, I'm sorry. That
recommendation is still forthcoming.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So they're both right.
MR. OCHS: Well -- and again, I was not at that meeting. David
I believe may have been. But I know they talked about different
options, depending upon where the Board wanted to land with respect
Page 211
January 10, 2012
to this future of the CRA. Everything from shutting down the CRA
and just paying off the debt and doing nothing else to continue the
programs with the intention of being able to refinance the debt at a
future time to some middle ground where they begin to scale back
their operating expenses.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: David was there, he can speak with
authority on --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Actually, were you there, David?
I don't -- were you there?
MR. JACKSON: David Jackson, Executive Director for the
Bayshore /Gateway Triangle CRA.
I was not at that meeting. However, I have been in meetings with
the Clerk of Court's staff, a person from that, and also from the budget
office.
What we have here, if I may, you have two issues. One is this
grant approval. Commissioner Hiller is bringing up another subject
which is not related to this. So what I would like is a motion and
second to approve this grant. And I have Mr. Fowle here if he needs
to talk on the grant.
The second issue for Mr. Henning now and for Commissioner
Hiller is the finance committee has been tasked to bring back a
recommendation to you at a later date. So that's coming to you. And
then you will get an opportunity to talk about that.
So we have two issues going on. We have one that's on the
agenda and one that is supposed to come back to you at a future date,
and that is a time that you can discuss it then.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's why I asked you, Leo,
okay, that's why I asked you the question. This should be a good
example.
So do you have any idea when they're going to -- the finance
committee -- Crystal?
Page 212
sir.
January 10, 2012
MR. OCHS: I'm going to ask Mr. Isackson, since he's now here,
MR. ISACKSON: I can answer that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, there we go.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The guy himself.
MR. ISACKSON: Good evening, Commissioners, Mark
Isackson.
The finance committee meets on the 27th of January. We're
going to have a report put together for the group to take a look at.
And then once the finance committee scrubs that report, then we'll
bring it back to you, probably the first or second meeting in February.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is -- one of the
recommendations is not to approve grants like this?
MR. ISACKSON: Well, look it, if you want to start getting into
it we can right now. But I think that you've got a couple different
paths you can go along.
If you subscribe to the theory that you've got to set aside dollars
to pay off the debt in 2014, that's going to be one series of scenarios.
If you subscribe to the theory that you want the plan to carry out,
that's going to be another set of scenarios. You guys are going to
make a decision in terms of how you want to handle that.
There are a couple different scenarios you can approach it with,
you know. And I think the committee's -- you've asked the finance
committee to make a recommendation. They're going to make a
recommendation. They're going to tell you what the facts are and then
you'll have to make a decision on which particular path you want to
choose.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we have a motion, I think.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I'm going to support
the motion, because I could also reconsider it.
Page 213
January 10, 2012
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we do have a speaker, if you would like
to hear.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right, go ahead.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Fowle.
MR. FOWLE: My name is Ronald Fowle. I own Naples Car
Wash. We're going to do three specific things: One is paint the
outside of the building. Number two is to correct the pole sign that's
out front, some of the vinyl lettering is starting to get rather shoddy.
And the third thing we would be doing is trimming the trees.
Twelve years ago when we rebuilt the place the Planning
Department made us put a lot of trees in. Now we have a bunch of
trees growing into one another, so we'd like to thin it out a little bit,
make it look a little bit better.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why don't we have the Planning
Department trim out the trees --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, they should pay for it.
We'll take it out of their budget.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think that would be a good lesson.
Would you like to do that?
MR. FOWLS: I'd just be happy with the grant so we can get this
over with.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all in favor of the motion, please
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes 3 -1 with Commissioner Hiller
dissenting.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I'd like to add a comment.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I ask David a question? Dave?
Page 214
January 10, 2012
Not you Mark, David. The CRA still owns some land where you
took that deteriorating -- those deteriorating houses and the slum
places down, right, but we never built anything on that because the
market wasn't ready.
And that -- the plan is still at some point in time to build middle
income housing so that brings a different element onto that street and
will attract other different elements. So we have land to sell that will
help on this thing. And hopefully as those houses sell and other
people, we're hoping more of a middle income category come in there,
the property values will rise and there will be more TIF there. And I
think that that's an excellent plan going forward, because that's what
we're trying to do is bring that area up. Get rid of the blight, get rid of
the slums.
And so I just wanted to mention on the record that I really fully
support that. Once the time is right, I understand that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're either going to have to take
a break or else we'll do correspondence and communication fairly
quickly. Do you think we can do that?
Item #14
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there any public speakers?
MR. OCHS: You have public comment on general topics?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have no speakers registered. We had
one gentleman but he unfortunately had to leave.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
Page 215
January 10, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. County Manager, you have
anything?
MR. OCHS: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Happy New Year.
MR. MITCHELL: Happy New Year.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Happy New Year. And you know,
it's the year -- I have to tell you something, it's really interesting. It's
the year of the black water dragon. The black water dragon. Yeah,
Chinese New Year. And the Chinese do not believe it's the end of the
world. So if you're going to place your bets, I would go with the
Chinese and not the Mayans, cause the Chinese are here and doing
very well and the Mayans are gone. That's my comment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: By the way, just for your information,
they found an error in the Mayan calendar. They're off by 100 years.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, really?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I hope that it was 100 years
ago.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, it's 100 years from now.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Good, so we're lucky.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I might be around. You never can
tell.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've got a pretty good record.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's up to you now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a quick one, and that is I was
out at Port of the Islands the other day and they're still looking for a
fire station. And I'm just going to suggest to all of our Commissioners,
if you -- everybody's bright up here, somebody might come up with an
Page 216
January 10, 2012
idea. They've got the building, we already own that building, and
they've got all the equipment. We don't need to buy equipment. And
they've got all their people hired except they have to keep them in a
motel because there's nothing inside this building to accommodate
them.
The estimate according to the Port of the Islands residents there
was it would cost about $400,000 to fix the inside, give them sleeping
rooms and everything that they need for a fire station. But of course
we don't have the money right now. But I was just wondering if you
could think about it. I'm trying to think of grants that can be available,
any way that we can help these people get their fire station. So that's
what I'm just asking.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: For $400,000 we could build a
three - bedroom, three -bath home.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This is what the residents told me.
Who knows, maybe it isn't that. I don't know.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I mean, you could buy most of the
homes there for less than that. I don't understand why the hotel would
not provide them lodging just for the convenience of having fire
protection in the area. I mean, that hotel is not booked up. But
anyway, okay, well, think about it, all right.
And I have nothing.
Commissioner Henning, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What happened to the pancake
breakfasts? That's historically how the fire departments did it up
north.
I would recommend not having Twinkie sales because Twinkie is
preparing to file Chapter 11.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sad.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is it really?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's really sad.
Page 217
January 10, 2012
Can I add to your comment about pancake sales? There was
something that Pam said that really struck me. When she was talking
about Sebring and all the events they were having at that airport. We
should find out what kind events, more about those events, because
those would actually be really great to have at our airport. You know
how they were doing a pancake breakfast fly -in? That's cool.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Everglades has had those on many
occasions, and it does attract people coming in.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And Marco does too, the CAP and
on Marco Island have these things.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. But we don't do anything
like that at Immokalee, you know. We could have like a barbecue
fly -in or something, I mean. It could be cute.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's because nobody in their right
mind would bring their plane into Immokalee with the current state of
affairs there. I would not fly into Immokalee. I would not have my
airplane tied down there. I would not have it placed in a hangar
because it's like the wild, wild west out there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But I'd go take my boats to
Remuda Ranch or Port of the Isles for a pancake breakfast.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I think it's a great idea. I
just really like that idea and I was just thinking about that, you know,
as --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: If I find out about one I'll let you
know.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to adjourn.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Page 218
January 10, 2012
We are adjourned. Thank you very much. We'll see you.
* * * * Commissioner Coletta moved, seconded by Commissioner
Fiala and carried unanimously that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted * * * *
Item # 16A 1
THE CLERK OF COURTS TO RELEASE A SECURITY WHICH
WAS POSTED AS A DEVELOPMENT GUARANTY FOR WORK
ASSOCIATED WITH EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.835
(LIVINGSTON LAKES COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION) —
CLERK STAFF POSTED THE TRANSACTION ON DECEMBER
4, 2006 USING REFERENCE #724738
Item # 16A2
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER UTILITY FACILITY
FOR FOXFIRE ENTRANCE REVISIONS, KINGS WAY AND
DAVIS BOULEVARD AND TO RELEASE ANY UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR
THE DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED AGENT — THE FOXFIRE
HOA IS LOCATED AT 1030 KINGS WAY, NAPLES
Item #I 6A3
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE SEWER UTILITY FACILITY
FOR WALDORF PLAZA, (F /K/A BOCA BARGOONS) AT 4424
TAMIAMI TRAIL WEST, AND TO RELEASE ANY UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR
DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED AGENT — THE WATER -SEWER
Page 219
January 10, 2012
DISTRICT ACCEPTS THE FINAL AND UNCONDITIONAL
CONVEYANCE OF THE SEWER UTILITY FACILITY
Item # 16A4
WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR FIDDLER' S
CREEK, PHASE 3, UNIT 4 AND TO RELEASE ANY UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR
DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED AGENT — THE WATER -SEWER
DISTRICT ACCEPTS THE FINAL AND UNCONDITIONAL
CONVEYANCE OF THE SEWER UTILITY FACILITY
Item #16A5
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER UTILITY FACILITY
FOR LANDSCAPER'S CHOICE, 218 SABLE PALM ROAD, AND
TO RELEASE ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY TO
THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER' S
DESIGNATED AGENT— THE WATER -SEWER DISTRICT
ACCEPTS THE FINAL AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE
OF THE SEWER UTILITY FACILITY
Item # 16A6
RECORD THE FINAL PLAT OF REGAL ACRES PHASE ONE,
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY —
W /STIPULATIONS
Item # 16A7
Page 220
January 10, 2012
EASEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTRY CLUB OF
NAPLES AND AN EASEMENT AGREEMENT WITH ROYAL
POINCIANA GOLF CLUB FOR THE CONVEYANCE TO
COLLIER COUNTY OF TWO DRAINAGE, ACCESS AND
MAINTENANCE EASEMENTS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE
MAINTENANCE WORK WITHIN THE GORDON RIVER
EXTENSION TO PREVENT UPSTREAM FLOODING. FISCAL
IMPACT: $46,164.50 (PROJECT NO. 60117) — THE EASEMENT
FROM THE COUNTRY CLUB OF NAPLES CONTAINS 0.32
ACRES OF DONATED PROPERTY, THE EASEMENT FROM
ROYAL POINCIANA GOLF CLUB CONTAINS 3.43 ACRES
PURCHASED AT MARKET VALUE $46,000
Item # 16A8 — Moved to Item # l OF (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item # 16A9
A 1 -YEAR EXTENSION OF THE REQUIRED TIME FRAME
FOR JOB CREATION FOR VALUECENTRIC, LLC, AN
APPROVED PARTICIPANT IN THE JOB CREATION
INVESTMENT PROGRAM & ADVANCED BROADBAND
INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT PROGRAM, DUE TO
UNFORESEEN DELAYS EXPERIENCED BY A KEY
CUSTOMER AND CHALLENGES IN IDENTIFYING
QUALIFIED SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT CANDIDATES — NO
INCENTIVE PAYMENT WILL BE ISSUED AS THE COMPANY
IS CURRENTLY HEADQUARTERED IN ORCHARD PARK,
NEW YORK AND HASN'T MEET THE SPECIFIC
REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROGRAM
Item # 16A 10 — Moved to Item # l OE (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Page 221
January 10, 2012
Item #16A1 1
FYI 1-12 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (FTA)
SECTION 5310 GRANT AWARD IN THE AMOUNT $262,050,
AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS
AND APPROVE PURCHASE OF THREE (3) PARATRANSIT
VEHICLES UTILIZING THE FUNDS — FOR REPLACEMENTS
PURCHASED IN 2006 & 2007 PER THE FTA
Item #16B 1
COMMERCIAL BUILDING IMPROVEMENT GRANT 05/2011
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BAYSHORE /GATEWAY
TRIANGLE CRA AND BE HOME REALTY, LLC DUE TO
CERTAIN PERMITTING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
CHANGE REQUIREMENTS. (1712 COMMERCIAL DRIVE,
FISCAL IMPACT: NONE) — EXTENDING THE AGREEMENT
FROM JANUARY 11, 2012 TO JULY 11, 2012
Item # 16B2 — Moved to Item # 13132 (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16C1
RESOLUTION 2012 -01: A) UTILITY WORK BY HIGHWAY
CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; B) A FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STANDARD FORM
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO EXECUTE THE
AGREEMENT; AND, C) A MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AND FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES,
Page 222
January 10, 2012
DIVISION OF TREASURY TO ESTABLISH AN INTEREST
BEARING ESCROW ACCOUNT
Item #I 6C2
BUDGET AMENDMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH HAZARD
MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM AGREEMENT NUMBER
11 HM- 3E- 09 -21 -01 -026 WITH THE STATE OF FLORIDA,
DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, TOTALING
$36099455 TO APPLY TOWARD THE COSTS ASSOCIATED
WITH THE INSTALLATION OF 1,430 LINEAR FEET OF SIX -
INCH HIGH DENSITY POLYETHYLENE LEACHATE PIPE AT
THE COLLIER COUNTY LANDFILL
Item # 16D 1
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT FOR A DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) FUNDED
CONTINUUM OF CARE GRANT (COC) SHELTER PLUS CARE
(S +C) GRANT THAT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD ON
OCTOBER 11, 2011 — THE HOUSING HUMAN AND VETERAN
SERVICES DEPARTMENT WILL COLLABORATE WITH THE
DAVID LAWRENCE MENTAL HEALTH CENTER TO
PROVIDE HOUSING AND SUPPORT SERVICES FOR
QUALIFYING FAMILIES FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS
Item # 16D2
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY THE
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND
FAMILIES (DCF) IN ORDER TO BE ELIGIBLE TO ACCEPT
THE AWARDED 2012 CHALLENGE GRANT FUNDING —
Page 223
January 10, 2012
PROVIDING ASSISTANCE FOR COLLIER COUNTY
RESIDENTS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS THRU ST.
MATTHEW' S HOUSE AND THE SHELTER FOR ABUSED
WOMEN AND CHILDREN, HELPING TO INCREASE THE
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM KNOWN AS HMIS
UTILIZED BY HOUSING HUMAN AND VETERAN'S
SERVICES
Item #I 6D3
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT $18,080
RECOGNIZING REVENUE AND APPROPRIATE
EXPENDITURES FROM COLLECTION OF CO- PAYMENTS &
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE HOUSING, HUMAN AND
VETERAN SERVICES, SERVICES FOR SENIORS PROGRAM —
FOR IN -HOME SUPPORT SERVICES AND ADULT DAY CARE
FOR THE COUNTY'S FRAIL AND ELDERLY THROUGH
MONTHLY CO- PAYMENT SERVICES DETERMINED BY
HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND BASED ON A SLIDING FEE
SCHEDULE
Item #16D4
AN AMENDMENT TO THE SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT FOR
CATHOLIC CHARITIES TO RECOGNIZED BOARD
APPROVED CHANGES IN THE HPRP ADMINISTRATIVE
PLAN — REVISING THE AMOUNT ALLOWED FOR RENT AND
UTILITY ASSISTANCE FOR ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLDS FROM
$1200 TO $2500 IN FUNDS
Item #16D5
Page 224
January 10, 2012
FUNDING FROM THE COLLIER COUNTY 4 -H CLUBS
FOUNDATION, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $459000 FOR THE 4-
H OUTREACH PROGRAM MANAGED BY THE COLLIER
COUNTY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA/IFAS EXTENSION
DEPARTMENT, $3,000 IN ANTICIPATED REVENUE FROM
PRIVATE CONTRIBUTIONS OF 4H OUTREACH
PARTICIPANTS, AND A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $489000 — FOR THE OUTREACH COORDINATOR
SALARIES AND AFTER SCHOOL AND IN- SCHOOL
EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES
Item #16E1
LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH SPECTRASITE
COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, FOR COMMUNICATION TOWER
SPACE FOR THE SAFEPOINT LOCATION SYSTEM, A
COMPONENT OF THE COUNTY'S 800 MHZ PUBLIC SAFETY
RADIO NETWORK, AT A FIRST YEAR'S RENT COST OF
$75800 — EXTENDING THE AGREEMENT FOR THREE (3)
SEPARATE FIVE (5) YEAR TERMS
Item #I 6E2
ANTENNA SITE AGREEMENT AND AN ADDENDUM TO
ANTENNA SITE AGREEMENT WITH SBA TOWERS II, LLC,
FOR COMMUNICATIONS TOWER SPACE NEEDED FOR THE
COUNTY'S SAFEPOINT LOCATION SYSTEM, A COMPONENT
OF THE COUNTY'S 800 MHZ PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO
NETWORK, AT A FIRST YEAR'S RENT COST OF $79800 —
EXTENDING THE AGREEMENT FOR FOUR SEPARATE
TERMS FOR FIVE YEARS EACH TERM
Page 225
January 10, 2012
Item #I 6E3
SELECTION OF FIRMS UNDER RFP #12 -5809 — ENGINEERING
DESIGN FOR RENOVATION /REPLACEMENT OF HVAC
SYSTEMS IN J -1 SECTION OF COLLIER COUNTY NAPLES
JAIL CENTER - DIRECT STAFF TO BRING A NEGOTIATED
CONTRACT TO THE BOARD FOR SUBSEQUENT APPROVAL
— THE SHORTLIST OF FIRMS IS AS FOLLOWS: H2
ENGINEERING, INC., TLC ENGINEERING FOR
ARCHITECTURE, INC., AND CH2M HILL
Item #16E4 — Continued to the January 24, 2012 BCC Meeting
(Per Agenda Change Sheet)
ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT FROM TECTRANS, INC. TO
KEOLIS TRANSIT AMERICA, INC. FOR MANAGEMENT
CONTRACT FOR THE COLLIER AREA TRANSIT (CAT) FIXED
ROUTE AND PARATRANSIT PROGRAM
Item #16E5
AMENDMENT #1 TO CONTRACT #11-5666 "BAREFOOT
BEACH CONCESSIONAIRE AGREEMENT" WITH DAY -STAR
UNLIMITED, INC. D /B /A CABANA DAN'S AND
AUTHORIZING CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE AMENDMENT — AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item # 16E6
REPORTS AND RATIFY STAFF - APPROVED CHANGE
ORDERS AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS — FOR THE
PERIOD NOVEMBER 28 THROUGH DECEMBER 20, 2011
Page 226
January 10, 2012
Item #I 6E7
THE ADDITION OF THE CLASSIFICATION OF BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR TO THE 2012 FISCAL YEAR
PAY AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN — AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item # 16F 1 — Moved to Item # I OC (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16172
RESOLUTION 2012 -02: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING
GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE
PROCEEDS) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2011 -12 ADOPTED
BUDGET
Item # 16173 — Moved to Item # 1 OD (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #161-11
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE ENCA LUNCHEON ON
OCTOBER 20, 2011. $18 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET — HELD AT THE HAMILTON
HARBOR YACHT CLUB, 7065 HAMILTON AVE., NAPLES
Item #I 6H2
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
Page 227
January 10, 2012
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE DONALD RUMSFELD
LUNCHEON ON NOVEMBER 9, 2011. $125 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET — HELD AT THE
RITZ- CARLTON, NAPLES
Item #I 6H3
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE SCORE NAPLES LUNCH ON
DECEMBER 5, 2011. $22.50 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET — HELD AT
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
(SWFRPC) 1926 VICTORIA AVENUE, FT. MYERS
Item #I 6H4
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED A WOMEN'S NETWORK LUNCH
ON DECEMBER 8, 2011. $7.50 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET — HELD AT
ROBERTS RANCH, 1215 ROBERTS AVE., IMMOKALEE
Item #16H5
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE ENCA LUNCHEON ON
DECEMBER 15, 2011. $18 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET — HELD AT HAMILTON HARBOR
YACHT CLUB, 7065 HAMILTON AVE., NAPLES
Page 228
January 10, 2012
Item # 16H6
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. HE ATTENDED EASTERN COLLIER'S CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE BREAKFAST AT ROMA HAVANA
RESTAURANT, IMMOKALEE, FL ON DECEMBER 7, 2011.
$15 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL
BUDGET — HELD AT THE EASTERN CHAMBER'S BUILDING,
1300 N. 15TH STREET, SUITE 2, IMMOKALEE
Item #16117
COMMISSIONER COLETTA' S REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. HE ATTENDED THE PHYSICIAN LED ACCESS
NETWORK (PLAN) HOLIDAY OPEN HOUSE AT PLAZA
WALK, 2500 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH, SUITE #202, NAPLES,
DECEMBER 8, 2011. $5 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET
Item #1611 & #1612
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH
ACTION AS DIRECTED
The following Miscellaneous Correspondence, as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 229
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
January 10, 2012
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Miscellaneous Correspondence:
1) Public Safety Coordinating_ Council:
Meeting Minutes 9/30/10; Meeting Minutes 3/31/11
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES
January 10, 2012
2. ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS
DIRECTED:
A. Minutes:
1) Airport Authority:
Minutes of 10/3/11
2) Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee:
Minutes of 1015111
3) Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee:
Minutes of 10/13/11
4) Collier County Planning Commission:
Minutes of 9/29/11; 10/6/11
5) Development Services Advisory Committee:
Minutes of 1015111
6) Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council:
Minutes of 11/18/11
7) Horizon Study_ Oversight Committee:
Minutes of 6/17/11
8) Immokalee Beautification Advisory Committee:
Agenda of 9/28/11
Minutes of 7/27/11; 9/28/11
9) Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Committee:
Minutes of 10/12/11
10) Pelican Bay Services Division Board:
Agenda of 1015111; 10/26/11; 11/2/11
Minutes of 9/7/11; 1015111
11) Radio Road Beautification Advisory Committee:
Agenda of 11/14/11
Minutes of 10 /10 /11
12) Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee:
Agenda of 10/13/11; 11/3/11
Minutes of 5/5/11; 10/13/11
January 10, 2012
Item #16J1
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF NOVEMBER 26, 2011
THROUGH DECEMBER 2, 2011 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #I 6J2
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF DECEMBER 3, 2011
THROUGH DECEMBER 9, 2011 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #I 6J3
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF DECEMBER 10, 2011
THROUGH DECEMBER 16, 2011 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #I 6J4
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF DECEMBER 17, 2011
THROUGH DECEMBER 23, 2011 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item # 17A
ORDINANCE 2012 -01 (AMENDING ORDINANCE 1976 -57) AND
ORDINANCE 2012 -02 (AMENDING ORDINANCE 1987 -60):
ADOPTING TWO ORDINANCES THAT AMEND THE CODE OF
LAWS AND ORDINANCES AS IT RELATES TO PUBLIC
SOLICITATIONS OF CONTRIBUTIONS AND THE ISSUANCE
Page 230
January 10, 2012
OF PERMITS FOR CHARITABLE SOLICITATION AT ROAD
INTERSECTIONS
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:32 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS /EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
."1. W.
FRED W. COYLE, Cgirman
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E_.IJRQ CLERK
V.
v1 Attest at *9 ! '�
These minute pproved by the Board on 2 (1- 20 'Z , as
presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM.
Page 231