BCC Minutes 02/14/2012 R BCC
REGULAR
MEETING
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 14, 2012
February 14, 2012
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, February 14, 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
Georgia Hiller
Tom Henning
ALSO PRESENT:
Leo Ochs, County Manager
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney
Crystal Kinzel, Office of the Clerk of Courts
Ian Mitchell, BCC Executive Manager
Mike Sheffield, Business Operations Manager - CMO
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB)
Airport Authority
AGENDA
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor
Naples, FL 34112
February 14, 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.
February 14, 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 Tara McGraw — St. Paul's Episcopal 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. January 10, 2012 — BCC/Regular Meeting
C. January 17, 2012 — BCC /CRA Joint Workshop
3. SERVICE AWARDS
February 14, 2012
Page 2
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation recognizing Naples Equestrian Challenge, Inc. (NEC) for its
impact on the lives of Collier County individuals with special needs. To be
accepted by Sheryl Soukoup, NEC Executive Director, Kyle Christiansen,
Chair of the NEC Board of Directors and NEC Board Members. Sponsored
by Commissioner Hiller.
B. Proclamation designating February 15, 2012 as Toastmaster Academy Day,
in official celebration and recognition of its founding and service to the
citizens of Collier County. To be accepted by Tashahara Jallard, President;
Ragnhild Sunde, Vice - President of Education; Christopher Pritchard, Vice -
President of Membership; Marcia Herrera, Vice - President of Public
Relations; Sandy Levin, Secretary; Jill Davis, Treasurer; and Robyn
Pritchard, Sergeant at Arms. Sponsored by Commissioner Coletta.
C. Proclamation designating February, 2012 as Career and Technical Education
Month in Collier County. To be accepted by Jack Gardner, Principal,
Lorenzo Walker Institute of Technology. Sponsored by Commissioner
Coyle.
D. Proclamation designating February 19 -25, 2012 as National Engineer's
Week in Collier County. To be accepted by Alison Bradford, President of
the Calusa Chapter of the Florida Engineering Society; Ralph Verrastro,
Vice - President of the Calusa Chapter of the Florida Engineering Society;
and Norman Trebilcock, Secretary of the Calusa Chapter of the Florida
Engineering Society. Sponsored by Commissioner Coyle.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation of the Collier County Business of the Month for February, 2012
to Specialists in Urology. Accepting the award is Susan Scholz, Chief
Operations Officer.
B. Presentation by Keith Upson, Chairman of the Black Affairs Advisory
Board, to update the Board of County Commissioners on the status and
current initiatives of the Black Affairs Advisory Board.
February 14, 2012
Page 3
C. Recommendation to recognize Sue Trone, Project Manager, Bayshore
Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Agency, as Employee of the
Month for January, 2012.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public Petition request from Christian Tobin, President, IAFF Local 2396,
Collier Professional Firefighters and Paramedics, regarding the benefits of
consolidating fire districts.
B. Public Petition request from Richard Yovanovich regarding the Transfer
of Development Rights (TDR) Program for the Rural Fringe Mixed Use
District.
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 continued from January 10, 2012 and January 24, 2012
BCC Meetings. 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, 145 22 through 27, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier County,
Florida, consisting of 2,138.76 acres; and by providing an effective date.
(Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner)
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
February 14, 2012
Page 4
A. Appointment of members to the County Government Productivity
Committee.
B. Appointment of members to the Collier County Code Enforcement Board.
C. Appointment of a member to the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition
Advisory Committee.
D. Appointment of members to the Industrial Development Authority.
E. Appointment of a member to the Educational Facilities Authority.
F. Appointment of members to the Housing Finance Authority.
G. Appointment of a member to the Health Facilities Authority.
H. Appointment of a member to the Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory
Committee.
I. Appointment of a member to the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee.
J. Request for reconsideration ofltem #10G from the January 24, 2012 BCC
Meetinz titled: Recommendation to approve reprogramming Community
Development Block (CDBG) Grant funds in the amount of $810,000 and
approve a Subrecipient Agreement with the Collier County Redevelopment
Agency (CRA) of Immokalee to purchase two adjacent parcels and construct
design -build the First Street Plaza located in the downtown area of
Immokalee, Florida. (Commissioner Hiller)
K. This item to be heard at 1:30 p.m. Discussion with Representative Matt
Hudson regarding House Bill 1263, State Department of Health
reorganization.
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to award Contract # 12 -5801 R for construction of the
Collier Area Transit Intermodal Transfer Station at the Government Center
to Lodge Construction, Inc., in the amount of $3,697,475. (Michelle Arnold,
Director, Alt Transportation Modes)
February 14, 2012
Page 5
B. This item was continued from the January 10, 2012 BCC Meeting:
Recommendation to approve Change Order No. 2 to Contract #10 -5206,
with Atkins North America, Inc., for Design Services for the 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.
(Michelle Arnold, Director, Alt Transportation Modes)
C. Recommendation to review alternatives for the waiver of fines /liens and
direct the County Manager or designee to implement Board direction on
this matter. (Diane Flagg, Director, Code Enforcement, Growth
Management Division/Planning & Regulation)
D. Recommendation to accept staff s presentation on Surface Water
Management issues within the Golden Gate Estates Area. (Nick
Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator, Growth Management
Division/Planning & Regulation)
E. Recommendation to approve the "Certification for Implementation of
Regulatory Reform Activities Required by the State Housing Initiatives
Partnership (SHIP)" Program for FY 2006/07, 2007/08 and 2008/09 annual
reports, and submission to the Florida Housing Finance Corporation to
ensure compliance with program requirements. (Kim Grant, Interim
Director, Housing, Human and Veteran Services)
F. Recommendation to approve a budget amendment reallocating the existing
budget between commitment items and recognizing $2,496,614.47 of carry
forward funds from State Housing Initiative Partnership (SHIP) Program.
(Kim Grant, Interim Director, Housing, Human and Veteran Services)
G. Recommendation to approve payment for work performed prior to the start
date of Contract #10 -5514 with technical assistance provider, Florida
Housing Coalition (FHC) in the amount of $4,377.50. (Kim Grant, Interim
Director Housing, Human and Veteran Services)
H. 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. ST- PL20110000677, Collier County Government
February 14, 2012
Page 6
Parks and Recreation and Conservation Collier Departments: A Resolution
approving Petition ST- PL20110000677 requesting a Special Treatment
development permit to construct a restroom, maintenance storage building,
pavilion, parking, stormwater treatment areas, landscaping, lighting, access
drive, trails, boardwalks, shade structures, fishing platform, water quality
treatment facility, utility piping, and pedestrian bridges within the Special
Treatment Overlay (ST) for a project known as the Gordon River Greenway
Park located in Sections 27 and 34, Township 49 South, Range 25 East,
Collier County, Florida. (Summer Araque, Senior Environmental
Specialist/EAC Liaison, Stormwater and Environmental Planning Section)
11. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
12. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
A. This item to be heard at 10:00 a.m. Presentation by the Clerk of Courts
on the Fiscal Impact Analysis Model submitted for Ave Maria Development,
LLLP as requested by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC). The
action of the Board is at the discretion of the Board.
13. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND /OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
A. AIRPORT
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation to award Contract #11 -5705 — Gateway Triangle
Residential Area Tertiary Stormwater System Improvements to
Douglas N. Higgins, Inc. in the amount of $1,731,977, to approve all
necessary budget amendments and authorize the Chairman to sign the
standard Board approved contracts after legal review by the Office of
the County Attorney. (CRA Fiscal Impact: $219,500) (Sue Trone,
AICP, Project Manager, BGT CRA)
14. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
February 14, 2012
Page 7
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. CONSENT AGENDA -All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately
A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for Moraya Bay Beach Tower, 11125 Gulf Shore
Drive, and authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to release
any Utilities Performance Security to the Project Engineer or the
Developer's designated agent.
2) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for Gateway Shoppes at North Bay, 13565 Tamiami
Trail North, and 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 an Interlocal Agreement between the
City of Naples and Collier County for Contractor Licensing by Collier
County for the City of Naples.
4) Recommendation to approve the release of a $102,400 lien for the
payment of $25,800, in the Code Enforcement Action entitled Board
of County Commissioners vs. Joseph H. Deroma Living Trust Ltd.,
Code Enforcement Special Magistrate Case No. CEPM -2009-
0008163, relating to property located at 836 96th Avenue N., Collier
County, Florida.
5) Recommendation to authorize a budget amendment to recognize
revenue for projects within the Transportation Supported Gas Tax
Fund (313) in the amount of $442,461.37.
6) Recommendation to approve Request for Proposal (RFP) #11-5677
"Growth Management Division Planning and Regulation Staffing"
February 14, 2012
Page 8
to Nova Engineering and Environmental, LLC in an annual amount
not to exceed $100,000.
7) 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 Traditions, The Villas at Grey
Oaks, approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security.
8) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the final plat of the Arthrex Commerce Park,
which has been revised from the plat that was approved by the Board
of County Commissioners on December 13, 2011, approval of the
standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval
of the amount of the performance security.
9) Recommendation to direct the County Manager or designee to
proceed with the Alternative 2 Design of a pathway connection on
the north side of Immokalee Road connecting east and west of I -75.
10) Request Board approval to post load restrictions of "Single Unit
Truck: 28 Tons" and "Combination Truck: 31 Tons" on Bridge
Numbers 030138, 030139, 030140 and 030141 east of S.R. 29 on
Immokalee Road; and post load restrictions of "Single Unit: 29 Tons"
on Bridge Number 030161, on C.R. 29 over Chokoloskee Bay.
(Project No. 66066)
11) Recommendation to recognize local grant match revenue totaling
$21,206 and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5303
Program grant revenue in the amount of $239,831 which will establish
the remaining FY 11/12 Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
budget; and approve all necessary budget amendments.
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
February 14, 2012
Page 9
1) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
to approve and execute a Site Improvement Grant Agreement between
the CRA and a Grant Applicant within the Bayshore Gateway
Triangle area. (3042 Cottage Grove Avenue — Fiscal Impact:
$2,258.33)
2) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
to approve and execute a Site Improvement Grant Agreement between
the CRA and a Grant Applicant within the Bayshore Gateway
Triangle area. (2718 Gulfview Drive — Fiscal Impact: $8,000)
3) 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. (2464 Kirkwood Avenue - Fiscal
Impact $7,787.50)
4) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
to approve and execute a Landscape Improvement Grant Agreement
between the CRA and a Grant Applicant within the Bayshore
Gateway Triangle area. (2416 Florida Avenue — Fiscal Impact:
$987.05)
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve selection committee rankings and enter
into negotiations with AECOM Technical Services, Inc., CDM Smith
Inc., and Hole Montes, Inc. for three contracts for Request for
Proposal No. 11 -5782, "Wastewater Basin Analyses," Project
Numbers 70043, 70044, 70046, 70050, 70051, and 70064.
2) Recommendation to approve removing uncollectible accounts
receivable and their respective balances from the financial records of
Collier County Public Utilities Division in the amount of $423,644.77.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid #12 -5799, Senior Food
Program, to GA Foods, Inc. to provide home delivered and congregate
February 14, 2012
Page 10
meal services for activities funded through the Older Americans Act
at the estimated annual cost of $360,000.
2) Recommendation to award ITB #12 -5810 to Taylor - Pansing, Inc. for
construction services to expand the Louise Hasse Community Center
at the Max Hasse Community Park in the amount of $450,333.
3) Recommendation to approve a Second Amendment to the Lease
Agreement with the United States Department of Agriculture Natural
Resources Conservation Service for continued use of county -owned
office space at the Collier County Agriculture Center for the first year
revenue of $21,199.28.
4) Recommendation to approve a time extension amendment to an
existing Subrecipient Agreement with Goodwill Industries of SW
Florida, Inc. in order to complete renovations at the Roberts Ranch
Center in Immokalee.
5) Recommendation to approve a change in project scope and a time
extension to an existing Subrecipient Agreement with Big Cypress
Housing Corporation in order to complete upgrades at Main Street
Village in Immokalee, Florida.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve, and authorize the Chairman to sign the
Assumption Agreement from E.B. Simmond's Electrical, Inc. to
Simmond's Electrical of Naples, Inc. as it relates to Contract #09-
5325 "On -Call Electrical Repairs and New Installations ", Contract
#10 -5503 "Installation and Maintenance of Traffic Signals and
Roadway Lighting ", and Contract #11 -5747 "North County Regional
Water Treatment Plant (NCRWTP) Main Electrical Switchgear
Replacement ".
2) Recommendation to approve the hourly billing rate and authorize the
payment of any associated invoices for temporary employees hired
under Contract #09 -5215, Temporary Labor to EJ Services d/b /a
Balance Staffing in an estimated amount of $37,000.
February 14, 2012
Page 11
3) Recommendation to approve a resolution authorizing the Commission
Chairman to execute Deed Certificates for the sale of burial plots at
Lake Trafford Memorial Gardens Cemetery during the 2012 calendar
year.
4) Recommendation to ratify Property, Casualty, Worker's
Compensation and Subrogation Claims settled and/or closed by the
Risk Management Director pursuant to Resolution #2004 -15 for the
first quarter of FY 12.
5) Recommendation to accept reports and ratify staff - approved change
orders and changes to work orders.
6) Recommendation to reject Request for Proposal (RFP) #11 -5790 for
Security Systems and Access Programs and the associated proposal
submitted.
F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS
1) Recommendation to approve revisions to Tourist Development
Council (TDC) guidelines for the payment or reimbursement of
expenses related to attracting group meetings to Collier County, and
for County Finance to pay expenses covered by these guidelines up to
an annual total program cost of $150,000.
2) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
to the Fiscal Year 2011 -12 Adopted Budget.
3) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
renew the North Naples Fire Control and Rescue District's Certificate
of Public Convenience and Necessity for non - transport Advanced Life
Support services within the North Naples Fire Control response
boundary and pursuant to a mutual -aid agreement for one year and
authorize the Chairman to execute the Permit and Certificate.
February 14, 2012
Page 12
4) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by-
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
renew Collier County's Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity for Advanced Life Support Transport for one year and
authorize the Chairman to execute the Permit and Certificate.
5) Recommendation to approve a Memorandum of Understanding
between the Ochopee Fire Control District and the United States
Department of the Interior, through the National Park Service, Big
Cypress National Preserve.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
1) Recommendation the Board of County Commissioners, acting in its
capacity as the Collier County Airport Authority, approve two (2)
First Amendments to two (2) sub -lease agreements with Gregory
Shepard.
2) Recommendation the Board of County Commissioners, acting as the
Airport Authority award Bid #12 -5824, Immokalee Runway 18 -36
Lighting Rehabilitation in the amount of $148,341 to Airfield
Western, LLC.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Henning requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
He attended a Regional Luncheon with Senator Michael "Mike"
Bennett on January 5, 2012 at The Plantation Golf & Country Club,
in Fort Myers, FL. $23 to be paid from Commissioner Henning's
travel budget.
2) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
She attended the East Naples Civic Association Banquet January 23,
2012. $40 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
February 14, 2012
Page 13
3) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
She attended the Naples Press Club Luncheon on January 26, 2012.
$20 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.
She attended the United Arts Council's Stars in the Arts Luncheon
February 10, 2012. $45 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel
budget.
5) Commissioner Hiller requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
She attended the Naples Visitor's Bureau meeting and dinner on
January 19, 2012 at LaPlaya Beach & Golf Club in Naples, FL.
$30 to be paid from Commissioner Hiller's travel budget.
6) Commissioner Hiller requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
She attended the Woman's Network Luncheon on December 8, 2011
at Robert's Ranch in Immokalee, FL. $7.50 to be paid from
Commissioner Hiller's travel budget.
7) Commissioner Hiller requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
She attended the Myra Daniels Gala Event on January 14, 2012 at
the Naples Philharmonic in Naples FL. $125 to be paid from
Commissioner Hiller'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
February 14, 2012
Page 14
1) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
January 7, 2012 through January 13, 2012 and for submission into
the official records of the Board.
2) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
January 14, 2012 through January 20, 2012 and for submission into
the official records of the Board.
3) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
January 21, 2012 through January 27, 2012 and for submission into
the official records of the Board.
4) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign an
agreement authorizing the Collier County Sheriff's Office to have
Traffic Control Jurisdiction over Private Roads within the Carlton
Lakes Subdivision.
5) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment, in the amount of
$210.53, recognizing carry - forward earned from previous year's
interest and current interest earned in Supervisor of Elections 2009 -10
Federal Election Grant.
6) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment, in the amount of
$808.50, recognizing carry - forward earned from previous year's
interest and current interest earned in Supervisor of Elections 2009
Federal Election Grant.
7) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment recognizing carry -
forward earned from previous year's interest and estimated current
interest in Supervisor of Elections Grant Fund (081). Fiscal impact:
$146.44.
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
February 14, 2012
Page 15
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 an ordinance, entitled "Collier County Secondary
Metals Recycler's Ordinance ", in order to establish limitations, in addition
to those set forth in Chapter 538, Part II, Florida Statutes, on the sale of
regulated metals (secondary metals).
B. Recommendation to adopt amendments to the Tourist Development Tax
Ordinance No. 92 -60, as amended. Amendments include (1) revise language
relating to Category B use of funds; (2) delineate allocation of administrative
costs for tourism promotion & beach park facilities and beach improvements
(3) reallocate for a period of one year $100,000 from Fund 193, municipal
owned museums and museums owned and operated by not - for - profit
organizations open to the public, to Fund 198, County -owned or operated
museums to be used for a one -time payment pursuant to a Category C(2)
Agreement with the Marco Island Historical Society and approve necessary
budget amendments.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252 -8383.
February 14, 2012
Page 16
February 14, 2012
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mike.
Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. The Board of
County Commission meeting is now in session.
Item # 1 A
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — GIVEN BY
COUNTY MANAGER LEO OCHS
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would you please all stand for the
invocation to be delivered by Reverend Tara McGraw of St. Paul's
Episcopal Church.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, I don't believe the reverend's here.
If you don't mind, I'll do the invocation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's fine.
MR. OCHS: Our heavenly father, we ask your blessings on these
proceedings and all who are gathered here. We ask this, a special
blessing, on this Board of County Commissioners, guide them in their
deliberations, grant them wisdom and vision to meet the trials of this
day and the days to come.
Bless us now as we undertake the business of Collier County and
its citizens, that our actions will serve the greater good of all citizens
and be acceptable in your sight.
These things we pray in your name. Amen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Please join us in the Pledge of
Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, County Manager.
Would you please go over the changes to the agenda.
Item #2A
Page 2
February 14, 2012
APPROVAL OF TODAY'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND
SUMMARY AGENDA AS AMENDED - APPROVED AND /OR
ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members
of the board.
These are your proposed agenda changes for the Board of County
Commissioners' meeting of February 14, 2012.
The first proposal is to withdraw Item l0A from your regular
agenda this morning due to a bid protest that needs to be addressed.
Next item is to withdraw Item IOB. It's a companion item to l0A
having to do with design and construction- management services on
the project. That's at staffs request.
Next item is a proposal to continue Item 13B 1 to the February
28, 2012, BCC meeting. That is a construction contract award for
your Bayshore /Gateway CRA.
Next change is to continue Item 16A8 to the February 28, 2012,
BCC meeting. It's a final plat recording that needs a little bit more
work.
Next change is to continue Item 16B 1 to the February 28, 2012,
BCC meeting. It's a Site Improvement Grant Agreement. Staff is in
some discussion with the Clerk to finalize that item.
Next change is to continue Item 16132 to the February 28, 2012,
BCC meeting. That also is a Site Improvement Grant Agreement with
the CRA that needs some final touches with the Clerk's Office.
Next change is to move Item 16B3 to your regular agenda to
become Item 13B2. It's a Commercial Building Improvement Grant
between the CRA and a grant applicant. That item is being moved at
Commissioner Hiller's request.
Next change is to move Item 16134 from your consent agenda to
become Item 13B3 on your regular agenda. It's a Landscape
Page 3
February 14, 2012
Improvement Agreement with the Bayshore CRA and a grant
applicant. That item's also moved at Commissioner Hiller's request.
Next change is to move Item 16D4 from your regular agenda to
become Item 10I. It's a recommendation to approve a time extension
with a subrecipient agreement. That's moved at Commissioner Hiller's
request.
And also a correction in the title to the executive summary noted
by both Commissioners Coletta and Coyle. It should read,
"Renovations to the Roberts Center in Immokalee," not the "Robert
Ranch Center in Immokalee." Robert's Ranch is a branch of your
county museum system. The Roberts Center is a senior -care facility
not owned by the county.
Next change is to move Item 16D5 from your consent agenda to
become Item l OJ on your regular agenda. It also is a time extension
for a subrecipient agreement to complete their work. That item is
moved at Commissioner Hiller's request.
Next proposed change is to move Item 16E3 to become Item IOK
on your regular agenda. It's a resolution with the annual authorization
for the Chair to execute deed certificates for burial lots at Lake
Trafford Cemetery. That item is moved at Commissioner Hiller's
request.
Next change is to move Item 16F 1 from the consent agenda to
become Item l OL on your regular agenda. It's a recommendation to
approve revisions to the tourist development guidelines consistent
with previous board direction. That item is moved at Commissioner
Hiller's request.
And the next change is to move Item 16G2 from the consent
agenda to become Item 13A1 under your Airport Authority. It's a bid
award for lighting rehabilitation work at the airport. That item is
moved at Commissioner Hiller's request.
Commissioners, you have -- excuse me -- two time - certain items
this morning -- excuse me -- today. The first one is Item 12A. That is
February 14, 2012
to be heard at 10 a.m. That's the presentation by the Clerk of the
Courts on the Ave Maria FIAM Model.
Also, at 1:30 p.m., the board had asked for a phone conference
call with Representative Hudson to discuss the -- his bill to move the
state health department to county authorizations. That will be heard at
1:30.
And then finally, I did receive an email earlier in the week from
Commissioner Hiller requesting a time - certain for public comments.
Ma'am, so I'll let you address that, if you don't mind.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Chairman, may I go ahead and --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, please, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: --address that?
I've received quite a few requests from the public to set a
time - certain for public comment, because some of our meetings last
sometimes two days, and the public doesn't know when they should be
available to speak.
So I was going to suggest that maybe we do the same as other
boards do that present in front of the county and that is, set public
comments either immediately before or immediately after public
petitions on the agenda, and that way the public doesn't have to wait to
make their comments and try to figure out at what point in the day
they will have the opportunity to present. They'll know that every
meeting it will be at the beginning of the meeting, either right before
or right after the public petitions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I think that's an excellent
idea. I would prefer to have them after the public petitions, because
these are people that have put in considerable time in the -- in the past
to be able to be heard. So I do support that for after public petitions.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I agree, after public petitions
makes sense.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The -- Commissioner Fiala?
Page 5
February 14, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. We used to do it that way a
long, long time ago. Why did we change it? Because, I agree, it's a
better thing. Why did we change it? I don't remember why.
MR. OCHS: I'm not sure, ma'am. I think at the time there was
some suggestion that if you keep it closer to the board
communications at the end of the meeting, there might be some
synergy between that timing, but --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh.
MR. OCHS: You know, we can do some survey work, if the
board would like, in other counties, but that's a reasonable suggestion
is to do it earlier in the day so the public can get in and out. If that's
the pleasure of the board, we'll be happy to make that change.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm agreeable to it. I don't see any
reason why not.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think it would be inappropriate to try to
make that change for this meeting. It's too late, because we can't
really adequately inform the public.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So why don't we put this on the agenda
and ask the staff come back to us with a proposed change in the
procedure that places it after public petition. Okay.
MR. OCHS: Be happy to do that. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right.
MR. OCHS: And that is all the changes I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
County Manager -- or, County Attorney, do you have any
changes?
MR. KLATZKOW: No changes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We'll start with Commissioner --
we have to start with Commissioner Henning this morning on this one.
Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have no changes to today's
February 14, 2012
agenda and no ex parte communications on today's consent.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I have no changes to the
agenda. And on the consent agenda, on F3, I have correspondence.
And on 8 -- no, excuse me. That's it. That concludes what I have.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And I have no further changes to
the agenda this morning.
And with respect to ex parte disclosure on the consent agenda, I
do have ex parte disclosure for Item No. F3. It consists of
correspondence from Chief Orly Stoltz of the North Naples Fire
District and from -- the Collier County Mutual Aid Agreement that
was dated January 29, 2011, and an EMS Advisory Board letter to the
Board of County Commissioners on January 25, 2012.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. On the consent
agenda, I have -- on Item No. F3 I've had a letter to Orly Stoltz, the
Mutual Aid Agreement, and the EMS Advisory Board letter. Also, on
F4, I've had emails; I've received emails.
Now, on top of that, I just had a couple little things. On Item No.
16G2 -- sorry, it's just a little spelling thing -- somewhere down in the
middle, a little past the middle, it says, "to varity that they would
successfully complete," and I think they mean to verify, so I just
wanted to change that.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Also, 16F3, I would like to pull that
to the regular agenda, please.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that becomes what item?
MR. OCHS: That becomes Item IOM on your regular agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: 16173?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh -huh, yes, sir.
Page 7
February 14, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Commissioner -- are you
finished?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. With respect to the consent
agenda, I have disclosures for F3 and F4, correspondence and calls,
same communications that you -all described, BCC letter to Orly,
Collier County Mutual Aid Agreement, EMS Advisory Board letter to
BCC.
And with respect to F4. I have calls.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: With respect to the agenda, I --
Leo, you and I spoke about 1 O and IOB being withdrawn because
there was an intent to protest the award of the contract, on the part of
one of the bidders --
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- as I understand. I forgot to ask
you one question.
MR. OCHS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What is the protest about?
MR. OCHS: I don't have the protest letter in front of me. I know
there was a meeting yesterday with the purchasing director, and I'm
assuming there's either some concern about the scope of services or
the basis for the award.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think Norm is ready to --
MR. OCHS: Norm may have more background on it.
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, growth
management administrator.
My understanding, Commissioner, is that the second bidder is
arguing that there was sort of bid shopping for the subcontractors by
the apparent low bidder. We haven't yet received, formally, as I
understand it, the bid protest. They've asked a number of questions,
0!=
February 14, 2012
but in an abundance of caution we said, pull the items off the agenda
and we'd work through the issue, see if we had a protest where that
goes. And if we don't have a protest, we'll bring it back to you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So bid shopping on the part of
county?
MR. FEDER: No, no, by the apparent low bidder. The
inference, at least I heard -- and I haven't been in on that -- was that
they were working with the subs and trying to shop around and get the
best prices from the subs.
Now, how that affects the bidding and issues and other questions,
again, we haven't yet received a formal bid protest, only the inference
that one may well be coming.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And what is the deadline for the
bid protest?
MR. FEDER: My understanding is the 16th and -- 16th.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I guess my question then is,
why are -- why would we even bring a contract for approval to the
board if -- and this goes for any contract -- if the period of time for a
protest hasn't expired?
MR. OCHS: Well, ma'am, we did not receive this potential
notice of protest until after your printed agenda went out last week, so
MR. FEDER: And we have not yet received even the protest
itself.
MR. OCHS: Right. We had no way of knowing at the time we
printed this agenda last Wednesday evening that there was a potential
protest.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Prospectively, wouldn't it make
sense to hold off on bringing these matters before the board till the
protest period has expired?
MR. KLATZKOW: Ma'am, we could do that, but since we have
so few bid protests as a percentage of our contracts, it's really an
Page 9
February 14, 2012
efficiency issue.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
Michelle, did you want to say something?
MS. ARNOLD: No. I was just merely going to say, as the
county manager indicated, that the item was placed on the agenda
before a notice was provided to us that -- of the intent.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So the bidder had not disclosed to
you that they were upset with what was going on prior to you putting
it on the agenda?
MS. ARNOLD: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Before we have a vote on the
approval, I'd like to let the board know that I fully expect this agenda
to take us two days. I think we'll be going over into Wednesday. And
we will terminate our discussions today no later than 6 p.m. this
evening. So we'll try to keep you advised as to what items are likely
to be pushed into Wednesday as quickly as we can determine that,
which will be sometime this afternoon.
So do I have a motion to approve the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- regular, consent, and
summary agenda as amended?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Motion to approve the
regular consent and summary agenda as amended.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner
Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 10
February 14, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Page 11
Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
February 14, 2012
Withdraw Item 10A: Recommendation to award Contract #12 -580111 for the construction of the
Collier Area Transit Intermodal Transfer station at the Government Center to Lodge Construction,
Inc., in the amount of $3,697,475. (Staffs request due to intent to protest the award of the contract)
Withdraw Item 1013: This item continued from the January 10, 2012 BCCMeeting. 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. (Staffs request in conjunction with Item 10A)
Continue Item 13B1 to the February 28.2012 BCC Meeting: Recommendation to award Contract
No. 11 -5705 - Gateway Triangle Residential Area Tertiary Stormwater System Improvements to
Douglas N. Higgins, Inc. in the amount of $1,731,977, to approve all necessary budget amendments
and authorize the Chairman to sign the standard Board approved contracts after legal review by the
Office of the County Attorney. (Fiscal Impact to CRA: $219,500) (Staffs request due to delay in
extension letter arrival from Department of Economic Opportunity- Tallahassee)
Continue Item 16A8 to the February 28.2012 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. Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of
Arthrex Commerce Park, which has been revised from the plat which was approved by the Board of
County Commissioners on December 13, 2011, approval of the standard form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security. (Staffs request to
continue working with applicant to address staff comments on the plat and construction plans)
Continue Item 16B1 to the February 28.2012 BCC Meeting: Recommendation for the Community
Redevelopment Agency (CRA) to approve and execute a Site Improvement Grant Agreement between
the CRA and a Grant Applicant within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle area. (3 042 Cottage Grove
Avenue- Fiscal Impact: $2,258.33) (Staffs request after discussion with Clerk's auditor)
Continue Item 16132 to the February 28.2012 BCC Meeting: Recommendation for the Community
Redevelopment Agency (CRA) to approve and execute a Site Improvement Grant Agreement between
the CRA and a Grant Applicant within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle area. (2 718 Gulfview Drive -
Fiscal Impact: $8,000) (Staffs request after discussion with Clerk's auditor)
Move Item 16133 to Item 13B2: Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
to approve and execute a Commercial Building Improvement Grant Agreement between the CRA and a
Grant Applicant within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle area. (2464 Kirkwood Avenue - Fiscal Impact
$7,787.50) (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Move Item 16134 to Item 13B3: Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
to approve and execute a Landscape Improvement Grant Agreement between the CRA and a Grant
Applicant within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle area. (2416 Florida Avenue - Fiscal Impact: $987.05)
(Commissioner Hiller's request)
Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
February 14, 2012
Page 2
Move Item 16D4 to Item 10l: Recommendation to approve a time extension amendment to an
existing Subrecipient Agreement with Goodwill Industries of SW Florida, Inc. in order to complete
renovations at the Roberts Ranch Center in Immokalee. (Commissioner Hiller's request to move
item /Commissioner Coletta and Commissioner Coyle's request to show corrected name)
Move Item 16D5 to Item 10J: Recommendation to approve a change in Project Scope and a time
extension to an existing Subrecipient Agreement with Big Cypress Housing Corporation in order to
complete upgrades at Main Street Village in Immokalee, Florida. (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Move Item 16E3 to Item 10K: Recommendation to approve a Resolution authorizing the
Commission Chairman to execute Deed Certificates for the sale of burial plots at Lake Trafford
Memorial Gardens Cemetery during the 2012 calendar year. (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Move Item 16F1 to Item 10L: Recommendation to approve revisions to the Tourist Development
Council (TDC) guidelines for payment or reimbursement of expenses related to attracting group
meetings to Collier County, and for County Finance to pay expenses covered by these guidelines up to
an annual total program cost of $150,000. (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Move Item 16G2 to Item 13A1: Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, acting as
the Airport Authority, award Bid No. 12 -5824 Immokalee Runway 18 -36 Lighting Rehabilitation in the
amount of $148,341 to Airfield Western, LLC. (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Item 12A to be heard at 10:00 a.m.
Item 9K to be heard at 1:30 p.m.
►"
Item 9D: Alice J. Carlson, Appointment of member to the Industrial Development Authority,
should be listed as living in District 4, not District 3 as indicated in the Executive Summary.
2/14/2012 8:39 AM
February 14, 2012
Item #2B and #2C
MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 10, 2012 — BCC /REGULAR
MEETING AND JANUARY 17, 2012 — BCC /CRA JOINT
WORKSHOP - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, with respect to the January 10,
2012, BCC regular meeting minutes and the January 17, 20125
BCC /CRA joint workshop, is there a motion to approve?
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 HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion carries unanimously.
That brings us to proclamations.
IRM.-NA .
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING NAPLES EQUESTRIAN
CHALLENGE, INC. (NEC) FOR ITS IMPACT ON THE LIVES OF
COLLIER COUNTY INDIVIDUALS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS.
ACCEPTED BY SHERYL SOUKOUP, NEC EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, KYLE CHRISTIANSEN, CHAIR OF THE NEC
Page 12
February 14, 2012
BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND NEC BOARD MEMBERS —
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Proclamations: 4A is a proclamation
recognizing Naples Equestrian Challenge, Inc., for its impact on the
lives of Collier County individuals with special needs. To be accepted
by Sheryl Soukup, NEC Executive Director; Kyle Christensen, Chair
of the NEC Board of Directors; and NEC Board Members. And this
proclamation is sponsored by Commissioner Hiller. If you'd please
come forward.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We should have done this later so
we could keep them in the audience a while.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who is going to accept this? I hope you
have a wide -angle lens.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Everybody has to stay in the
audience so the audience will stay full.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think she would like to speak; is
that correct? Would you like to go ahead and present?
MS. SOUKUP: Hi. I'm Sheryl Soukup, the executive director
for Naples Equestrian Challenge, and I just wanted to take a minute to
say thank you so much. We really appreciate the honor of being able
to come up and stand before you and accept a proclamation of this
kind. We are very grateful to Commissioner Hiller for bringing this
before your board here.
And I wanted to say thank you to all of our really dedicated
board members and also to our staff. I wanted to publicly
acknowledge them for all of their hard work. And we have many
volunteers with us today from our different committees, and we would
not be able to do this and have it -- wouldn't have been able to grow
the way we have over the years without the help of the United Way,
Page 13
February 14, 2012
who's here with us today as well.
(Applause.)
MS. SOUKUP: Thank you so much. And although they couldn't
be here with us today, we also wanted to recognize the Naples
Children Education Foundation for what they've been able to do to
help us over the years as well.
So thank you very much.
(Applause.)
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING FEBRUARY 15, 2012 AS
TOASTMASTER ACADEMY DAY, IN OFFICIAL
CELEBRATION AND RECOGNITION OF ITS FOUNDING AND
SERVICE TO THE CITIZENS OF COLLIER COUNTY.
ACCEPTED BY TASHAHARA JALLARD, PRESIDENT;
RAGNHILD SUNDE, VICE - PRESIDENT OF EDUCATION;
CHRISTOPHER PRITCHARD, VICE- PRESIDENT OF
MEMBERSHIP; MARCIA HERRERA, VICE - PRESIDENT OF
PUBLIC RELATIONS; SANDY LEVIN, SECRETARY; JILL
DAVIS, TREASURER; AND ROBYN PRITCHARD, SERGEANT
AT ARMS — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 4B is a proclamation designating February 15,
2012, as Toastmaster Academy Day in official celebration and
recognition of its founding and service to the citizens of Collier
County. To be accepted by Tashahara Jallard, President; Ragnhild
Sunde, Vice President of Education; Christopher Pritchard, Vice
President of membership; Marcia Herrera, Vice President of Public
Relations; Sandy Levin, Secretary; Jill Davis, Treasurer; and Robyn
Pritchard, Secretary -- excuse me -- Sergeant at Arms.
This item is sponsored by Commissioner Coletta. If you'd please
Page 14
February 14, 2012
come forward and accept your award.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who gets it? Okay, Marcia. There you
go. Good to see you.
Good morning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for what you're doing.
Thank you so much.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you want to say something?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Of course.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that means all three of you want to
speak.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: First a picture.
MS. HERRERA: We would just -- is this on?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MS. HERRERA: We would just like to take a moment to thank
Commissioner Coletta for sponsoring us. And I know he's very
involved in the community.
I got involved with Toastmasters because of my boss, Jennifer
Edwards, the Supervisor of Elections, in order for us to acquire
leadership skills and communication skills, which are very helpful in
any endeavor that we have.
So thank you very much. And our Toastmaster Academy is
dedicated to the leadership development and communication
development. So we welcome any member of the public that wants to
be a member of Toastmasters.
Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
Item #4C
Page 15
February 14, 2012
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING FEBRUARY, 2012 AS
CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION MONTH IN
COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY JACK GARDNER,
PRINCIPAL, LORENZO WALKER INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4C is a proclamation designating February
2012 as Career and Technical Education Month in Collier County. To
be accepted by Jack Gardner, principal, Lorenzo Walker Institute of
Technology. This item is sponsored by Commissioner Coyle. Please
come forward.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's been way too long. Nice to meet
you, Jack. Thanks for what you're doing.
MR. GARDNER: Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: When does that other photographer get a
chance to take pictures?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You can take something.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is he just the backup or what?
MR.00HS: Yeah.
MR. GARDNER: Thank you. A two -day meeting, oh, my gosh.
So I'll keep it brief.
I'm brand new to the area, from Indianapolis, and Lorenzo
Walker and I -tech and schools like us, we're the link, not the missing
link, but sometimes the forgotten link between students and their
careers, and students and a bright future, and productive citizenry and
that kind of thing.
So it's neat. Thank you for the recognition. Thank you,
Commissioner Coyle, or Chairman Coyle, for allowing us to be here
and be recognized for our involvement in the community.
So thank you very much. Career and technical education's
Page 16
February 14, 2012
important. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is important. Thank you very much
for your help. Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You just caused us to go over into
Thursday now.
Item #4D
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING FEBRUARY 19 -25, 2012 AS
NATIONAL ENGINEER'S WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY.
ACCEPTED BY ALISON BRADFORD, PRESIDENT OF THE
CALUSA CHAPTER OF THE FLORIDA ENGINEERING
SOCIETY; RALPH VERRASTRO, VICE - PRESIDENT OF THE
CALUSA CHAPTER OF THE FLORIDA ENGINEERING
SOCIETY; AND NORMAN TREBILCOCK, SECRETARY OF
THE CALUSA CHAPTER OF THE FLORIDA ENGINEERING
SOCIETY — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 4D is a proclamation designating February 19th
through the 25th, 2012, as National Engineers Week in Collier
County. To be accepted by Alison Bradford, President of the Calusa
Chapter, Florida Engineering Society; Ralph Verrastro, Vice President
of the Calusa Chapter of the Florida Engineering Society; and Norman
Trebilcock, Secretary of the Calusa Chapter of the Florida
Engineering Society, and this proclamation is sponsored by
Commissioner Coyle. If you'd please come forward. Congratulations.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Always a pleasure to make presentations
to fellow engineers. Good morning. Who gets to do this?
(Applause.)
MS. BRADFORD: Just a few words. Next week is -- February
Page 17
February 14, 2012
19th to the 25th is National Engineers Week, observed by more than
70 engineering education and cultural societies and more than 50
corporations and government agencies.
The National Engineers Week was started in 1951 by the
National Society of Professional Engineers in conjunction with
President George Washington's birthday, who was also considered the
nation's first engineer.
The purpose of National Engineers Week is to call attention to
the contributions to society that engineers make. The aim of the week
is to create a positive awareness and spark enthusiasm about the
engineering profession to people of various ages with little or no
engineering background by emphasizing the importance of learning
math, science, and technical skills.
Engineers take on many roles in the community such as
designers, teachers, government, and public officials in which
problem- solving skills and critical thinking is imperative.
I understand one of our own commissioners, Commissioner
Coyle, you are an engineer as well?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Electrical.
MS. BRADFORD: And -- wanted to recognize him. And thank
you. On behalf of the Florida Engineering Society, we'd like to thank
the Board of County Commissioners for this opportunity to recognize
Engineers Week and all that engineers contribute to society. So
thanks.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, if I could have a motion to approve
the proclamation this morning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to make a motion to approve
all of the proclamations.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Fiala to
Page 18
February 14, 2012
approve, second by Commissioner Hiller.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
Item #5A
PRESENTATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BUSINESS OF
THE MONTH FOR FEBRUARY, 2012 TO SPECIALISTS IN
UROLOGY. ACCEPTING THE AWARD IS TRACY TAYLOR,
DIRECTOR OF MARKETING FOR SPECIALISTS IN UROLOGY
—PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: That takes us to Item 5 on your agenda this
morning, presentations. 5A is a presentation of the Collier County
Business of the Month for February 2012 to Specialists in Urology.
Accepting the award is Tracy Taylor, the director of marketing for the
firm.
Tracy, please come forward.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Hi, Tracy. How are you?
MR. RAYMOND: Nancy, stand in front of the guy there so we
block him out. Photo Shop's going to work great.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was Photo Shopped recently.
Page 19
February 14, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's okay. Everybody else does it, too.
MS. TAYLOR: Thank you. Thank you very much. My name is
Tracy Taylor. I'm the Director of Marketing for Specialists in
Urology, and I would like to accept this award on behalf of Dr.
William Figlesthaler, who is the head of Specialists in Urology and
has been practicing in our town for close to 15 years with now
employing close to 300 employees. So we're very excited to be here,
and thank you so much for this award.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's great. Well deserved. Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #5B
PRESENTATION BY KEITH UPSON, CHAIRMAN OF THE
BLACK AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD, UPDATING THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON THE STATUS
AND CURRENT INITIATIVES OF THE BLACK AFFAIRS
ADVISORY BOARD — PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Item 5B is a presentation by Keith Upson, chairman
of the Black Affairs Advisory Board, to update the Board of County
Commissioners on the status and current initiatives of the Black
Affairs Advisory Board. Mr. Upson?
MR. UPSON: Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. Keith Upson, recently Re- elected Chairman to your
Black Affairs Advisory Board, which tells me I'm going to have to up
my threats of inappropriate behavior. I won't go into any details.
We've been very busy since I was before you last -- early last
June. I believe I can confine my comments to three, if not four, hours.
If I could get like a one -hour warning, I would appreciate that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have a time - certain at 10 o'clock.
You can share that with the Clerk.
Page 20
February 14, 2012
MR. UPSON: And that's commencing on Thursday; is that
correct? I could come back on Thursday and have all the time I'd
like?
We have been very busy since I was here in front of you in mid
June. Shortly after that last report, with the help, I believe, of
Commissioner Henning, you appointed Frank Cummings and Vaughn
Young to the board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It was me.
MR. UPSON: Coyle. I apologize, Mr. Chairman. With the
assistance of Chairman Coyle, this -- the commission appointed Frank
Cummings and Vaughn Young to us, and in so doing, not only helped
us overcome some of the quorum issues that we'd been having, but
also gave us a couple of very enthusiastic members, not just on the
board, but they carry over their enthusiasm from the community into
their work on the advisory board, which is -- as you're aware, can be
infectious. You get some excited people who are eager to do some
things, it kind of ups the level of involvement from all parties.
You've since reappointed Jennifer Williams, and we've got
LaVerne Franklin back on after a brief absence which, I believe,
brings our current active roster to seven members.
We've met, since I was here before, back at Golden Gate
Community Center a couple of more times, once later in June and
again in October. We've enjoyed out there, as well as when we borrow
this room for our meetings.
Regular attendance from Lieutenant Renee Gonzalez from the
Sheriff s Department as well as different community- oriented placing
deputies, including Corporal David Butler. The results both, I think,
for the public and the officers and the members of the board have been
overwhelmingly positive, particularly with -- in those two examples,
because rarely does an issue come up that one of those two gentlemen
don't immediately say, oh, you know who you can call with the
county? Call so and so, and they'll tell you about that issue, and I
Page 21
February 14, 2012
believe both of those gentlemen do follow up with the members of the
public, did you get with so and so? Did you get what you needed? In
part because we don't hear about it again which, as you know, is
frequently a good -- it's a good sign if you're not continuing to hear
about -- about issues.
In August, we received David Weeks', at that point I think, very
well - practiced presentation on redistricting. My hunch was that we
were not the first group he'd given that to, and he did a great job, of
course, of addressing questions that we had for him. I don't recall if
there were questions from the public in attendance at that meeting.
He mentioned at that time the independent counsel's report wasn't
yet available. I marked that date out of a morbid curiosity in the fact
that I like to read things that I think normal humans probably don't like
to read.
And when that date came and went, he did get me a copy of that
report, and through our staff liaison, Tamika Seaton, I forwarded that
copy, and I think she distributed it to the rest of the members of the
board. Whether or not they found it as interesting and captivating a
read as I did, you know, I can't say. But I did appreciate the
presentation and the ability to review that report.
On the recommendation of Corporal Butler, we've individually
made commitments or have already met with representatives from
each of the Collier Sheriffs districts as well as Parks and Recreation
directors, and we're getting to know some assets in the community that
we wouldn't have otherwise known and facilities that some of us didn't
know existed. Hi, this is who I am. These are the sort of questions we
may get from time to time. Let me get that, you know, schedule of
programs you have here at the park for the upcoming month. And, of
course, we have the countywide resources available on that as well.
We've recently -- or it's my understanding that recently two
additional applications have been received for Deborah Johnson
Hubbard, who we know as DJ from her regular attendance at our
Page 22
February 14, 2012
meetings, and Robert Williams, that I don't believe I've met yet. I
don't know where the board is in -- and I don't know where those
applications are in the approval process. We hope to see those two
candidates appointed to the board if for no other reason than the fact
that we know them and we know at least DJ, that she's -- I'm grateful
she's coming out of the audience and over to the other side of the room
because she's going to be at the meetings anyway, but I believe this
will, for the first time since I've been involved with the board, bring
our membership to a full nine -- nine - member board.
I feel like I should -- obviously, I'm biased. I should mention that
at least with the seven active members we've got right now, these are
genuine. I don't -- I can't speak as to any other board members' hearts,
but I have every indication these are people who are serving on this
board in your service because that's what we want to do. I don't see
anyone asking me at this time to put out campaign signs of any sort
for chief guardian of the universe, and it makes a big difference to not
just have bodies on the roster but people who are showing up, and
they're showing up because this is what they want to be doing.
So I believe our brightest days of service to the community by
serving the commission are ahead of us. We're going to continue our
roving meetings back out at Golden Gate. We still plan on getting to
River Park. I know I mentioned that we were trying to do that in June.
We're still going to get out to Immokalee for a meeting.
We're going to try, at least once, to take a meeting to an area
where people have already gathered in large numbers, and it's my
understanding that next month's meeting, if we can, we're going to
notice it for New Hope Ministries on their property if we can
coordinate that with them to have a table and some space available on
the property.
It's my understanding every Wednesday night they have a large
gathering and a tremendous amount of phenomenal food. The point
being that we can sit in our adjacent room, our community center
Page 23
February 14, 2012
room, at the table and conduct our properly- noticed meeting, and
people would be aware that we're there and can come out and address
us or participate in the meeting and, likewise, hopefully, at some point
we can actually get in and eat and get some of the food that's going to
be there.
You know, we've got -- if you go to colliergovernment.net (sic),
there's a section you click, you click, you get advisory boards, you
click, you click, you click -- you get the point -- and there's the current
active roster. I'm not sure who to talk to, but if it would be possible
for us to contain upcoming meeting information on that preexisting
page -- and I know it has to be noticed through other channels, but if it
were possible -- and I'll explore this with Ms. Seaton and the
appropriate county representatives -- for us to have, you know, the
Black Affairs Advisory Board Web page, so to speak, that not only
contains the current members but also has upcoming meeting
information that we can direct people to or that would be easily
digestible in a small flyer or handout.
Likewise, we're also working on a very simple questionnaire that
we can take to meetings and make available to people, you know,
what area, what's the concern and, you know, how would you like to
see it addressed? Would you like some representative to come speak
so we can work that out, or do you simply want us to pass it on?
Because I'm more than willing to do that as well.
But if we had a simple repository like that that we can point
people to that would fit on a business card or refrigerator magnet --
obviously, I'm not asking for money this morning -- but something
like that that people can take and hang on to rather than us having to
say, well, you know, if you go to colliergov.net, and you can click
here and you can click here and you can click here, you get the point,
then we're exploring a way to more efficiently say, you know what, if
you can't come to the meeting or you can't speak to us this next one,
here's somewhere you can go and you can find the next meeting, you
Page 24
February 14, 2012
can find where we're going to be at Golden Gate again, you can
submit information you'd like addressed to us, and we'll go work on it,
because we have all these people and all these contacts, and we're
more than willing to be able to do that.
And that's it. No complaints. And I'm not asking for money, so
that should be the -- should the simplest -- I don't know why I feel like
I'd much rather be doing something relaxing this morning, but you're
all so kind. Walking up here, I was like, why can't I be in trial today?
Why can't I be doing something, you know, calming rather than
coming before you? But if there are no questions from the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's not over for you yet. Commissioner
Hiller has some questions.
MR. UPSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's actually suggestions. I like
what you said. And, quite frankly, the part I liked best is being
somewhere else and doing something tranquilizing. I mean, you say
trial. I would say, you know, paddle boarding, but that's just another
alternative.
Your idea of having someone central that people on these
advisory boards can come to, not just yours, but other advisory boards,
does make sense.
And Ian Mitchell is our advisory boards coordinator, so I think
the essential depository, if you will, of all of the information and
history, if you will, should be Ian, because he already does that, and
he knows everything about what meetings are taking place, where and
when, you know, what the agendas are, what the backup is, what
positions are opening up on the different boards if any of your board
members would like to join other boards to be more involved, so I
think we've got it. It's there.
MR. UPSON: Well -- and I'm sure it is. And, you know, it's
interesting just how similar that is to our role or -- as we see it under
the ordinance that created us, all these resources are available but
Page 25
February 14, 2012
without an institutional memory on this board or --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
MR. UPSON: -- community members come to us and they say,
how do I find out about this? Well, the county's got all these
tremendous resources that are available that we're trying to help, you
know, foster that communication between --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And Ian is definitely wonderful,
and he's great with people, and I'm sure would, you know, enjoy
helping your members just as much as he helps others.
The other thing I'd like to bring out is, you know, what you've
mentioned about the web and basically all these different advisory
boards having their own tag, if you will, and their agendas and backup
material attached to that. I think we should make sure that all the
advisory boards have that. I don't know -- I've looked at some of the
advisory boards' links, but I think if every advisory board has their
own page that's attached to the general information that we have on
the website where they can upload material if they have reports that
they've compiled, you know, events that they've hosted and they want
to post photographs, I think it would really be great to let these
advisory boards be more outward- reaching to the community as well
as to the board so everyone knows what they're doing and how they're
contributing.
MR. MITCHELL: Commissioner, if I can comment. We are
actually right in the middle of doing that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Wonderful.
MR. MITCHELL: Commissioner Coyle's aide has been -- has
taken on the responsibility, and currently we're just revising all the
advisory -board pages because it had been a long time since it had been
worked, and then working with Lavah Hetzel, John Torre we're trying
to make the pages that much more informative with lists of the
membership. That's exactly what Mr. Upson was saying.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So it sounds like we're all thinking
Page 26
February 14, 2012
the same thing, and Ian has already taken the lead on the initiative, so
we're moving in the right direction.
MR. UPSON: It was because of me. It was because of my -- it's
because of me.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want to -- I want you to
know, I wouldn't have thought otherwise. I mean, I knew that, you
know, behind every great man is an even greater man, although some
people say a woman.
MR. UPSON: And then ultimately --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, ultimately. Thank you for
all you do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You ought to audition for some
comedy show. You are cool.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you so much. And I'm so
delighted to see how you've built up the membership on your board,
because that was a concern, and you've done a great job doing that.
And it's really nice that Commissioner Coyle was able to recruit
people to help.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And, Keith, I want to congratulate you
for your service. You brought up a very, very important point that
needs to be emphasized over and over. We want people on advisory
boards because they want to help the entire community, not because
they have a personal agenda, and all too frequently we get the latter.
So I think that you're absolutely correct that the members that
you have on the board now are really sincerely committed to
improving our entire community. So thank you very much for your
role in that.
MR. UPSON: And thank you. I did actually run longer than I
intended.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. UPSON: That's as fast as I can talk without --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You know, everybody has the same
Page 27
February 14, 2012
excuse, and that's why we run over into Wednesdays and Thursdays.
MR. UPSON: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Have a good day.
Item #5C
RECOGNIZING SUE TRONE, PROJECT MANAGER,
BAYSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, AS EMPLOYEE OF THE
MONTH FOR JANUARY, 2012 — PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 5C on your
agenda this morning. It's a recommendation to recognize Sue Trone,
Project Manager with the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle CRA, as your
employee of the month for January 2012. Sue?
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Hi, Sue. How are you?
MS. TRONE: Great.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I've got some things for you.
MS. TRONE: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I hope you appreciate it. And here's a
letter from me that is really valuable. But this is probably more
important.
MS. TRONE: You're knocking me out.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You do such a good job, Sue.
MS. TRONE: Thank you so much. It's fun.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you so much.
MS. TRONE: Hi, thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you for your service.
Great job.
MS. TRONE: Thanks.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Congratulations.
Page 28
February 14, 2012
MS. TRONE: Thank you very much.
MR. OCHS: Sue, stand there for a minute while I read some
embarrassing things about you, okay.
MS. TRONE: Oh, boy.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Sue's been an employee of the
county since 2006, obviously working with our Bayshore /Gateway
CRA. She's the project manager, and her responsibilities include
establishing redevelopment programs, expanding our grant programs,
overseeing stormwater- drainage projects, and creating agency
publications.
Recently she had two major projects that came to a very
successful conclusion. She was instrumental in securing a $2.7
million HUD grant that will be used to improve drainage in the CRA,
the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle area.
And also, in conjunction with that drainage project, Sue's created
a Gateway /Triangle streetscape guidelines. She single - handedly
managed every facet of that project, helped planning meetings with
the residents, worked tirelessly to get guidelines approved. She's also
created local neighborhood watch programs, coordinated a coastal
cleanup event at Haldeman Creek, helped develop a business outreach
program for commercial business in the area. I don't know what she
does in her spare time, but she's obviously very busy in the CRA.
Sue's certainly a great asset to the county and very deserving of
this award.
Commissioners, it's my great honor to present Sue Trone, your
Employee of the Month for January 2012. Congratulations.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Congratulations.
Mr. Chairman, we're ready to move on to public petitions this
morning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Page 29
February 14, 2012
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION BY CHRISTIAN TOBIN, PRESIDENT, IAFF
LOCAL 2396, COLLIER PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS AND
PARAMEDICS, REGARDING THE BENEFITS OF
CONSOLIDATING FIRE DISTRICTS — PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: 6A is a public - petition request from Christian
Tobin, President, International Association of Firefighters Local 2396,
Collier professional firefighters and paramedics regarding the benefits
of consolidating fire districts. Mr. Tobin?
MR. TOBIN: That's me. I'm on.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
MR. TOBIN: Thank you for the time this morning,
Commissioners. Much appreciated.
As was mentioned, I'm the president of Local 2396. I represent
the good men and women on the engine companies and rescue
companies and ladder trucks of Golden Gate and East Naples.
Lately you've heard a lot of reports, and it's a continued issue
about building a better fire service in Collier County.
When it comes to emergency services, everybody has a part.
Whether it's county commissioners, fire commissioner, advisory
boards, right down to the general public, we have an obligation to
each other.
And what I'd like to do today, as a representative of Golden Gate
and East Naples, is ask for the time to come back before this board
with a working report and PowerPoint based upon working with the
other men and women of Collier County EMS, Isle of Capri, Ochopee,
North Naples, Immokalee, everybody who, every day, are on these
ambulances, are on these fire trucks providing the service to the door.
We believe, speaking for our local, that an independent fire /EMS
service is the future of Collier County. And it's time to keep moving
Page 30
February 14, 2012
and stop having people who cannot and start getting people that can
do.
There are better uses and efficiencies that could be used to make
sure that that money is serving the public. Instead of closing station
houses and laying off firemen and having engine companies out of
service, that should be a warning to all of us. Red flags should be
going off in everybody, everybody, from Collier commissioners to fire
commissioners, should be saying, how can we do this better to make
sure that when somebody has an emergency, wherever they may live,
wherever they may work, wherever they may travel, that they're going
to have the best, most professional and efficient personnel show up on
scene.
So it's short. I can't give you a whole presentation in ten minutes,
but I would love to lead it up with other organized labor in this county
and let you have presentations by the people who do the job every day
and not simply hear from the fire chiefs.
You need to hear from the people who are doing it every day and
what their take is on it and where we think we could be doing it better
and keep this momentum going.
And, you know, on a personal level, I was glad to see this board
support that Senate Bill 192 and House Bill 107. We've got to knock
down walls, ladies and gentlemen.
It's too important what we do. It's not mine. It's not yours. It's
the public's. And we've got to go over names on the side of trucks and
the names on the side of ambulances and start deciding, are we going
to build something better, or are you going to have these divisions
based upon, you know, toys in a sandbox?
We can do it better, we're going to do it better, and we hope to
have your support and all the fire commissioners' support. So I hope
you're going to let us come back and let me work and put something
together with everybody else so we have a unified voice of the people
that do this job every day.
Page 31
February 14, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Mr. Tobin, I hope you understand
you're singing to the choir.
MR. TOBIN: And I'll keep singing until it's done.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, keep singing, but the point that I
want to make is that this board has been trying to get the fire districts
to consolidate for decades. We have provided inducements of all
sorts, and we always keep getting excuses as to why they don't want to
do it. And I suspect they will continue making those excuses.
But the people you really need to convince are the fire
commissioners, the fire chiefs, and the people who vote for them.
There's nothing more we can do than we have already done. But we'll
keep trying.
Thank you very much.
MR. TOBIN: Gonna keep trying, and I'll just add this: There's
always more we can do. And if you get out there and we're supporting
the right people -- it's 2012 -- to get in these spots and make change
and want change -- it begins and ends politics.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm next.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Thank you so much for
bringing this forward. It is good news to all of us to hear you bring
this subject forward. I definitely want to put it on a regular agenda so
we can discuss it at length, and that will be an excellent thing. I also
want to discuss at the same time getting back to where we had ALS
equipment on the fire trucks. I mean, complete ALS equipment rather
than leaving these trained people without anything, any equipment on
their trucks. So at the same time I would like you to put that on the
agenda, County Manager.
Thank you.
MR. TOBIN: Well, you'd be surprised how many problems go
away when you put people on the same team.
Page 32
February 14, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I hear you. You need a
little more time than the ten minutes for a presentation.
Little disappointed. I was looking forward very much to your --
the presentation you gave to the Golden Gate Civic Association last
month. Absolutely dynamic, and so I suggested you come under
public petition.
But, regardless, I mean, one meeting from now, hopefully we'll
be able to hear the full presentation, which I know my fellow
commissioners will get a lot out of, just as the audience will.
So I support Commissioner Fiala for your presentation. And if
she wants another item on the agenda to discuss separately, I have no
problem with that either. I think we should be open as far as open
discussions, anything that has to do with the community out there.
And fire protection is a big part of Collier County community,
and Collier County Government plays a role in it in the fact that we
have two dependent fire districts under our command plus EMS. And
so this would all be a contribution toward some future consolidation.
Thank you for being here.
MR. TOBIN: Well, thank you for inviting me. And one of my
major concerns is that we're a team on the street. We can't get the job
done and the patient from their home to the hospital without working
as a team. And I want to make sure that when I come before this
board that I give you a team presentation, that everybody has their say,
and we can show you the inefficiencies, we can show you how you
can do it better, and we can give you visuals of what's been going on
and how to do it better.
And I think that is deserving -- deserving of time, and I don't
want to just quickly throw something together and -- I want to give
you a stand -up performance.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Thank you so much for
Page 33
February 14, 2012
presenting today.
As you know when I was -- and I had mentioned this to you.
When I was up in Tallahassee, one of the things that I was concerned
about is the legislation that's being proposed to allow for the voluntary
mergers of the independent special districts and, you know, the claim
by Commissioner Coyle that you -all haven't been doing anything even
though there's a lot of talk is really unfair, because the mechanism by
which you could accomplish what you want to accomplish was not in
place, and our legislature didn't advance the means to do it. So it really
isn't your fault that this hasn't happened as of yet.
What's really great -- and what I have here is the most recent bill
analysis and fiscal- impact statement, which I can give you a copy of
for your files. I'm continuing to track it, and I'll let you know as
changes are made and how that will affect you.
I just want to read the section pertaining to independent special
district mergers and what is being proposed that changes, you know,
what has been an obstacle to you in the past.
This bill creates a new procedure that allows two or more
contiguous independent special districts with similar functions and
governing bodies that were created by special act of the legislature to
voluntarily merge prior to a special act merging them.
This bill allows merging proceedings to be initiated either by
joint resolution of the governing bodies of each district or by a petition
signed by 40 percent or more of the qualified electors in each district.
The bill requires independent special districts that are merging to
adopt a merger plan that outlines the specific components for the
proposed merger which will be subject to a public hearing and a voter
referendum.
The bill states that any voluntarily merger under the new
procedure preempts any special act to the contrary. That procedure
does not apply to independent special districts whose governing
bodies are elected by district landowners voting the acreage owned
Page 34
February 14, 2012
within the district.
This bill also repeals current statutory provisions addressing the
merger of independent special fire control districts, which is you. In
addition it allows the Department of Economic Opportunity to declare
a special district inactive if the district's governing board unanimously
adopts a resolution declaring inactivity.
And this bill substantially amends Sections 189.4042, 191.1014,
and 189.4044 of Florida Statutes.
So there are, you know, other discussions about dependent
special districts and the dissolution of independent special districts.
But what's happening now in Tallahassee is finally going to give the
fire districts the mechanism to voluntarily merge, and that was not in
place before.
So I will make this a part of the record and give you a copy for
your files. And I look forward to meeting with you and talking to you
about your visions.
MR. TOBIN: Awesome. This is the year to get things done.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, we hope so. I would like to point
out that Commissioner Hiller is relatively new to this board and
doesn't know what we have done over the past decade about doing
this. There have been studies, and you know there have been studies
about consolidation going on for years and years, and you always had
the opportunity, not you, but the fire districts themselves and the
commissioners of the fire districts always had an avenue to do that.
But, nevertheless, we hope something positive will come out of
our joint efforts and finally begin to move toward consolidation. We
have even volunteered to transfer EMS to the fire districts if they
consolidated.
So this is an old problem that has been delayed by excuses by
people in the fire districts themselves, and we hope that we will
overcome that soon.
Thank you.
Page 35
February 14, 2012
Okay. Who's next?
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, you have a time - certain at 10
o'clock. I don't know if your next --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What can we get done in two minutes?
MR. OCHS: I don't know if your public petitioner can guarantee
you he'll be finished in a couple of minutes. If you want to take that,
we can, or we can move to some appointments.
Rich, I don't know how long you need. You've got ten minutes,
obviously.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't think I need ten, depending on --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can you do it in one?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll try.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Good morning.
Item #6B
PUBLIC PETITION BY RICHARD YOVANOVICH REGARDING
THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR)
PROGRAM FOR THE RURAL FRINGE MIXED USE DISTRICT -
MOTION TO BRING BACK FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION AND
POSSIBLE OPTIONS AT THE FEBRUARY 28, 2012 BCC
MEETING — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Let me read this one. This is 6B on the printed
agenda. It's a public - petition request from Richard Yovanovich
regarding the Transfer of Development Rights Program for the Rural
Fringe Mixed -Use District.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Rich Yovanovich.
As you know, the TDR program has basically four TDRs
associated with it. One of the TDRs is an early -entry bonus that's
Page 36
February 14, 2012
scheduled to expire March 27th of this year.
The request that I'm making is to extend that early -entry bonus
because of the fact that the TDR program was adopted just about
when the recession hit, so the program really hasn't had an opportunity
to play itself out.
There's not a ready market for property owners who then own
sending lands to assure themselves, if they were to put these lands into
conservation, that someone would buy the TDRs. And also those
who've already started the process are stuck with a concern that if they
put the conservation easement on their property too soon, there's the
risk that they will not be able to use those lands as mitigation lands.
And the program always intended that the sending lands would serve
both to generate TDRs and also to serve as mitigation lands.
I have reached out to the Conservancy, Florida Wildlife, and
Collier Audubon. I believe you probably have received emails from
each of them supporting the extension of this early -entry bonus. And
we can call it something different since time has gone by, so maybe
it's truly not an early entry. But we can talk about that process
through the EAR -based amendments.
But in the interim, we're asking that you suspend that March 27th
date while we propose a Growth Management Plan amendment to
extend the date or change the program or, at a minimum, allow people
to submit an application prior to that date kind of as a placeholder
until we -- until the board decides whether or not they want to
continue on with this additional credit.
And I know you'll need to put that on a future agenda, but I hope
that the commission can support --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a motion to bring this back for a
hearing?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion's made.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then a motion by Commissioner
Page 37
February 14, 2012
Fiala, second by Commissioner Coletta.
And I want to make clear that we understand what this does. If
we try to make a decision now, we don't have public comment --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- under these categories, petitions, so it
would be unfair to -- for us to make a decision right now.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So we're agreeing to bring it back for a
full hearing and be advertised, and the staff then will present some
alternative solutions to the problem.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's what you're asking for?
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's what I'm asking for, but
timing -wise we're bumping up against the expiration of the program,
so we need to have an interim --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But in the meantime, we will -- you're
asking us to suspend the March deadline.
MR. YOVANOVICH: You don't need to do it today but at the
next meeting talk about a mechanism to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- have people not lose their existing
balance.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. County Manager, you can handle
that within, what, another --
MR. OCHS: Sir, we'll bring --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Next meeting?
MR. OCHS: We'll bring options back at the next meeting for the
board's consideration.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there any further discussion on this
item?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes.
Page 38
February 14, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner -- who was first,
Hiller, Coletta, or Henning? Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think Coletta wanted to speak.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's all right, go ahead. Ladies first.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thanks.
Jeff, I saw that you wanted to speak. Would you like to speak
ahead of me, and then I'll make my comments?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, no. I mean, this is a Comprehensive
Plan requirement. I see Mike Bosi's here. We chatted about this
earlier, Mike and I, and he can correct me if I'm wrong. There is no
mechanism for an interim fix to this. I mean, it will expire in March.
Now, whether the board wishes to extend this as part of the
Comprehensive Plan process is up to you. I mean, you cannot commit
yourself at this point in time to doing that, and really that's the bottom
line. There will be a period of time where this thing will expire. If
you want to bring it back later, we can do that.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Just briefly. I recognize that, and I talked
briefly to Jeff. But historically you have allowed petitioners who have
submitted a petition prior to the expiration to basically hold -- have
met the requirements of getting in in time but not having to go through
the process and completing it by that date.
So I'm just asking that the board consider that as an allowable
placeholder, if you will, at the next meeting. I understand that it is
going to expire by time. But we have allowed applications that were
complete and submitted to serve as meeting the requirements.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think staff understands.
Okay. Are you finished, Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. I wanted to let Jeff speak
first.
My concern is with the whole TDR program. Has this program
been successful? What evidence do we have that it's been working?
Has anyone compiled an analysis? And if they have, I'd like to see it.
Page 39
February 14, 2012
MR. BOSI: It's part of the adopted EAR that the board accepted
on the -- Mike Bosi, comprehensive planning.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, but I want to -- I'd like to sit
down with you and review the success of, you know, what has
actually happened and, you know --
MR. BOSI: Well, within the EAR, we've quantified. There's
been --
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, we'll be happy to do that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's all I wanted to hear.
The other concern I have -- and I've raised this with Jeff -- is my
concern over the minimum price that has been set by the county for
these TDRs, and I'd like that question addressed at the same time.
The county set a minimum price of, I believe, 25,000 per credit.
I don't understand how we can do it. I don't know if that's an
appropriate minimum price given the current market conditions if we
can do it, and I'd like that all re- examined at the same time when we
look at this particular issue.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I just hope we're
showing good faith in this. This plan required many, many years of
cooperative efforts between developmental community, the different
environmental organizations. It was -- a lot of feedback went into it.
The success of it can't be measured in the short period of time
that we had during this recession. The success of it is what it's going
to be able to control being built out with the future promise that
somebody will be able to build within a reasonable manner, and I
think we need to show good faith when this comes back to be able to
expediate it through and to be able to hold that place marker, as you
call it, for whatever's underway at this point in time to be able to let it
continue.
Page 40
February 14, 2012
It would be dangerous if we were to let this program lapse and
show a lack of good faith.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is -- can't we just give direction
to put it on the EAR -based amendments that it will be advertised and
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, obviously that's going to be our
primary recommendation --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. OCHS: -- but keep -- in keeping with your public - petition
process, typically you either direct us to bring something back for
future consideration or you don't take any action, so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, putting it on the
EAR -based amendment will be a future agenda, wouldn't it?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not to argue. I'm just --
MR. OCHS: No, no, no.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're saying cut the process
and just put it on there if the majority of the board wants to consider
this in the future.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. I think the only thing that you don't have
in that particular recommendation is addressing the comment that Mr.
Yovanovich had about the placeholder process, and what do we do
with applications between the sunset date and the date that the board
ultimately adopts the EAR sometime in the fall. We'd like to bring
back some issues for consideration on that particular topic at next
meeting if we could.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think the motion suggested that you
bring back alternatives to solving the problem.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So that is sufficiently broad to evaluate
all sorts of recommendations.
Page 41
February 14, 2012
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: With respect to that I'd like to
know specifically what projects are being affected by this and how.
When you bring this back, we need to have full disclosure on who's
adversely impacted who's in the pipeline, or not adversely, but who
may be impacted.
MR. OCHS: Sure. Who's ever in the pipeline, we'll certainly
bring that forward as well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously. We
have a time - certain now, and we're right on time.
Item #I 2A
PRESENTATION BY THE CLERK OF COURTS ON THE
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS MODEL SUBMITTED FOR AVE
MARIA DEVELOPMENT, LLLP AS REQUESTED BY THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BCC). THE ACTION
OF THE BOARD IS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD -
MOTION TO HAVE AN IMPARTIAL PARTY CONDUCT A
REVIEW OF THE FINANCIAL IMPACT WITH A 5 YEAR
REVIEW AND REPORT BACK TO BOARD — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, your time - certain item for 10 a.m.
Page 42
February 14, 2012
this morning is Item 12A on your agenda. It's a presentation by the
Clerk of the Courts on the Fiscal Impact Analysis Model submitted for
the Ave Maria Development, LLP, as requested by the Board of
County Commissioners.
And I believe Mr. Brock, Clerk of the Circuit Court, is here.
Good morning, sir.
MR. BROCK: Good morning, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're going to have to get up to the
microphone.
MR. OCHS: Either podium will work, or if you'd like the
hand -held.
MR. BROCK: Give me a hand -held. You don't have one that I
can wear, do you?
MR. OCHS: Just talk into that one. That should work for you.
MR. BROCK: Where's Wayne? You ready? Oh, my gracious.
You going to sit over there.
Commissioners, my name's Dwight Brock. I'm the Clerk of the
Circuit Court.
We are here today to talk to you about our analysis of the Ave
Maria Fiscal Impact Analysis Model. And to tell you -- I think I can
do it better from here. To explain to you a little about what we're
doing -- go to the next one -- back on December the 14th of 2010, the
Board of County Commissioners approved unanimously on an item,
which was called "Recommendation to Review and Accept the Ave
Maria Stewardship District Five -Year Fiscal Monitoring Report," the
motion was to continue and request the Clerk of the Courts to review
the report and return with findings at a future board meeting, and that
was approved unanimously.
Next. First thing that we had to determine as auditors was what
was the FIRM. The Fiscal Impact Analysis Model is the county's
adopted model designed to indicate the financial benefit or detriment a
development, as a whole, to the taxpayers of Collier County. Now
Page 43
February 14, 2012
that -- from our perspective that little phrase "as a whole" has
significant import.
Next. If you look at where this responsibility or obligation on the
county comes from and on the development comes from, if you'll look
at the county's Growth Management Plan, you will see that it says the
SRA will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to
Collier County at horizon year based on a cost/benefit Fiscal Impact
Analysis Model acceptable to or as may be adopted by the county.
That Growth Management Plan was adopted by ordinance in 2003 of
'07 (sic).
Next. Next. You go from the overall concept enunciated in the
Growth Management Plan to the Land Development Code. Land
Development Code is the law or the enabling legislation that was
adopted by this Board of County Commissioners that directs the
action of the county.
In that particular Land Development Code it states,
"Demonstrations of fiscal neutrality, each SRA must demonstrate that
its development" is a whole -- "as a whole" -- again, that "as a whole"
concept is there -- "will be fiscally neutral or positive to the Collier
County tax base at the end of each phase and every five years,
whichever occurs first, and in the horizon year or buildout." That is
the basis upon which we began looking at this.
Next. In addition to that, the monitoring requirement, to assure
fiscal neutrality, the developer of the SRA should submit to the county
a Fiscal Impact Analysis Report every five years until the SRA is 90
percent complete or 90 percent buildout. The report will provide
fiscal impact analysis of the project in accord with the methodology
outlined above.
Next. The Ave Maria stewardship district SRA receiving area
requirement for the FIAM -- you can look at Resolution No. 2005 -23
(sic). It has language very similar to what is in the Land Development
Code.
Page 44
February 14, 2012
Now, keep in mind that this resolution is not law. The Land
Development Code is. They are very similar, but the law here is the
ordinance.
Next. It goes on to provide that the fiscal impact analysis must
use one of the following methodologies, and it outlines two
methodologies that can be used by the county. Either one of them
would have comported to the requirement if, in fact, the Board of
County Commissioners chose to use it. One of those particular
models that could have been used is the Collier County Fiscal Impact
Analysis Model.
Next. On a Board of County Commissioners' meeting in
October, the 23rd and 24th, of 2007, Item 10A, the Board of County
Commissioners approved the use of the FIRM. Now, what is the
FIAM? The FIAM is a model that was developed by, I think it's
Fishkind & Associates, and it was actually used by the state for a
while, but I understand from the information that we gathered that that
has, in fact, been discontinued.
We actually communicated with other people around the state.
We were unable to find anyone that actually uses this model at this
particular point in time. Now, does that mean that nobody uses it?
No, ma'am, it doesn't. Our search was not exhaustive.
But the input that we got was that the model was so complicated,
so cumbersome, and nobody seemed to be really sure that it did what
it was supposed to be doing.
Now, that's other people's opinion and not mine. And, you know,
we did not exhaustively search the countryside to find people. We
simply talked to people that we were able to identify who might have
information that they could provide us.
This was approved by a vote of 4 -1, with Commissioner Coyle
being in opposition.
Next. I show this because I think you're going to see the
potential here that Commissioner Coyle may have been very prophetic
Page 45
February 14, 2012
at the point in time which he said, "Based on our last experience in
getting some economic projections from Fishkind & Associates, I'm
extremely leery of this model. I certainly am not going to have much
confidence in it. Does it cost us any money ?" It was otherwise
approved, and it is now the accepted model for Collier County.
Next. Before I go into the training manual that has been
provided, let's get a fundamental understanding of what it is that the
Clerk's Office is doing here and what the Clerk's Office is not doing.
If anybody is of the impression that the Clerk's Office is
analyzing Ave Maria to determine whether or not it is fiscally
negative, positive, or neutral, that is not what we have done at all.
All we have done is analyze the model as it was presented, and
that's what you're going to hear about as our analysis of the model that
was presented.
In the course of doing this process, we dealt with your county
staff, Mr. Casalanguida and his people. And I want to tell you that
they could have not possibly been more cooperative with us. They
worked with us exhaustively in dealing with this.
We also dealt with Barron Collier and, I think, the Fishkind
people, and they were cooperative as well. They may not have liked
what we said that we were looking at, but they were very cooperative
and worked very well with us.
In looking at the model that we went through, one of the things
that came to our attention was that there is actually a training manual
for this model that is prepared by its developer.
Now, remember, Fishkind & Associates, or Hank Fishkind, is the
developer of this model. In addition to that, Hank Fishkind for
Fishkind & Associates is, in fact, the representative of Ave Maria and
Barron Collier.
If you look at -- and I -- the first line in the training model in
terms of disclosure, since the FIAM is instrumental in -- is
implemented in open code format, it would be easy for a user to
Page 46
February 14, 2012
manipulate the results to show -- to suit some particular event. To
guard against such action, it is recommended that the certified users
adhere to a rigorous disclosure standard.
Now, let me tell you from the outset I, nor no one in my staff, is a
certified user of the FIAM. Start off with that particular premise.
It goes on to provide that people who are using it should basically
disclose conflicts of interest, and I will let you come to the conclusion
of whether or not you think that Fishkind, who developed the model,
is now working and actually presented the model to the county for
approval and is, in fact, working for the developer, whether or not they
have a conflict of interest and whether or not you knew that,
understood that, and accepted that.
I'm not castigating anyone as a consequence of that. That is just
something that I think everyone should be made aware of
The analyst should clearly describe any deviations from the
FIAM norms. Now, that is going to be, I think, important as we go
through our -- looking at this process.
Next. If you go back to the submission of the 2010 report, okay
-- I'm going to be looking at basically three reports here today. There
was the original model that was submitted for approval in 2005.
You -all recall that? As you -all approved this process, there was a
model that was submitted to the county in 2005 that was analyzing the
entire development.
Then in 2010, what we are looking at here today was submitted.
In 2011 there was an additional submission that took place.
This is the cover letter for the original five -year Fiscal
Monitoring Report submitted by the county -- to the county staff by
WilsonMiller in 2010, and it says, the report was prepared using the
required Fiscal Impact Analysis Model adopted by Collier County
Board of County Commissioners on October the 26th, 2007.
So we start off from the premise we've got to determine what it is
that the Board of County Commissioners has now approved so that we
Page 47
February 14, 2012
may go look and compare what is presented today.
Next. In the presentation to the Board of County Commissioners
of this 2010 model, it makes the statement, "The consultant used
Version 7.5 for this analysis."
Now, we begin trying to find out by going back to the record in
2007 to see if we could find a copy of what was approved in 2007.
And there was no copy of a model submitted in the board minutes and
records at the point in time that that was submitted to the board for
approval and the board approved it.
So we're trying to identify what we need to be using to compare
it to, and we found -- they told us what it was that they were using,
Version 7.5.
So at that point in time, we actually began searching for a copy
of the Model 7.5. And to and behold, we were able to find a version
of that on the Regional Planning Council's website of Version 7.5, so
we now have Version 7.5 that we must presume we're working from
since that's what we were told.
Next. In the course of the presentation, Commissioner Hiller
asked the question of Mr. Fishkind, "I just want to reconfirm to -- just
to summarize, for my benefit, that the data inputs and the standards
and the multipliers that you used in 2005 are the same that you're
using now in 2010."
Mr. Fishkind's response was, "The basic data inputs and
multipliers are the same. They're based upon your budget. Your
budget's changed since 2005 so, of course, the calculations change.
They change every single year.
"But other than that, yes, ma'am, everything is the same.
Thank you.
All the inputs?
Yes, ma'am.
Thank you very much."
So we're working off of the premise that we're looking at 7.5 that
February 14, 2012
is being presented to us for analyzing in comparison to 7.5.
As we went through this process, we had conversations with your
staff to try to determine if, in fact, anybody had ever approved any
changes to the multiplier in the model, and we were assured that there
weren't. And as a consequence, we are now dealing with Version 7.5.
Next. In the process -- thank you very much. In the process of
going through this, we had a multitude of meetings, and I'm not going
to go through each one of them. You have a copy of them with your
county staff and with the Ave Maria people.
Next. The bottom line to our analysis is that the Clerk's Office
cannot concur with the outputs in the model that was submitted to the
BCC in 2010 due to the following concerns. Now, all we're
comparing -- all we're looking at is the outputs that are found in the
model, and we will explain to you why we are bringing those to
question.
First, the Ave Maria development is not evaluated as a whole.
Buildout projections were not presented. Ad valorem revenues were
inflated due to an incorrect taxable value input for the Ave Maria
SRA. Land values of contributions by Ave Maria appear to be
different than what the county has determined the value to be.
Impact -fee credits were used as a revenue in the model. We question
whether that is appropriate. And formulas used to calculate the road
costs were different than both the original 2005 submission and
Version 7.5 as we were able to locate it.
Next. Horizon -year projections issue.
Next. What I'm talking about with horizon -year projection, if
you go to the 2005 submission and you look at what was submitted in
2005, for each and every year to buildout, that is projected buildout,
data was submitted.
If you look at the 2010 submission, the only thing that is
presented is the 2009 data. Now, we asked them why that was, and
they told us they didn't think they had to submit the data for anything
Page 49
February 14, 2012
but the five years, okay. But if you do it that way, you're not able to
determine the total impact on the county of the total project. You are
not evaluating the project as a whole. And that's all we're trying to tell
you, okay?
You will notice that if you look at the original projection, by the
end of the fifth year in the 2005 projection, there was to be projected
5,120 homes built or units built. If you look at what actually has been
built, there are 374 units.
Now, we all know that economic circumstances have not been
conducive to real estate. And I would suggest to you that that is all a
product of that. They're no different than any other development. As
a matter of fact, the only other place that required the FIAM in this
analysis in the State of Florida that we could find, the developer never
submitted it because he went bankrupt. So, you know, we're not
getting the data that we thought should have been there.
And as we looked at it and as we talked to Mr. Casalanguida and
his staff, you know, we all scratched our head because we thought that
it would probably be more beneficial to the developer if they showed
the outlying data. But, I mean, we don't know that. That was
conjecture on our part.
Next. What we're telling you is in both the 2010 and 2011
submission, that without the outlying data, what the total impact on
the taxpayers of Collier County, we would suggest to you, you cannot
determine.
Next. The next issue that we found a question about was the
taxable value of the SRA property. And why is this important? If you
look at the taxable value of the property in the SRA, that is directly
attributable to revenue that that development produces for the
taxpayers of Collier County through ad valorem taxes, right?
Next. What we discovered was if you look at the property of the
SRA, it will be this crosshatched section in here. If you look at the
property in terms of number of acres that were actually used in the
Page 50
February 14, 2012
calculation of the revenue, they calculated the revenue of the entire
stewardship district.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Brock, I just wanted to ask you
something.
MR. BROCK: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't want to break up your
presentation.
MR. BROCK: Not a problem.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But we're scheduled to take a break at
10:30 for the court reporter. If now is not a good time, we can vary it
for ten minute or so.
MR. BROCK: I spent 11 years as an attorney, Commissioner.
I'm perfectly capable of thinking on my feet and working from
whatever, you know, parameters you place on it. So whenever you're
ready, I'm ready.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is it convenient now, or is there a better
place for you to break?
MR. BROCK: No. I mean, let me get through this one, and then
we'll break. This one's real simple.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. BROCK: You know, basically what we're dealing with is --
and we understand exactly how this came about, because when we
went to the Tax Collector's Office to try to get this data, it was a little
difficult for us to get the data as well. And, you know, we had to be
very specific about what we were looking for. And as a consequence,
as opposed to the 10,820 acres, actually in the SRA there's only 5,022
acres.
Next. If you look at the difference in the taxable value from the
perspective of the tax collector's records, whereas they were reflecting
the taxable value at 182 million, seven hundred and fifty -five, the
actual taxable value of the SRA was only 141 million.
Now, you say, oh, my gosh, that's $41 million, but that's not the
Page 51
February 14, 2012
impact in the model. The -- next.
The impact in the model comes about as a consequence of
applying the tax millage rate -- applying the tax millage rate to that,
and you actually come up with a differential of operating income of
175,392.
Now, the way they presented that, going back to the first issue
that we didn't get all of the outlying years or all of the years being
presented, it wasn't presented as the development as a whole.
One of the things that we were scratching our head about is that's
$175,000 differential in Year 5. But we weren't even able to see
where they had calculated a revenue to the county for Years 1, 2, 3,
and 4. So we were concerned that, you know, they had shorted
themselves by four years of revenue.
Understandably -- now, you know, speaking from a total
perspective, that's not a great amount of money but, I mean, that's
something that we looked at.
Now, I see Commissioner Coletta. Go back to Page 18, okay.
This is actually a snapshot -- this is actually a snapshot of the 2010
submission, and you see the only thing they're showing us is Year 9.
They're consolidating all of the properties in Year 9 and calculating it
based solely upon that one year.
Our question is, if you broke it out, wouldn't that be income for
Year 1, 2, 3, and 4, as well as Year 9, as well as Year 5? And we
didn't see where they had calculated that, okay.
Let me point out one additional thing before we go a lot further.
The actual lady who did most of the work on this out of my office
happens to be in the final throes of getting ready for childbirth, so she
is sick today and couldn't be here, so I'm sort of the stand -in.
But let's move from here to your break, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We'll break for ten minutes.
We'll be back here at 10:45. Thank you. And maybe the lady will
show up by that time.
Page 52
MR. BROCK: I don't think so.
confident she won't.
February 14, 2012
As a matter of fact, I feel pretty
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, the Board of
County Commission meeting is back in session.
Mr. Brock, it's all yours.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Before -- can I interrupt for a
moment before we get started?
MR. BROCK: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We've got a whole bunch of
people from the fire district and EMS here because an item that was
on the consent agenda was pulled this morning -- and I should have
mentioned this when Donna recommended -- or Commissioner Fiala
recommended moving it to the general agenda. Could we set a
time - certain for them so they can leave? Because they've got a really
important job to do, and having them sit here all day till their item is
heard -- and my guess, it will be more likely tomorrow morning at the
rate we're going -- just really is counterproductive.
You know, we've got fire chiefs here, we've got EMS here, the
director of emergency services here, and they really need to get back
to work. Would that be okay?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We do? Where are they?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: They're outside.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: They're all hanging, chatting.
Could we maybe set it 9 o'clock tomorrow morning time - certain?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. We have a conflict early tomorrow
morning, at least some of us do. We can't start here earlier than, I
would say, 9:30 tomorrow. So we could set it for, let's say, 10 o'clock.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's very reasonable.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me just add, though, if you don't
mind. Actually, I have no problem at all with the COPCN. I'm going
Page 53
February 14, 2012
to be bringing up another subject along the same line.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure. That's fine. Whatever the
issue --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's like herding cats, you know.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. But, you know, what's
wrong with a cat?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Nothing, but trying to herd them is a bit
of a problem.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: All right. So can we set it then at
10 o'clock tomorrow morning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. Let's set it today, because
we might get done today.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, that would be wonderful. Do
you want to set it at 4 o'clock?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Set it at 3 o'clock this afternoon.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That's all right with me.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's fine, too, just as long as
they can go back to work and be productive.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: As soon as they leave, we're going to
change it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So 3 o'clock this afternoon.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: As of right now, you know. Once we get
back from lunch, we might decide to do something different.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Depends on how long we talk up
here as to whether we get there on time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Three o'clock this morning.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. Thank you,
Commissioner Coyle.
Sorry, Clerk. I apologize. I just had to get that in.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, your light was
on. Did you want to say something now, or is that --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I'll wait until after the
Page 54
February 14, 2012
presentation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
All right. Go ahead, Mr. Brock.
MR. BROCK: I think one of the things that I need to point out
with regard to the property values, we certainly did not go in and look
at who owns each piece of property. We simply took the taxable
value of the property on the rolls. And we understand that there may
be some people that own that property that make the property not
taxable, but that was not taken into consideration in our analysis for
the differentials that we looked at.
You know, one of the things that I probably should have pointed
out back at the very beginning of this process was that as it was
presented, the 2010 model, it showed a positive impact to the taxpayer
of approximately $10 million, 10- million -plus, okay. So that's a
reference point from which we start with, the way it was presented to
the county.
The next item that we looked at and we want to bring to your
attention is the land values for Oil Well Road, the right -of -way
donation, okay. Now, the land values and that donation constitutes a
revenue to the county as a consequence of that contribution.
Next. If you look at the Developer Contribution Agreement, the
Developer Contribution Agreement states that the donated land,
developer estimates the estimated current value of the road segments
right -of -way donation at $7,800,000. So we went in and looked at the
156 acres and came to the conclusion that they were saying that the
estimate at the time of the creation of the Developer Contribution
Agreement was $50,000. Now, that was the figure that they used in
their submission as the value of the property.
Next. If you go back and -- you know, we -- the Clerk's Office
certainly did not go out and do an analysis, do an appraisal of the
property to determine what the value of that property was. If we -- we
did go out and look at the property appraiser's value assigned to that
Page 55
February 14, 2012
property, and for -- you will see that the property we're dealing with is
predominantly located at the bottom and over here on the side. That's
at -- Camp Keais Road and Oil Well Road is on the bottom.
We looked at that property, and we came to the conclusion that
the property appraiser was appraising that property, prior to the
passage of the SRA, at $12,810 per acre. After passage of the SRA,
they were valuing it at $12,074 (sic) per acre.
Now, I'm not sitting here trying to suggest to you that that is the
fair -- necessarily the fair - market value of the property. All we're
suggesting to you is, you know, that's what it's valued on the tax
collector's roll.
If you look at the section going down Camp Keais Road, that was
valued by the property tax -- property appraiser at $6,300 prior to
passage of the SRA and 9,793 after the passage of the SRA.
Now, keep in mind that they are reporting in their model, as it
was submitted to you, $50,000 per acre for this.
As we went through this process, we acquired from
Commissioner Hiller -- next -- an email that came from the
transportation staff that indicated to us that county staff was valuing
the property at $30,000 per acre. But I want to tell you that that was
certainly not based upon appraisals. That was their estimate.
We don't know what the value of the property is. We're not
standing here telling you that we know the value of the property is X.
We're bringing to you the issues that we have identified with regard to
the value of the property as we see it.
Next. If you look at the differential going from the seven million
eight, which is located there, right -of -way contribution, to the $30,000
per acre, we have come to the conclusion that there's about a $3.12
million differential, okay?
Again, let me emphasize to you, I cannot tell you the value of the
property. I'm not standing here portraying that we can. I'm just
bringing the issue up.
Page 56
February 14, 2012
Next. Impact -fee credits were used as a revenue in the model.
Now, in addition to the contribution created by the road right -of -way
donation, there was also a contribution made for purposes of planning
and designing of the Oil Well Road project.
Next. Out of that process there was seven
point- some - odd - million dollars of planning and design that they
contributed to the county. They are reporting that as part of the
revenue to the county from the contribution. Don't have a problem
with that. The problem comes in when, in addition to that -- because
we had given -- or when I say "we," the county had given them
developer contributions or impact -fee credits for that -- they're also
claiming the impact -fee credits.
Now, in theory, the way that we read the model should be
structured is at the end of the project, because they were given
impact -fee credits, you would come out with a zero contribution. But
that makes sense if you're going to use the impact -fee credits.
Ultimately you're going to use up the contribution. That goes back to
the issue of not showing it out to the horizon year again.
But, the $909,000 that they showed in there as a revenue, I think
-- I think -- even they, I showed it to them, agreed that that probably
should not be there.
Next. Next. That's -- I've basically gone over that one.
Next. Now we get to the biggie. If you look at -- thanks,
Commissioner. If you look at where the real impact in this project
comes from, it comes from roads. The overwhelming majority of the
costs to the taxpayers, as a consequence of the developer, is a
consequence of transportation costs.
Next. Again, Commissioners, we go back to what it is that we
are comparing this to. And we were told back on December the 14th,
we are comparing it to Version 7.5. And if you will recall, if you go
back to the original training manual, it says, if you're deviating from
that, you need to bring it to their attention. We've not found anything
Page 57
February 14, 2012
indicating that they brought to the attention of anyone that they were
deviating from 7.5.
I will tell you, after we identified these as an issue, we went to
county staff, and county staff gave us what they presented as a copy of
the model that they said was presented to them at the time that you
approved the FIRM.
Now, that particular model was not presented to you. It did not
go in the official records of the board meeting. And when they said in
their submittal cover sheet that the consultant used Version 7.5, we
took them at what they said.
Next. If you look at Version 7.5, of which we were able to get a
copy of from the Regional Planning Council of Southwest Florida's
website, this particular model is essentially nothing more than an
Excel spreadsheet. If you know anything about the use of an Excel
spreadsheet, if you put your cursor over a particular block, it will tell
you in that corner exactly what the formula is that was used to
calculate it.
Okay. So we went and we looked at Version 7.5 to see what the
formula was, and the formula was C7, or trip rate, times C8, trip
length, times C9, the percentage of new trips, divided by the capacity
per lane.
When we began looking at what they submitted in 2010, the
version -- the formula had been changed, and that's the formula down
at the bottom, okay.
If you look at that, it's a little confusing what it is, but if you just
apply a little algebraic principle to it, you can see exactly what has
taken place.
Next page. What you end up with is the original formula, trip
rate times trip length times number of -- percentage of new trips
divided by the capacity per lane times the capacity per lane mile -- and
they have put another piece to the formula which basically divides the
7.5 formula by greater than half, or multiplies it by greater than half --
Page 58
February 14, 2012
less than half. It's less than half of its original formula.
Now, if you look at that, what that comes out to be is exactly
how you calculate the impact fees that you charge in this county, not
the impact -fee cost, but the impact fee that you charge, okay.
So, in essence, what they are saying in this new formula is the
cost and the impact fee will always be approximating the same.
Now, that was not the formula in Version 7.5. So we went back
and looked at the model that was submitted in 2005.
Go back -- or go forward. When we went to the model that was
submitted in 2005 -- and that was submitted to you for purposes of
seeking your approval -- was submitted out as a whole to the end of
buildout, they used the same formula that was in 7 point -- I mean, in
7.5. It had not been changed, okay.
Does anybody have any questions about what I'm saying?
(No response.)
MR. BROCK: Okay. So what you end up with -- go to the next
page. This is actually a snapshot of part of what they submitted in
2010, and it comes up with the cost being, in that particular portion,
using their formula, of 14- million -plus dollars. That's the cost to the
taxpayers in what they submitted in 2010.
Now, you will notice out here that they broke it out by each
land -use classification and applied it across the board to each land -use
unit. So all we did was we adjusted the formula back to what
appeared in 7.5 and in the '05 submission, and you come up with a
cost of 30 million 609 -- 691,723 dollars.
Now, this is -- we've just simply added an additional column
using the formula that we found in the '05 version and the 7.5 version
to a document that they had submitted.
Next. You will see that the differential, based upon what we did,
is an additional cost of $16.58 million.
Next. If you go and then look at what -- well, first let me back up
for a moment and tell you, you know, during the process that we went
Page 59
February 14, 2012
through in analyzing this, I suggested to a friend of mine that, you
know, they probably ought to correct their model, and they did, in
fact, send us a corrected model. And the process that they used in
their corrected model generated a cost of 12 million.
Now, go back one page. You see, in the 2010 version, it was 14
million. Their corrected version -- next page -- the cost went down
even further to 12 million. So we began looking at how that was
accomplished.
Next. Okay. If you recall on an Excel spreadsheet, you put your
cursor over the box and it tells you what the formula is. It generates it,
right? You look at Version 7.5, and you've got the formula.
Okay. If you go to this, they have filled it in. Now, see, this is
absolutely nothing more than the first one times the second one times
the third one divided by the fourth column, okay.
If you look at what they presented in the resubmission in 2011,
you've got the same numbers in all of those columns, but you've come
up with a different number here. Why?
As we looked at that, we went to the model -- the formula that
was used to calculate it, and we discovered that's just a plug number.
There's no formula flowing through the model at all anymore. It was
just plugged in there. So we begin trying to determine where that
came from.
You remember me telling you that if you change the formula to
the way that they had it, you basically change it to absolutely nothing
more than impact fees, the impact fees you charge people? Well, that
was taken right out of the impact fees -- that was taken right out of the
impact -fee study of the county. That's the impact -fee calculation that
we used, right out of the impact -fee study that was done by Tindale
Oliver.
Next. In addition to that, you remember the spreadsheet where --
let's see. Let me find it for you. Go to Page 37, please, sir. That's a
spreadsheet that was submitted in 2010 which has all of the land -use
Page 60
February 14, 2012
categories broken out by the actual amount that was in Ave Maria,
okay.
For each land -use category, you have three residentials that are
possible in the county, only two of which had any buildings done in
Ave Maria, so there's only two up there.
Now, go back to the last page that we were on. If you look at
how that figure is generated, it is generated from averaging or using as
if there were equal amounts of each building category including one
where the cost was only $9,432, where there were absolutely no
buildings in that particular category. It's just the general impact -fee
calculation for the county. That's the fee you charge the developer.
If that's what we're analyzing is impact fees versus what the
impact fees should be using your Tindale Oliver study from which
your impact fees are generated, we're spending a lot of time, let me
suggest to you, doing something that is a waste of time, because they'll
always be equal. You can't ever end up with a scenario where you
will be in the hole, okay, with the exception -- a few minor exceptions
associated with road and gas taxes and things of that nature, okay.
You know, we had a discussion with your staff in which they
pointed that out to us that, you know, they didn't think, based upon the
appropriate use of the model, you would ever end up with a situation
where it was negative other than those adjustments for gas taxes and
other minor things in the Tindale Oliver study.
But that is -- that figure -- go back one page. That figure that
they're using in the 2011 submission is simply a plug of the figure --
go to the next one, please -- the figure coming right out of the Tindale
Oliver study.
Next page. In reality, what you have is you had a 190 uses in
category -- and I'm just using the residential as an example. You have
190 buildings in the medium -size residential and 41 in the large -size
residential with no houses in the smaller size.
If you calculate them based upon the actual buildings that were
Page 61
February 14, 2012
built, you then come up with a $13,000 or 13,126 versus the 12,257
that was used in the model, and that's the differential. That's basically
the differential between the 12- and $14,000, because the way they're
using it here in the 2011 submission, we feel, is essentially applying
the same changed or altered formula that was used in the original
submission in 2010.
Next. Remember, there are certain premises upon which we are
basing our analysis, and a fundamental one, since what we're doing is
we're looking at what was submitted versus what should have been
submitted. We're not analyzing Ave Maria because we're not
planners. We don't have the capability of that.
You made the determination of how you were going to do that by
adopting, as part of the law of this county, use of the FIAM, and we
are using 7.5 as our direction. But whether we use 7.5 or not, I can tell
you that the model that they're using today is not consistent with, in
that particular formula, which is the overwhelming cost to the
taxpayers, the same thing that was presented in 2005 when it was
submitted for approval.
Next. We went in and looked at the training manual that was
prepared by Fishkind, and we see where it says that "input
development schedules into appropriate location areas." Now, the
model used in 2011 is basically an analysis of the county as a whole.
It takes into consideration all of the different trip lengths.
One of the things that I need to point out to you is, we all know
where Ave Maria is located. The trip length of a building out there is
obviously greater than the trip length of a building right in the middle
of the metropolitan area. And you have recognized that in your
calculation through the Tindale Oliver study, and then it's all compiled
and rolled into a general number by averaging, okay.
The next one is input number of new units completed each year
for each land use, okay. That has two significances to us. That says,
you do it for each year, which means you do it to buildout, you know
Page 62
February 14, 2012
-- you don't just do it for one year using that particular model.
And in addition to that, you don't take the average impact -fee
amount that we pay where you've averaged them all. You look at it
specifically based upon where it is located.
Next. The bottom line is we're not telling you anything other
than we are finding these issues that we think that you need to analyze
for yourself, okay. I don't have to make the decisions that you make.
You make the political decisions. I was tasked to look at this purely
from an auditing perspective. I'm not a planner; don't profess to be a
planner; I don't have planners on my staff.
We looked at it from the standpoint of being auditors and
comparing what was presented to what we think should have been
presented based upon the information that we have available to us.
Again, we think that the Ave Maria development is not evaluated
as a whole. And to us, that and that alone is a fundamental flaw that
will prevent anyone from analyzing the total impact of the
development.
The ad valorem revenues are inflated due to incorrect taxable
value input for the Ave Maria SRA, and we've told you how we
calculated and construed that to be the case. We used the tax
collector's -- tax appraiser's numbers.
The land values of the contribution, we do not profess to know
what the land values of those properties are, and there are three
different trains of thought. The property appraiser, what you find in
the developer's contribution agreement as an estimate, and what you
find in emails that we were provided.
In addition to that, you find the impact -fee credits were used as a
revenue in the model, and we think that was done inappropriately.
Last, and of most consequence, is that we believe that the
formulas that were used were not in conjunction with the formulas that
were either used in the 2005 submission for approval or Version 7.5
that we were led to believe was what was the model that should have
Page 63
February 14, 2012
been presented.
Now, when we first began looking at this, we went to your staff
and asked them, what version are we dealing with here? To which
they told us 7.5. So we began analyzing it based upon that. And I
have also told you the information we have been provided afterwards.
So you've got the information that we have. I'll be more than
happy to try to answer any questions that any of you may have.
Next slide. You've got it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning? And by the
way, how many public speakers do we have?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have two speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The analysis is supposed to
provide the cost benefit or the fiscal neutrality of the development,
and the inputs in the presentation doesn't provide that. So somehow
we're going to have to get to the fiscal benefit or the fiscal neutrality
of the FIAM.
MR. BROCK: Commissioner, I'm in total agreement with that
particular statement. I can't tell you what the fiscal impact upon
taxpayers of Collier County is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or is there one?
MR. BROCK: I can't tell you whether it's positive, neutral, or
negative.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you can't --
MR. BROCK: And the reason for that is very simple, okay.
First and foremost, it's the problem with the first concern that we have;
you don't have it evaluated as a whole. You know, if you look at it
from the perspective of what is the purpose of the FIAM, you know,
it's designed to be a planning tool for this gentleman to use. You
know, if, in fact, he doesn't know what's going to happen out there
based upon not having the information provided by the developer, you
February 14, 2012
put him in a very awkward situation in being able to plan for the
future. That's all we're saying is, you know, you need to be presenting
it so that the project can be analyzed.
There are a lot of issues involved in the application of these
models which are land -use issues that, you know, we can't really
answer that question. That's not our domain. But I'm analyzing it
purely from an accounting perspective, a financial perspective,
comparing one model to another.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I thought you were done.
MR. BROCK: Okay. I thought that was a question. I am sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The --
MR. BROCK: Strike all that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you cannot find the fiscal
impact or fiscal neutrality by using valuation of properties, because
those properties you don't know whether it's taxed or not. And, quite
frankly, I would like to see a model that can be used so we can get to
the -- at the end of the day, and that is, is it a benefit to the county or is
it a -- or is it a cost to the county? Because land - development laws
that we have are very clear.
First of all, the model should be maintained by the county. That
model is not maintained by the county. Is that -- we do have it and we
do maintain it?
MS. MOSCA: (Nods head.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Except for the formulas can be
changed? I do have another question.
MS. MOSCA: For the record, Michele Mosca, comprehensive
planning staff.
The developer's model is, in fact, maintained by county staff.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And then how can those
things be changed within the report? I mean, if you're maintaining it,
it should be a locked -down formula that can't be changed.
MS. MOSCA: It is at the time of the SRA application. You
Page 65
February 14, 2012
project out to buildout. And when we just looked at five -year
monitoring report, we're looking at actuals where we can look at those
actuals, namely, the impact fees for that increment of development.
So we use that set or the applicant used that set for established
impact fee for roads for Mr. Brock's example for residential. So it was
a set amount based on that unit of development.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Michele, if this model is
maintained by the county -- correct me if I'm wrong -- in the past staff
has said that it's hard or impossible to evaluate the outcomes.
MS. MOSCA: I'm not sure which staff said that, but I don't think
it's necessarily difficult to evaluate the outcomes. I mean, we did go
back and forth with the Clerk's staff. We collaborated on -- go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no. We shouldn't of had the
Clerk to analyze the data if staff had the ability to come to a
conclusion that the inputs and the outputs and the outcome is true,
okay.
MS. MOSCA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right.
MS. MOSCA: I think there were some discrepancies with -- for
example, Mr. Brock mentioned the valuation of the right -of -way, for
example. And what staff used was the dollar figure that was provided
for in the board - approved Developer Contribution Agreement.
So, I mean, there is a huge difference there between what Mr.
Brock viewed as 30,000 versus what the approved Developer
Contribution Agreement stated for the cost, 7.8 million, versus what
Mr. Brock had stated.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. But it's actually the
factual. When you come up with a cost - benefit analysis, you want
factual, not guestimates or somebody's opinion. You want to find a
number that can be reliable and assured that that's the best value or
cost.
MS. MOSCA: I agree.
Page 66
February 14, 2012
MR. BROCK: May I clarify something? I'm not suggesting to
you I know what the value of the property is. Don't get me wrong,
okay. I have no idea what the value of the property is. I know what
the property appraiser valued it at, I know what the email that I looked
at said the county thought it was worth, and I know what they put in
the FIAM, and I also know what was written in the DCA. I'm not
suggesting to you I know the value of that property by any stretch of
the imagination, because I will be more than happy to stand up here
and tell you I do not.
I am simply suggesting to you that there is an alternative as to
what the value of the property is, and you need to look at that in your
analysis.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the point is -- I mean, just
one example. When you take an impact -fee credit as a number and
the valuation of the property, to me that's kind of like putting in the
same figure twice.
So somebody needs to analyze that for the Board of County
Commissioners and come out to a conclusion of what the impacts or
what the positive attributes of the community is.
So I would hope that we can have an independent person to take
a look at -- I'm not sure if these figures is the right ones to use.
MR. BROCK: Let me suggest to you at the same time that you
analyze whatever you're analyzing there that you might ought to look
at whether or not the process that you are using, the FIAM, is an
appropriate model for an interim evaluation, okay. That was one of the
things that we had the discussions with Mr. Casalanguida, and I think
with Barron Collier and their people, is, you know, is that really
designed for what it is being used for, or do you need to look at
something that more accurately can evaluate that?
One of the things, as I have said previously, that we have found
in talking to people around the state that have looked at the FIAM,
both at the state level and in the local - government level, is they've
Page 67
February 14, 2012
basically all abandoned it. The state has completely abandoned it, and
the reason for that, from what they're telling us, is that it was so
complicated, they weren't really sure it was doing what it was
designed to do, and it was just almost impossible to apply. Now, that
was what people were telling us that we were talking to as we were
trying to find out information about it.
You know, you've got what I can give you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a number of issues that
need to be resolved, obviously, and I would suggest to the other
commissioners that it's best to resolve them after we've heard all of the
information that we can gather today.
We do have speakers. I would like to suggest we listen to the
speakers and then try to come to some sort of decision with respect to
where we go next.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If I may, Commissioner Coyle.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead, Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like to just mention a
couple of things before the public speakers come up.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. I apologize.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm absolutely appalled. This tool
is not a planning tool for Leo. This is a tool to determine whether this
community is carrying its own financially. And if it isn't, the cost is
shifted to the taxpayers of Collier County, and that is unacceptable,
because that was not the basis upon which this project was approved.
And the costs incurred by the county were incurred in anticipation that
this community would be funding for the benefit of the infrastructure
that it was gaining. I'm really very upset by what I heard today.
I read your presentation, but I did not fully appreciate what it
meant till you presented today and till you spoke, Commissioner
Henning, because I did not understand that staff had, in fact, been
.:
February 14, 2012
carrying this model parallel to Mr. Fishkind and Barron Collier
Companies. And, in fact, when you presented, when staff presented,
Leo -- and I'm going to address you on this, because, I mean, I'm that
concerned about this.
When staff presented, they confirmed that what Barron Collier
and Mr. Fishkind presented was, in fact, correct and that this project
was fiscally neutral, positive; certainly not negative.
And what I'm hearing today, Mr. Fishkind and Leo -- because I'm
not -- I'm holding you responsible, not staff. You are responsible for
everything that comes before us -- is that there were incorrect
assumptions used in the model, there were incorrect formulas used in
the model, there were incorrect values used in the model, and we had
assurances from Mr. Fishkind on the record that everything was the
same as in 2005 and, in fact, it was not.
And Commissioner Coyle was 100 percent right. In 20 --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would you underline that in the minutes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Underline it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Bold and underline.
MR. BROCK: Commissioner, do you want me to put it back up
on the board for you?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: He needs to be applauded, because
in 2007 what you said was correct, Clerk. He said, "Let the record
show that the vote was 4 -1 with Commissioner Coyle being in
opposition," okay. And what Commissioner Coyle said was, "Based
on our last experience at getting some economic projections from
Fishkind & Associates, I'm extremely leery of this model. I certainly
am not going to have much confidence in it. Does it cost us any
money."
And then what was not highlighted in this meeting was a quote,
and it's on the same page with Commissioner Coyle saying, "Well,
that's my problem. I don't think you know by looking at this model
whether it's the truth. The only way you know whether a model is
February 14, 2012
producing the truth is if you know and support and understand the
assumptions that have been made in the model to create the
calculations."
And that is exactly what has been proven here this morning, that
the FIAM, as presented by Barron Collier Companies, Mr. Fishkind,
and staff, Leo, is not the truth. And this is very disturbing, because at
the end of the day, if this project is not fiscally neutral, the cost is
being passed on to the taxpayers of Collier County.
Based on what we heard today, it appears that the expenses -- the
expenditures by the county on behalf of this project have been
understated in the model, and the contributions by the developer have
been overstated in the model. By how much, we don't know. But this
is a very important model, and we need to know the truth of what the
obligation of this development is vis -a -vis the county for the
expenditures that the county has made for the benefit of this
development.
And as it stands right now -- and I started running some quick
numbers -- it doesn't look fiscally neutral to me.
So, in effect, what's happened is we have a developer agreement
that is shifting what, in effect, will be the cost burden to this SRA, and
the SRA is becoming the fall guy, and the SRA doesn't have the
ability to pay, and now the shift is to the county, to the taxpayers of
Collier County, and they will be the fall guy.
And I won't say any more, but I do have additional thoughts that
I want to share after I hear the public speakers. But, quite frankly, I'm
very disappointed.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank vou.
Commissioner Coletta, you want to speak now?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll be brief. I just --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What we heard -- and I thank
the Clerk very much. I mean, this is something that the Clerk does
Page 70
February 14, 2012
very well, and I appreciate his honesty through the whole presentation
where his expertise left off. He was straightforward about it and
mentioned it.
Yes, there are some concerns, but before we start to pass
judgment on this, let's first hear from the other side as to how this
whole thing balances.
And Commissioner Henning made a suggestion a little while ago
that I think is a wonderful idea, and that's having an independent
auditor come in and do a run through this to be able to establish what
it is and bringing some of the expertise where Mr. Brock's expertise let
off that he might be able to pick up on and fill in the holes.
With that, please go to the speakers, and I'll have some other
questions afterwards.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The first speaker, Ian.
MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker is Hank Fishkind.
MR. FISHKIND: Excuse us while we get things connected up.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Fishkind, can I ask you a question,
please, while you're setting things up.
MR. FISHKIND: Certainly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You will be addressing the issues raised
by the Clerk; is that essentially what you're going to be doing?
MR. FISHKIND: Yes, sir. That's why I'm here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then that's going to take more
than three minutes, so don't worry about the clock on this. I think a
reasonable period of time needs to be provided to go over those things
so that we have the benefit of all the information we can possibly
gather here today.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I -- before Mr. Fishkind gets
started, can I ask him a question?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Mr. Fishkind, in your own manual
Page 71
February 14, 2012
it provides that you have to certify you have no conflicts.
MR. FISHKIND: That's right, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do you have any conflicts in
presenting?
MR. FISHKIND: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why is that?
MR. FISHKIND: I present as an expert, ma'am. And everyone
knows who built the models; everyone knows who submitted them.
I've done this work for 35 years. This is what I do. So you may
weigh whatever value you take to my testimony, ma'am. That's your
choice.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Were you compensated for the
analysis that you did?
MR. FISHKIND: I'm always compensated --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And who compensated you?
MR. FISHKIND: -- for the work that I do.
In this case Barron Collier compensated me. No surprise. Fully
disclosed.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are you representing Barron
Collier?
MR. FISHKIND: No. I'm not their attorney, ma'am. I'm their
expert.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you're representing them as
your -- as the expert?
MR. FISHKIND: I'm an expert to give you the testimony and
respond to the Clerk, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, in my opinion, I believe that
you have a conflict of interest, and I'd like that on the record.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Mr. Fishkind, go ahead, please.
MR. FISHKIND: Thank you very much.
Really what we're here to discuss is whether or not the Ave
Maria project at the end of Year 5 is fiscally positive. And all
Page 72
February 14, 2012
reviewers, without exception, have come to the same answer that it is
fiscally positive. And I note that includes the Clerk's staff. So let's be
clear about that to start with. There's simply no disagreement amongst
the professionals that have analyzed this.
In fact, last Friday the Clerk's staff confirmed to us that in their
view this project has a positive result, and I'll play you the tape before
we're done.
So it's only the Clerk that seems confused about whether or not
this is a positive fiscal impact after his 14 months of the study.
Just a short history on the model since the model has been
attacked at some length. This modeling began in 1979. Actually it
began before that. But I had my first published paper in a peer- review
journal about this kind of model when I was at the University of
Florida.
So I've had a lengthy history of thinking about these kinds of
issues, developing models, publishing results that my intellectual peers
found acceptable.
When the State of Florida decided that it needed to have a model
to determine the fiscal impacts of development and to assess whether
or not comprehensive plans were financially feasible as required by
then state law, they issued an RFP, and we were delighted to be
picked.
We built the first sets of models. The models were successful.
The state found them to have value, and they gave us funding in Year
2 to refine, test, and expand the modeling process, which we did.
At the end of that, the state was pleased and then asked for an
outside independent review so they could be sure when they got ready
to utilize this model, that it was all that they and we hoped it to be.
That was the Urban Land Institute. A panel was picked. The state
paid for that review, and they determined that the model was excellent
and endorsed its use.
And then the state decided to implement the model through its
Page 73
February 14, 2012
Regional Planning Councils, which it began to do.
Later as the process proceeded, the state itself rescinded its own
requirement that comprehensive plans be financially feasible.
Ultimately, the state dismantled the Department of Community
Affairs, so that's really why we haven't seen broad adoption of these
modeling processes.
But we continued to use it actively in our practice, as we have for
3 5 years. Today we have three active applications that we're using the
model for. In the City of Port St. Lucie, we're using the fiscal model
to design a series of economic incentives. They're being implemented
through a redevelopment agency. Half of the increment is being
pledged, and the city wants to know if half the increment is pledged,
will the resulting developments still be able to be paid for, both
operating and capital.
In Palm Beach Gardens, it's an analysis of a major mixed -use
center at I -95 and PGA Boulevard. And in Daytona Beach we're
working on financing of a major convention center hotel that will have
a revenue - sharing component. That revenue - sharing component will
be based on our fiscal model. These are typical of the kinds of things
that we've done.
Many years ago we designed a fiscal model for Osceola County
and Celebration. If you've ever driven on I -4 and you get near
Celebration and you see the big transformer station with the mouse
ears, that's where the electric lines go underneath I -4. That was
funded by a joint public /private partnership between Disney and the
Celebration Community Development District in Osceola County.
The amount of the revenue sharing is calculated as 50 percent of
the fiscal impact as measured by our FIAM model. Over $350 million
worth of bonds have been amortized by Osceola County through this
partnership based on our models. So it's just an example of the types
of uses to which the models have successfully been put for more than
35 years.
Page 74
February 14, 2012
And as I said, there's absolutely no confusion about who
develops the models or how they are -- how they're done.
Our Urban Land Institute, June 16, 2004; DCA wanted an
independent review. The panel was retained. The model was
confirmed as an excellent result. So a nice peer review and
confirmation of the modeling and of the reliability of the process,
because that's what it is.
Models -- models are a process by which we think about fiscal
impact. They are developed collaboratively, always, by us with our
reviewers or with the people for whom we're building them, and
they're updated regularly, because data changes.
Our ability to calculate and analyze improves over time, and
these models are designed to incorporate exactly those things.
Here is a picture of the 47 counties in Florida within which we
have used the model and its results have been accepted. Here are 97
cities in Florida and other states where we have submitted our models,
where we used them, where the results have been accepted and part of
the public process. So models are widely used, have been for many
years, continue to do so.
Now, the issues identified by the Clerk. First of all, let me
emphasize that none of them will change the conclusion about fiscal
positive nature of this project at the end of Year 5.
The Clerk was concerned about horizon -year projections; the ad
valorem tax value for the SRA land; the value of the contributed
right -of -way; he's concerned about our accounting of impact fees; and
analysis of roadway costs. Each will be addressed in succession. As I
said, none will change the bottom line.
What are the standards for review? Is the methodology sound? I
believe it is. It's been used regularly.
Version 7.5 is the version. It's updated for new budgets and data,
and we collaborate with your staff to assist them in maintaining and
updating that model. Sometimes they reach different answers than we
Page 75
February 14, 2012
do. Reasonable people could disagree, but we can at least say, "Two
plus two equals four" together, and that's really what the models allow
us to do.
Does it employ the best available data? Yes, we update for
population and employment. We update for the impact -fee study that
you had from Tindale Oliver because it gives us the best ability to
calculate costs.
Let me digress just a second. Impact fees calculated on the cost
side are not the same as the fee charged. We don't calculate it based
upon the fee charged. We calculate the cost based on the impact -fee
methodology, which you've adopted, developed by Tindale Oliver,
who we respect.
Does it utilize an appropriate set of assumptions? I certainly do
believe that it does, and we're very clear what the assumptions are.
And competent and substantial evidence. You deal with that
standard all the time, so I shan't try to inform you as to how to do that.
You must weigh the evidence based upon knowledge, training,
reliable data, et cetera.
So, lack of a horizon year. The LDC states that the purpose of
the five -year review is to demonstrate whether or not the Ave Maria
project at that point in time is positive or to identify a shortfall and
assess assessments if it's not. That's what it's to do. No more, no less.
And that's what we did, and that's what you will do every five years.
That is what's required.
Future projections similar to what's in the development order --
which we developed those projections -- aren't addressed in the LDC.
And I'm not sure what purpose they would generally serve.
Now, I'm in the forecasting business. It's been a tough business,
obviously. Well, few people anticipated the depth of the great
recession. We have no more independent investment banks in this
country because they didn't estimate. All the banks had to be rescued.
General Motors didn't anticipate. Certainly, I didn't anticipate the
Page 76
February 14, 2012
depth.
To make projections is simply the subject, the analysis, to the
uncertainty. That's in part why I think you decided that each five -year
interval you would look backwards, you would look at the actuals to
determine whether or not there was a fiscal shortfall that needed to be
taken care of, and I think that was appropriate.
The ad- valorem - values issue. We used the 2009 values as
required at the end of the five -year period, because that's when we're
supposed to address whether or not it's fiscally neutral.
The Clerk used 2010 value, which is not consistent with the time
period of the analysis. He contends that somehow he's able to
disentangle the overlapping properties -- I haven't seen the detail -- but
it really doesn't matter because the input is neither timely nor is it the
best information available. It's simply the wrong date. And we all
know the property values have changed and continue to do so. Got to
pick a time; got to do the analysis.
The contributed right -of -way. The Clerk relies on Mr.
Hendricks' June 13th email with a value at the 30,000 level, and here's
the email. Current worth of the property, current worth. So we're not
dealing with the right time period, as I said.
Value of the contributed right -of -way. That was your executive
summary where the value was discussed in 2005. Was that a
reasonable number? Here's a little data.
At about the same point in time, this was what Lee County Co -op
paid for land in that area. Remember the land we're talking about was
valued at $50,000.
Here's some additional information about land in that same area.
Again, you see reasonable closeness to the 50,000 number that was
used.
And, finally, here is some additional data on payments that the
company made for land it purchased in that same area.
So, did I do an appraisal? No. Is there a reasonable basis for you
Page 77
February 14, 2012
to believe that the values as contributed at the time were $50,000 and
were reasonable? Sure. And here's some substantial data in the right
area at the right time period.
Now the accounting for the impact fee. The Clerk claims that we
counted credits as cash. We didn't count credits as cash. Cash is cash.
Credits are credits. It's simple arithmetic.
The design and permitting is $7.5 million. That was paid for in
cash. Of that, 6.6 million will be future credits for future impact fees.
You will collect less impact fees. We'll look at that in the next five
years and determine, did they pay enough impact fees after taking
account of the credits? Already $900,000 of impact -fee credits were
applied; therefore, the amount of impact fees paid during this five -year
period is lower than it otherwise would be. But I'm not confusing cash
and credits. There's no confusion between cash and credits in my
world.
Here's the calculations. Nine oh nine and six point six million is
the seven point five million. That's the cash. That's how it's accounted
for. There's no confusion. There's no counting credits as cash. Seven
point five million was the amount spent. I'm merely showing you that
the impact fees of 12.5 million, right above the red line, would have
been higher but for that credit amount. But the amount is the cash.
There's no confusion.
So -- and this is just the documentation where we actually
explain to the Clerk how that all worked. Obviously, they chose not
to -- not to agree with that. That's their decision. But as an auditor,
they ought to be able to know the difference between cash and credits.
Now, the roadway costs, the so- called smoking gun. The Clerk
accuses us of changing the formulas. No formula in any model is
fixed. They're -- it's an open -code model for a purpose so that when
better information becomes available, you use it, especially when
looking backwards. That's the point. Not only is this an incorrect
assumption by the Clerk, but, in fact, as I'll show you, it's the Clerk
February 14, 2012
that changes the formulas and double counts trips and comes up with
an inflated estimate of the roadway costs. That is inconsistent with
your impact -fee formulas and inconsistent with logic.
He simply failed to understand that the model needs to be
updated regularly with the best available information so you can get
the best available answer.
Here's the Clerk's chart. Notice, in the yellow box, the new trips
at 65 percent. If you're in a mixed -use development like Ave Maria,
every trip is not a new trip, because a lot of the trips stay within the
community and don't go out onto the county's roadways. So all of the
trip doesn't go on the county roadway. Many of the trips will be
internal to the community.
Will the community have longer trip lengths when they go off on
your roadways? Of course, they will. Look where they're located.
But they're going to have far fewer new trips, and many of them are
going to be captured internally. That's what the original 2005
submission shows you.
As we update, staff and we agreed that we should use the Tindale
Oliver information when it became available because it would be
better than these estimates. It was a pretty good estimate, by the way.
The traffic studies actually show that 80 percent of the trips are
internal capture. We only used 65. But that aside, you get better
information. You always use the better information rather than the
estimates.
This is the formula that the Clerk attempts to suggest that we,
you know, change the model from 7.5 and came up with these wild
results. You look at the trip rates and the percent new trip in Column
4, you notice it's all 100 percent, not the 65 percent. He failed to tell
you that, didn't he?
Furthermore, this is the impact -fee formula from Tindale Oliver.
So when this became available, we and your staff agreed that it would
be appropriate to update the model, Version 7.5, to have the best
Page 79
February 14, 2012
available information.
And let me emphasize again, the costs that you calculate in this
model is bigger than the fee you charge. We used the costs you
calculate. Cost isn't equal to revenue. That's nonsensical.
Double counting trips. A trip starts from the house. If it goes
over to the Publix on the right, that's a trip. It's got two ends. If you
count two trips for that and then two trips for the return trip from the
Publix, you've got four trips. But you don't have four trips; you've got
two trips. There and back; two trips.
That's why you've got to divide the number of trips by two if you
change the internal capture to 100 percent, which is what we did,
which is what Tindale Oliver says you need to do, because if you don't
do that, you're going to double count the cost, because every trip has
two ends.
Now, the analysis of the roadway costs. Just a little bit of
timeline. The original 2005 submission for which you approved the
SRA, the cost estimates were based on a traffic study by
WilsonMiller, because that's a better piece of information than my
abstract analysis of trip rate, trip length, percent and capture; better to
use a real study, which is what was done.
In June 2010 the five -year review, we update the model for the
new Tindale Oliver information to make the model more accurate.
The original formulation was updated with the best information
available.
In November 2010, after discussion with the staff from June to
November, whatever comments the staff gave us that we agreed and
they agreed, we updated the model in the analysis, naturally, to reflect
the collaborative effort, their input, our respect for their inputs and
help and assistance.
The Clerk said, oh, no, no. I don't like that. No, I don't want you
to do that. Go back and use some of the calibration from August. So
we, in good faith, in confidence, were happy to provide that to him.
91. i
February 14, 2012
Every single time you get a positive fiscal impact. There's no
doubt about it. Here it is. Here's the discussion we had with the staff,
and here's the positive results. Whether it's June 20 -- July of 2010,
November 2010, or August 2011. Whenever we're asked, we try to
respond. We do it in a clear and open fashion. We provide not only
the report, but we provide the models. We work in a collaborative
way, an open, collaborative fashion.
So what are the conclusions? Ave Maria has a positive fiscal
impact in excess of $10 million. All five issues provided by the Clerk
have no material impact on the results as I've just described them. All
five issues, I believe, were addressed, and all the reviewers agree that
Ave Maria has a positive impact, including the Clerk's own staff. I'm
going to play you a little piece of tape.
Well, I was going to try to play you a little piece of tape, but it
doesn't want to play. Let's try this. Oh, come on, technology. Give
me a second. Well, it played great in my hotel room.
(The following is the audio from a tape being played.)
"UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you guys reach a different
conclusion, I'd like to hear it at this meeting as opposed to
hearing is on Tuesday for the first time.
MS. KEARNS: No, we haven't we're not going to sit here today
and or on Tuesday and tell you that the number is negative.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Okay.
MS. KEARNS: I think that it could have been a little more
accurate, but that's hindsight at this point. And if this needs to
be done again in the future, we might have some (inaudible).
MS. KINZEL: Pamela specifically (inaudible)."
(The audio from a tape was stopped.)
MR. FISHKIND: So there you have it.
So as I said, all parties have found this to be fiscally positive.
And I'll be pleased to try to answer your questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning? I'm
Page 81
February 14, 2012
sorry, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Thank you very much.
Actually, I wanted to ask Dwight, after listening to both sides --
but you have to come up to the microphone. I'm sorry to do that to
you.
MR. BROCK: It's difficult getting old.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, you told me about that last
night.
MR. BROCK: I'm sorry about that. That was a compliment last
night, I assure you. It was not intended as anything else --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It was the cutest thing, actually, and
I just had to tease him a little bit, but -- well, I won't tell you what he
said, but it was funny.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute. What was --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: This is not sounding good, I just
want you to know.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What was going on between you two last
night?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was at the club where he was a
guest speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Anyway, Dwight, after listening to
both sides and hearing this tape, can you tell me, does it come out
fiscally positive?
MR. BROCK: I will give you the same answer that the lady who
would have been here if I -- if she hadn't been fixing to deliver a child
would have been here gave then. And I will tell you, ladies and
gentlemen, we have -- every meeting that we took with both your staff
and the staff from Fishkind and Barron Collier were taped so you can
hear it for yourself.
Our answer to that is, because, in our opinion, they did not take it
to buildout, we cannot tell you whether it's fiscally neutral. But let's
Page 82
February 14, 2012
look at something. If you go back to -- and I think I can just put it on
the machine here, correct?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: While you're looking for that, I'll
just -- I'll make one other comment.
MR. BROCK: Let me ask you a question. Mr. Fishkind, do you
have my presentation? I mean, that concerns me, ladies and
gentlemen.
You know, I sent you a copy of my presentation, and I told you it
was confidential until we've released it here today, and now I'm seeing
portions of the presentation in Mr. Fishkind's presentation, and that
concerns me. Did you -all give it to him?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't even -- I didn't see any of
yours in his, so I'm afraid I don't know what you're talking about.
MR. BROCK: Which way is up?
MR. OCHS: There you go.
MR. BROCK: If you look, remember that the results from
Fishkind's presentation in 2010 showed a positive impact by Ave
Maria of $10 million, okay. Just this item of the change in the
formula alone will make a change in the cost of 16 million. So that
change and that change alone, if it is correct, would make a change
taking it into the negative.
But I'm not going to sit here and tell you that I know what the
results of the analysis would be if it was done in the way that I think it
should have been done. You know, I can't answer that question.
That's the same answer that Ms. Kearns gave you.
There are a couple of other things I want to address with regard
to Mr. Fishkind's presentation, if you'll allow me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me just tell you -- no, I just had
one more comment.
MR. BROCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Actually, it isn't even to you,
Dwight. It's just me sitting here thinking thoughtfully. We're all
olm
February 14, 2012
talking about this model, and we're talking about a model that was
created in the year 2005 when we had an exciting future ahead of us
for Collier County.
All we could see was things were increasing, improving, jobs
were plentiful, the prices of homes were high -- well, probably too
high -- and things were going along swimmingly, and so all we could
see for the Ave Maria community, as well as when we voted on it, was
there was no way to go but up. Who would ever estimate -- who
would ever even guess, project, that we were going to go into one of
the worst recessions in our history? And there we were a few years
later.
So, you know, as we look at all of this based on 2005 and 2010
and you start thinking about what happened in between, I don't know
how anybody could even calculate or guess -- I don't care what
formula you use -- that we would have gone through all of that, and
that's just -- that's just my own thinking about it.
MR. BROCK: Well, whether or not there's a positive or negative
impact, you know, really isn't affected by the economies that exist.
What does exist is, you know, whether or not this is created by the
change in the economy, and I think that anyone who looks at the real
estate market in Collier County or anywhere else in the State of
Florida, and probably anywhere else in the country, will tell you that
this is a consequence -- the impact, whatever it may be, is a
consequence of the economic situation.
Who would have foreseen that our -- I would go from 400
foreclosures per day -- I mean per month -- no, I'm sorry -- per year, to
800 foreclosure cases per month? Nobody could have foreseen this, in
my opinion.
But if I could take a moment to address some of the other issues
that were brought up by Mr. Fishkind, I'd like to do that, Mr.
Chairman.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'd like to give some direction
affim
February 14, 2012
myself.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, it's the pleasure of the board. Do
you have all the information you need?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, it's not rocket
scientist -- science here. You have to have the proper inputs of what
this development costs and what it contributes. It's very, very simple.
This model is -- has been changed from the time that it was adopted
by the Board of Commissioners.
Why don't we have somebody independent to analyze, not this
data, but analyze the fiscal impacts or the fiscal neutrality or the
positive impacts of the community? That's what the whole thing -- the
SRA, the whole intent was, is to find all that -- those things out. And
we still don't have it.
You know, you -- you start changing things or you put things in
there that really doesn't matter, then you're not going to get to the
conclusion.
That's what I would like to do is give direction to the county
manager to have somebody provide the Board of Commissioners of
what the bottom line is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion that we give
guidance to county manager to find an impartial reviewer to take a
look at the financial impact of the Ave Maria development and
provide us an assessment of that. Is that fair?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, and we want a five -year
review as -- according to the Land Development Code.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And there's a second by Commissioner
Fiala.
Now, let me just ask one thing about this. I believe that our rules
February 14, 2012
are written in a way that invite misinterpretation. The Clerk will read
the requirement that you have snapshots at five -year intervals and out
to buildout. I had read it that you have snapshots at five -year intervals
all the way until the year of buildout, because I -- I'll go back to my
earlier statement. I have absolutely no confidence in anybody's ability
to tell me whether or not Ave Maria, out 20 or 30 years from now, will
be positive or negative. I mean, Mr. Fishkind says the same thing. I
mean, you can't make projections like that.
So expecting that this particular model would have projected out
those number of years is, in my opinion, not consistent with our intent
and is almost impossible.
So if -- you stated it correctly, Commissioner Henning, when you
said that a five -year report is what you're looking for. And we want to
know whether it was positive or negative. And if we could hold it at
that and forget about the forecast -- because nobody has the capability
to do that.
So we have a motion and a second. Now we'll have discussion.
Commissioner Hiller was next.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. Again, I'm very
concerned about Mr. Fishkind's testimony here today because, as I
said, I do believe he has a conflict of interest. He's compensated by
Barron Collier; he's representing Barron Collier in the interpretation of
this model.
I was also very concerned about his statement about the fluidity
of the model where in his own manual he provides that there is an
inherent danger with open formulas and that the open formulas allow
for potential manipulation to serve particular ends and, you know,
now he's making a statement contrary to his own manual, so I have a
problem with that.
I really like what you said, Commissioner Fiala. I thought the
comment that you just made was well said.
And to that end, one of the things that I was thinking about is the
! ••
February 14, 2012
realty of the situation that we're in. You know, yesterday I asked Leo
how much have we spent on Oil Well Road, and his response to me
was 52 million.
Now, when you look at this model that, according to Mr.
Fishkind, is correct, their revenues to date are approximately 28
million, if we're to assume that that is a correct number, which leaves
a deficit of, you know, roughly, say, 24, 25 million. I'm just rounding
the numbers. So that obviously is concerning to me.
Now with respect to, yeah, it's a model, and, you know, how do
we know, the reality is we had an obligation to know. We have two
developer contracts, one which is strictly with the Ave Maria
Development LLP, the other which is a tri -party contract, both which
were executed in April 2005. And both of which have a provision that
the DCA dated April 2005 in Paragraph 22 provides for an annual
review and audit of performance under the agreement, and that if the
Board of County Commissioners finds on the basis of substantial
competent evidence there has been a failure to comply with the terms
of the agreement, the agreement may be revoked or unilaterally
modified by the county.
And the tri -party agreement, in Paragraph 7, says that the -- and
I'm not going to read the whole thing, but just in part as an example, if
the construction of the town of Ave Maria is not proceeding in a
substantially timely manner to buildout, the agreement may be
modified or terminated by agreement of the parties.
Now, if there's one thing I take away is that everybody agrees
that only, what, 374 or so -- let's say 375 units have been built by this
five -year mark. And based on the development parameters that were
attached to the interlocal agreement as what was supposed to be built
by the end of Phase 1, the number is 6,010.
Now, we also know that based on schedules provided to me
through April of 2011 -- obviously these need to be updated to the
present -- that substantial impact fees were being shifted from other
Page 87
February 14, 2012
districts to pay for the infrastructure that otherwise should have been
paid for by the Ave Maria developer as committed to in the
development agreement.
They committed that they were going to build so many homes
and in exchange they were going to produce about $60 million in
impact fees, and the county detrimentally relied, and, as a result,
accelerated the construction of Oil Well Road to match these phases in
the expected revenues, and obviously there is a shortfall at this point.
And as I said, it doesn't take rocket science to figure out that if
you've got a $52 million expenditure and only a $28 million
contribution, you're in the hole about 25 -or -so million, just rounding.
What disturbs me the most is this letter that was presented by
Nick Casalanguida from Barron Collier that says -- and this was
presented in the AUIR. And it says that Ave Maria gives -- consents
to the county using the impact -fee dollars for other projects that have
not been paid for, because all the monies were being shifted to this
project as a priority when, in fact, all the numbers were showing year
after year after year when I was not sitting on this board that
development was not moving at the pace it was expected. That is a
huge problem.
The taxpayers of Collier County, as I said, are the fall guy for
this development's failure to perform, and whether it's because the
market has declined or they've changed their priorities, it doesn't
matter. This board should have stopped expending funds on Oil Well
Road when it was clear that the development was not moving forward.
And right now we are in a negative situation with the taxpayers
of Collier County advancing funds that should have been advanced by
the developer for the developer's benefit. So --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like to hear what you have
to say, Mr. Brock, in answer to Mr. Fishkind's presentation. I also
have a problem that Mr. Fishkind did not present your slide show to
OEM
February 14, 2012
the board in advance as the Clerk did. We had a problem when the
Clerk -- or it's my understanding there was a problem. I don't want to
say "we," but I know I was concerned about the fact that there was no
attachment to the presentation that was going to be made by the board
(sic).
This board passed an ordinance that requires that materials that
are going to be brought forward be brought before the agenda is
presented.
How did you get ahold of that information? Because we were
bound to confidentiality not to release it.
MR. FISHKIND: I have no idea what you're bound by or not. It
was sent to me in an email, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: By whom?
MR. FISHKIND: I don't even remember, but I'll pull it up and
provide it to you. I get a hundred emails a day.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. Then I want to know who
provided it, and please consider this a public- records request to all the
commissioners and all staff to produce the email that was sent with the
Clerk's attachment to Mr. Fishkind when it was clearly understood that
was not to be done.
MR. BROCK: Just a -- may I respond to Mr. Fishkind?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How quickly can you do that, Mr.
Brock?
MR. BROCK: Very brief.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Very good.
MR. BROCK: With regard to the staff s telling them that it was
positive, my staff has never told them that, and a copy of the tape
exists, and anyone that wants to can go through it.
As it relates to the $30,000 per acre being a current evaluation of
the property, you know, look at the email, the email sent by Kevin
Hendricks on June the 13th, 2011. So, obviously, it was done prior to
-- the analysis was done prior to that.
• I
February 14, 2012
Now, do I know that's the correct value? No. Okay. In addition
to that, he said that he used a change that he got out of the Tindale
Oliver study. He told us that. That was not a secret to us that that was
a position they were taking.
Unfortunately, we went back for -- as far back as we could get
the Tindale Oliver study, and the same formula was used in all the
Tindale Oliver studies in calculating the impact -fee costs to -- that
were going to be assessed. And every one of them has that divided by
two, and it's, in part, because, I suspect, of the going and coming.
The problem when they submitted the 2005 model, from our
perspective, even though that was in the Tindale Oliver study then,
they didn't use it then.
I want to show you something now. And I didn't want to do this,
but I'm going to do this. This is what gives me more problem with
regard to what this gentleman stood up here and said, that he did this
with staff, than anything else.
Now, this is taken out of a conversation that took place in my
office between my staff and the persons who are there -- are there, and
it's a statement by Nick Casalanguida which indicates to me that, you
know, he saw the problems associated with this development, and he
was, in fact, directed that this is what we're going to do regardless.
That's what concerns me more than anything else here.
And with that, I will leave you with it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you very much.
Nick, I -- you're walking right into the middle of this movie now.
There's been a lot of things said concerning your particular role in this.
Would you elaborate on that? Then I have some questions I need to
ask everybody.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: First of all, I want to thank you all for
this position. This is a lot of fun. I can't tell you how much fun I have
at this job.
=
February 14, 2012
That's a quote from probably 2004 when I first started here. And
Norman called me on a Friday. And there's a funny story. We sat
down with County Manager Mudd, God rest his soul, and they gave
me a contract, about an hour to review it. They said, hey, you know,
bloody it up a little bit. Norman said, take a good look at it; see what
you think of it.
And, of course, me being, you know, new to the job, I said, well,
I'm going to take a good shot at this thing. I'm going to really, you
know, hit it up pretty good. And, yeah, I got chewed out. And I
thought it was kind of a funny story.
And I think at that time the purpose of that was for me to look at
something, analyze it, give them some feedback and give them
something to chew on.
And I went in there with a pretty strong red pen. But I wasn't
party to any of the negotiations that led up to that date. I mean, it was
my first meeting, probably, with the county manager.
And I said to Norman, do I still have a job on Monday? Because
I fired the guy up pretty good.
So, yeah, that's about right. And I didn't know what the purpose
of the exercise was, but I think you can't take that out of context, so --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What about Commissioner
Hiller's statement about Oil Well Road?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. And halfway through this
exercise I took a step back. Anybody who knows me, I don't like
modeling to the certain extent, because it's just a planning tool. And
you do the LRTP, and we present at the MPO the Master Mobility
Plan and now the FIAM. God, if you look at what the intent of these
models are, it's to give you a feel for where things are going.
And there are so many variables in these models, trip length, trip
generation, new trips, cost at any point in time. If you look at our
impact -fee studies, five years ago we have almost a billion - dollar
work program generating $60 million impact fees annually. Now I'm
Page 91
February 14, 2012
barely collecting 4 and a half on the 200 million.
So these are forecasts that are difficult to ascertain. So I said,
let's go to actuals, and I provided that to everybody. See if I can find
it real quick.
Is it the I drive? D?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to have to move along here.
Is there anything you can tell us quickly?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. I looked at the actual
expenditures, and I -- so -- go to the actual page, Page 5. I looked at
actual expenditures, and I said, I'm not going to get into forecast
modeling. I'm not going to get into what's been there. And based on
what we do with the larger project, we have a DRI rule. We look at
proportionate share, because impact fees don't always make sense
when they look at a specific project.
So you say, what are the impacts to the actual project? So their
proportionate share, based on adding new trips or capacity, is only a
certain percentage of the total volume of that capacity on that road.
So, you know, when you go through this -- I don't want it to keep
disappearing. When you go through this, they only have a certain
percentage. Here 33 percent, and over here 55 percent of the segments
that they're actually responsible for. Because think about Orangetree
to the left on the west portion of the road. We built that road. Not --
even if Ave Maria didn't come in, we have two schools there in the
Orangetree development, which you're going to hear this afternoon.
We had to widen Oil Well Road.
So you can't attribute all the cost to Ave Maria. You always do a
percentage. And you base it on their DRI submittal or their SRA
submittal and distribution. Then you look at, if I've got a road that
carries 1,000 cars today and I add capacity of 2,000, 2,000 more cars
to get to 3,000, and it costs me $20 million, well, you do the math. I'm
adding 2,000 trips, and I've divided it into the, you know, amount of
cost, and I get a unit cost per new trip. And then you multiply it by
Page 92
February 14, 2012
what the developer consumes of that. That's a proportionate cost.
So after doing all that, you look at what they've done over here.
And if you consume the right -of -way, you can even zero these things
out. And I went from -- I looked at it from June 2010 at project
completion; not their project, our road - construction project.
So using our road - construction project costs and their trips, they
would be responsible for $23 million of that road project.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Half.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Calculated half; half. And when you
look at their impact fees, developer contributions and impact fees paid
-- and this cursor does not want to play nice with me -- and then I
substract out their -- that credit, they've given us $25 million in value.
So let's say I zero out the right -of -way. They're still going to give us
another $60 million over time, or here it says $80 million. But now
with our impact -fee reductions, Amy gave me a calculation, I think, of
75.
So even though to date we've collected $25 million, I'm going to
collect another $60 million from Ave Maria at the current rate. And
yet they're only responsible for, on Oil Well Road, $23 million. And
to date, they've only consumed, to June 10th, $7 million worth of
capacity.
So when I do an actual calculation, I forget the model, because
the model's just a guidance tool, and I get into the nitty - gritty of the
numbers, I can't find out how they're negative on the Oil Well Road
project per their calculations and mine.
So, you know, I was kind of listening to the discussion about
modeling. And, one thing I will tell you is -- and you've heard it from
both -- Mr. Brock -- we've had a good rapport with going through this
project -- and Mr. Fishkind.
MR. BROCK: I probably ruined his day.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, you didn't.
The point being is, it's a modeling tool. And when you get close,
Page 93
February 14, 2012
you have to go down to the actual numbers. So if you want to get into
another model review, you're going to get a lot of subjective
comments from their side and our side and everybody else.
Even in the proportionate -share calculations you have percent
new trips, trip distribution. You could argue about that. Traffic
modeling is not an exact science. But the amount of money they're
going to pay versus what -- the cost of the road is much more over
time, and that's the bottom line when you look at it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, Nick. Thank you so
much.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I appreciate it.
Now, the rest of my comments. I -- just first a question for the
county attorney. Regarding this confidentiality clause that was put on
there, what is that? Is that something that's binding by law? Is that
something that you do out of respect?
MR. KLATZKOW: It's out of respect. That is a public
document once it got circulated.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's exactly what I thought.
Now -- and forgive me. Both of you are wrong. I'm going to tell you
right now, I have real problems with the fact that I didn't receive the
document from the Clerk's Office until Friday, and I had even more of
a problem with the fact I never received the document from Fishkind
until I got to view it right now.
These are public records that everybody needs to be able to make
a -- base their decisions on and where to go with it. If you had --
either one of you had asked me to be able to give you this record, first
I would have checked with the county attorney to see if I legally could
do it. I would have given your records to both of you. You both
needed to be prepared totally to what the other one was doing. I think
they call it discovery.
So what I'm going to tell you in the future, if you ever come back
Page 94
February 14, 2012
here again, please, get this to us at an early time, exchange the
information back and forth so that we can act accordingly. I was
actually going to ask for a continuance for the lack of time that was
here to be able to study, first, the Clerk's document. I didn't realize
you had so much detail. If I knew that, and I never got to see it
beforehand, I would have asked for a continuance today to be able to
view it.
The Clerk was at a disadvantage that he never got to see your
document. The commission was at a disadvantage because they never
got to see it, period. The Clerk's document, if it got here a little bit
earlier, we might have some more time to react to it.
So what I'm saying is, confidentiality might be a great thing
under certain circumstances. In this case public records are public
records, and I'm always going to treat them like that. And if one of
you wants those records, you can have them.
Now, I got a couple of other things I want to go through.
MR. BROCK: Commissioner, may I respond to that first?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Go ahead, Mr. Brock. I just
hope I don't lose my train of thought for the last item I've got.
MR. BROCK: Okay. The audit report, by statute, while it is a
public record, is confidential by law until it is presented to the Board
of County Commissioners. The form in which I presented it today
was in an oral presentation as opposed to an audit report. So
statutorily it is in my hands a confidential record. I gave it to you with
the understanding that it would remain confidential as I do with the
records.
If this is the rule that we're going to play by, okay -- I don't want
it to be the rule that we're going to play by. I want it to continue in
your hands so that I can give it to county staff and let them have an
opportunity to review it before it becomes a public record. But if
that's the rule we're going to play by, I need to know what the rule is
so that I can play by it.
Page 95
February 14, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What are rules, sir? The rule
here is to come up with an honest appraisal of what's happening.
MR. BROCK: Okay. But --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We've got two conflicting
appraisals, and they were both excellently presented. And if we had a
little more time to be able to do it -- now, Commissioner Henning's
suggestion is the greatest thing I've heard here today.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Call the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously, and we're
breaking for lunch.
MR. OCHS: How long, sir?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Three hours --
MR. OCHS: You have a 1:30 time - certain phone call, just as a
reminder.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll be back here at 1:30.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Didn't you say there were two
speakers?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, but the second speaker said he didn't
want to speak.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, ladies and gentlemen. The Board
of County Commission meeting is back in session.
Page 96
February 14, 2012
We are expecting a conference call with Representative Matt
Hudson who, I believe, is in Tallahassee.
Item #9K
DISCUSSION WITH REPRESENTATIVE MATT HUDSON
REGARDING HOUSE BILL 1263, STATE DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH REORGANIZATION - REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON
JOINED THE MEETING VIA TELEPHONE AND ANSWERED
QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS HOUSE BILL AND OTHERS
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Consistent with Item 9K on your agenda.
It's the 1:30 time - certain discussion with Representative Hudson
regarding proposed House Bill 1263, reference the state Department of
Health Reorganization.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is Representative Hudson on the
line?
MR. MITCHELL: Not yet, sir.
MR. OCHS: Is he calling in, Mr. Mitchell?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, he is.
MR. OCHS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: There he is.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON: Hello?
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Hudson?
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON: Yes.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, you're live with the Board of County
Commissioners.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON: Hello, everyone.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Hello. Representative Hudson, this is
Fred Coyle. I'd like to welcome you. Thank you very much for
taking time out of your schedule to talk with us today.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON: Not a problem. Happy to.
Page 97
February 14, 2012
Glad to be here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta had suggested we
talk with you about legislation that you were considering, so --
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- I'll let Commissioner Coletta take over
at this point in time. And if he has questions specifically --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I appreciate it, sir, you
taking a call on a busy day like today.
Back at the last meeting that we had, the commission expressed
some misgivings and I think mostly misunderstandings regarding your
health bill.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If you'd be so kind to elaborate,
if you could, as far as what the county role would be in that, that
would be most helpful.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON: Okay, sure. I'm happy to do
that.
And you are certainly, as a committee or as a commission, not in
the minority in this. There are a lot of people asking questions about
this bill, and your idea in doing so is very prudent, I will just tell you.
First of all, understand the nexus of where this comes from.
Going back a couple of years ago, the legislature identified that after
the state HRS broke up into a number of different individual agencies,
OCCA, Department of Health, Department of Children and Families,
Department of Elder Affairs and so forth, that many of the agencies
had gone through some reorganization or some restructuring along the
way really with the exception of the Department of Health.
And so a couple of years ago a bill that I passed, House Bill
5311, directed the Department of Health to do an internal
reorganization plan and also did a couple of other structural things to
prevent them from doing some mission creep type of things.
For example, the Department of Health had the authority to
February 14, 2012
pursue any grant they wanted to without any authority to do that, and
oftentimes found themselves adding employees or keeping grants on
the books that didn't exist any longer, and those employees just
lingered on. So we put some restrictions there.
They had to report back to the legislature their findings January 1
of 2011. And they put together a very comprehensive reorganization
plan. And so I think, first of all, the first misnomer is that somehow we
are rushing down the street on this. No, we've been talking about
reorganizing the Department of Health for at least a couple of years.
And last year we opted not to pursue a major reorganization issue
dealing with the Department of Health, frankly because we were very
busy addressing the pill -mill issue and addressing Medicaid reform.
And so we focused on those two prioritized areas within the realm of
healthcare reform.
This year, last fall particularly, the Department of Health, here at
the central office in Tallahassee, asked for me to carry their legislative
package and to do so in a manner that would move forward their
reorganization priorities.
Looking at their reorganization priorities as an agency, it was
abundantly clear that they were not going to advance much of their
own reorganization plan. And so we set forth doing a little bit more
fact finding to see what other things we might be able to explore,
looking at how other states performed and so forth.
And I went so far as also to take my entire healthcare
appropriation subcommittee on a field trip to the central office. As
you know, most field trips stop around Grade 3 or 4. I went and took
the entire committee on a field trip to be able to unearth more of the
issues and to find out where exactly this disconnect was.
As I spoke with a myriad of health departments around the state,
the recurring theme -- albeit most health department directors were not
so desirous to speak on the record because they have -- you know, not
wanting to throw their boss under the bus, the overwhelming sense
Page 99
February 14, 2012
was that the central office tended to be very bureaucratic and that they
did not give the individual county health departments a great deal of
control in their activities and were not a good support network for
them.
And so with that in mind, the bill that I proposed does a few
things. First of all, the health department is identified in a couple of
different statutes -- well, a lot of different statutes, but in two basic
statutes.
Chapter 20, which identifies kind of their mission, if you will,
and then Chapter 3 81, which is kind of the majority of everything else,
and it streamlines and cleans up a tremendous amount of things within
Chapter 3 81. For instance, as an example, I bet you didn't know that
the Surgeon General had the power to eminent domain property. Well,
oddly, they didn't know they had the power to eminent domain
property. And so since they had never used it, we went ahead and
took out that provision. A lot of things that people would go, really,
that's kind of odd, let's clean that up. And so we did that.
When it came to the county health departments, what we -- what
we looked at was what are our challenges with county health
departments? We've got big counties, we've got small counties, we've
got some counties that the only form of healthcare in a particular
county is the county health department.
Now, we are very blessed in Collier County to have, number one,
what I consider to be one of the best county health department
directors in the State of Florida in Dr. Joan Colfer, but also we have
the blessing of having a lot of resources in the community to be able
to access care. We have a couple of very good hospital systems, a
number of clinics and so forth that a lot of other counties do not have.
And so this bill was also targeting kind of holistically at the state
level some of the challenges we fare. You know, if you look -- and
I'm sure Dr. Colfer's probably shared with you individually in
meetings prior, you know, Collier County, it's no great mystery, we
Page 100
February 14, 2012
are the number one county in the state for health outcomes. Well, the
bottom 25 counties in the state are all rural counties. Eight of those
counties don't even have a hospital.
And so part of my process for looking at this bill was how best
we provide for greater access to healthcare in our rural communities
around the State of Florida, because the paradigm that we see along
the coast is not necessarily the paradigm that they see inland or North
Florida.
And so the thought process was, look, how can I give a local
individual county more home rule to be able to allow them to
recognize the individual needs of their community? I would -- I
would argue that nobody knows Collier County and their particular
areas of Collier County better than a local elected official in that
regard.
And so my thought process was, very simply, let me provide
more home rule to the individual counties to be able to provide better
access, and it will affect health outcomes in their individual
communities.
And the way I thought to do that would be -- would be to allow
for the individual county health departments to no longer have two
bosses. Currently, they receive a mixture of funding via Medicare,
Medicaid, some private pay, some grants, and then also they receive
money directly from the State of Florida through our appropriations
through what's called a county health department non - categorical line;
very technical, and I'm sorry about that. And you provide them some
resources of local tax revenue as well to supplement their programs.
So the local county health departments report to you as a Board
of County Commissioners, and they also report to the state Surgeon
General, leaving them in somewhat of a quandary. If the state
Surgeon General wants to embark upon a process or a program that is
important to the state Surgeon General, it may not necessarily be
appropriate or necessarily as needed in our particular county and -- so
Page 101
February 14, 2012
leaving that kind of a challenge there for the individual health
department director.
I personally believe that the individual counties should make that
decision, so that's what I did. And so my bill would decentralized the
county health departments by giving each individual county the
control over their health department with the caveat that there are
certain things that our citizens expect our county health departments to
perform for them. They should certainly be handling the issues of
vital statistics. They should certainly be handling immunizations.
They should certainly be handling emergency preparedness. They
should certainly be handling issues of public- health concern,
public - health outbreaks, you know, our pandemic flu plan, things like
that.
And those things they would be required to contract back to the
State of Florida for those particular things; however, the other things
that might be necessary to do in a particular community under my bill
would be left up to that individual community.
So if there was a great desire to increase the access to oral
healthcare and you wanted to provide more dental service than would
normally be provided under law, you would be able to do that under a
-- under a direction of the Board of County Commissioners.
In other counties, one of the other things that we allow for in the
bill is for counties to be able to band together to pool their resources.
So, for example, currently today in Hendry County and in Glades
County, they share a county health department director because
resources are very tight for them.
The bill would give them the ability now, if they wanted to build
a joint facility, they could do that, or four counties could come
together in North Central Florida and say, hey, we've got an issue. We
don't have a dentist in these four counties. We're going to create a
mobile dental clinic and rotate amongst the counties, and we're going
to be able to enter into interlocal agreements that we could never enter
Page 102
February 14, 2012
into before without this bill. And so that was the -- that was the nexus
of this bill.
Now, the next question, of course, is what about funding. Well,
currently today when I write the budget for healthcare -- which we
released, incidentally, last week, just under 30 billion for the
healthcare portion. We have a few different line items in our budget.
We have what we call county health department categorical things,
which is where we are spending money, and we're telling you to do
exactly this with it, and then we are giving you what we call county
health department non - categorical funds, and that is the funds that go
to cover payroll and operations of our portion of the county health
departments.
When I do that non - categorical funding, the central office in the
Department of Health today looks at that pool of money, about $200
million, plus or minus, and they then allocate it back to the individual
counties based on a per capita basis.
Under my proposal, while I call it a block grant, it's not a
competitive grant by any stretch of the imagination. It is merely the
same per capita formula that the health department is using now. So
there would be no change in the funding application.
And so that is -- that is the concept behind this. I will tell you
that, needless to say, as you're calling, as I mentioned earlier, there
have been some people fairly inquisitive about this bill, some folks
that have been completely dead set opposed to it, which I'm guessing
you probably are, and that's okay, but I think there's also been some
misunderstanding about this bill as to what the true intent of this bill
was, and the true intent is to provide more home rule, the same
resources, and the ability to use the resources in a manner that is
consistent and appropriate for the healthcare needs of an individual
community, and that's I'm -- is what I'm striving to do, and along the
way I am more than happy -- and I met with the governor's office just
yesterday on looking at different ways to be able to tweak and adjust,
Page 103
February 14, 2012
and I'm certainly open to different ideas.
And I realize that, Commissioner Coletta, I probably just gave
you the longest answer to a question that has ever been received on the
dais there, given the fact that I can't see the red light in front of me,
but I do -- did want to share the entire picture for you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Representative Hudson, we lost
you about ten minutes ago. Could you repeat what you said?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's --
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON: Oh, you're killing me, you're
killing me.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. I'll turn it to my fellow
commissioners for questions, sir. Thank you for calling.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. Hi, there.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON: Hi, there.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you for your presentation.
You know, it's the feeling of many that the effect of what you're
proposing is actually to take away home rule, not to give us more
home rule. And we have members of our health department here. I
certainly would like to hear from them.
But I, for one, don't want to see change to what I think has
worked effectively to date. So I would like to allow them to speak, if
you want to stand up and talk. You don't have to if you don't want to.
She doesn't want to. You can understand that. So that is just my
feeling on this issue.
So thank you for your comments, but I really think leaving --
leaving things the way they are with respect to this seems to make
more sense.
The other question that I have is if you could -- since we have
you as a captive audience -- just for one minute talk to us a little bit
about another bill. And I'm not sure -- maybe it's died. I'm not sure
Page 104
February 14, 2012
where it stands right now with respect to allowing oil drilling here in
Southwest Florida. Obviously, you know, I believe that would impact
Collier County. And I understand that you're proposing that wells be
opened up that have been closed for renewed oil exploration.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON: Yes, that is correct. That
would be House Bill 87, and it will be on the -- it is on the agenda
today on the floor of the House, and so we will be debating that bill
today on the floor and taking it up for final passage tomorrow.
It is a bill that we know -- obviously, we've been drilling for oil
in Southwest Florida since 1943 when the Humble Oil Company first
found oil out in Immokalee and Felda and Sunniland. And so back in
the day, the technology was not what the technology is today. I would
argue some of you probably have iPads sitting in front of you that you
would have never imagined you would have had back when you first
got your first brick phone and your first VCR. And so the technology
is better today.
And so all I'm proposing to do is, since we know where the oil is
-- in fact, in many cases it's underneath a slab of concrete that was
closed over decades ago because it -- they just didn't have the
technology to get the oil out of the ground. All I propose to do is,
because it is difficult oil to get out of the ground because of the
pocketing and the nature of the limestone and so forth, using enhanced
oil recovery which we can -- which we know we have the technology
to do, classify mature oil fields in the same taxation classification as
tertiary oil fields.
And not to get too far into the weeds, but there's three different
types of oil production, Class 1, 2, and tertiary. Tertiary has the least
amount of tax on it because it is the most difficult oil to get out of the
ground and the most expensive oil to get out of the ground.
The reason these oils -- oil wells have not been reopened in the
past is because, quite frankly, it didn't make financial sense for them
to do that. This would provide a mechanism for the producers to have
Page 105
February 14, 2012
the opportunity to have a smaller tax rate to allow them to capital cost
the recovery, the equipment necessary to go forward with production
and, at the same token, create jobs in the process.
In Southwest Florida, between the oil we have in Collier County
and the oil that there is in Hendry County, you would be looking at the
potential creation of about 75 jobs, long -term jobs, not seasonally
adjusted jobs or any of those types of things, and it would certainly, I
think, be a very good thing.
The measure has passed in the finance and tax committee, I
guess, a week and a half ago or so now, and it passed in a bipartisan
fashion with zero concerns from the environmental community being
brought up at any committee stop along the way.
So because we're already doing it in this particular area, it seems
relevant that we would continue to go and pursue our domestic natural
resources that way.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Where is that in Collier County?
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON: Well, if you go down Oil Well
Road, you'll get to where the oil wells are.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, oh, I never thought of that.
No wonder it's called Oil Well Road.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So that's why it's called Oil Well Road.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, my goodness.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON: Well, there's a misnomer that
the reason it's called Oil Well Road is because Johnson Street was
taken but, really, that's where the oil wells are, yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Representative Hudson, this is
Fred Coyle.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON: Hello.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I am strongly supportive of your position
on recognizing the differences between the challenges and
opportunities of different counties in the state. I appreciate what
you're trying to do with the Medicare bill or the medical care bill, but
Page 106
February 14, 2012
you've already acknowledged that Collier County might have different
priorities and needs.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a provision that would permit us
to opt out of the provisions of the bill or to selectively participate in
certain provisions of the bill?
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON: The way it is currently drafted,
no; however, that is something that has been brought up, and we'll
certainly take a look at it. In fact, I had a meeting this morning with
the Florida Association of Counties. John Wayne Smith was in the
office, and we were having a great discussion on this. And I will tell
you, he does a very good job of representing you -all.
And so we had a conversation, not about that particular issue but
overall in the bill, and I explained to him that, just like he's meeting
with me today, the door's open. If you have proposals or tweaks or
different language that you might want us to take a look at, I'm more
than willing to look at that.
At the end of the day, I will tell you that I do not believe in the
assertion that this bill takes away from home rule. Quite frankly, I
think it adds a tremendous amount of home rule and in some cases too
much, and maybe that's where an opt -out thing might be appropriate.
But this clearly gives a great deal of home rule to people.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Just speaking for myself, if there
was an opportunity for opting out of the provision or certain
provisions of the bill, it would, I believe, strengthen the support you've
got here for that bill.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So if there's anything we can do to help
flesh out some of the details, I'm sure that the members of the board
would be delighted to work on that.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON: Well, I told John this morning
when he was in my office that I was going to be having a call with
Page 107
February 14, 2012
you -all this afternoon. So I don't know who the legislative liaison is
for the county commission now with the Florida Association of
Counties, but if you want to reach out to him and chat with him about
your proposal and see if there might be either the county attorney or
one of the Florida Association of Counties attorneys that might want
to look at some draft language to look at, like I said, I'm more than
happy to look at all options. It is not a closed issue by any stretch of
the imagination.
When you're looking at doing large reform ideas, you've got to
bring them all out there and get the conversation started, and I'm very
appreciative of the fact that we're having this conversation today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. Well, we appreciate you helping
us through the process. It is very complex, and --
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON: It is. It was not a -- it was not
an easy thing to put together, and it was put together over a couple
years. So, believe me, I understand. It was a lot of work.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala has some
comments.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON: Sure. Hi, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Hi. How are you, Matt --
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON: I'm great.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- rather, I should say
Representative Hudson.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON: Yeah, yeah. We've known
each other forever. It's good.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Collier County for so long has been
a donor county, but you say that in this instance we'll be funded just as
much as we were funded all along, right?
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Except while we have the ability to
have home rule which, of course, is always attractive to us. Is there
any downside to this that you can see?
M
February 14, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: For Collier County.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: For Collier County, thank you for
saying that.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON: You know, for -- to be county
specific, I think actually, you know -- and, you know -- obviously, I'm
going to be biased, frankly, but -- and I probably embarrassed her
earlier when I said this, but I think Dr. Colfer and the leadership she
provides at the county health department is as good or better than
anyone in the State of Florida, and I think that the work that she's done
and been able to do there has been fantastic. And if anybody can take
-- increase flexibility to new heights and providing greater care, I
believe it's her, so --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you know what, I totally
agree, and I think everybody on this board agrees with you as well.
We just wanted to make sure that this bill works for her instead of
against her. And with your -- with your confirmation that that's what
it will do, I feel a little more comfortable about it. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON: Well, I appreciate that. And I
will tell you that I am more than happy -- and if Dr. Colfer's in the
crowd, she's more than happy to give a jingle to my office and we'll
set up a time to chat, just her and I, one on one if she has particular
concerns or would like to see wordsmithing on some language or any
of that. Again, I am completely open to the opportunities here. I think
that, you know, again, creating greater -- you know, healthcare's a
three- legged stool; access, quality, and cost. And cost means nothing
if you don't have anywhere to go. And you don't get any quality if
you don't have access. They're all tied together.
And so I think we're creating a great opportunity for access,
which should drive better quality, which should lower costs.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And just to reiterate one more time,
we've had a lot of unfunded mandates handed down to us. There will
be nothing attached to this, will there?
Page 109
February 14, 2012
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON: Nope, nope, nope. Not doing
any unfunded mandates, that's for sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Well, Dr. Colfer is
nodding, by the way, that she'd love to meet with you and talk with
you.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON: Cool. That'd be good by me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but you couldn't see that, so I
thought I'd tell you.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON: I appreciate that, yes. It's not
camera vision we've got going. We could have Skyped I guess, but
anyway.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON: Oh, there was another note.
And if I could, there was a note in my appointment about another bill,
House Bill 107, that one of the commissioners must have brought up
or -- as a discussion point, let me just mention. That was the bill that
allows for some consolidation efforts to occur for special districts if
they are so inclined to do so, create a mechanism to do, brought up by
Representative Caldwell from the Lee County area. That bill will be
on the house calendar tomorrow for debate and the following day for
passage to send to the Senate. So I just wanted to give you an update
as to where that bill was. I'm sorry if I cut somebody off for a
question. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Representative Hudson, Jim
Coletta again, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON: Yep.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just a couple of questions to
clarify this, and I -- it's exciting to know, you know, that local control
could be over this, and we all know that local government is more
Page 110
February 14, 2012
effective, then the farther you go up the scale it's less effective, and so
I do agree with you there.
Of course, our concern is funding in years to come, too. I mean,
is there some provision in the bill that will ensure that our funding will
be a yearly source, or is it going to be a year -by -year type of deal?
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON: Well, that's a very good
question. First of all, in the legislature, no legislature can bind future
legislatures, and that's why, quite frankly, you guys make the trip to
Tallahassee every year to take a look at the things that we're
concerned about.
You know, the amount of money that goes into the county health
department line item adjusts every year, has also adjusted every year.
Sometimes up, sometimes down. So there was no -- a future
legislature -- I mean, I can't bind another legislature a year from now,
two years from now; we just can't do that. And that's why we go
through the appropriations process, but I -- in talking to all of my
colleagues, there is zero desire whatsoever to even ponder the idea of
eliminating that line item by any stretch of the imagination, but there
is nothing we can put in substantive law that would allow for us to
bind a future legislation like that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do you have a Senate bill that
compliments your bill?
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON: There is a Senate bill sitting in
committee that was the original text of the original bill before the
amendment, or a strike -all amendment, if you will, and that one is still
a fairly strong subject of negotiation, let's put it that way.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I just want to thank you
again, Matt, for pointing me in the right direction when I was looking
into researching the consolidation bill.
The legislative analyst that you sent to me was very helpful, and I
Page 111
February 14, 2012
just, again, want to say thank you for introducing me to her.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON: Sure. I'm glad to be able to
make that introduction, and hopefully you were able to get the
information needed. Thank you for that comment. I appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I most certainly did. And, in fact,
some of the information I brought forward at other meetings, so thank
you.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON: Great. I love it when a plan
comes together. Fantastic.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Looks like all --
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON: Commissioners, anything else?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That looks like all the questions we
have, Representative Hudson. We thank you very much for your time,
and we look forward to working with you on maybe tweaking this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON: That sounds great to me.
Thank you very much. I appreciate your time and allowing me to be
on the agenda today. Thank you very much, and have a great week.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thanks, same to you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON: All righty, bye -bye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I just say one more thing?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, he's gone now.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. I want to say thank you to
Burt, because when I was looking into this issue, while Burt is not our
lobbyist, was -- because I had a -- you know, I have a very keen
interest in this consolidation bill. He very kindly gave me the -- an
update on what was going on as well, and I've introduced that into the
record also for the benefit of everyone.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Where does that take us, County
Manager?
Item #8A
Page 112
February 14, 2012
ORDINANCE 2012 -09: 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 1729000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL USE TO THE
EXISTING 60,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL FOR A TOTAL
OF 3325000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT; REVISING THE DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS INCLUDING BUILDING HEIGHT AND
SETBACKS AND ADDING ALLOWABLE RESIDENTIAL,
COMMERCIAL USES AND MIXED USES, AND ELIMINATING
THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS, FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED IN PARTS OF SECTIONS 11, 125 13, 14, 22
THROUGH 27, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 25138.76
ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE —
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, that takes you to your advertised
public hearings this afternoon, Item 8A. This item continued from the
January 10, 2012, and the January 24, 2012, BCC meetings.
This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
commission members. Should a hearing be held on the item, all
participants are required to be sworn in.
This is PUDZ- 2003 -AR -3608, the 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
Page 113
February 14, 2012
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.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
Will anyone who plans to give testimony in this petition please
stand to be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Looks like we're going to be here all day
if this many people are going to testify.
Okay. We'll go to the commissioners for ex parte disclosure.
We'll start with Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I had the opportunity to meet with
constituents, I had the opportunity to meet with Mrs. Ebert from the
Planning Commission, I had the opportunity to meet with Mr.
Saunders, and I had the opportunity to meet with the representatives
and engineers, if you will, of Agnoli Barber, and I have received
emails and staff report and calls.
And I have turned over -- I also received a memorandum from
our county attorney, Mr. Klatzkow, and I went ahead and I turned
those over to Mr. Saunders, and I have asked him to respond to
constituents' concerns as well as to all the issues raised by Mr.
Klatzkow.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, thank you. Yes, I've had
correspondence, received quite a bit of correspondence, which I have
in my file here to turn in so that anybody can view my correspondence
received, and emails as well in that correspondence, received phone
calls, and I've had meetings. I've spoken with Rich Yovanovich,
Bruce Anderson, Burt Saunders, Diane Ebert, staff, and anybody else
Page 114
February 14, 2012
who wanted to talk to me.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Actually, you know what, let me --
can I make a correction? I have to add Yovanovich. I spoke -- he
spoke to us with staff.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I have had meetings,
correspondence, emails, and telephone calls about this petition. I've
reviewed the Planning Commission staff report of 9/15/2011. I have
had meetings with Burt Saunders, who represents the petitioner, on
two occasions, and I had a meeting with Rich Yovanovich. And any
of the correspondence I've received is included in my file and is
available for review by anyone who is interested.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir.
Well, I guess it would be who I didn't meet with, because this has
been ongoing for some time. This file here is fairly thick. I imagine
just about everybody's name is in it.
Of course, I met with the petitioners and all the usual people you
mentioned. I reviewed the Planning Commission's meeting as far as
how they went with it, talked to the staff, numerous meetings,
correspondence, emails, and even phone calls. And if anyone ever
wants to review it, it's probably some very good reading for a couple
hours. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Emails, meetings,
correspondence, phone calls, watched some of the Planning
Commission's meeting, talked to two Planning Commission members,
I talked to staff, and also received the Planning Commission's packet
information.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. I would
like to remind everyone that this vote is a supermajority vote, so four
affirmative votes are necessary for passage.
Mr. Saunders, please go ahead.
MR. SAUNDERS : Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
Page 115
February 14, 2012
Commissioners. Just for your record, my name is Burt Saunders with
the Gray Robinson Law Firm representing Orangetree Associates.
Before I start, I saw that, as Leo Ochs was reading the title, some
eyebrows went up when he said eliminating environmental
commitments. And just so you understand, no environmental
commitments are being eliminated by this project.
The title is a little bit misleading. All the environmental
commitments have either been made and kept or they're contained in
other environmental ordinances of the county, so they don't need to be
in the body of the ordinance.
There's nothing in here that eliminates any environmental
commitments. And as I said, I think a few of you were a little bit
surprised to hear that, so that is not the case.
With me today are Roberta Bolt and Steve Lowe that's
representing the petitioner; Robert Mulhere of Mulhere & Associates,
the planner for this petition; Matt McLean with Agnoli, Barber &
Brundage, the project engineer; and Norman Trebilcock with
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions for project transportation.
Commissioner, you were mentioning the number of people here.
In our first Planning Commission meeting, I think we had probably 30
people in the audience that were opposed to this petition. And I think
today we probably have an even number of people that support this
and are opposed to it. And it's down to, I think, four or five. So we've
made tremendous progress.
We've come a very, very long way in making this petition much
more acceptable in the community, and we'll elaborate on that.
The Orangetree PUD consists of 2,138.76 acres of land with the
approval to build 2,100 units and 60,000 square feet of commercial on
the two neighborhood parcels. And Mr. McLean will point out where
the locations of these things are as I'm going through this.
The proposed PUD amendment today will add 1,050 dwelling
units to the currently approved 2,100. That will give you an overall
Page 116
February 14, 2012
density of 1.5 units per acre.
The developer had originally requested 1,250 units, and we
reduced that during the Planning Commission process to 1,050 units.
So we've already substantially reduced the density in this petition.
Leading up to, during, and after the Planning Commission
approval process, we literally had dozens of meetings with
representatives of all the existing communities adjacent to the new
development. We participated in a public meeting at the Valencia
Golf and Country with over 120 residents.
And I will tell you at that meeting most of the people were
concerned about this project and/or opposed to the project. So we
started off with an awful lot of opposition in the community going
back into the early part of September.
We attended several meetings of the various homeowners
associations, including three or four meetings of the Valencia Golf and
Country Club Homeowners Association. Those meetings were
significant, because it's the Valencia Golf and Country Club that is the
most impacted by this development. Those are the folks that live out
there right now, and so those are the folks that were most concerned
about our project.
Based on the input from those meetings, we made numerous
substantive changes to the proposal that reduced, to the greatest extent
possible, any negative impacts of this PUD amendment.
It was our objective, Commissioners, to present to the county a
petition that will both enhance the quality of life of the current
residents in the area and increase property values.
And, Commissioners, we believe that the amended proposal
before you does just that. I want to readjust a couple sentences from
the Planning Commission final hearing. This was from Planning
Commissioner Mark Strain as he was summing up what we had done
during the Planning Commission process. And Mark Strain says, "The
developer in this case has gone far beyond any I have seen in recent
Page 117
February 14, 2012
years on this board to compromise. This is a much better program. If
it becomes a viable urban area with good commercial with more
opportunity for homes to be built, your property values will increase."
So Mark Strain, your planning commissioner, determined, in his
mind anyway, that this would actually enhance property values in the
community and improve the quality of life in there.
Also, Commissioners, at this time I would like to present a
package of letters of support for this petition. There are probably 30
letters in here, and I believe they -- they may have already been
submitted, but just in case, I have a package of letters for your
consideration.
Included in that package of letters is a very important letter from
Mr. Jack Sullivan. As you know, Jack Sullivan is the representative of
the Emergent Group. And I want to readjust a couple paragraphs,
sentences from his letter. He has the project that is the commercial
project on the other side of Randall Boulevard.
And says, "My name is Jack Sullivan, and I'm the President of
Emergent Development Group, the developer behind the Randall
Center project emerging on the south side of Randall Boulevard in
Golden Gate Estates."
"When the Randall Center project initially came forward, part of
the draw for our location that made it attractive as a community scale
development was the proximity to the residential density of
Orangetree. This is still the case.
"Bringing forward the additional residential rooftops proposed by
this zoning petition will improve the attractiveness of the Randall
Center to quality tenants."
He goes on to say, I've "always felt that the commercial acreage
or sites that were defined within Orangetree were synergistic to the
emerging Randall Center."
"Taken in combination with the Randall Center, it is my view
that the neighborhood scale sites of Orangetree and the community
Page 118
February 14, 2012
scale site of the Randall Center will act in concert with each other to
provide a true services destination not only for Orangetree, but for the
entire Estates, and in the location that makes the most sense due to its
higher residential density and its optimal (and growing) transportation
infrastructure."
Mr. Sullivan concludes, "I look forward to working closely
together with Orangetree in a coordinated fashion over the next
decade to bring forward a premier services destination" --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Burt, excuse me. Could you slow down
a little bit for the court recorder.
MR. SAUNDERS: I will, and I apologize. I just wanted to get
through this as quickly as possible, so you folks can get on with the
day.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just skip every other line.
MR. SAUNDERS: All right. Let me conclude. He concluded by
saying, "I look forward" --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Slower.
MR. SAUNDERS: -- to working with " Orangetree in a
coordination fashion over the next decade to bring forward a premier
services destination which should improve the quality of life for
Orangetree and the Estates residents."
In addition, and more significantly, I have a letter and a
resolution of support for our petition from the Valencia Golf and
Country Club Homeowners Association board of directors.
Commissioners, we spent a lot of time working with the elected
representatives of the Valencia Golf and Country Club. In this
resolution, the Valencia Golf and Country Club Homeowners
Association urges final approval of this. And as I mentioned, this is
the community that is most affected by this particular petition.
The reason that we got this resolution of support is that the
residents in the Valencia Golf and Country Club homeowners area
understand that this petition, if it's approved today, is a better product
Page 119
February 14, 2012
for them than what is currently permitted in the existing PUD
document.
Attached to that is a letter to the Board of County Commissioners
from the homeowners association indicating that they passed a
resolution of support urging you to support this petition and directing
a member of the board of directors to present that resolution to you
today. And we do have two members of the board of directors here
today that will do just that.
The resolution of support is very simple. It says that they have
reviewed the petition, they have met with us on numerous occasions,
we have made numerous changes that have accommodated all of their
concerns, and that they now support this petition that's before you
today.
Troy Bish is an elected representative of the Valencia Golf and
Country Club Homeowners Association board of directors, and he'll
present the petition to you.
In addition to the resolution of support, there was quite a bit of
controversy earlier about a lawsuit that had been filed. There were 13
named plaintiffs in that lawsuit challenging the ability of the
commission to entertain this PUD amendment. Andrew McElwaine
was, perhaps, the most noted member of that group of 13 plaintiffs.
They have voluntarily dismissed that lawsuit with the exception of one
lone plaintiff, who is here today, will be speaking in opposition to the
petition.
Interestingly enough, his wife has voluntarily dismissed her
interest in the petition, but we still have him there. And I do have a
copy of this for the court reporter that just indicates that 12 out of the
13 plaintiffs have dismissed their lawsuit.
Another competing property owner is Mr. Brian Paul who has the
Orange Blossom Ranch PUD just to the east and north of our project.
I personally spoke with Brian Paul, and he indicated to me that he has
absolutely no objection to the approval of this petition. He believes
Page 120
February 14, 2012
that the increased rooftops and the increased commercial will benefit
not only his project, but the entire area, and has no opposition to us.
Let's talk a little bit about the specific project. For orientation
purposes, this petition involves the lands lying along Immokalee Road
between Randall Boulevard on the south and to the north of Oil Well
The site plans shows four commercial tracts; a mixed -use utility
tract, two neighborhood commercial sites, and one office commercial
site all consisting of approximately 60 acres of land.
The amendment will add 100,000 square feet of office space and
172,000 square feet of retail space for a total of 332,000 square feet on
60 acres of land. And as you know, that's not a significantly dense
amount of commercial on 60 acres of land.
We incorporated into the petition all of the typical protections
that you require to shield neighbors from any noise or light or any
activities in a commercial area. As a matter of fact, we incorporated
all the same protections that you have in the Golden Gate Estates
shopping center approval. And in addition to that, we've provided for
enhanced buffering to make sure that the residents are not bothered by
any commercial activities.
And I want to point out that through the entire planning process
and through all the meetings that we had, no one obj ected to the
commercial. The commercial has always been a desirable component
of this. The neighbors want commercial activity out there. They're
driving eight or nine miles each way now to go to a grocery store or to
a pharmacy, and so we had absolutely no one objecting at all to any of
the commercial areas.
There are a couple reasons for that. The commercial areas are in
the right locations and are appropriate for commercial development.
All of them are located on major arterials. So we don't have anything
tucked away in a residential community. Everything's on a major
arterial.
Page 121
February 14, 2012
Approval of this commercial zoning is consistent with your
Growth Management Plan and with the Golden Gate Area Master
Plan. It's also consistent with your mobility transportation plan in that
it will take traffic off of your major arterials. People in that area will
be able to shop in that area without having to travel on Immokalee
Road or the other roads to come into town to shop.
Commissioner Fiala, in your opposition to the Golden Gate
Estates center, you were concerned about that center impacting the
rural quality, the rural character of the Golden Gate area. This
commercial development is in the right location, and it will not impact
that rural character at all.
Commissioner Henning, in your -- you had raised a concern in
the Golden Gate Estates shopping center issue about the impact of that
project on other commercial activities and grocery stores within the --
that are already approved.
During that September hearing, it was pointed out that a grocery
store serves a population of approximately 7,000 to 10,000 people. A
gentleman named Steve -- Scott McClaren, on behalf of that
petitioner, indicated that a grocery store serves about 7,000 to 10,000
people, and that there are 25,000 current residents within five miles of
the Golden Gate Estates shopping center.
Commissioners, there is plenty of room, plenty of population to
be served by this commercial as well as the other commercial that
you've already approved out there.
It was correctly noted in the Golden Gate Estates shopping center
hearing that the County Commission cannot be in the business of
determining the number of grocery stores or the number of pharmacies
or the number of restaurants. That's not your --that's not your job.
You are in the business of determining where those types of facilities
should be located, where is the appropriate location for that, and I
would submit to you that these commercial locations are absolutely in
the right location for commercial development.
Page 122
February 14, 2012
Commissioner Hiller, your concern in the Golden Gate Estates
shopping center issue dealt with the environment. Orangetree is an
existing PUD. There is absolutely no environmental impact from this
project. All the environmental stipulations, as I've pointed out, have
been complied with or contained in other ordinances that will be
complied with.
In fact, this project will have a positive impact on the
environment, because what you're doing is encouraging commercial
development in the right locations that don't impact the environment
and encouraging development in an already impacted area. So this
will have a positive impact.
Commissioners, in reference to the specific petition, your staff
determined that the proposed amendment is consistent with the
Growth Management Plan. Staff concluded that the petition is
compatible with existing planned development in the area and is
compatible with existing internal development. That's on Page 11 of
the staff analysis.
By way of comparison, the County Commission a few years
back, in approving the Orange Blossom Ranch PUD, approved the
density -- residential density of 2.8 units per acre. As I pointed out,
the density in this part of the project is only 1.5 units per acre, so a
much less dense project than others that have already been approved
by this commission that are adjoining to them.
Also want to point out that the Orange Blossom Ranch lands are
all contained in the Orangetree settlement area. The reason I want to
mention that is there's been some question raised as to whether it's
appropriate to increase density and intensity of use in the Orangetree
settlement area. Commissioner, that's an issue that has been resolved
by this county commission on numerous occasions over the last
several years.
In reference to the opening up the settlement agreement, the
County Commission determined as part of the Orange Blossom Ranch
Page 123
February 14, 2012
PUD -- and I want to quote just a little bit from that -- "The subject
property is within the settlement area district designation as identified
on the Future Land Use Map which permits a variety of land uses,
including commercial, residential, community facilities, and
recreation." But most importantly, the County Commission went on
to state, again quoting, "No maximum densities have been established
in the settlement district area."
In Ordinance 05 -42, which amended the original -- or the -- one
of the Orangetree PUD ordinances, 04 -73, the County Commission
again found that the rural settlement area district allows the uses
identified in the Orangetree PUD and does not establish maximum
densities or intensities.
The point of that, Commissioners, is that the settlement
agreement is not being opened up. This commission has found on
numerous occasions that density and intensity of use is not determined
in that settlement agreement, and you've taken the opportunity to
increase density in those areas on numerous occasions, the Orange
Blossom Ranch PUD being the most notable.
In the staff report before you today, the staff concludes that this
area, the settlement area, is appropriate for this type of development,
but then staff goes on and concludes, "Future zoning changes to add
dwelling units or commercial acreage within the geographic
boundaries of this district will not be prohibited or discouraged." And
that's on Page 6 of your staff report before you this afternoon.
The staff further concludes in reference to our density, "The
density will increase overall, but the areas that will be developed with
additional density should not negatively affect existing development,"
and that's on Page 10 of your staff report.
As a condition of the staff s recommendation of approval, they
made three recommendations to the petitioner. The petitioner has
accepted all three of those recommendations, so we have no objection
to the staff recommendations.
Page 124
February 14, 2012
One of those was dealing with the resort-type units, the
resort- lodging units. Their staff had said, you can put resort- lodging
units in there, but they have to be in the golf course district.
Well, we listened to the neighborhood concern, and there was a
concern about a hotel /motel operation within this area. And so we
totally eliminated any reference to resort- lodging units. There will be
no resort- lodging units associated with this project.
Obviously, we're in agreement with the other two conditions
which had to deal with enhanced buffering.
Commissioners, most of the additional units that will be built if
this PUD is approved is in an area that's far away from the existing
development that's already out there.
We made several changes to make sure that any impacts from
that development were eliminated. And I wanted to go through just a
few of those changes real quickly, and then Matt McLean will be here
to address, as well as Bob Mulhere, any specific questions or other
details that you may want.
Again, total elimination of the resort- lodging units. We reduced
number of units from 1,250 to 1,050, resulting in an overall density of
1.5 units per acre.
In the existing Valencia Golf and Country Club area we
eliminated all of the R4 and R3 zoning districts, so everything in that
area is R2. So it will remain a single - family neighborhood just as it is
today. To ensure that, we are agreeing that the minimum size
single- family home in that R2 area can be no smaller than 1,650
square feet, and no carports are allowed.
Now, Commissioners, under the existing zoning as it exists
today, those areas can be literally flooded with hundreds of 750- to
1,000- square -foot condominium units. That's what's currently
permitted. And there is a market for that, but that's not where we want
to go. We want to maintain the single- family character of that area,
and that's what we are agreeing to do by having a minimum square
Page 125
February 14, 2012
footage of 1,650 square foot, and no carports within that.
We are reducing to two stories in the two neighborhood
commercial and one office commercial areas. The height is reduced
to two stories. In the mixed -use area we can still go to three stories,
but that's an area that's between two high schools and a little bit
different character than the other three parcels.
There will be two new ingress and egress points located on
Randall Boulevard and Oil Well Road, and the developer will provide
security gates at both of these new access points.
The developer also has responded to concerns about security in
the community, and they're going to put in new security gates within
the internal loop road at the developer's cost to ensure that the existing
community has no concerns about security and safety.
Commissioners, there is a restriction in the commercial parcels to
limit the size of any one commercial operation. In these two
neighborhood commercial parcels, there can only be one use that
exceeds 45,000 square feet, and it cannot exceed 75,000 square feet.
The way we came up with those numbers is that a grocery store is
probably going to be somewhere close to 75,000 square feet. We
don't want any big -box retailers there, so this eliminates any
possibility of a big -box retailer in that community.
Commissioners, in conclusion, we have, I believe, significant
community support for this project right now. We have the
homeowners association's support. We don't have a crowd in the
audience like we've had in the past. This project, this petition, is
supported by the community because the community understands that
an active, vibrant development activity out there with the commercial
will enhance not only their quality of life, but will also enhance the
property values in the area.
Your planning staff has recommended approval, the Planning
Commission, on a vote of 6 -1, recommended approval, and we're here
this afternoon again to ask for your approval on this. And we're here
Page 126
February 14, 2012
to answer any questions that you may have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
How many speakers do we have, Ian?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have five speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioners Henning and
Hiller, do you want to ask your questions now or do you prefer to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I have a question for Mr.
Saunders.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead, Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You quoted Planning
Commissioner Mark Strain.
MR. SAUNDERS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That this will enhance the
property values; is that true?
MR. SAUNDERS: That's a correct quote.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that what he said?
MR. SAUNDERS: That was his statement.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who will it enhance the
property values of, the citizens within the development such as
Orangetree? Is that what you understood from Commissioner Mark
Strain?
MR. SAUNDERS: That is correct. I think his analysis was after
hearing this -- and, literally, the Planning Commission probably spent
12 hours of debates on this on three or four different occasions. His
view was that as long as you have activity there and you have a
commercial component to your community along with activity, that
you're going to have increased property values and increased quality
of life. That's his statement.
I have a copy of the transcript. I'm happy to present that to the
commission for you to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So his interpretation that it will
Page 127
February 14, 2012
enhance the property values for the existing residents, do you believe
that's true?
MR. SAUNDERS: Commissioner, I absolutely believe it. I'll
tell you why. If you take a look at the communities that have matured
and that are successful where property values are stable, you'll find a
significant commercial component with those.
You take a look at Pelican Bay as a perfect example. Obviously
those are different communities, but the point is that there is
significant commercial activity and shopping opportunities for people
who live there. You'll find that in most of the major developments
throughout the county that have maintained their value.
You know, people do not want to live in an area where they have
to drive six or eight or nine miles for commercial services. I was at a
homeowners association meeting one evening at the Valencia Golf
and Country Club Association, and I was mentioning to the residents
there that were very concerned about this petition.
I said, you know, I live three minutes from a Publix and, you
know, the commercial activity in the vicinity of where I live is very
beneficial. And they all agreed. They all felt that this commercial
would be beneficial to them.
So the point is, yes, I believe that having a more mature
community with commercial services nearby will enhance the
attractiveness of the community and enhance it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess that's a determination for
the Board of Commissioners individually.
You have how many square foot built of commercial on -- in this
PUD?
MR. SAUNDERS: Currently approved is 60,000 square feet,
none of which is built. Well, there's one -- E's General Store, 3,100
square feet. That's all that's built there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you have the ability to build
60,000 today and only build 3,000. How is adding more commercial
Page 128
February 14, 2012
square -foot ability if it's not going to be built --
MR. SAUNDERS: Well, the point of the matter is, it will be.
There's a lot of growth in that area. There will continue to be a lot of
growth in that area. It's an area that will serve all of Golden Gate
Estates. You know, as I mentioned, the Emergent Group with the
Randall Center, they're absolutely convinced that there's going to be
significant commercial development out there. They support this
because the two projects are synergistic, using Jack Sullivan's
language.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The existing development is
over three decades, and you only have 3,200 square foot. You also
had the ability to build 60,000 square foot. So there's no guarantee
that those -- that square footage, 60,000 or -- what is it, 332?
MR. SAUNDERS: Three hundred thirty -two thousand square
foot --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Three hundred.
MR. SAUNDERS: -- of combined commercial and office. A
hundred thousand of that is office space.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. SAUNDERS: And, again, on 60 acres of land.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you're asking for five times
what you have the ability now to build; is that correct?
MR. SAUNDERS: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you've only built 3,200 of
MR. SAUNDERS: In addition, there's additional land added to
that to increase the size of the parcel. So it's 60 acres. And you're
absolutely correct. We can do the math. That's five times what is
already currently permitted out there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess my concern is, if there is
a need for commercial out there and you have 60,000 square feet and
it's not built now, when will it get built?
Page 129
February 14, 2012
MR. SAUNDERS: Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What is -- you're asking for an
additional 1,050 residential units. Your existing PUD calls for 2,100?
MR. SAUNDERS: That's correct. And I believe there's about
600 left that can be built under that PUD.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you have a third of it being
built -- a third of it; approximately a third of it hasn't been built yet?
MR. SAUNDERS: We are approved for 2,100 units. There are
about 600 units left to be built. So about 1,500 units have been built
out there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: Commissioner Henning, for the record, Bob
Mulhere.
I did want to add. Part of the problem has historically been that
60,000 limit. It was always difficult to attract a grocery store without
the rooftops.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you're -- now you're
eliminating an ability to build a grocery store?
MR. MULHERE: No, we're not. In fact, that's what we're
hoping to build first is a grocery store.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I misunderstood. I
thought you said there's a limitation in the square footage.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, 45,000 to 75,000. No single use can be
larger than 75,000 square feet. That was to eliminate a big -box store,
like a, I don't know -- a large electronics store or something like that.
Folks really didn't want to see that there. They wanted to see a
grocery store, perhaps a drugstore. We actually had a drugstore that
was going to go in and build, but with the economic downturn, that
went away.
So really the rooftops and the larger square footage are intended
to help us provide a mixture of commercial uses that will create that
synergy that Jack Sullivan talked about.
Page 130
February 14, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the ability (sic) of water
and sewer in the past, it was my understanding that was some
limitations of why there's not availability of commercial development
that hasn't been built?
MR. McLEAN: Matt McLean, for the record, Civil Engineer
with the firm of Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage.
With respect to the utility concern out there, the utility has never
denied service for anything out there within the -- within its service
area. They have continued to expand over time to the need as units
came online and if respective commercial came online.
Their current utility site out there today is currently under an
expansion for wastewater treatment. They continue to move forward
as development calls it to move forward for extending and adding
additional capacity so that no end users are denied service.
There's sufficient room with respect on that utility site for
additional expansions in the future, which Orangetree Utility, as the
utility provider for that area, can continue to expand and continue to
add and attract additional units either by residential or commercial.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So I -- thank you for the
correction. So it's not because of the availability of capital
improvement to support the commercial. It just hasn't been built for
other reasons?
MR. McLEAN: No, absolutely not. Much like Collier County
Utilities, they're not going to go out and expand plants excessively so
that you have a massive amount of excess capacity available. You
know, Collier County Utilities and Orangetree Utility is continuing to
progress over time to make sure they're ahead of the individual
demand when end users' COs need to be taking place with respect to
finalization and completing end -user units.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. A couple of things.
Page 131
February 14, 2012
Kay?
MS. DESELEM: Hi. For the record, Kay Deselem.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: All right. Kay, you're the
Principal Planner on this project, so you've reviewed all the
underlying evidence that was presented in support of the petitioner's
request her today; is that correct?
MS. DESELEM: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And based on your evaluation of
all the evidence, you've come to the conclusion, as represented by Mr.
Saunders, that what's being proposed is consistent with our Growth
Management Plan?
MS. DESELEM: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's also consistent with the Growth
Management Act?
MS. DESELEM: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Great. That's all. Thanks.
The next thing I'd like to address is the two pieces of
correspondence that I received earlier, one from Mr. Klatzkow and
one from Mr. Jeskie. And I asked Mr. Saunders if he could please
respond to Mr. Jeskie's email point by point on the record, and then I
would like Mr. Saunders and whoever else you want to bring to the
podium to respond to the comments made in the county attorney's
memo with emphasis added to the issue raised with respect to the
utilities to make sure that that's fully addressed, like, with respect to
what the capacity of Orange Blossom Utility is vis -a -vis existing
developments and obligation to existing developments like Pulte's
development in Twin Eagles and, you know, this additional demand
on the plant that would be forthcoming subsequent to fulfilling your
obligations to those existing developments.
MR. SAUNDERS: All right. I will very quickly go through
some points from Mr. Jeskie and then talk a little bit about the county
attorney's memoranda, and then I'm going to have Matt McLean get
Page 132
February 14, 2012
into the utilities issues, because I think that's really probably more at
the heart of what there's some concerns of.
The email from Mr. Jeskie essentially raises four points, two of
which are the same dealing with multifamily homes, and he indicates
that that will adversely affect the residential character of this
community. As I pointed out in my presentation, the Valencia Golf
and Country Club --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Actually, can I ask you a favor?
Maybe could we make a copy of that letter and put it on the overhead
so everybody can see at the same time as to, you know -- do you need
a copy of it also? Well, he needs --
MR. SAUNDERS: That's all right. There's only four points in
there, and two of them are the same. So I think we can go through it
pretty quickly.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
MR. SAUNDERS: Two of the points that are raised deal with
multifamily housing and the negative impact on the existing
single - family units in the Valencia Golf and Country Club.
As I indicated in my opening comments, under the current zoning
there are about 600 units left that can be built out of the 2,100 that's
currently approved, and those units can be as small as 750 square feet
to 1,000 square feet, and they can be located in all of the open tracts
that are currently within the Valencia Golf and Country Club.
And Mr. McLean, I think, can point out where those tracts are.
Just so you know, that there are tracts of undeveloped land in very
close proximity to, adjacent to existing single - family homes. And so I
can't disagree with Mr. Jeskie that multifamily homes in those areas
would be of concern to people living adjacent to those.
What we're doing in our amended PUD is eliminating any
possibly of multifamily on those parcels. We have a minimum of
1,650- square -feet housing, and there are no carports allowed. So
they're going to all be attached garages. Those will all be
Page 133
February 14, 2012
single- family homes, maybe a little smaller than the
4,000 -to- 2,000- square -foot homes that are out there now, but they'll be
comparable in terms of what the use is to what's out there. So he's
absolutely right on that, I think, in terms of multifamily, but we're
eliminating that.
One of his other concerns was just the traffic issue, I think, on
Randall Boulevard, and I believe -- and I don't know the timing, but,
obviously, Oil Well and Randall and Immokalee, all of those roads are
being four -laned or six - laned. That's -- we certainly can't build any
units if we fall below transportation concurrency. And so that really is
not a valid issue going forward, because those roads will be enhanced.
And then the fourth one -- and I'll have to take a quick look at the
letter because this one was a little bit strange in terms of the wording
of it. It says, "The developer has not shown any cause why the
additional units are needed," and certainly that's never been a standard
of review by the County Commission. We believe -- that's a market
issue, and we believe that there will be plenty of demand for housing
in that area and that over the next 10 to 20 years there'll be absorption
of those units. So we believe the demand is out there. And that
basically addresses the issues that Mr. Jeskie has raised.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can -- is Nick around? Where's
Nick? Can he be brought back in, reeled back in?
Can you address No. 5 which is "the area cannot accommodate
expansion," the reference to Randall Boulevard being single lane?
And just so you understand, this is an email to me from Mr.
Jeskie, who is a resident in the community who has raised concerns. I
asked Mr. Saunders to address, you know, the issues that he raised so
that the response would be on the record.
And the last question is one that I think you really need to
answer, which is the Randall Boulevard issue.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. For the record, Nick
Casalanguida.
Page 134
February 14, 2012
The traffic statement was provided, and the questions came up
about Randall Boulevard as a single -lane or two -lane road as it exists.
5.1 of your Growth Management Plan, Comprehensive Plan,
Transportation Element says that we don't recommend approval unless
there's mitigation for that.
One of the issues with Randall, it has to be widened. Now, our
long -range plan shows four lanes. We need to go to six. With them at
buildout, that two lanes will not accommodate their traffic, not nearly
their traffic, not along with Mr. -- I forget the gentleman to the south
who's doing that project as well, too -- Mr. Sullivan, yeah. He
provided right -of -way and water management, and so did these folks
here. They're providing 20 feet of right -of -way and water
management at that location, too.
Both of them realize that when they come in for a plat or Site
Development Plan, if there isn't capacity, they don't get to go. Both of
them are working together to work on that water management and that
right -of -way project, and we have a preliminary design not to widen
Randall, ultimately, much past 8th Street, but enough to get from that
intersection to 8th Street to provide capacity at some point in time.
But it's not in our five -year plan. And, again, they're governed by
concurrency when they come in for plat or development.
So it will meet it at that point in time. But if they don't, then they
don't get their permit.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Got it.
Mr. Jeskie, does that answer your questions?
MR. JESKIE: I'm sorry, Nick. Just expand --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Mr. Jeskie, you have to speak at
the podium.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I understand, I understand. Do you
want me to just --
MR. JESKIE: For the record, David Jeskie. Can you just expand
on the five -year plan?
Page 135
February 14, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You can't -- you've got to be at the
microphone.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You have to speak at the podium.
MR. JESKIE: David Jeskie, 1730 Birdie Drive.
Can you just expand on the five -year plan with Randall
Boulevard?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. There's nothing in the five -year
plan right now, but what we're doing right now as staff, we're looking
at that intersection. The developer to the south provided right -of -way
and water management, and the developer here provided right -of -way
and water management.
We have two things that we do for -- you know, for
growth- management purposes. We do a consistency review, which is
here at zoning. So if they're consistent with our long -range plans and
what we're trying to do, they can seek board approval if they provide
mitigation.
Then we have what is concurrency, which is your safeguard. If
there's not adequate capacity and they provide a plat to us, congestion
exists there, we deny that plat until capacity comes online. So that's
your check and balance.
And we use a form of checkbook concurrency. Even if a plat
comes in but hasn't been built out, we put those trips in a checkbook
so we can kind of manage that and see what's going on.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you address the mitigation?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mitigation is 5.6 -acre of water
management, about 20 feet of right -of -way on the north side of the
road that they're providing, off of memory.
MR. JESKIE: Okay. So today, I mean, if that -- if an agreement
was reached, what's your projected time frame in expanding at least to
8th?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If it's not in our five -year plan, I can't
tell you one. You know, it will --
Page 136
February 14, 2012
MR. JESKIE: I mean, would it be beyond five years?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It could, it could, yep.
MR. JESKIE: Okay. Thank you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Does that answer all of your
questions, Mr. Jeskie?
MR. SAUNDERS: There was one other, I think -- I think it's No.
3 on his list, that the developer has not completed the original project
and, clearly, we have about 600 units left in the original 2,100
approval.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So the next would be the
discussion about the county attorney's memorandum, and if you could
address --
MR. SAUNDERS: Yeah. And just real quickly, I think what the
county attorney has done, and properly so, is indicated to you that you
have a couple options today. You can vote to approve the petition or
you can vote to deny the petition. And I think he's given you a basis
for -- some legal basis for either way that you may want to go on that.
I would take some exception to a couple of the things. I don't
think that the issue of the number of foreclosures in an area is relevant
to your decision - making process, but there are a couple things that we
might take some issue with, but he's trying to, I think, give you
different options that you have, which I think everyone on the board
understands anyway, and that is you can vote yes or you can vote no.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you address the water issues?
MR. McLEAN: Again, Matt McLean with Agnoli, Barber &
Brundage, the civil project engineer on this project.
Currently right now Orangetree Utility's water treatment -- our
water facility is rated and has capacity to do 750,000 gallons a day.
The wastewater treatment facility currently has been certified to
750,000 a day. It's operational to 600,000 gallons a day.
It's currently being finalized to finish that last bit up to 750,000
Page 137
February 14, 2012
gallons a day by this summer of 2012 through the DEP.
With those capacities that are out there currently today,
Orangetree Utilities (sic) has an excess capacity available of several
hundred thousand gallons today of both water and wastewater.
Orangetree Utilities does allow developers to come in and prepay
capacity and/or, i.e., reserve capacity for the future. There are two
groups that currently have done that with respect to Orangetree Utility.
One of those is Pulte Corporation, and the other one is Ronto Group.
The capacity that's been reserved by developers' agreements with
those two private parties and the Orangetree Utility company, that
capacity is available today. It's sitting out there at the plant. If they
wanted to hook up all their units that they've paid for, prepaid
capacity, they certainly could.
With that, adequate capacity for future buildout for all of these
respective developments can continue to be added, as it has been in
the past at Orangetree Utility's facility, and be done within its current
existing utility site that's out there.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But this increase in density and
intensity is no way dependent on the county taking over the utility out
there?
MR. McLEAN: No, it's not. I mean, as I've indicated,
Orangetree Utility's current site has enough room out there that they
can continue to expand its wastewater and water - treatment plant. They
don't want to do it way out in front because --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand.
MR. McLEAN: -- then they'd have plants in operation that really
wouldn't support what they have in their current daily operations.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's fine. Thank you.
MR. McLEAN: I do also want to add, we have a couple of minor
changes that are within the ordinance, as Burt alluded to in our
presentation. We've had a bunch of meetings with the residents
subsequent to our Planning Commission vote of approval.
Page 138
February 14, 2012
Specifically, there's a typo on Page 7 of 58 in our estimated
market - absorption schedule. Under current year '14, the dwelling -unit
production was identified as 130; it's meant to be 30. That would
allow the dwelling unit cumulative total to reflect 3,120 as opposed
what it currently shows at 3,220.
Current Year 15 also has the same corrections where the
dwelling -unit production would reflect 30 units instead of what's
shown as 130, as well as the dwelling -unit cumulative total would
reflect the 3,150 overall as opposed to 3,350.
On Page 14 of 58, under Footnote 2, with respect to the
square- footage amounts that were identified in the R2 areas east and
west, both of those should reflect 1,650 square feet, and those were
commitments that were made, again, to the Valencia Golf and Country
Club HOA after the Planning Commission vote of the approval that
further restricts what was already approved by the Planning
Commission.
That same 1,650- square -foot number comes back up in the
master plan, so we would also have to update that in the little legend
area for the R2A east and west section to properly reflect what we've
committed to those Valencia Golf and Country Club HOA residents of
650 (sic) square feet minimums. Thank you.
MR. SAUNDERS: Commissioner, that concludes our
presentation, and we'd be happy to respond to any other questions and
respond also to the speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Call the first -- call the first speaker, Ian.
MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker will be Peter Gaddy.
MR. GADDY: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Peter Gaddy on
behalf of the Golden Gate Area Civic Association.
My concern is that we have a number of homes in the area that
are either vacant, foreclosed, the homes are underwater. Adding this
many additional residential units could further depress already
depressed prices.
Page 139
February 14, 2012
As far as commercial is concerned, this board is familiar with the
fact that it's recently approved 190,000 square feet at Wilson and
Golden Gate, 390,000 at Randall, and as was brought out in the
testimony today, the petitioner has 60,000 square feet of commercial
currently lying fallow.
As far as I understand, it's still necessary to establish need, and I
currently don't see any need for additional residential or commercial.
Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Michael Winder.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I ask a question, before we go
to the next speaker, to address the comments made by Mr. Gaddy?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. Sorry about that.
Can I ask, on your buildout schedule, how do you anticipate
building out the proposed commercial and additional residential?
What's your time frame?
MR. SAUNDERS: Commissioner, we're going to put the
buildout schedule on the overhead.
MR. McLEAN: Again, Matt McLean, for the record. Is this one
working?
MR.00HS: Yes.
MR. McLEAN: Our buildout schedule identifies that from the
time of a successful approval of this PUD amendment application, at
Year 5 we expect to add another hundred thousand square feet of
commercial. So, effectively, a hundred thousand within five years
from today, if you will.
The next hundred thousand we expect to be at another five -year
period after that, and then at final buildout, 15 years out, the
completion of the commercial component.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And go back to the residential.
MR. McLEAN: Residential's in incremental value. As we all are
aware, the current market situation, you know, you can see and reflect
Page 140
February 14, 2012
that the units over the next several years vary from 50 on up to 130 in
the next five -year time frame. They kind of build up over time to 150
through kind of the peak growth of the balance of these additional
units and then taper off towards the end of the 15 -year period.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So to answer Mr. Gaddy's concern,
you're not intending on flooding the market with new units now in this
depressed market to further depress property values? You're not going
to compete with what's out there today? I mean, what you're doing
now is basically planning for the future when you hope the market
will correct itself so you can start being responsive to market demand?
MR. McLEAN: That's absolutely correct. We're not trying to go
out there and build a thousand units tomorrow, because if you did that,
they -- quite frankly, I don't know that the market would -- demand
would allow that. We're going to see very, very slow, progressive
growth over time. And as this market absorption schedule shows, it's
over a long duration of time. It's over a 15 -year period of time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Call the next speaker.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'd like to get a copy of that. If
you'd just leave it there, my aide will come copy that.
MR. SAUNDERS: You don't have a copy?
MR. MITCHELL: Next speaker is Michael Winder.
MR. WINDER: For the record, my name is Michael Winder. I
live at 1613 Birdie Drive in Valencia Golf and Country Club, and I'm
also the current vice president of the board of directors for the
association.
When this PUD amendment was brought before us as residents
and as, at that time a turnover committee, there were many things in
there that were of great concern. And through the process of
negotiation, many of which in the earlier stages I was a part of the
negotiations, I think we have reached something that is viable for our
community.
Page 141
February 14, 2012
I, for one, personally speaking, do support the influx of
commercial opportunity there. I also recognize that it's going to take
more rooftops to get that commercial out there and have it be viable
and long -term.
Are there still some concerns within the amendment as it exists?
Yes. But I think some of those things have been addressed even
today. The housing density is a concern because traffic can be a little
tricky at times. And if the community as a whole has got a plan in
place to address those kinds of concerns, I think that's great.
But as a homeowner, a resident, and a member of the board of
directors, I can support this at this time. And I appreciate the fact that
the representatives of Orangetree Development came to the table
willing to negotiate. I appreciate the changes that they have been able
to make in the amendment. And it is one that I can support at this
time as a resident and as a member of the board of directors for the
association.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Troy.
MR. BISH: Good afternoon. My name is Troy Bish at 2212
Vardin Place, and serving right now as the president of the HOA for
Valencia Golf and Country Club.
The accuracy of what you've heard today is pinpoint. I would
agree with all the comments you've heard from Orangetree &
Associates and even our residents. The product that we started with
and we were faced with was an absolute nightmare for the residents
with resort living and hotels, and I won't bore you with all the details
that have been changed.
Over the time, the concessions that have been made with the
Orangetree Associates and their representation and our board of
directors and, as of late, our legal counsel, we do stand behind the
product that's before you today. We see the necessity of the growth
Page 142
February 14, 2012
that's being requested, and we also see the benefit to the remainder of
our neighborhood.
Right now we have about 50 vacant plotted lots -- fifty vacant
plotted plats that they're going to build single - family homes on, and
we have the undeveloped side of our Double Eagle, our main entrance
that, when DR Horton was our builder, had every intentions of
building multifamily residences there. It's on all their brochures, it's
on all their literature, and all the homeowners that are there now were
well advised and they knew that it was coming.
Through this agreement and concessions and negotiations with
Orangetree, what they've committed to is abandon the multifamily
product look and go to a single- family 1,650- square -foot minimum in
that area also, along with the remaining lots off of Birdie that are the
plotted lots.
To give you an insight, the product that DR Horton, which is
their main builder in that development, has been -- range from
1,586- square -feet model home to over 4,400- square -foot home. Now,
of course, in the prime time of real estate, the more larger homes were
very desirable, so we're peppered throughout our neighborhood with a
lot of those homes that are 3,800 or 4,000, 4,000 square feet.
The last eight homes that DR Horton has completed are around
1,586 to 2,000 square feet, so we can obviously all see the influx of
the demand that has been this lower - square- footage product.
What we don't have in our -- any of our documents or our
guidelines for our community is we had no minimum regulation as far
as what was recommended or what would be allowed in our
neighborhood, so we were very exposed to that figure of what the
county would allow, and Mr. Saunders alluded to, of a
thousand - square -foot product.
Through these negotiations, what we've guaranteed our
community is we'll have a minimum of a larger product than what DR
Horton is building today. Now, that's a minimum. So market driven,
Page 143
February 14, 2012
and we don't know what tomorrow will bring. I wish I could tell you,
but I don't, but that's their minimum. And if the market's going to
require the larger estate homes when they get ready to build those, I'm
sure that's what the developer will put in.
But at this time, I just want to, again, reiterate that I do stand
behind the product that's in place at this time in front of you, and I
encourage you to vote and pass this PUD amendment.
And the last thing I would say is, besides the concessions that
have been made, we do have an agreement that's -- an additional
agreement that's going to be in a memorandum form that's going to be
attached to the property.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Your time has expired, sir. Could you
wrap it up.
MR. WINDER: I sure will. It's going to benefit the community
as a whole. So thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Eugene Huerstel.
MR. HUERSTEL: Eugene Huerstel, 1938 Par Drive, Valencia
Golf and Country Club.
And I just want to make -- for the record, I appreciate the board
keeping the budget down and taxes low, and I do really appreciate that
very much, because I've had the privilege of living in Valencia Golf
and Country Club because of that, and I hope that the private sector
will do well.
Thank you for letting us talk about the PUD. I know it's a big
challenge, and it's gone very far and it's far reaching and that.
As I have followed it -- and I've been at the meetings and that --
the only thing that concerns me is the homes, adding a 1,050 homes,
I'm thinking, Board, are you -- we're going to provide roads for these.
Oil Well Road is taking a long time. It's very nice if we're going
to be able to expand it, but -- I don't know how many years it's been
going, but it's been going since I've been here and -- for over two
Page 144
February 14, 2012
years, or 2009 even. And so that's what concerns me.
Will our roads support this PUD? Will our schools be able to
support this PUD? Will our Sheriffs Department -- every year I know
we've been cutting the Sheriffs Department. And I -- you've got a
great Sheriffs Department. I really appreciate it. We've met with
Officer Pratt in that district. He's awesome and that, but we can barely
get patrols going throughout our community and that, because of the
cutbacks and stuff. And I know you're handling things proper and
stuff.
The other thing is, if -- one of the concerns that Mr. Saunders
brought up is that it -- the Valencia Golf and Country Club could put a
gate, a guard gate inside there. We can't do it. We've been denied that
because the road is too narrow, and we have to have certain
stipulations to make a guard gate and be able to turn around and that,
and the developer will not let us because, as far as I know in the
negotiations, he will not let us because we can't widen the road, and he
owns the other side. He owns each side of the road.
So we're going to be in trouble in that way. We need better
security. I'm on the security committee. We need better security for
our community. We're working with the Sheriff s Department. We
also need to make sure that we're properly protected.
If you -- I would recommend that you make an amendment to go
down on the units. If you can do that, go down on the units, the
residential units. If you can't, then I would ask you to vote it down.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, and your last week is --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala was first.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, I'm sorry.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, your last speaker is David Jeskie.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I wanted to address that
gentleman.
Page 145
February 14, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, just briefly, and I'll give it
right back to you, Commissioner Fiala.
Sir, as far as your security goes and your concern over the
Sheriffs Department and the gate and all that, call me up and set up an
appointment, and I'll come out there and meet with you, and we'll start
discussing what the issues are. I didn't realize you were having a
problem with it.
MR. WINDER: All right. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, can I address him as well?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I want to thank you for your
comments. Your -- the questions you raised about the services and the
capacity of the infrastructure is essentially what I was asking the
planner when I asked, you know, are we consistent with our Growth
Management Plan, are we consistent with the Growth Management
Act. And she said yes.
So I'm assuming that she has evaluated -- and I'd like her to
confirm this -- Kay, if you could confirm this -- that you have
evaluated that we will have the infrastructure and that it will be
self - funding; in other words, the rest of the county won't be paying for
the infrastructure created by the impact of these additional units to
support the community as it develops over time.
Like, for example, Randall Road. I mean, if they're going to add
100,000 in commercial by the end of Year 5, and I don't know -- I
didn't add up all the units, but it wasn't that many. But let's say 300
additional units by Year 5, will Randall, for example, have the
capacity to handle that additional impact? And will the impact fees
coming from that project pay for the additional burden on that road, as
an example of one item?
But then you've got, you know, the other issues that the
gentleman raised as well.
Page 146
February 14, 2012
MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem, Zoning Principal
Planner.
As I mentioned before, yes, it's an organized review of many
persons on staff that review the project for Growth Management Plan
consistency and for compliance with the Land Development Code,
and that doesn't stop at zoning. It's an ongoing process as the
applicant comes forward seeking additional development approvals.
And each time each segment that comes forth will need to be
reviewed and will be reviewed for compliance. And they need to
provide the services to support their project. That's the way --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And otherwise you'll deny it?
MS. DESELEM: Right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Which is what Nick had said. And
I just want to reiterate that on the record, because that addresses your
question.
So regardless of the number of units that are approved today, if
the infrastructure isn't there to support it, they will not issue the permit
to move forward. So that's the governor.
Thank you.
MS. DESELEM: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that our last --
MR. MITCHELL: No, sir. Your last speaker is David Jeskie.
MR. JESKIE: David Jeskie, 1713 Birdie Drive. I just started.
MR. MITCHELL: Sorry.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You used up all your minutes
already. No, I'm just kidding.
MR. JESKIE: You know, just to reiterate a couple things. I'm in
full support of the homeowners association within Valencia;
unfortunately, the homeowners association just took over December
1 st. And I can honestly tell you that not all homeowners are in favor
of this PUD expansion. There is a small group associated with the
board that is, but I can honestly say probably half the development is
Page 147
February 14, 2012
in favor, half is not.
This really goes back to a developer coming forward and suing
the community commissioners and coming up with an agreement.
This is a binding agreement. At the time it was agreed that 2,100 units
would be built over their property. Since then, this is the second time
that the developer's back. First they came back with Orange Blossom,
a Christmas gift was given, and they pulled Orange Blossom off of the
original PUD, and additional units were given for that.
Now, again, with the same agreement in place, 25 years later,
okay -- this developer has gone through some of the best economic
times that we'll ever see, but yet he has still failed to fulfill the original
agreement of building 2,100 units and 60,000 commercial square feet.
It still hasn't been built today.
Addressing the issue of property values. Yes, we have a
considerable number of properties that are upside down. I, truthfully,
believe the numbers that you see, the short sales and foreclosures,
don't adequately represent what's in Valencia Golf and Country.
The numbers that you don't see is that most of the homes in
Valencia Golf and Country were given mortgages through DHI
Mortgage, a DR Horton company. The numbers of individuals not
paying their mortgage are not showing up in the short sales and
foreclosures.
Personally, I know two residents around me that haven't paid a
mortgage in two -plus years. So I think there's a lot more people that
are upside down in Valencia Golf and Country than the statistics
show.
Currently the development is in a mess. The developer, along
with DR Horton, has left the development in shambles. Currently the
developer owns the road, owns the golf course, owns the lakes, and
owns the water and sewer facility. Two to three years ago, the
developer wouldn't allow us to water lawns as -- so he could upkeep
his golf course. Considerable value was lost with shrubs.
Page 148
February 14, 2012
Typically a developer will come in, build the homes, in a hurry to
get out. Unfortunately, here Mr. Bolt is making a long -term project of
it, and that's why it's in shambles the way it is.
To address the issue of --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Your time has expired. Can you wrap it
up, please?
MR. JESKIE: Yes. Just one additional, the density issue. The
density issue of 1.5 units is extremely misleading. Seventy -five to
eighty percent of the PUD is already developed. So with these
additional thousand -plus units are being crammed into a small area
actually making the density four - and -a -half to five units, not
one - and -a -half that's portrayed. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're going to take a ten - minute
break. We'll be back here at 3:16.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mike.
Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, the Board of
County Commission meeting is back in session. And, Commissioner
Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. What is that item number,
Leo? I can't even remember.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 8A. No?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, no. We're still on this one,
aren't we?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. We still have --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Yes, I had a few
questions. It was so long ago, though.
Number one, is there any connectivity built into this -- into these
new homes, interconnectivity into the shopping area and so forth?
Page 149
February 14, 2012
MR. SAUNDERS: Yes. And -- no, go ahead, because you've
got the aerials and all.
MR. MULHERE: Yes, Commissioner Fiala. I'm glad you asked
that question. There will be connectivity. We've, in fact, been
working on a plan that --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can somebody turn up the volume on
the mike? Is it turned on?
MR. MULHERE: Testing, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There we go. Much better.
MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. Thank you for asking that question.
We have been working on a plan that goes above and beyond what's
required by the code. We've actually been doing this for a number of
years.
I just wanted to put on the visualizer a -- basically a greenway
plan we've been working on. I won't be able to fit it all in at one time,
but I can slide it down.
This is Immokalee Road, and the commercial projects are located
here, here, and here. This plan is intended to link all of the residential
areas to the commercial over time. And I was going to just put this
little piece here. This little drawing here -- if I can make it a little
bigger -- shows a greenway plan that would connect all of the
residential neighborhoods and the commercial parcels.
Now that -- obviously, there are code requirements that would
require sidewalks and connectivity, and we're going to adhere to all
those. This would go well above and beyond that. And so, you know,
as we work with our commercial -- potential commercial tenants or
owners, we'll begin to develop this plan.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just -- I'm a strong supporter
of interconnectivity rather than have anybody get out on the roads
when there's no need to, to be able to get through to them. It's -- I
think it's a much better fit as far as the major roads go when people
don't have to be coming out and in. So as long as you've got that
Page 150
February 14, 2012
worked into the plan, I feel a little bit better about that. And that is the
case, right?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You have that worked into the plan.
Okay. The second thing is, Burt, you have -- you said repeatedly that
this is a single - family -home community, yet you mentioned -- yet you
mentioned multifamily, yet you mentioned single- family, and you
were bouncing -- I want a straight answer on that. Is it all
single - family or not?
MR. SAUNDERS: No, it is not.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. SAUNDERS: But let me explain what I was trying to say.
The Valencia Golf and Country Club is all single- family, and there are
parcels of land that can be developed right now under the existing
PUD with multifamily in there. We've eliminated that by having a
minimum square footage of 1,650 square feet, no carports. Those are
going to be all single - family homes within the Valencia Golf and
Country Club. It's all R2 zoning.
In the new area that's not adjacent to Valencia Golf and Country
Club, there's some R3 zoning and R4 zoning, and I'm going to let Mr.
Mulhere explain where the multifamily can go in there, but it's not
going to be in the vicinity of the existing single- family homes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And while we're talking about that
-- because this is another concern of mine -- I don't know what the
need for it is. Are there any other multifamily in the surrounding
areas? And if so, how many?
MR. SAUNDERS: Let me -- while we're talking about that, just
before Bob starts speaking, one of the parcels, just as an example, is
the mixed -use parcel that is situated between two public schools.
There will be some multifamily there down the road when the utility
site is no longer used as a utility site. It is anticipated that
schoolteachers would live there. They could walk across the way to
Page 151
February 14, 2012
their -- the school that they work at.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Everybody always says, whenever
they're talking about condos or multifamily, they always go to
schoolteachers, firemen, and rescue workers, right?
MR. SAUNDERS : Well, it --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just want to say that because we've
had that promised to us in East Naples so many times, but we don't
ever see that materialize. Anyway --
MR. MULHERE: Commissioner Fiala, this is that site right
here, the mixed use, and it's across Oil Well Road from the balance of
the project. There's, you know, schools here and here. And so it's a
good location for that.
There is -- the mixed -use, there is some thought there that that
might even make a -- perhaps some satellite government office
location appropriate in that location. It's halfway between Immokalee
and Collier County. That's certainly, as we move forward, part of
discussion.
As far as the other multifamily that you asked about, it is
separated completely from the existing Valencia Lakes -- Valencia
Golf and Country Club area, and it's right here. This R3 would allow
multifamily. But it's relatively limited. It's limited to two stories, so
it's not going to be very intensive. You asked, where else was
multifamily allowed?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: In that area?
MR. MULHERE: Well, the only area that multifamily's allowed
also is within -- it's in the Blossom Ranch PUD.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, so, in other words, all of the
surrounding areas do not have multifamily?
MR. MULHERE: Most of the surrounding areas are Estates
owned.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: But they're all across those arterial roadways
Page 152
February 14, 2012
or north across the fairgrounds and so on and so forth.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because I have a little problem with
the multifamily, to be perfectly honest with you.
MR. MULHERE: And I understand. That's why we did work
with the homeowners to limit the location of that. I think they're
comfortable with where we have it right now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So how many actual multifamily
units are you putting into this PUD?
MR. MULHERE: We really don't know that at this point in time,
and it could even be none, or maybe it would be limited to only this
area up here. It depends on the market. The only place we can put
them is in this area here and here.
Now, this area is developed single- family. It may be that the
market is strong for single- family and that's what continues to be
developed throughout this portion here. But I don't want to commit to
that because I just don't know. It really depends on the market.
And, remember, we're talking about the kinds of units that are
defined as multifamily or even, you know, villas or, you know,
four -unit complexes. Those are defined as multifamily in the code.
We're not talking about ten story -- because the height's limited.
We're not talking about big multifamily structures. It's still going to
very much in scale with the community.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I heard you say two -floor and
three -floor. I did hear that.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wasn't -- I didn't have closed ears.
Let's see. Now, you were talking about consistent with the
Growth Management Plan before, but consistent doesn't mean that it's
always good for the neighborhood or that it's compatible to the
surrounding neighborhood. Consistent means it meets the
requirements, and so you can move forward, but it always -- it doesn't
always mean that it's the greatest thing for the neighbors, and I think
Page 153
February 14, 2012
that a lot of people interpret it differently, consistent to -- many people
think that it's perfect for the area. It doesn't mean that at all.
MR. SAUNDERS: Well, Commissioner, you're absolutely right.
And we spent a lot of time working with the homeowners association
and, of course, we have two members of their board of directors here
that spoke in support of this because they recognize that the petition
that we have in front of you today, if it's approved, is better for them
than the existing PUD that we can operate under right now.
We can build multifamily right now in the midst of the Valencia
Golf and Country Club. No one wants that to happen, and so we've
agreed to eliminate that possibility, but we've kept a couple small
parcels in the new area that are designated as R3 for the potential of
some multifamily.
That's separated away from the existing single- family homes, and
there's a separate entrance on the Oil Well Road and Randall
Boulevard for the new development. So we've done a lot to make sure
that there's no impact of any multifamily on the existing single- family
community.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, that's my only drawback is the
multifamily and the density of it. I think that this is an awful lot of
density into this area, and I agree with somebody who said you're
trying to pack them in. I'm afraid I haven't been able to talk to
anybody in the community. I've only read whatever letters have been
sent to all of us.
So I don't have any communication with them, but I know if I
were living in a single - family, and most of my community is a
single- family and we were looking at it to be built up, I would feel
uncomfortable about having to pack the density in when there's really
no need to do that but when you want to keep a lovelier neighborhood.
MR. SAUNDERS: Commissioner, if I might, you're using the
term "pack the density in," we're talking about 1.5 units per acre.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but -- I understand, but you're
Page 154
February 14, 2012
using that as an entire -- an entire --
MR. SAUNDERS: That's correct. That's the way it's always --
that's the way it's always calculated.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. But in this particular area
where you're just building them, what is the actual number of units per
acre?
MR. SAUNDERS: I will tell you that I'm not sure what the
density is in the existing Valencia Golf and Country Club.
Matt, do you have that?
MR. McLEAN: I'm happy to help you with that question. What
you see here on the aerial that's currently built within Valencia Golf
and Country Club, with the additional units of addition that we're
asking for in this PUD application, you're going to see very similar lot
layouts and density overall of what is within, currently, Valencia Golf
and Country Club.
A thousand units seems like a big number, but we have already
laid out and looked and started to analyze looking at this location in
here, and when it's all said and done, you're going to effectively be
looking at what is currently built out there today.
It's very, very similar lot sizes, very, very similar number of
houses packed closely together as you currently see within this area of
Valencia Golf and Country Club. And, Commissioner, I think it's --
you mentioned the letters and emails. We received emails and letters
in opposition to this, and we spoke to a lot of people that -- in
opposition to this going back three, four, five, six months ago. I think
what is indicative of the community support today versus where it was
in the first of September is you've got two members of the board of
directors that have spoken in support of this. You've got a resolution
of support from the homeowners association, and they are elected to
represent the homeowners, and they had numerous meetings that were
well attended. I was at most of those meetings.
And so the community itself is saying to the commission, we like
Page 155
February 14, 2012
this petition because we believe that the commercial will help us, we
believe that activity out there will enhance our property values, and
we believe that this petition is better than what can currently happen
out there right now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, Burt, you know, I hear what
you say. I never mentioned commercial, never mentioned retail,
because I think people need commercial and retail, although all of that
that has been approved has never had one shovel in the ground yet, so
it doesn't look like, you know, it's a real positive thing coming
forward. The people want it, but it isn't there yet, and they've had
plenty of opportunity to build it in all of these years.
But having said that, I know what -- when I first -- before I ever
started this job, I didn't understand what rights I had and what rights I
didn't, and many times I felt like I had to go along with something
because they tell me, either you go along with this or we'll just build
affordable housing in there. And you're thinking, oh, gosh. I know
you didn't say that, but this is what -- and you know, when you don't --
when you never deal with developers, you don't know what they really
mean, and you feel almost pressed into, well, if I accept this, then it
won't get any worse.
And I'm just thinking that there's probably ways that we can
move down these units to about 800 units and maybe make it a little
bit more compatible with the rest of the development, and that's where
I'm going with this. I can see multifamily between the two schools; I
can see that. I don't think it belongs in the other part, but that's my
opinion, and I'm only one of five votes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Wow, I was going to talk about
the public process. Before I do, I just want to be able to go back
where we were. What I vision this is going to look like is like some of
the other country clubs that I represent in the area, one of them being
Vanderbilt Country Club where they have these duplex homes there
Page 156
February 14, 2012
very nicely landscaped and everything.
Is this about the same idea? I know that the square footage is not
on the low side on this. Please elaborate on this a little more. Give me
a cross - comparison with other places within the Naples Community
that we would see a product like this.
I think I asked the right question, huh?
MR. McLEAN: I believe you have asked the right question,
Commissioner. Again, Matt McLean, for the record. With respect to
what the goals and look of the overall community is, it's very similar
to any one of the other many golf communities that are all around and
throughout Collier County. Twin Eagles has single- family and
multifamily. The Quarry has single- family and multifamily. Pelican
Bay, single- family, multifamily. The Vineyards, single - family,
multifamily, commercial. All these -- all these other similar golf
course communities are not specifically solely single - family golf
course communities. It's somewhat of a mixture, and the mixture is a
good mix to allow folks to move into, you know, a golf course
community, continue to grow and prosper within that community, and
the model is similar across the majority of all of the ones within our
county.
I don't know one off the top of my head that's specifically just
single- family. They're all mixed.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can remember going through
Verona Walk. Very, very impressed with it, thinking about some day,
you know, when my five bedroom house, three bathrooms, just would
be too much to maintain and how great it would be to be able to move
into a unit, maybe two bedrooms, that would be in a community where
I could go forward with my life.
So I can understand where we're coming with this, and I can
relate back to other examples like that. But, you know, we could beat
this subject to death, you know. And it's -- I guess it's all perception,
wherever you're coming from.
Page 157
February 14, 2012
The public process, one of the things that I personally have told
Mr. Saunders and many of the other land -use attorneys over the years
is, if you've got a project that you think is great, you better come
through the door with a lot of support, because if the community isn't
supporting it, I'll never be aboard.
And I've got to tell you something; in this case, you did an
outstanding job. I can remember when you were having your first
meeting back about, what was it, nine month ago, the phone calls I
got, emails, people felt extremely threatened. The -- it was one of
those things. You know, looking at it you wonder if you're ever going
to get to first base. But you kept going back and you kept reworking
it.
Then I started getting back favorable reports from some of the
people in the community that you and your team were working with
them to try to come up with ways to make it work for everyone.
Then it got to the point now where I can share with you --
recently I went to the Waterways annual meeting, and I -- they asked
me to make a brief presentation while they were counting the votes.
And it took a lot longer than they thought, so my brief presentation ran
for about a half an hour, and they got into the upcoming project.
Their total concern, without reservation, was that the project
would not pass the commission, that it would fail. They wanted to see
it. They wanted to be able to see it happen, because their real estate
values are down. They know that if they can get the commercial there
-- same thing with any other community. Look what Ave Maria's
going through to try to get commercial into their community to be able
to attract more people to fill the rooftops.
When you get to commercial, too, you start to provide jobs that
will be on site for the people that live in that area. They won't have to
travel all the way to the coastal part of the -- of Collier County to be
able to find work. So there's a lot of positives.
I can tell you my time I spent in Orangetree talking to people,
Page 158
February 14, 2012
some people were still a little bit stand - offish to the point that they
didn't quite understand all the facts, but for the most part they
embraced it more so than you would normally expect to see. And
that's evident today, looking out into the audience, how many people
that are speaking against it.
And, you know, one of the -- one of the people speaking against
it doesn't even live in the area. The others ones who were speaking
against it were still finding all sorts of favorable things to say. So
obviously you had some sort of impact along the way.
You had to overcome a tremendous amount of obstacles,
including opposition from outside forces that had no right to play into
it, but you resolved them, too.
And so you brought the people through the door. When the time
does come, I can see no reason on God's given earth that I could vote
no against this.
MR. SAUNDERS: Commissioner, if I might make one
comment. I put this up on the viewer for you to take a look at. This is
an old diagram that was produced by Publix several years ago when
there was some discussion about putting a Publix out there in this area.
And the reason that project didn't go forward -- there were two
reasons. One, there's only 60,000 square feet of commercial out there
at the time, and that certainly was not going to be enough for Publix to
even think of that.
But the other was the issue of rooftops. And the bottom line was,
if you're going to have commercial services out there, you need more
rooftops.
And, Commissioner Fiala, I understand your concern about
density. I will tell you that from an overall density standpoint -- and I
know you look at just the parcel itself, but you have to look at the
overall tract. That's the way it's always done.
This is much less dense than the Orange Blossom Ranch PUD
that was approved. There was 1,616 acres. I believe 16 units, 2.8
Page 159
February 14, 2012
units per acre on that property.
Very much more dense than anything that we're talking about.
So you've approved that type of density greater than this in the past in
that area.
Secondly, again, you know, to have the homeowners association
support this way and say we want this, they knew what the density
was. We reduced it from 1,250 to 1,050 at their request after
discussions with them. And so they understand what 1.5 units per acre
means. They understand what 1,050 units means.
So I would ask that you approve the petition as we can have it
before you today. We have made numerous concessions in terms of
the size of units, the number of units, the location of the multifamily
that we talked about, and you've got a homeowners association that
was elected by the people out there to tell -- and they're telling you,
we want you to vote for this petition.
So, Commissioners, I would urge you to vote for the petition the
way we have it in front of you this afternoon.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Thank you so much, Burt.
I want to go back to the issue of concurrency and the
infrastructure being there to support this development down the road
and the density as a function of that. I don't want the county to be in a
position that if we lose impact fees -- and, you know, there has been
talk at the legislature of getting rid of impact fees, and this might
happen down the road, where we're left with any obligation to build
the infrastructure to propose this development ahead of this
development. And I know we've had assurances, you know, from
staff that that could not happen.
But I just want to be sure that we don't put the county in a
position where we have an obligation and the revenue stream that
we're anticipating to pay for the impact on the infrastructure is not
there and then it's shifted to the other taxpayers, which goes to the
Page 160
February 14, 2012
issue raised by the gentleman here in the front about the -- you know,
the impact on taxes and the costs.
And I'm sure that is likely not to happen. But let's just get
assurances on the record that that won't be the case. And I feel that's
true for all developments out there, you know, whether it's Hacienda
Lakes or this development. I'm concerned about them all equally in
terms of cost to the taxpayers, and you can address that.
MR. SAUNDERS: Well, I think that we certainly understand
that we can't build anything if there isn't proper infrastructure
available to serve the units that we would be building, so there would
be no building permits if there is no transportation infrastructure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But there wouldn't be --
MR. SAUNDERS: I was in the legislature for 14 years, and I
can tell you --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, I understand. Well --
MR. SAUNDERS: I could tell you for 14 years that I was there
they talked about eliminating impact fees. That's been a discussion
that's gone on, and it will go on.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. But I don't want us to be in
a position where we have to build infrastructure because we've
committed to this project when the revenues that we anticipated from
this project are not forthcoming.
MR. SAUNDERS: I'm not sure how to address it other than we
will pay all the impact fees as required. This board is in control of
what that number would be. We've made s dedication of right -of -way
in areas for drainage, and so we're doing everything that every other
developer is required to do, and we will continue to do that. There's no
question about that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Great. So basically, just to
paraphrase, until such time -- and, again, the impact fees may, you
know, never go away. But up to that point in time, you will obviously
be paying for your impact on all infrastructure.
Page 161
February 14, 2012
MR. SAUNDERS: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I guess that's all we can hope
for you today. I mean, I know that the question I'm asking is a
difficult one to answer because it assumes a hypothetical, and that is
that we don't have your impact fees. I just don't want us to be in a
position where you come back and tell us, oh, we have to put in this
road or we have to do something else because we approved that
development.
I'm just saying, this development is approved contingent upon
you contributing those impact fees that are the cost of your impact on
the infrastructure.
MR. TREBILCOCK: For the record, Norman Trebilcock. I'm
the Traffic Engineer that worked on the project.
And you're correct. The -- one of the things that Nick had
mentioned was the, you know, developers coming together to put
together an agreement to provide the right -of -ways you've mentioned
and, you know, really to make sure that things move ahead and
understand it's in part to them and their obligation to really make that
move forward. So you're right on -- spot on on that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. And as far as, you
know, density for housing, in government the -- I mean, I -- while
some people don't like dense development, from the standpoint of cost
to infrastructure, the higher the density, the less infrastructure we, as
government, have to build, so the less costly to the taxpayers overall.
And that's just one argument for why having, you know, higher
density on a parcel is viewed as positive.
If you have a high -rise on one road, obviously it's less costly to
build one road than to have, let's say, you know, the hundred units in
that high -rise spread along a longer road. But, you know, those are
choices we give people, and there's a cost to those choices, and a lot of
people are happy to pay the additional tax associated with the
additional infrastructure, and then there are others who are not. It's
Page 162
February 14, 2012
just a choice.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It just depends on what the density
is.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Twelve units per acre is a little bit
dense.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. But this is not 12 units an
acre.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I know that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. But this is --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm talking about --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because what is the density, the
maximum density where -- forgot about the section by the utility
plant, the other --
MR. SAUNDERS: The overall density for the project, for the
2,100 acres, will be 1.5 units per acre, assuming this is approved. It's
currently at about .9 units per acre.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. But go to the areas where
you will have the multifamily. What's the density? It's -- I thought it
was Multifamily 3?
MR. McLEAN: Matt McLean, again, for the record. Just to go
back to our master plan.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Or it wasn't -- it was R3. I meant.
MR. McLEAN: Yeah. The R3 section's over from this area.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
MR. McLEAN: And, again, if you want to look at raw density
for what's currently built out here in Valencia Golf and Country Club,
what you're looking at here is probably in the neighborhood of three to
four units an acre if you're not including the golf course and you're not
including the roads and you're not including the lakes. You're just
looking at the platted lots within this overall area of acreage.
What you're going to come to see and find over in this area of R3
Page 163
February 14, 2012
is something very similar on the lines of three to four units an acre. If,
again, you're not including the roads, you're not including the lakes,
you're not including the golf course, it's going to look very, very
similar to what you currently have out here today.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for that honesty. I
appreciate that. It's refreshing.
And, Commissioner, just to tell you as far as density goes, what
they have done is these people have worked with them and cleared
much of that up, because they've made a limitation that nothing can be
less than 1,500 square feet. And so that helps the density a lot. I
mean, if they were putting in 750 square feet it's a whole different --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely.
MR. SAUNDERS: It's actually 1,650 square feet.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, 1,600, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I am going to close the public
hearing now. Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Coletta.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seconded by Commissioner Hiller.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The county attorney's memo
and the statements made representing Planning Commissioner Mark
Strain, I want to understand how my colleagues feel that this proposed
development will increase the property values of the existing
landowners. That is a big concern by several. When you start adding
more, you have more competition to sell your home, price your home.
And I want to hear from the commissioners if they think that the
property owners in the area are going to benefit from that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, may I?
Page 164
February 14, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, thank you. That's an
excellent question. And, of course, none of us can speak with
complete authority. We can only base it upon what we know and have
experienced in the past.
The Orangetree area has been impacted by the fact that it's rural
nature, it's a wonderful place to live, there's a great school system right
next door, but what it's lacking is commercial. And it's one of the
downsides to the whole community, and it has a detrimental effect on
the selling of real estate.
People that want to be located. in an area that has those amenities
are going to move to them, and it won't be the Orangetree area unless
they know they're going to be going in there in the future.
Now, in order to be able to get it to that point where you're going
to have the commercial -- and this is -- I've heard this a number of
times before, and it remains true -- we can go ahead and we can say
there's commercial allowed all over God's creation out there. There is
no guarantee anyone's going to build.
In order for them to build, you have to have an assurance of some
type that there's going to be room for X number of rooftops to be able
to accommodate that commercial.
And so, of course, there's a direct correlation to this PUD being
approved and the value of that property.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You should have been a lawyer.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, thank you, sir. I
appreciate that, and I'll represent you any time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know what he said.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's okay. I was a lawyer,
remember.
MR. KLATZKOW: Which makes him a fine lawyer.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
Page 165
February 14, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll pass.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then we've answered all the
questions. It's time for a vote.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (No verbal response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes 4 -1 with Commissioner
Henning dissenting.
MR. SAUNDERS: Commissioners, thank you very much for
your courtesy. I know this has been a difficult issue, and I appreciate
your time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, County Manager, you
wanted to go to a specific item, or we have a 3 o'clock time - certain.
MR. OCHS: Yes, we have a --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You want to do that one first?
MR. OCHS: Yes, please.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well, we're right on time. For
those of you who are wondering, we'll do the 3 o'clock time - certain at
3:47. That is well within the acceptable error of Collier County
Government. So we'll start --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The words you're looking for is
"close enough for government work."
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, I didn't say that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, but I'm saying it for you.
Item #I OM
Page 166
February 14, 2012
RENEWAL OF THE NORTH NAPLES FIRE CONTROL AND
RESCUE DISTRICT'S CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR NON - TRANSPORT
ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT SERVICES WITHIN THE NORTH
NAPLES FIRE CONTROL RESPONSE BOUNDARY AND
PURSUANT TO A MUTUAL -AID AGREEMENT FOR ONE
YEAR AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE
PERMIT AND CERTIFICATE — APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's only for Collier County Government.
So we're going to start the 3 o'clock time - certain, and that is Item No.
16F what?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. It's actually IOM on your regular agenda
now, previously 16173. 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.
It's a recommendation to renew the North Naples Fire Control
and Rescue District Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity
for nontransport life support services within the North Naples Fire
Control response boundary and pursuant to Mutual Aid Agreement for
one year, and authorize the chairman to execute the permit and
certificate.
So ex parte and swearing in would be in order, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Would all persons who are going
to be giving testimony please stand and be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Thank you.
And we'll go to the commissioners for ex parte disclosure, and
we'll begin with Commissioner Henning this time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. A little addition. I did
talk to the county manager. I understand this item's being pulled,
nothing related to the item, and our conversation was counting the
Page 167
February 14, 2012
bodies out here of over $150,000 per body wasting time why (sic) this
item comes up to discuss something that has nothing to do with this
item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: IOM.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But it does have something to do
with it. But -- and I -- and I --
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, I'm sorry. Do you want to finish
your ex parte so we --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, after he's finished castigating
me, you mean.
said?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no, I'm not.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yes, you did.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Leo, keep us in line.
MR. OCHS: Ex parte.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Keep us in line.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Give us the item again. It is IOM, you
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 16173.
MR. OCHS: Yes. It was 16173. It was moved by Commissioner
Fiala to the regular agenda, and it requires ex parte and swearing in of
participants, so --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You don't have to get that out. It's
not that important.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I do if I'm going to give ex parte
disclosure.
MR. OCHS: Right, right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Meanwhile, would you like me
to go ahead?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead, please.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Okay. Regarding that
item, I've had correspondence on it and talked to staff.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sixteen what?
February 14, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: F3.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And mine -- mine is what I had
said this morning, correspondence, you know, the communications
from the EMS advisory board, the Collier County Mutual Aid
Agreement, the BCC letter, calls. That's it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala, did you get
yours done?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I sure did, and this morning I
spoke to Jorge Aguilera. I did have correspondence, a letter from Orly
Stoltz, Collier County Mutual Aid Agreement, EMS advisory board
letter. Those were the things I had, and I spoke a little bit with staff
the other day more or less glossing over this thing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And on 16173 I also had a letter
it was a BCC letter to Chief Stoltz, Collier County Mutual Aid
Agreement, and EMS advisory board letter to BCC on January 25,
2012, and that's it.
So how many public speakers do we have?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we've got one public speaker, but there
was any number of people who stood up.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who pulled this, Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I did.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner Fiala, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would you --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. As I told Jorge Aguilera this
morning, it -- my comments have to do with this item, but it is not in
any way to stop it from moving forward. What I want -- because I
don't have any problem with the COPCN, but what I do have a
problem with is that I think the fire departments in general, those that
used to carry ALS equipment, have been severely constrained from
doing that anymore. I -- and I feel that this -- I had to mention it on
this subject because this is what we're talking about now. I think this
is what forced them in the first place to go to a COPCN.
Page 169
February 14, 2012
And I'll say more under commissioner comments, but I think that
we ought to be addressing putting that -- the entire ALS equipment
back onto those -- to the fire -- fire trucks, is that what you call them?
The ALS --
MR. OCHS: Engines.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- engines. And that's just why I
pulled it, because I feel it's forced them to go to this path that we didn't
need to go to, and I had to make that record on the -- I mean that
statement on the record because it has to -- it pertains to this particular
issue.
And with that I'll make a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Do we need to hear from the
public speaker? We've got a motion for approval.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Spencer, do you want to speak?
MR. SPENCER: Not at this time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Fiala, and there was a second?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seconded by Commissioner Hiller.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And can I raise a point on what
Commissioner Fiala just said?
Page 170
February 14, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, she's going to bring it up under
correspondence. Couldn't we just do that then?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I know. I just want to -- can I just
make some -- I want to make a point now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What I would like to say is, you
know, we currently have a medical director who has been in his
position for a very long time, and I would like to recommend that we
put that position out to bid, if you will.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's exactly what I was going to
talk about under commissioner comment.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, you're kidding?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's funny.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So you could just wait till then.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, and I --all right. I'll wait till
then, but I have been thinking that for some time from the -- in fact,
from the time that we reviewed his contract the last time, I had
concerns that it was potentially an evergreen contract.
I really think we need to consider all our options, and I don't
think we're doing that by rolling these contracts over year after year,
and that's true for all the other contracts we have out there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's exactly what I wrote down.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's scary. That's really scary.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is really scary.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: When we're both thinking the same
way.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That causes me intense anxiety.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's really funny.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there any way that we can try
Page 171
February 14, 2012
to stay to the rest of the agenda today?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't think there is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, no. I'm asking, so we can
try to get done with this in a timely fashion. You know, we have a lot
of staff here waiting for their item, and if we can quickly get to it and
dispose of it, they can get back to work. I'd appreciate that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Remember my earlier comment about
herding cats?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no. I would appreciate it if
we could do that. Thank you.
Item #I OH
RESOLUTION 2012 -18: ST- PL20110000677, COLLIER COUNTY
GOVERNMENT PARKS AND RECREATION AND
CONSERVATION COLLIER DEPARTMENTS: PETITION ST-
PL201100006779 A SPECIAL TREATMENT DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A RESTROOM, MAINTENANCE
STORAGE BUILDING, PAVILION, PARKING, STORMWATER
TREATMENT AREAS, LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING, ACCESS
DRIVE, TRAILS, BOARDWALKS, SHADE STRUCTURES,
FISHING PLATFORM, WATER QUALITY TREATMENT
FACILITY, UTILITY PIPING, AND PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES
WITHIN THE SPECIAL TREATMENT OVERLAY (ST) FOR A
PROJECT KNOWN AS THE GORDON RIVER GREENWAY
PARK LOCATED IN SECTIONS 27 AND 34, TOWNSHIP 49
SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA —
ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Where does that take us to now?
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, with your permission and the
board's permission, we'd like to go to l OH so we can get our paid
Page 172
February 14, 2012
consultants in and out of here today, we don't have to drag them back,
if we can. And l OH on your regular agenda, this item requires that ex
parte disclosure be provided by commission members.
Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are
required to be sworn in. This is ST- PL20110000677, Collier County
Government's Parks and Recreation and Conservation Collier
departments, a resolution approving Petition ST- PL20110000677
requesting a special treatment development permit to construct a
restroom, maintenance storage building, pavilion, parking, stormwater
treatment areas, landscaping, lighting, access drive, trails, boardwalks,
shade structures, fishing platform, water - quality treatment facility,
utility piping, and pedestrian bridges within the Special Treatment
Overlay for a project known as the Gordon River Greenway Park
located in Sections 27 and 34, Township 49 south, Range 25 east,
Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then we'll start with
Commissioner Hiller this time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have had meetings, emails, calls.
Well, no, no calls. Well -- no, no calls.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have to -- it doesn't say calls. I
was, like, wondering if I had -- well, actually, I did have a call. I
mean, does talking to Leo consist of a call?
MR. OCHS: If we spoke.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, but not a very good one.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Then I had a call. That was last
night with Leo. So, one call.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Meetings, correspondence, emails, I
read the EAC staff report and the CCPC staff report.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And I reviewed EAC staff report,
the CCPC staff report, had a meeting with Marla Ramsey, Barry
Page 173
February 14, 2012
Williams, Alex Sulecki, and Tony Roberto, I had, apparently, a
meeting with Gina Downs on 7/25/11, and Andrew Dickman on
7/25/11, and there were some emails and correspondence and calls,
and that's it.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I reviewed the staff report,
had correspondence, and that sums it up.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't recall.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by -- I need to swear
in everybody first --
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- before we do this. Would anyone who
is intending --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I like your attitude.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- unwisely, to provide input on this
item, please stand to be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'd very much appreciate if you'd
give serious consideration to the fact that there's a motion on the table.
And there was a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: There was a second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: By Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion for approval
by Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Fiala.
And, Commissioner Hiller, do you want to speak about this?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I do. And my concern is, is
my understanding is part of the reason that this overlay is being
Page 174
February 14, 2012
created is because there's a preserve and that the boardwalk is going to
extend over the preserve and that this would be some way for allowing
that expansion over the preserve that wouldn't otherwise be allowed,
and I'm not sure that you can actually do that with an overlay.
And I talked to Leo about it last night, and he was going to
research it but hasn't had time to get back to me. And so maybe Jeff
can address that. Because, again, I just don't see how we can use an
overlay to allow something that is restricted by way of what I
understand to be a conservation easement.
But if my understanding of the facts are incorrect, then I'd like to
know, you know, exactly what is there and how we are able to
develop the way we're developing through an overlay.
MR. OCHS: We can do that, ma'am. I got some information
from staff over the lunch hour, asked them to be here to address that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Super. And I'd like Jeff to answer
it too.
MR.00HS: Sure.
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know that there is an issue. I mean,
I'd like to hear from staff.
MR. REISCHL: Thank you. Fred Reischl with the Planning
Department.
STs were started as a way of protecting areas of the county that
were identified by aerials in the 1970s. The way most of them come
before you is through a PUD. And the ST's are either removed or
altered with the PUD ordinance.
The Gordon River Greenway Park is public -use zoning,
therefore, there's no PUD; therefore, the ST is coming to you
specifically to allow the uses that Mr. Ochs mentioned.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But that's not answering my
question. My question is specific to what I -- as I understand,
development over a preserve and that without this ST overlay, you
believe you would not be able to develop over that preserve.
Page 175
February 14, 2012
And maybe Mr. Lorenz should talk to this. Mr. Lorenz, maybe
you can address that. And, again, maybe the preserve does allow for
development over --
MR. REISCHL: It's not a preserve yet, and as I said --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Well, let's get the facts,
because I want the issue of building and preserve reconciled with the
law.
MR. LORENZ: Yes. For the record, Bill Lorenz.
The ST allows for a variety of development. As long as the -- you
do not adversely impact the ST area, which, of course, boardwalks we
allow for that even within conservation lands over preserves.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So is there conservation land there
right now?
MR. LORENZ: It's not a -- yeah.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is there any -- you know, any sort
of conservation easement over these lands?
MR. LORENZ: Let me have Summer Araque speak to the
details for that.
MS. ARAQUE: Hi. Summer Araque, senior environmental
specialist, and I'm the one who did the environmental review on the
project, so maybe I can shed some light on your question.
Okay. This is a black- and -white exhibit. We might have a better
one on here, and I'll let the consultant pull that up.
But I'll point out to you where the preserve is going to be located.
MR. OCHS: Summer, use that hand -held.
MS. ARAQUE: Okay. This shaded area here, right in here,
okay, that's the upland area. That's where all the gopher tortoises are
located. This special- treatment area is all of this area in here.
Did you find a better exhibit? Okay. So if we can switch to the
podium computer.
MR. OCHS: Got it.
MS. ARAQUE: Okay. So this is a much better exhibit. That
Page 176
February 14, 2012
shows you the red area.
MR. OCHS: Use your mouse.
MS. ARAQUE: Okay. But it's pretty easy to see the red area is
your Special Treatment Overlay, and, actually, your preserve, I
believe, is not within any of that Special Treatment Overlay area, and
your impact area within the Special Treatment Overlay is going to be
this north parking lot -- oops, sorry -- the north parking lot up here,
called the northeast node, and then I would call -- the boardwalks
would be kind of like secondary impacts through the ST area.
Does that answer your question?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So to repeat -- to confirm my
understanding, this overlay is not in any way going to allow for any
development in what otherwise would be environmentally, you know,
sensitive or preserve area?
MS. ARAQUE: Not in a preserve. This -- I would not call the
area where the parking lot is going currently an environmentally
sensitive area, because it's right next to the roadway, and it's also full
of exotic vegetation, so --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So the overlay -- I mean, the
overlay is not being used instead of mitigation or allowing for
something that, in the absence of the overlay, could not be done as a
result of an environmental issue?
MS. ARAQUE: This may answer your question, but essentially
the overlays were put there, like Fred said, in the '70s, and in a lot of
cases they were not ground - truthed, so -- and then especially in the
'70s you didn't have all this development around here.
So they did flyovers and just picked out, you know, wetlands,
cypress heads and so forth. And then as development came in, they
reviewed those to see what needed to be set aside, and that helped
preserve these areas.
But now that we have our preserve code, such a strong preserve
code like we have today where you have to set aside a percentage of
Page 177
February 14, 2012
preserve, we kind of have to balance the ST review along with the
preserve review. Because as you can see on this site, we have
preserve being set aside over here, and then you also have your ST
area, which is still going to be protected.
So if you're looking at the overall site where -- they're not
impacting 90 percent of the site. So only 10 percent of the entire site,
including this area over here, which is already mostly impacted, is
going to be impacted.
MR.00HS: Developed.
MS. ARAQUE: Developed, so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MARSHON: I'm JP Marshon with Kimley -Horn &
Associates consulting on this project.
And just, I think, to try and answer that question, today there is
no preserve on this property, and there are no conservation easements
on this property.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What about environmentally
sensitive lands?
MR. MARSHON: There are in -- there are lands that have
environmental value, and the ST overlay was set up, as Summer was
mentioning, to bring a heightened level of review to those, so that's
why we're having to go through this process.
But this project, through this project, we will establish the
preserve that Summer was showing you earlier, and also, through this
project, we will establish conservation easements on much of the land
as well.
But today there isn't a formal preserve -- designated preserve or
conservation easement on the property.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Mr. Lorenz?
MR. LORENZ: Yes. The ST overlay currently exists, and they
were established, as Fred said, in the mid '70s so that as development
came through, through these particular areas, there could be some
Page 178
February 14, 2012
enhanced public- hearing process to evaluate whether the proposed
development would essentially adversely impact the ST area that was
identified.
And so the ST process provides for the public hearing to go to the
EAC, to the Planning Commission, and to the board to make that
judgment call.
Since the '70s when we've adopted a number of Land
Development Code requirements, such as our preserve requirements
and setting the preserves in conservation easements, we now have
those mechanisms that typically get applied to an area that has ST
through the PUD process, as Fred indicated.
And typically what happens during the PUD process is that that
ST overlay is actually taken off. It basically is rezoned. Although the
underlying land uses still exist, the ST overlay is taken off and it's put
in that area as -- portions of that area is put into a preserve with a
conservation easement.
In this particular situation, since this is a straight rezone, what
comes through in this process is an ST approval, which is fairly
unique in the past, let's say, ten years of processing these ST reviews.
So, again, the point for the staff and then the board in making the
final decision is to determine whether those proposed uses within the
ST overlay do not adversely affect the -- in this particular situation, a
mangrove system?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So can you comment on the corner
that Summer was talking about where that parking lot is and explain to
me how that's not going to adversely affect the system.
MR. LORENZ: Yes. We've -- the one area, as Summer had
indicated, is also in exotics, fairly exotic infestation. And, again, the
area of ST is not -- it's not a prohibition area. So there's a recognition
that there's an a -- should be an appropriate balance of uses given the
particular site.
So in terms of that, the fact that it's in exotics, that it does provide
Page 179
February 14, 2012
access to the area, which we -- which we do see as a good public
benefit, that -- our judgment is that the area that's proposed should be
approved through the ST process.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you.
A while back when this first was discussed -- and I would have to
say at least a year ago -- one of the things that some of the
environmentalists were concerned with was the pervious and
impervious surfaces in the parking lots. They felt that there was too
much impervious, and there should be a better drainage system so that
when -- with stormwater management, stormwater would be able to
percolate down and recharge our aquifers. Has that been changed to
accommodate those wishes?
MR. MARSHON: Let me answer that with this graphic on the
computer monitor, if we can get that up.
This is the parking area and recreational node near the Golden
Gate Parkway. The -- all of the parking that you see in both of these
rows, all of that's grass parking. So we've got almost all grass parking
in this area. The only paved parking are the handicapped area, which
are -- have to be paved, and a few spaces right up here at the very
front.
The stormwater coming off of this has been designed as if it was
all pavement, and all of that runoff goes into the retention pond -- dry
retention pond here, and in any -- anything like a normal storm event
up to over two inches, there's no discharge out of that pond at all.
That's even if this was all pavement, there would be no discharge
coming out of that pond at all. It would all percolate into the ground
through that pond.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, very good. Thank you. That
was one of my concerns.
And the second one -- as you know, I've already seconded this
M
February 14, 2012
motion, but I just want to point out that -- I'm not going to speak about
limerock roads. I'm going to speak about a community center that I've
been waiting for.
Certainly I wouldn't want to deprive anybody else of having their
amenities, but we're still waiting for a community center to just hold
simple things like after- school programs and summer programs that
I've been pushing for. It's amazing how we can find money to do
beautiful things like this and expand parks, but we still don't have a
community center for thousands of kids who are really in an
impoverished setting, and they don't even have a place to go. It's
shameful.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion passes unanimously.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I ask one last question? I
want to ask -- you know, this is in wet -- I've already voted, but this is
in wetlands, correct? I mean, it shows as wetlands in that last
diagram?
MR. MARSHON: The parking area?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
MR. MARSHON: It is in a -- what is classified as a wetland.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Was there any need for wetland
mitigation credits?
MR. MARSHON: Yes, there is a significant amount of wetland
mitigation going on with this project.
Page 181
February 14, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And how much is the wetland
mitigation that --
MR. MARSHON: It's all on site.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh. So you're actually going to
pull the mitigation off site? So we're not going to have to actually buy
credits? You can balance it within the project?
MR. MARSHON: It's all going to be done as part of this project.
MR. OCHS : Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you're setting aside preserve --
MR. MARSHON: Setting aside preserve.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- within the project. I mean, wet --
basically there's sufficient wetlands that will be set aside within the
project to offset the impact on the wetlands in this corner?
MR. MARSHON: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Just checking. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you want to continue with I or --
where do you want to go next?
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2012 -19: RE- APPOINTING JAMES R. GIBSON,
STEPHEN A. HARRISON, VLADIMIR A. RYZIW, JANET H.
VASEY AND JOSEPH B. SWAJA AND APPOINTING THOMAS
X. LYKOS TO THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT PRODUCTIVITY
COMMITTEE — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Let's go back to the regular progression, if you
don't mind, Commissioners. That takes us to Item 9 on your agenda,
which is Board of County Commissioners. You have a series of
appointments beginning with 9A.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I make a motion to appoint the five
people chosen by the Productivity Committee and recommended and,
Page 182
February 14, 2012
furthermore, to select John H. Mitchell to occupy the other position.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion for the
committee recommendations plus John H. Mitchell, seconded -- by
Commissioner Coyle, seconded by Commissioner Coletta.
Is there any discussion?
All in favor, please -- I'm sorry. Go ahead, Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I'd like Tom Lykos, a
local businessman, second time he's applied to the Productivity
Committee. I -- for the last person, I'd much -- like to have Tom
Lykos on the committee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's who my vote was for, too.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And if I may say, I'd like to
comment that I agree with you. And the one issue I have is that what
seems to be happening on the Productivity Committee is we've got,
you know, self - perpetuating membership. Maybe that's not exactly
the right word. But the members keep voting for themselves and each
other, so there's absolutely no turnover. You know, there's no
difference in perspective because it's always the same people.
And, quite frankly, I would like to not accept the committee's
recommendation. I know we have a motion on the table. But what I
would like to suggest is we don't accept the committee's
recommendation, and that instead we accept Mr. Mitchell and Mr.
Lykos and accept everybody except for Mr. Harrison so we have some
turnover and fresh blood.
And I think they both bring -- you know, Mr. Mitchell and Mr.
Lykos both bring new experience and new perspective, and Mr.
Harrison has been on that board for a very long time and, you know,
it's time for a changing of the guard. And he served us well, but -- like
I said, you know, no criticism of him, but it's time to move on.
Page 183
February 14, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion on the table.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All opposed by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It is -- it fails with Commissioner
Fiala, Hiller, and Henning dissenting.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to make a motion then.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to make the motion that we
have Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Lykos and the committee's
recommendation except for Mr. Harrison.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You have lights on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, but we've got motions. Motions
take precedence over lights. We'll talk -- we'll talk; just a moment.
So we've got a motion for appointment of Mr. Lykos and Mr.
Mitchell and for all of the committee's recommendations with the
exception of Steve Harrison.
The motion is made by Commissioner Hiller, seconded by
Commissioner Fiala.
Okay. Now, Commissioner Coletta, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I was there when they
were doing the interviewing, and I can tell you that the both -- the
candidates, Mr. Richa (sic), am I pronouncing it right?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Lykos.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Lykos.
February 14, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Ryziw?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Which one are you talking about?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm talking about the two
candidates that were both brought up at the beginning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They tied.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. They were -- both of
them were extremely excellent choices. I graded them, and one I gave
a 9.8, the other one I gave a 9.7 to. So I got no problem with both of
them. But I'm really concerned about the discussion in the motion in
the fact that we're trying to take someone out that's served us so well
for so long.
This should not be a political issue. If we've got somebody that's
serving this county and serving them well -- and Mr. Harrison has
been. He's been an excellent choice. And I hate to say it, but I think
there might be a little motive of revenge here.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, none whatsoever. No politics,
no revenge. I mean, he just is the one who I think would be best
served replaced by these two gentlemen. We need new blood. And
the next time --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't agree with you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, that's fine. You can vote
against me. When the next round of candidates on the productivity
come up again, I will, again, recommend that, you know, new blood
replace the people who have been sitting there forever, and they have
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Who's the oldest member on this?
Let me see.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't know.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Probably Janet Vasey.
MR. OCHS: Ms. Vasey.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No way. Janet Vasey's the
backbone of that committee. So are we going to replace her? As a
Page 185
February 14, 2012
matter of fact, after four years, everybody here should be off this
commission because you're old blood. You should be recycled.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's not the motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I know it's not the motion,
but I'm trying to --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And, quite frankly -- and believe it
or --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Stop it, stop it, stop it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: A lot of people agree with you,
Commissioner Coletta. They agree. It's called term limits.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Every four years we go through
them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm ready to -- I'm ready to vote.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Vote, okay.
Okay. We have the motion. I'll restate the motion. The motion
is for the appointment of Tom Lykos and John Mitchell, and all the
other members with the exception of Stephen Harrison.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (No verbal response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Those opposed, by like sign.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to appoint the committee's
recommendations and Thomas Lykos.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Henning. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second. Those were my original
Page 186
February 14, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wait a minute. One, two, three,
four, five. We have six appointments, right?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right, right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So your motion was correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was my first idea anyway, so
I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Henning,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Ave.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All opposed, by like sign.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So it passes 3 -2 with Commissioners
Hiller and Coyle dissenting.
Okay. That one is done.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2012 -20: RE- APPOINTING LARRY D.
MIESZCAK, ROBERT KAUFMAN AND APPOINTING JOHN L.
RAUCH AND CAROLE J. GREENE TO THE COLLIER COUNTY
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 9B is appointment of members to the Collier
County Code Enforcement Board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve Larry Mieszcak,
Robert Kaufman, Gerald Lefebvre, and Carole Greene.
Page 187
February 14, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Hiller
(sic) to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, that was me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry -- Commissioner -- you two are
voting together so much, I get you confused now.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Coyle, the wrong
cat.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Fiala to
appoint Larry Mieszcak, Robert Kaufman, Gerald Lefebvre, and
Carole Greene.
Is there a second?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion dies for lack of a second.
Is there another motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I'd like to appoint Mr.
Rauch, and Mrs. Greene. I'm trying to get to it -- sorry -- and Mr.
Muzak (sic), is it?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Miesczak.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I apologize.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Gerald Lefebvre.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And Mr. Kaufman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. A motion for
appointment of Larry Miesczak, Robert Kaufman, John Rauch and
Carole Greene.
Is it seconded? Is there a second?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. It dies for lack --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Seconded by Commissioner
Hiller.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
February 14, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes 3 -2, with
Commissioners Fiala and Coletta dissenting.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2012 -21: APPOINTING JOHN H. BURTON II
(SERVING THE REMAINDER OF A TERM EXPIRING
FEBRUARY 11, 2013) TO THE CONSERVATION COLLIER
LAND ACQUISITION ADVISORY COMMITTEE — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 9C is appointment of member to the Conservation
Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve the
committee's recommendation of John Burton.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, this one -- there shouldn't be any
disagreement about this one, I hope, since he's the only applicant.
Seconded by whom?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seconded by Commissioner Hiller.
All in favor, please signify --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry. Did you -- voting or are you
objecting to the calling of the motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye, aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
Page 189
February 14, 2012
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye, aye, aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes 9 -0 (sic).
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2012 -22: RE- APPOINTING ALICE J. CARLSON
AND BARBARA MINCH ROSENBERG TO THE INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 9D is appointment of members to the Industrial
Development Authority.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve Carole --
committee's recommendations. I just lost my page.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're appointing two people.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Committee's recommendations
of Alison Carlson and Barbara Rosenberg.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Seconded by Commissioner
Coletta, I believe; is that right?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 190
February 14, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #9E
RESOLUTION 2012 -23: APPOINTING DAVID EASLICK TO
THE EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES AUTHORITY — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 9E is appointment of member to the Educational
Facilities Authority.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Appoint one member.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Committee recommendation -- I
make a motion to accept the committee recommendation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to accept the committee
recommendation of Alice Carlson by Commissioner Fiala.
Is there a second?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion dies for lack of a second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve David
Easlick.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve David Easlick by
Commissioner Henning. Seconded by whom?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 191
February 14, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passed unanimously.
Item #9F
RESOLUTION 2012 -24: RE- APPOINTING GEORGE C.
MOHLKE, JR., SUZANNE BRADACH (FOR TERMS EXPIRING
SEPTEMBER 11, 2015), GARY D. LIND (FOR A TERM
EXPIRING JULY 245 2015) AND APPOINTING ROBERT
WHITAKER (FOR A TERM EXPIRING SEPTEMBER 11, 2015)
TO THE HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 9F is appointment of members to the Housing
Finance Authority.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to make a motion to -- to
accept the committee recommendation of all four of these candidates
with Mr. Lind; Lind's term expiring on July 24th, and the other three --
2015, and the other three's committee -- or appointments ending
September 11, 2015.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Fiala to
appoint the committee's recommendations with the terms as stated.
Seconded by Commissioner Coletta.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: (Nods head.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: All in favor, please signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 192
February 14, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
"M;0Z91
RESOLUTION 2012 -25: APPOINTING EDWARD A. MORTON
TO THE HEALTH FACILITIES AUTHORITY — ADOPTD
MR. OCHS: 9G is appointment of member to the Health
Facilities Authority.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve Ed Morton.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Fiala to
approve Ed Morton, seconded by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #9H
RESOLUTION 2012 -26: APPOINTING MCBETH COLLINS (FOR
REMAINDER OF A TERM EXPIRING DECEMBER 31, 2013) AS
Page 193
February 14, 2012
THE EVERGLADES CITY REPRESENTATIVE TO THE
OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT ADVISORY
COMMITTEE — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 9H is appointment of a member to the Ochopee
Fire Control District Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Motion to follow the
committee's recommendation; that Everglades City council
recommends McBeth Collins to the advisory committee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Coletta
to appoint the committee recommendation of McBeth Collins.
Seconded by?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: By Commissioner Henning.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, just to qualify that, it's an Everglades --
it's the Everglades City Council, that term.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right, yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I said that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It's passed unanimously.
Item #9I
RESOLUTION 2012 -27: RE- APPOINTING STUART
Page 194
February 14, 2012
WARSHAUER TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY
COMMITTEE — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 9I is appointment of a member to the Affordable
Housing Advisory Committee.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We've got one applicant.
Anybody have a preference?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to appoint the committee
recommendation, Mr. Stuart Warshauer. Seconded by?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Go ahead.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: While we're on that subject, could I
say to Leo, you know, we've been looking at this, and maybe -- maybe
we were -- I've read a couple times we need to maybe readdress how
many -- you know, what their direction is, and the direction that we'd
given them years ago to be building a thousand a year doesn't seem
appropriate right now, and I think we ought to readdress that at some
point on one of our meetings in the future.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The committee's working on
that.
MR. OCHS: The committee's already working on that,
Commissioner.
Page 195
February 14, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, though, for that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there an echo here?
Item #9J
REPROGRAMMING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
(CDBG) GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $810,000 AND
APPROVE A SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH THE
COLLIER COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) OF
IMMOKALEE TO PURCHASE TWO ADJACENT PARCELS
AND CONSTRUCT DESIGN -BUILD THE FIRST STREET
PLAZA LOCATED IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA OF
IMMOKALEE, FLORIDA - MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF
SECOND
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, 9J is a request for reconsideration
of Item IOG from the January 24, 2012, agenda. The item was a
recommendation to approve reprogramming of Community
Development Block Grant funds in the amount of $810,000 and
approve the subrecipient agreement with the Collier County
Redevelopment Agency of Immokalee to purchase two adjacent
parcels and construct and design -build the First Street Plaza located in
the downtown area of Immokalee, Florida.
This is Commissioner Hiller's item.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. Thank you very much. The
reason I'm bringing this back for reconsideration, in addition to the
fact that this board voted only conditionally to approve this pending
the explanation of what happened with the appraisals, is that I have
concerns and would also like to look at alternatives.
Let me begin with my concerns. When this matter was brought
before us to buy these parcels on Main Street in Immokalee, when I
Page 196
February 14, 2012
looked at the information that was presented before the meeting, I was
taken aback by the price, which I thought was high. So I requested a
copy of the appraisal. And the appraisal that I received was done by
an outside appraiser.
When I looked at that appraisal report, what I saw was that the
price had been inflated by, supposedly, impact fees that had been paid
on that property. As it turns out, my understanding is that those
impact fees were not paid. And when you look at the appraisal, what
was done was basically an assumption made that if commercial
development were to be built on that property, based on the fact that
there had been commercial development, that present valuing the
impact fees that would have been collected as -- I guess, as a base --
the calculation was unbelievable. I mean, if I start explaining it, it's
just -- I've never seen such gobbledygook in my life.
So what I did was I brought this to the board's attention, and the
board very prudently said, well, you know, why are we going to an
outside appraiser, and let's revisit this. And then we found out that
earlier appraisers (sic) had been done by our in -house appraiser who is
with us here today.
And, Penny, thank you for, you know, coordinating that Mr. --
MR. OCHS: Leonard. Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Leonard?
MR.00HS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, Mr. Leonard. Mr. Leonard,
could you take the stand. Thanks.
So let me share with you what was brought to our attention in
Penny's response to my concerns over the appraisal and the price in
that appraisal.
There have, in fact, been four appraisals on this property. And,
in fact, the appraisal that was done by the outside appraiser --
appraiser was done on 11/3/11, less than 60 days after our in -house
appraiser, Mr. Leonard, appraised the property for substantially less
Page 197
February 14, 2012
on 9/20/11.
And just to state for the record, on 9/20/11, Mr. Leonard
appraised the property at 202,000, and less than 60 days later, on
1 1/03/11, this outside appraiser stated the value of the property at
290,000. Obviously a very material difference.
And that is just unacceptable. It really looks like the county was
basically appraisal shopping for an opinion that more closely matched
what these buyers wanted, which was 300,000. I really have a
problem with that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What ended up happening -- let
me continue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, let me -- let me try --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let me finish.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- to get to the point. All --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, let me get to the point.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- that has disappeared.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, it really hasn't.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, it has.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Not for me. So now we come to
another appraisal --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to have a history lesson
here.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- which was done by Mr. Leonard
on 1/25/12, and that was done because, again, we -- from my
understanding, according to this memo, we have to have an appraisal
no older than 60 days if we're applying for these grant funds.
And Mr. Leonard came back with a valuation now which is
substantially less than the other 290 -, but still a little bit more than the
previous. And he explained to me that there was some information he
did not have at the time he came up with the 202 -
So now we've gone from 290- back down to 232 -. That is just
Page 198
February 14, 2012
unbelievable, absolutely unbelievable. It also begs the question, why
we are -- and I read all these appraisals. I have all the appraisal
reports over here, and I'm going to enter them into the record.
How -- why are we looking at commercial property to turn it into
a park? And while I understand that we want to improve Main Street,
there has to be some study done to determine whether there aren't any
other parcels or a different location that can be identified to improve
Main Street without taking what is clearly well - situated commercial
property and turning it, like I said, into a park, which is what the
county's intent is.
So we're paying for commercial to turn it into a park. We haven't
looked at alternatives. Our appraiser has not been asked to do an
alternative study. And so I really can't support this. I can't support it
for, in part, the way it's been handled. I really find it objectionable
that we are out appraisal shopping. We have inside staff. And I also
find it objectionable that we're buying commercial property to turn it
into a park facility.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, first of all, Commissioner Hiller --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So for that reason I want to have
this item reconsidered.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This item is not about purchasing
property. This item is about reprogramming money. If -- before the
staff purchases any property, they will have to bring all this
information back to us in a public hearing, and then we will make a
decision as to what we do with it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That wasn't my understanding.
My understanding --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- was was that this was basically
approving the use of those -- oh, I understand what's written there, but
that wasn't my understanding, regardless of what's written. My
understanding is that the intent is to basically approve this particular
Page 199
February 14, 2012
site for these grant funds for that particular project. And you can call
it whatever you want, reprogramming it, but that's the essence of what
we're doing here today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let me ask a question, County
Manager. Can you go out and buy that property right now?
MR. OCHS: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You have to bring it back to us?
MR. OCHS: We can make an offer, but we have to bring the
contracts back with the appraisals for the board's approval. And this is
Ms. Phillippi's project, by the way. Not mine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, I understand. I understand that. So
we want to bring back an item that reprogrammed the money, but
we're actually going to be having a hearing -- if we decide to purchase
it, we'll have a hearing on approval of the contract to purchase it; is
that not correct?
MR. OCHS: Yes, we will have to bring a purchase contract back
to this board.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But we're reprogramming the
money identifying this particular parcel for this specific project.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, you're both correct. This action is
actually --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're so diplomatic.
MR. OCHS: Well, you are reprogramming the dollars. That's
the first thing you have to do to allow Ms. Phillippi then to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do anything.
MR. OCHS: -- move forward with the plan.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And to reprogram.
MR. OCHS: And that plan, as part of the public -realm plan that
you've all previously adopted, I believe as a board -- Penny, I'm going
to ask you to step up here and help me -- include the properties in
question to be procured and improved as part of that public -realm
project.
Page 200
February 14, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But if I understand correctly, we're
talking about federal funds. And had I not raised this issue, we would
have approved the use of federal funds for the identified parcel. I
understand a contract would come back to us, but we were, in essence,
saying that we would be willing to pay 290,000 which would -- I
mean, is in no way a justified price, using federal funds for this
project.
MR. OCHS: Well, Commissioner, I agree with you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I really have a problem with that,
Leo.
MR. OCHS: My staff never agreed to use that appraisal.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand.
MR. OCHS: We didn't ask for that outside appraisal.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And this is strictly Penny's issue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's all your fault, Penny.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, Penny.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well -- but it's very concerning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why? She hasn't spent any money. She
hasn't signed a contract. She hasn't made an offer. We have to
approve it. If she does, what is it that's --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I want to change my vote on this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, make a motion to bring it
back for reconsideration.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I make a motion to bring it back
for reconsideration.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there a second?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It dies for lack of a second.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Then I'm changing my vote on
this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would second it, but I know
Page 201
February 14, 2012
it's coming back, and I have a lot more information than what's being
told to us previously. I have a concern that --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You have more information?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, the same information that
you have. But, you know, I'm tired of getting led around by a nose
ring by certain staff members that are saying they're going to do
something, and then it turns out to be something else. And I'm -- you
know, that needs to change.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, this building was --
was built long ago before there were impact fees. There wasn't any
impact fees ever paid on this building, but yet we have a staff member
trying to get this at any cost using the taxpayers' money, and that is
just plain wrong.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, Commissioner -- well, you're next.
Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ladies first.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, it was -- the question
was asked, why would you want to build a park here when it's better,
more suitable areas. But this isn't a park. This is a downtown area.
This is an effort of a CRA. This is what they're there for is to beautify
their community, to bring people in, to expand businesses, and you
have to have a catalyst.
You don't have any downtown area in Immokalee, and this is
what Penny is trying to do. Penny -- and this is what the CRA is
voting for. The CRA wants to see them succeed in that community.
They want to see businesses drawn to the community. And I, for one,
Page 202
February 14, 2012
endorse that effort.
Now, I've seen over the years, especially with road projects and
so forth, where we get an appraisal from our people, and then we get
an appraisal because the people that are being offered that amount
don't agree with it. So our appraisal is -- you know, is just playing
with figures -- $100,000, and their figure is $800,000. And to and
behold, it isn't our appraisal, because we've always low - balled them,
and it isn't their appraisal because they've always high - balled them, so
you come down to a reasonable figure that everybody can agree upon.
That's part of the negotiation, I guess. I would just come out with a
flat figure, because it's the right thing to do. But, you know, I'm not in
that business.
So I'm saying that we need to bring this back, we need to discuss
this, but first we need to reprogram the money so we can bring it back.
I applaud your efforts, Penny, and I applaud the people in
Immokalee who are trying to pull themselves up and give themselves
a new image. I know we're trying to do that in areas in my
community, too, and I -- so I so understand it.
So I make a motion to reprogram --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, there's no motion needed.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. This was just a
reconsideration.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, no motion needed, okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My turn.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you very much.
You know, I just about had it. I'll tell you right now, how many
times have you had to come down from Immokalee to be able to
address issues that are being rehashed over again?
I mean, this is -- how long have you been in the business, I mean,
of working for government?
Page 203
February 14, 2012
MS. PHILLIPPI: Twenty, thirty years.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Have you ever gone through
anything like this before where you had -- continuously being
harassed to the point you can't get your work done? You should have
been in Immokalee today, not here to have to sit through this.
But for some reason -- there seems to be some reason to keep
calling you in for a whole bunch of nonsense. I can only apologize for
myself. I wish there was some way to control it, but there doesn't
seem to be. Sorry you lost the whole day again today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The motion died for lack of a
second, and so we're moving on.
Item #I OC
REVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES FOR THE WAIVER OF
FINES /LIENS AND DIRECT THE COUNTY MANAGER OR
DESIGNEE TO IMPLEMENT BOARD DIRECTION ON THIS
MATTER - MOTION TO APPROVE PARAGRAPH "D" —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, that takes you to Item IOC on your
agenda this afternoon. IOC is a recommendation to review the
alternatives for the waiver of fines and liens and direct the county
manager or designee to implement board direction on this matter.
Ms. Flagg will make the presentation.
MS. FLAGG: Good afternoon. Happy Valentine's Day.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It don't feel Valentiney right now.
MS. FLAGG: Well, let me try and make this short and sweet.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That will make it Valentiney.
MS. FLAGG: Diane Flagg, Director of Code Enforcement, for
the record.
Pursuant to your request of January 10th, I've provided four
Page 204
February 14, 2012
options in reference to the board's policy for a waiver of fines and
release of liens and also have developed a summary with the proposed
option and also an example comparing the current proposed policy to
the current policy.
The underlined section is the proposed. If you took the underline
out, that's the current process. Under 4. 1, A through F, these are all
the considerations when we bring to you a recommendation for fine
and release of liens.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That looks great to me.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I'll second your motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I make a motion for approval.
That solves all the problems.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Approval of what, which one?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Of this modification. It's primarily
Paragraph D, Delta. The rest of it is pretty much the same as the
existing policy, isn't it?
MR. OCHS: It's identical, sir, to your existing policy.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. A. B, C, E, and F are identical to
current policy. The only thing that changed is D, and here's what it
provides; that fines for -- that are assessed that accrued prior to the
transfer of title and 30 days following the transfer of title would be
considered for waiver so long as the new owners diligently pursued
abatement and compliance has been achieved. That achieves what we
were talking about last time.
It gives a new owner 3 0 days to get the job done, and as long as
he's not delayed unreasonably by government in getting permits, they
will just proceed as they do right now. But if something happens that
prohibits them from getting it done within 30 days, they can consider
-- come ask us for a waiver if they have good reason to do it, and
they've been doing this in good faith, right?
MS. FLAGG: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you like that idea?
Page 205
February 14, 2012
MR. OCHS: Yes.
MS. FLAGG: It's what -- it's the board's money, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But you like it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But you don't like it?
MR. OCHS: It's our staff recommendation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could we hear from Diane?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would you please tell me about the
fines that then we have to absorb or the taxpayers have to absorb
because we don't collect these things? Not feeling very fiscally
responsive -- responsible for absorbing those things.
MS. FLAGG: The fines belong to the board. Right now the
board, under the current policy, all this minus the underlined section --
the fines that the board is waiving, the board just needs to understand
these are fines that go back to the Unincorporated General Fund to
provide services to community members.
So it's ultimately the board's decision. If they want to give the
new owner an additional 30 days to come into compliance, that's
totally the board's decision.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Case by case.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Diane, did you tell me then that that
-- that your costs are then not covered if they -- if the fines are not
paid?
MS. FLAGG: No. Our costs -- as part of this resolution, our
hard costs are always covered. It's the board's -- the fines represent the
board's revenue. The revenue from these fines go back to the board to
use for services provided to county community members through the
budget process.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, you directed the staff to come back
with options to the existing policy. We've come back with an option
that provides, we think, some grace period for new owners with good
February 14, 2012
intentions to abate the violations but still keeps the hammer down so
that they can't linger beyond 30 days to get the violations abated.
That's the staff recommendation that we've brought to the board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Do we have a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, there's a motion and a
second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor of the motion, please
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes 4 -1.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And Mr. Hamro, who had raised
the issue that we had worked on his case, reviewed what staff did and,
you know, said that it was fair and worked to allow for the process to
continue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There was a statement made that
the taxpayers -- what portion of the taxpayers assume these fines.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That never was answered.
There is no fines that the taxpayers have to pay. There's not.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They don't have to cover any of the
costs that we can't cover?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. Those costs -- staff costs --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Are covered.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- are covered. The fines are a
somewhat -- I mean, you get a speeding ticket or something like that.
I mean, it's a fine, fine or -- how would you say it? It's a --
Page 207
February 14, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's not a fee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's not a fee.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's a fine.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's a fine.
MR. KLATZKOW: The purpose of the fine --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I got to enter into this
discussion.
MR. KLATZKOW: The purpose of the fine is to incentivize the
property owner to comply, because the whole point of code is
compliance.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well -- and the most important
part is -- so there's not a misunderstanding, the taxpayers are not
absorbing. They don't have to pay. It is just a paper wash. It never
was a responsibility of the taxpayers.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry to ask a question at
this late hour, but when you have a bank and you have a foreclosure
and a person -- and my understanding is that they went to the bank,
they bought the property, then they found the fine, and now they
wanted the fine to be able to be taken care of. Normally what
happens, they go to the bank, they find out what it is as far as how
much the property is, then they come here, they find out how much of
a fine there is, they go back to the bank, they remove that much from
it, and everybody's made whole.
So I've got to be honest with you, I didn't put it together in a
timely fashion. I make a motion for reconsideration.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute, wait a minute. You
haven't addressed the issue. Here's what happens. I want to buy this
property. I do a title search, I find out that there's a lien on the
property, and the lien is $50,000.
And so I understand that the county's policy is to waive those
Page 208
February 14, 2012
liens before I acquire the property, so I'll go to the bank and say, okay,
I'll buy it for $50,000 less, and you've got to pay for this lien or you've
got to get it waived or whatever, and now I pay X amount of money
for the building. And what I've taken into consideration is what is it
going to cost me -- after I have gotten the ownership of the building,
how much is it going to cost me to do my portion of that renovation.
And so I make an estimate, okay.
Now it's transferred to me, I own the building, and I go get my
permit. My permit is delayed for 30 or 45 days. The fine keeps
accruing. Why? It's not my fault. I'm willing to start working on the
building to get fixed and fix the reason for the fine, but I can't get it
fixed because I can't get a permit.
And so it goes two months and three months, and suddenly what
I thought was going to cost me $25,000 is now going to cost me
$75,000.
Do you think I'm going to go back and buy another one of those
buildings under any circumstance? What we're trying to do is to place
a limit on how much additional fines are likely to accrue to a person
who buys a piece of property and can't get it done within the period of
time that he anticipated.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Tell them the real story about that,
please.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, I think he's got it, because you're
trying to incentive -- you're trying to find a balance between
incentivizing and disincentivizing. That's what you're debating today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Because as a buyer, if I come in to
purchase a property knowing that there's code - enforcement violations
for an addition that's not been put on with permits --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Knowing that, right?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Knowing that, knowing that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
Page 209
February 14, 2012
MR. CASALANGUIDA: So now I have to decide, it may take
me four months to get my permit, so that means that for four months
I'm going to accrue these fines that, under the current condition, will
not get waived, I may make an offer to the board and say -- not to the
board -- to bank and say, I need probably this much off, which is your
old fines, and a little more because I'm doing my due diligence. It's
going to take me some time.
You had Mr. Hamro say, look, I bought it. I didn't do that -- that
due diligence. It took me a little time. We want to encourage buyers
to come in. The board said, give us another option. So we said, well,
that disincentive period, let's just add 30 more days to it, or take it off,
actually, by adding 30 more days. That will give that buyer a little
more time to go forward and try and get that done.
Some permits may take 90 days. When he goes to meet that
bank person or do the research, he has to take that into consideration,
because it will not always match.
And then item -- and it's not there anymore. Item E says, if for
some weird circumstance he was totally wrong and he tried diligently,
he can come to the board and seek consideration from you for
additional adjustment.
So it's really, as Diane said, a board decision. We're comfortable
with the 30 days. It's not going to make that much of a difference.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But in Mr. Hamrow's case, he didn't
do his due diligence, and he was making an excuse, because the
buyers were sitting right there, and he had to save face; is that correct?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And, ma'am, I don't know the history
on that, Mr. Hamro, but I felt pretty comfortably that I wasn't getting
the full story, but --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: But he made a good presentation, and
leave it at that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, okay. Thank you.
Page 210
February 14, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We already voted.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Four -one.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, that's the next item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, that's the next one.
Okay. We're going to take a break. It's time. Ten minutes. We'll
be back at 5:02.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we're --
Board of County Commission meeting is back in session.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And we have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Henning. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Absent.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes 4 -0 with Commissioner
Fiala being temporarily absent.
MR. MITCHELL: What agenda item?
Item #I OD
Page 211
February 14, 2012
STAFF'S PRESENTATION ON SURFACE WATER
MANAGEMENT ISSUES WITHIN THE GOLDEN GATE
ESTATES AREA — APPROVED
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, I hate to say this, if I
might offer a comment. Clarence Tears has sat here all day long on
the -- getting paid to do it, too. At least let him get up to the
microphone and give us the good news of how everything's coming
together out there.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, and we do have a public speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: On what?
MR. OCHS: I OD.
MR. MITCHELL: On the Golden Gate flooding.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You want to do it before or after
the public speaker?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, real quick. I don't
know if he's still here, Mr. Marker.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Marker.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. He had to leave, and he asked
me to put something on the record. He's the gentleman --
MR. MITCHELL: Oh, okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- who went over this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's do it.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Real quick, since you've approved the
presentation; that's great.
He was at the public petition January 10th. He talked about
flooding in the Estates. We met with him on his property. He's still
not happy in the essence of the flooding issue. We said we'd work
with him in the district to get things resolved. He wanted you to know
that he's encouraged by the letter you've written to the governor asking
to follow those Watershed Management Plans and continue to urge the
district to work with us, and that's all he really wanted to say. But,
Page 212
February 14, 2012
you know, he just wanted to put that on the record, so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did he get to see your report?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: He did. We showed him this, and we
met him on site.
MR. TEARS: Good afternoon, or early evening. For the record,
Clarence Tears, Director of the Big Cypress Basin Southwest Florida
Management District.
I just want to let you know this week, district governing board
approved the cooperative agreement which shows the basin's and
district's commitment to the primary canal system in Collier County,
which averages about 4 to $5 million of expenditures through that
agreement alone.
So, you know, we're committed to improving the primary canal
system in Collier County and do everything we can to protect the
water resources. And we'll continue to work with your staff.
And I think the basin board will be inviting the commission and
the city council to a meeting in April to discuss our regional
water - resource priorities and try to focus on a few major projects in
the region that benefit everybody.
So look forward to that invitation in the near future.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Great job.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: All the cities or just the City of
Naples?
MR. TEARS: Probably the City of Naples and Collier County,
because the primary canal system and everything really focuses on
those -- the city and Collier County as a whole.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was just wondering if you were
going to talk about other water managements. Okay, thank you.
MR. TEARS: You know, on Marco Island, basically we help
them with stormwater and other things, but there's no primary canals
in Marco.
Page 213
February 14, 2012
Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's go to Item E.
Item #I OE
THE "CERTIFICATION FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF
REGULATORY REFORM ACTIVITIES REQUIRED BY THE
STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP (SHIP)"
PROGRAM FOR FY 2006/07,2007/08 AND 2008/09 ANNUAL
REPORTS, AND SUBMISSION TO THE FLORIDA HOUSING
FINANCE CORPORATION TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH
PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS - APPROVED; COUNTY
MANAGER TO SET UP A HOUSING WORKSHOP
MR. OCHS: 10E, sir, is a recommendation to approve the
certification of implementation of regulatory- reform activities required
by the State Housing Initiatives Partnership Program for years 2006
and 7, 7 and '8, '8 and '9 annual reports with submission to Florida
Housing Finance Corporation to ensure compliance with program
requirements.
Ms. Grant, your interim Director of Housing, Human, and
Veteran Services, will present.
MS. GRANT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I do have a
brief presentation. Kim Grant, for the record.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How brief?
MS. GRANT: Or I'd be happy to just take questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Why have these reports not
been submitted? Why are we sending -- you know, why are we
submitting reports in 2012 for 2006/7, '7/'8, and '8/'9?
MR. GRANT: Okay. There are a couple of reasons. First, let
me briefly explain to you the period of time over which these grants
Page 214
February 14, 2012
work.
The '6/'7 funding, each one of these buckets are three -year
buckets of funds. So funding that came to us in July '06 closes out in
June '09, so the '6/7, '7/'8, and '8/'9 are the beginnings of three -year
periods. And we submit closeout reports and seek certifications at the
end of those periods. So we are seeking reports, working backwards,
from June '11. June '10, and June '09.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, but why? I mean, shouldn't
that be done annually? I mean, we've got three --
MS. GRANT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- years.
MS. GRANT: It absolutely should be done annually. And this
has been a consistent audit finding. The short answer as to why they
have not been done is that we required a great deal of assistance from
the grantor agency to help us properly reconcile and account for
program income, which was loan repayments, primarily, and interest
to the proper funding years.
We've been working on that project for over a year, and we've
finally come to a conclusion on that. Going forward, we will be on an
annual basis with accurate reports and done in a timely manner.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And when you filed these reports,
what did you determine? Did you find that there were mistakes and
that it had to be corrected? Is that why we have the next item under F
as the budget amendment to reallocate the dollars and the
carryforward?
MR. GRANT: Great question. The reason for the budget
amendment is throughout all of these years, as repayments came in
and as interest was accrued, the money was going in to the general
SHIP Trust Fund.
Upon completion of the annual reports, we were able to allocate
accurately where those -- the interest and program income belonged
by year.
Page 215
February 14, 2012
The budget amendment is simply to recognize those funds to be
available for use, and let me just summarize very briefly. Those funds
have, all along, been in the SHIP Trust Fund. They have now, by
virtue of the reconciliations and the completion of the annual reports,
provided us a circumstance where we know exactly what funds are
available in that trust fund to be used for the program.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So the failure of having to have
completed those funds basically deprived us of about two - and -a -half
million over those past years when that report was not filed?
MS. GRANT: Had they been done timely, those funds could
have been spent --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Available.
MS. GRANT: -- over those periods, yes, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we haven't lost them, but it's
delayed.
MS. GRANT: Yes, that's correct.
MR. OCHS: And the only problem that creates, Commissioners,
is that there is a spend -down deadline on those funds, so it
compresses, in some cases, that window, and we will be coming to
you at the next meeting with some recommendations in that regard.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So with respect to the next item,
which we're not on, but they seem to be companion items, the 2.5
million carryforward that we now have has not as yet been allocated to
specific projects. We're merely putting it in the carryforward
unallocated, and then you're going to come back to us and give us the
allocations?
MR. OCHS: That's correct, ma'am.
MR. GRANT: That is correct.
MR. OCHS: We're going to come back and make some
recommendations on that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
Page 216
February 14, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning. Seconded by?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just let me ask one fast question --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- to what Commissioner Hiller was
just talking about. So that means you have to spend it quickly, and
sometimes you can't do the research much or anything, so it's going to
go quickly to someplace rather than lose them; is that correct? Even if
we don't need to spend them there.
MS. GRANT: Part of the funding needs to be spent by this June,
and part of it by June of 2013. And we'll be bringing back to you sort
of a portfolio of strategies that we believe gives us our best chance for
meeting the compliance deadlines and would be consistent with the
board's wishes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I make a point? I -- may I
speak?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You know, I -- you raise a good
point, and that is we have to make decisions, you know, of how to
spend the money by certain deadlines and, you know, obviously we're
going to be looking for a specific project. You say -- you raise the
concern that it could be spent on something that we really don't need
to be spending it to make use of those funds.
You know, we're constantly having debates on what is the best
way to spend these monies to benefit the community. Could I suggest
that before we do anything further with any of these funds that we
have a workshop to address the full pool of housing funds that we're
getting from all these sources and have an overview of the pot of
money that we have, you know, the projects that we have pending,
Page 217
February 14, 2012
and make a decision from some comprehensive perspective as to how
to move forward?
And that would probably benefit you, too, Kim, because I know
you're working through all of this and need to get a handle on all that's
open and what the potential is out there. And I think if we had
dialogue through a workshop, it would be beneficial. And incorporate
the community, you know, get the -- get members of the community
to come in, sit in the audience, and give input to us where they have
needs, you know.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I add to that also and say that
as we fund every very- low - income house, for instance, we give them
down - payment assistance and so forth and SHIP down - payment
assistance, we have to remember and take into account something that
never comes before us, but forever after we're going to be providing
those people with healthcare and with food stamps because they're
also very low income, so they qualify for all that stuff.
Certainly, if you're a -- if you mow lawns for somebody, they're
not going to provide your healthcare; we're going to provide it. And,
you know, we ought to take in the ancillaries effects of how much
housing we continue to provide and how much taxpayer dollars go
into taking care of each one of those houses afterwards. Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, I think a workshop is a great idea,
but, Commissioner, I would ask you to still allow us to come forward
at the next meeting --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure.
MR. OCHS: -- with the specific SHIP concern.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I understand. But because you
have a time crunch --
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- on a portion of it.
MR. OCHS: On a portion of it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But for the portion that isn't time
Page 218
February 14, 2012
sensitive, let's go ahead and defer that with everything else so we can
reevaluate where we are looking at it in total and come up with a
comprehensive policy and strategy --
MR. OCHS: Okay.
MS. GRANT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- based on -- because, I mean,
every meeting you're coming back to us with millions here and
millions there, and it's very difficult to tell what's going on.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is that agreeable to the board?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's okay with me.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That would be great.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are we -- I guess we've moved on to E
now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, we haven't voted on this
one.
MR. OCHS: You didn't vote yet on E, sir.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let me just ask. We don't need
any motion on that, do we? Do we just say you've got direction to
pull together a housing workshop for us?
MR. OCHS: I'm seeing at least two nods, maybe --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Three nods.
MR. OCHS: -- three nods. So, yes, we'll do that, ma'am.
Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 219
February 14, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes unanimously.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
Item #1 OF
A BUDGET AMENDMENT REALLOCATING THE EXISTING
BUDGET BETWEEN COMMITMENT ITEMS AND
RECOGNIZING $2,496,614.47 OF CARRY FORWARD FUNDS
FROM STATE HOUSING INITIATIVE PARTNERSHIP (SHIP)
PROGRAM — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: IOF, Commissioners, we've already kind of done
that discussion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning. Seconded by Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. Just to qualify, what you're
going to be bringing forward is recommended budgets for the -- for
those funds that are coming due this year, and then we'll defer making
decisions on the balance after our workshop to decide what makes
most sense?
MR. OCHS: That's fine. We just want to meet the timeliness
requirement.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 220
February 14, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
Item #IOG
PAYMENT FOR WORK PERFORMED PRIOR TO THE START
DATE OF CONTRACT #10 -5514 WITH TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE PROVIDER, FLORIDA HOUSING COALITION
(FHQ IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,377.50 — APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That takes us to G.
MR. OCHS: 10G, and this is another related item that we'll
move as quickly as we can on this. It's a recommendation to approve
payment for work performed prior to the start date of Contract
10 -5514 with a technical- assistance provider, the house -- Florida --
excuse me -- the Florida Housing Coalition in the amount of
$4,377.50, and Kim will explain.
MR. GRANT: Would you like me to give a brief presentation, or
shall I just take questions?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No presentation. A brief explanation
would be nice.
MS. GRANT: Okay. The --
MR. OCHS: Related to the last two items.
MS. GRANT: Right, related to the SHIP contract.
Back in July a contract was drafted and signed by the Florida
Housing Coalition to begin the technical- assistance work that we've
been speaking about so far. They began work in good faith, and we
realized that we were missing one element for the purchasing
requirements, which was an endorsement on their insurance policy.
That was eventually received, and the contract was officially put into
effect in October.
Page 221
February 14, 2012
We very much recognize and respect the need for all the
purchasing requirements, but we respectfully ask today for approval to
pay the SHIP technical advisor for the Florida Housing Coalition for
work performed prior to the receipt of the insurance information in the
amount of $4,377.50.
And the reason -- the reasons for this are, number one, it was an
administrative issue only. We were missing only the additional
insured on the insurance certificate. We were required by the state to
avail ourselves of the technical- assistance services, and they are a
designated vendor. There's no choice as to who you select.
They did provide services in good faith, and the truth is, without
their assistance, we wouldn't be able to have brought to you today the
reconciled annual reports and certifications.
And, finally, this is actually really a very good -news item,
because we will be resolving a long- standing audit finding.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (No verbal response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion passes by --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And this had to come to the
board of commissioners for approval because of -- you couldn't have
just submitted the insurance form and --
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, who made the motion?
MS. GRANT: The insurance form was submitted, and the
contract was fully put in force; however, work had been done prior to
receipt of that form, slash, officially putting the contract in force.
Page 222
February 14, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Boy, somebody's really getting
nit - picky, aren't they?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, they are.
Just to clarify the record, Commissioner Henning made the
motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. Commissioner Hiller seconded it,
and it passed unanimously.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What did you say again,
Commissioner Henning? I wanted to hear it one more time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you very much, Kim
Grant. Great presentation.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners.
Item #101
A TIME EXTENSION AMENDMENT TO AN EXISTING
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH GOODWILL
INDUSTRIES OF SW FLORIDA, INC. IN ORDER TO
COMPLETE RENOVATIONS AT THE ROBERT'S CENTER IN
IMMOKALEE — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 101 -- we're moving to 101, Commissioners. It was
previously -- previously 16D4 on the agenda. This item was moved at
Commissioner Hiller's request.
Ma'am, we can either take your questions or make a presentation,
whichever you'd prefer.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think just taking my questions.
With respect to the subrecipient agreement in the underlying
grant, is there any problem? Because as you pointed out, there's the
Page 223
February 14, 2012
issue of grants having time limits for expenditure. Is there any
problem with approving a time extension with respect to the
underlying grant?
MS. CASTORENA: For the record, Margo Castorena, Housing
and Grants Manager.
No, ma'am, at this point there is no problem with timeliness. We
are anticipating that everything will be finished within the time limits
that we need to make timeliness.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You know, I don't have it in front
of me; I can pull it up. But one of the things, if my memory serves me
correct -- and it may have been on this one or the other one. What I
noticed was that there were -- that these -- there were some
amendments made earlier that had not come to the board, or there was
an amendment on this that had not come to the board that had been
signed by, I think, Marcy. Can you explain that?
MR. GRANT: There had been an extension to the contract that
was signed by Marcy, but then it also did come to the board for
ratification --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
MS. GUNDLACH: -- in the monthly change -order report.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, okay. So that's what I was
wondering about, if it had been subsequently ratified. All right.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we do have, I think, one slight
correction to make as part of this item.
If Kim could give --
MR. GRANT: Yes. I'd like to correct for the record some date --
minor date inconsistencies in what we presented.
For Goodwill Industries, which was previously Item 16D4, we
will adjust the amendment to be extended up to and including April
30, 2012.
MR. OCHS: Instead oV
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Instead of February 29th.
Page 224
February 14, 2012
MS. GRANT: There were -- well, it was -- in the agreement in
one case it was written prior to and in one case it was written through,
so we're just clarifying that it's to April 30, 2012.
And for the Big Cypress item, which is Item 16 -- was Item
16D5, we are extending up to and including March 31, 2012. And
with the County Attorney's Office, we will adjust the agreements
accurately prior to them being executed.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And my question for the next item
was the same as for the previous one. I wanted to make sure that the
underlying grant expenditure deadline wasn't in conflict with the time
extensions on these projects, and to also make sure that any, you
know, act taken by Marcy Krumbine had, in fact, been ratified by the
board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We need to take these in sequence. We
didn't get a motion on "I."
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. But I just want you to
know you can just, you know --
MR. OCHS: Same thing. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Same thing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You didn't correct Robert's Ranch
Center. You need to take that out. That's very confusing. It's not
Robert's Ranch.
MR. OCHS: No, you're right, Commissioner. We noted that on
your change sheet this morning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, I know.
MR. OCHS: Right. But you're right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We need to talk about it now, too.
MR. OCHS: Yes, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So what is the pleasure of the board on
Item No. I? Is there a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
Page 225
February 14, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Hiller, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passed unanimously.
Item #1 OJ
A CHANGE IN PROJECT SCOPE AND A TIME EXTENSION TO
AN EXISTING SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH BIG
CYPRESS HOUSING CORPORATION IN ORDER TO
COMPLETE UPGRADES AT MAIN STREET VILLAGE IN
IMMOKALEE, FLORIDA — APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's go to J. I think we've resolved that
one, too, haven't we?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. Motion to approve. I
mean, yeah, motion --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Hiller, second by Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Page 226
February 14, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are you on to K?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: On to K now.
Item #1 OK
RESOLUTION 2012 -28: EXECUTING DEED CERTIFICATES
FOR THE SALE OF BURIAL PLOTS AT LAKE TRAFFORD
MEMORIAL GARDENS CEMETERY DURING THE 2012
CALENDAR YEAR — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. It's a recommendation to approve a
resolution authorizing the commission chairman to execute deed
certificates for the sale of burial plots at Lake Trafford Memorial
Gardens Cemetery during the 2012 calendar year.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I speak to this since I pulled
it?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Absolutely, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thanks. I think it's important that
people are aware that the county actually has a cemetery, a public
cemetery, out by Lake Trafford. And, you know, in these hard
economic times where, you know, people have to consider afterlife
planning that, as I understand, it's a nice location, it's in nature, and 20
acres. And what are the prices?
MS. MOTT: For the record, Toni Mott, Real Property
Management.
One moment; I have that information. Okay. The cost of an
infant lot is $110.70, a standard lot is one -- I'm sorry -- 387.80, and a
Page 227
February 14, 2012
veteran lot is 161.40.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. So the prices are very
reasonable, and the public is welcome to consider them, purchase
them.
MS. MOTT: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. I'd like to get one, you know, a
nice quiet corner there, preferably unmarked.
Okay. All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye, but I don't know who made the
motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, well. It's not
necessary, that --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I make a motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller made the
motion, Commissioner Fiala seconded.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: (No verbal response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That was --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If people are interested, who do
they contact?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Hiller's office.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, Commissioner Coyle's office.
Page 228
February 14, 2012
He wants the --
MS. MOTT: They would contact Gary Bigelow in Real Property
Management. Our number is 252 -8991.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do you have it on the website.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, good. Thanks. I didn't
look.
MR. OCHS: It's there.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Forgive me.
Item #I OL
REVISIONS TO TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (TDC)
GUIDELINES FOR THE PAYMENT OR REIMBURSEMENT OF
EXPENSES RELATED TO ATTRACTING GROUP MEETINGS
TO COLLIER COUNTY, AND FOR COUNTY FINANCE TO PAY
EXPENSES COVERED BY THESE GUIDELINES UP TO AN
ANNUAL TOTAL PROGRAM COST OF $150,000 — APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're on to Item L.
MR. OCHS: IOL was a recommendation to approve revisions to
the Tourist Development Council guidelines for payment for
reimbursement of expenses related to attracting group meetings to
Collier County and for county finance to pay expenses covered by
these guidelines up to an annual total program cost of $150,000.
This item was moved at Commissioner Hiller's request.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the reason I moved this item,
a citizen specifically said they wanted to talk to this issue. And I don't
know if they signed up or not.
This issue has been vetted by the Tourist Development Council.
And what the citizen brought out was that it would be a really good
idea to basically divide the pot, if you will, from an accounting
Page 229
February 14, 2012
standpoint between the -- help me with the -- I'm terrible with the
nomenclature. The --
MR. WERT: A site visit and a fam visit.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Site versus familiar -- a fam visit,
right. And this is what Mr. Wert very kindly brought back to the
council to clarify the distinction between the two because there was
confusion, and when we basically were amending our guidelines, the
fam visits had not been included, were added, and that we have
clarification that both are considered eligible for reimbursement for
the 150 -. So for accounting purposes, we can ask the finance
department to, you know, identify how -- you know, what type of trip
is being funded to identify, you know, the return on our investment.
So, otherwise, I would make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we do have a public speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Call the public speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: John Lundin.
MR. LUNDIN: Duane Billington also signed up for this, and he
kindly gave me his three minutes.
MR. MITCHELL: But, unfortunately, Mr. Billington is no
longer here, so -- he's got to be in the room to be able to do that.
MR. LUNDIN: He was here a very long time, and --
MR. MITCHELL: That's the board's discretion then.
MR. LUNDIN: And the only reason I need another three
minutes, because I have a short video to show which documents what
a site visit is; otherwise, I would have only taken three minutes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think we know what a site visit is.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, could we allow it,
please?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's not a big deal. I think it's
going to be less than six minutes.
MR. LUNDIN: This is a video that I made at a hotel which
Page 230
February 14, 2012
documents exactly what a site visit is.
(Commissioner Coyle left the boardroom for the remainder of the
meeting.)
(A DVD was played for the record.)
"The Sheridan Maui Resort asked four
summer interns to work in the sales office.
The idea was to get them acquainted with sales
techniques from the ground up. On Day 2, a
320 room -night lead was uncovered.
La Joya Cardiovascular Group was the
client.
Paula, the director of sales and
marketing, followed up to discover more.
Paula clarified the business and discovered
that the decision maker for the group, Terri,
owned a condo on Maui, was planning a visit in
a few weeks' time, and had never been to
Sheridan Maui Resort.
Paula convinced her to see the Sheridan
Maui first. Terri told Paula the group had
spent the last two years on the big island at
the Mauna Moni (phonetic) Bay Hotel. Terri
had the culinary team at Mauna Moni execute
her own signature banquet.
Paula knew that she had found the secret
to Terri's heart. She rolled out this
information to the team and asked for their
input. The team responded by creating the
guests' own Hukilau. A Hukilau, in mainland
terms, is somewhere in between a clambake and
a fishing trip.
Hukilau involves casting a long net from
Page 231
February 14, 2012
shore, then enlisting a large group to help
huki, or pull the net to shore. Our client
watched as 40 vacationers helped haul in the
net and some amazing fresh catch.
The tote was brought ashore and prepared
for Terri table -side.
Flo Sanchez, Sheridan Maui's director of
catering and convention services, hired two
entertainers to play the Hukilau song. Flo
had a private table decorated and set
oceanfront on one of Sheridan Maui's lots.
Terri was invited to watch the ocean roll
in and enjoy the afternoon while executive
chef, Brian Ashlaw (phonetic), prepared her
lunch.
Can you hear these lyrics in your head?
Before dessert was even served, Terri asked
for the contract, and not just for one year,
but for two.
We won her business before the
competition ever had a shot at it. "
(The DVD ended.)
MR. LUNDIN: Thank you for watching that. The reason I
played that video is because that was a video about what a site -visit
inspection is as opposed to what a familiaration (sic) tour is. And in
the tourism industry, they are totally separate events, and they should
not be commingled.
Like -- as you saw in the video, a site visit is a -- specific to one
hotel where the hotel tries to convince just one meeting planner to
book an event that is already scheduled by a corporate entity. Site
visits are fairly inexpensive, and it's a good way to spend the TDC
money, because they usually result in a fairly high definite bookings.
Page 232
February 14, 2012
Now contrasting that, fam tours are totally different and unrelated
to site inspections. Fam tours are -- usually you bring in five to ten
tourism - industry people, and it costs a lot more because you have to
pay for their travel, their rooms, their food and beverage.
And pretty much fam tours are a leftover from when -- the boom
industry of the hotel industry. That's -- there was lots of money back
then to pay for fam tours.
And in my opinion, I've worked on a lot of fam tours at hotels,
and they're just expensive ways for tourism - industry people to take
taxpayer - funded expensive trips if they're funded by tax dollars.
Also, I had a document, expenses for fam tours and site visits on
my job, and I found usually half the people who came to fam tours had
no working relationship with the area they would go to. For instance,
say, if you had a fam tour, you bring in a wedding planner who does
weddings in New York to Naples. Well, a wedding planner in New
York who only books events in New York really has no working
relationship to coming to Naples. And fam tours rarely result in
definite bookings.
Now, Mr. Wert wants to combine the two, but they're totally
different. And if you commingle this $150,000, theoretically you
could be wasting tax dollars by not spending it on site visits, which is
what we want to do. We want to bring groups to Naples to do events
here.
So I recommend that you split $150,000 into two separate
accounts, one for fam tours and one for site tours. This way there's
transparency in how the tax money is spent. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. John, if I may, just a quick
question. Did you go to the TDC and talk to them about it?
MR. LUNDIN: No, I did not.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Because I'll tell you what
happens. They're the people that are quite the experts on it. Their
recommendations come to us. And what you're saying makes total
Page 233
February 14, 2012
sense. But I mean, for us to try to evaluate it on the fly is extremely
difficult.
May I suggest -- I mean, the TDC's always going forward with
different ideas and different directions. Could you possibly make
arrangements with Jack Wert to go before the TDC maybe under
public comments and make this presentation?
MR. LUNDIN: Actually, I would like Mr. Wert right now to
explain if he understands the difference between site tours and fam
tours.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I don't think that's necessary,
John, but what I need you to do, though, is to bring it to the TDC
where they can take it in perspective of everything else they're dealing
with.
MR. LUNDIN: I was working that day. I could not go to that
meeting, so I decided to come here today. Plus, that was an 8 -1 vote
against Commissioner Hiller on that issue, whereas there's five of you
here today, and you might be more open- minded to doing this. You
could send it back yourself if you made a motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let's do this, Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Lundin, where was you
interning or marketing in tourism? What area?
MR. LUNDIN: I've worked in Orlando at about five different
hotels. I worked in Fort Lauderdale at different hotels. I worked in
Hawaii in the Virgin Islands, and I've been involved with site tours
and fam tours in all those locations.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, the Tourist
Development Council by law makes the recommendations for
expenditures, and on there you have, what, two hotelier managers.
MR. OCHS: I think three hoteliers, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Two of them manage a
hotel.
Page 234
February 14, 2012
MR. OCHS: Right, right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And I'm not sure if the
third one does or not. The third one does?
MS. GREENE: The third one does.
MR. OCHS: Yeah, Mr. Miller at Everglades City.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's why I asked for your
background, because I respect these people and their opinions,
because that's their expertise. They're actually, you know, marketing
for their particular resort.
MR. LUNDIN: Well, unfortunately, in my experience, hotel
executives, they love fam tours. They love to bring in tourist - industry
reps because they can get them these free -- taxpayer trips for free to
come to different locations. They're kind of biased.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, what would their benefit
be for the hotel?
MR. LUNDIN: It's a perk for all the tourism - industry people
they're friends with. I'm just saying you need to split up site visits and
fam tours.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. LUNDIN: If you combine the two, like Mr. Wert has
suggested, you're basically commingling the money, and it's easy to
spend the money on fam tours and not spend it on what is much more
efficient as site visits.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I respectfully disagree.
The hoteliers -- and I'll just let it go there. I'm going to support the
motion. The hotel executives at these hotels, those monies are coming
from their hotel, and they want to get the bang for their buck. They
don't want to, you know, waste it on, you know, wining and dining if
there's not going to be a return.
MR. LUNDIN: Well, it is taxpayer money. It's not their money
specifically. It's not coming out of the hotel budget. It's -- you want
to spend $150,000 of taxpayer money.
Page 235
February 14, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I didn't say it was coming out of
hotel --
MR. LUNDIN: Right. I mean, they have no interest not to spend
this money. If it was their money, they would be much more careful
in spending it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you.
Of course, that's the industry I come from, and that's what I did in
part of the time that I was in the industry was conduct these things and
arrange for fam trips or site visits, depending on what we were doing.
Jack, would you come up to the podium for just a minute. They
were always separate, weren't they, at that time?
MR. WERT: At that time, that is correct. For the record, Jack
Wert, your Tourism Director. And yes, in the past -- and I think it's
important that we really clarify here what we're talking about here are
destination site visits or fam trips. What was proposed earlier is -- and
what that video's about, those are hotel fam trips or site visits. There
is a difference.
We are -- and the guidelines are pretty specific. We have to be
on the short list for being considered for a meeting in order for this
planner to even qualify to come on this trip.
They not only see a hotel or multiple hotels, but they see the
destination, and that is our role as your destination marketing
organization for Collier County. We need to show them the rest of the
story, if you will, because the days are gone where people -- our
meeting planners are just selecting a place because of the hotel or the
ballroom or whatever. It is the whole destination that really sets us
apart from some of our competitive destinations that we're going head
to head against all the time for these meetings.
So this is a way to use our dollars to help in the transportation to
get them here. That's the only thing.
There are all kinds of in -kind things that the hotels, restaurants in
Page 236
February 14, 2012
town provide meals, they provide the housing at no cost to these
planners. So they -- this is a joint effort. Yes, we're using some of our
tourist tax dollars, but it is in cooperation with the hotels, with the
restaurants, with the shopping venues and so forth with our attraction
partners to show these planners the whole destination.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. And that's the thing. Some
people think that you only come to Naples, Florida, to see the beach.
They have no idea of the other things we even have to offer. And
when they go see Sun and Splash (sic), for instance, or whatever it's
called, you know, or some of the great things like how the zoo has
expanded and gotten so beautiful. People don't even know we have
that here, and the only way you get to introduce them to that is on a
familiar trip, and -- or -- well, we'll call it a site fam trip because I
guess now -- I'm back from the days when they just called it a fam trip
or a site trip, one hotel and back again versus a whole picture of the
community.
And I think that the hotels want to see this because that's their
dollars. They collect those dollars, and they want to do the best that
they can with those dollars to advertise this destination because their
hotel might be chosen as a place that these people go. And it's very
important to us.
And let's face it, it's very important to our bottom dollar here in
Collier County when these tourists come in and they shop and they eat
out at the restaurants and they rent the cars and they go to some of our
places to enjoy themselves. It's -- this is -- this is important to us.
So I strongly believe it, and I'm glad you've made the motion,
and I go along with it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm passing. I think everyone has
spoken.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: With that, if -- Jack, may I, or did you
have something else?
Page 237
February 14, 2012
MR. WERT: No. I would just like to say that really what this is
all about is getting meeting planners here. Whether we call it a site
visit or fam, it doesn't really matter.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I agree.
MR. WERT: I want to be sure that when the finance department
sees the bills, that regardless of what the planner calls it, it's the same
issue and clarifies with the guidelines that this is what it is. And I
know Crystal and I have had discussions about this. This is really our
guideline. If we go along with these, then they're going to support us.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And, Jack, just for one more -- you
know, you used to -- things used to be a lot more lax, but I think very,
very strict now with who you accept and who you do not.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the TDC has worked very
carefully with Jack and with Crystal to develop the policy in such a
way that it is beefy.
MR. WERT: It is.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You know, it's much more detailed
than I think it's ever been.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Who made the motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think I did.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And did I second?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think you seconded.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Hiller and
second by Commissioner Fiala.
With that, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it unanimously,
Page 238
February 14, 2012
4 -1 (sic) with Commissioner Coyle absent.
MR. WERT: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's move around -- I'll tell
you what, when we get close to six here, I'll ask you if you want to
continue and finish the agenda. I think we're making some pretty
good progress now that Commissioner Coyle's gone.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, we're almost done.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're all the way down to 13.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Really? You should have
accepted that position as chair.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Come on. Let's go.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, you're --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're all the way to 13.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I nominated you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I know you did, and I appreciate it.
Okay. The Airport Authority.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That wasn't political. That was
love.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I know. True love. And it's
Valentine's Day, and I absolutely appreciate it so much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Next item.
Item #13A1
BID #12 -5824, IMMOKALEE RUNWAY 18 -36 LIGHTING
REHABILITATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $1489341 TO
AIRFIELD WESTERN, LLC — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, we're on to Item 13A1, which was
previously 16G2. It's a recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners, acting as the Airport Authority, award Bid No.
12 -5824, Immokalee Runway 18 -36 lighting rehabilitation in the
Page 239
February 14, 2012
amount of $148 -- excuse me -- $148,341 to Airfield Western, LLC.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let me --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Before we begin, there's just
one thing -- and I'll leave this for the next meeting for us to talk about
it some more.
When we have some issues and we have to pull somebody out of
the field to deal with them, especially on consent - agenda items, we
ought to have that option where the person might be able to attend by
phone.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're losing a tremendous amount of
work time in the case of --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, but we should do it by
Skype. I mean, they can actually show up on the screen. It's like
being here. That's the beauty of modern --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Isn't this commissioner
comments?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, you're right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, sorry.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're right. But I just -- I just feel
bad about the fact you've been here so long. Okay. Please go ahead
with your questions.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thanks. I had the opportunity to
speak to Chris about this. The issue that concerned both of us was that
this is a very low bid compared to what is expected to be spent and
what the other bidders have submitted in their -- in their responses to
the RFP.
So what we wanted to get on the record is to be sure that this
company understands that we're not going to tolerate change orders
after the fact unless, I mean, there are truly material changes in
circumstance that warrant it, and we'll look at that with great scrutiny.
So that's all we wanted to do was just to get that on the record.
Page 240
February 14, 2012
This is not going to be a low- balled change -order project. And, of
course, that holds true for all projects, but this one in particular, since
it came in so low.
And that's all I have to say, so I'll make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Hiller, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it 4 -0 with
Commissioner Coyle absent.
MR. CURRY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Next item?
Item #13132
A COMMERCIAL BUILDING IMPROVEMENT GRANT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CRA AND A GRANT
APPLICANT WITHIN THE BAYSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE
AREA. (2464 KIRKWOOD AVENUE - FISCAL IMPACT
$7,787.50) - MOTION TO CONTINUE ITEM UNTIL THE
FEBRUARY 28, 2012 MEETING, UNTIL FINANCE
COMMITTEE GIVES REPORPRECOMMENDATIONS —
APPROVED
Page 241
February 14, 2012
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, your next item is 16B3 --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 13133? 13B1?
MR. OCHS: -- excuse me -- it was 13B2, previously 16B3 on
your agenda.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It was -- they were continued. So
just to confirm, 13B 1 was continued.
MR. OCHS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And 13B2 was continued, and now
we're on 13133. Aren't we?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, had 2 been continued? I don't
recall that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Was 2 continued?
MR. OCHS: No, ma'am. 13B 1 was continued. 13B2 was moved
at your request to the regular agenda.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. Okay.
MR. OCHS: It was previously 16B3.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
MR. OCHS: And that was the item having to do with the
recommendation for the CRA to approve and execute a Commercial
Building Improvement Grant Agreement between the CRA and the
grant applicant within the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle area.
Mr. Jackson is here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please, go ahead, Commissioner
Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
The reason I pulled this item forward is because of the same
reason that I've pulled the other ones forward at past meetings, and
that is we know that there are serious financial problems with the CRA
because of impending debt that we'll be owing Fifth/Third, the
declining revenues, and the lack of adequate collateral due to the
depreciating property values.
Page 242
February 14, 2012
One of the recommendations of the finance committee pending
all of the analysis needed to determine what we need to do to deal
with the CRA's financial position is that we stop issuing these
contracts pending the board's decision on how to determine how we
are going to pay back that debt.
So this goes to the next item too, which is 3, B3, which was
moved from 16134. It's the same thing. It doesn't make a difference
what the amount is. We need to suspend issuing these contracts until
the finance committee comes back to us and tells us how the county is
going to repay Fifth/Third, because right now that hasn't been
answered, and we don't have the money based on our debt obligation.
So I make a motion -- and instead of denying it, we can make a
motion to suspend this until such time as we hear from the finance
committee as to whether or not we have the ability to give these grants
away.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Did you have anything else,
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I talked to legal counsel
on this item. Commissioner Hiller, you've been right all along, and
nobody's been listening to you.
This is a huge problem, and it's better to deal with it now instead
of later on.
So I commend you for your insight on that, and I hope that we
can move forward and deal with this. You know, let's stop all these
grants until the board deals with the loan obligation.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And if I may respond to that;
thank you for your kind words. But the finance committee is going to
be meeting, I believe, on the 17th; is that correct, Leo, Crystal?
MR. OCHS: Yeah, I believe that's right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And they have been working very
Page 243
February 14, 2012
hard at analyzing what's going on and coming up with alternatives,
and they're actually going to be refining their future presentation to us
at that meeting.
So it won't be long till this matter will be coming to us with
options. And, you know, to be prudent, we should just wait, let staff
present, you know, what we can and can't do, and then act accordingly
after that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's go to Commissioner
Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much.
David, you have this money set aside to do this with?
MR. JACKSON: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Secondly, the way I look at
it -- and maybe I look at it in a more optimistic fashion, but I think
each place that is fixed up then will allow us to receive more TIF
money, not only that, but it interests more people in coming to the area
that, again, brings us in more TIF money.
I see already how many places are coming in to change the
building around and start a new business there. It's really -- it really
warms my heart to see all of this work finally -- finally taking wings.
I wouldn't mind -- if you agree with this, I wouldn't mind
continuing it till after the 17th, because I think in the end we're going
to have a positive outcome. I mean, we can't just -- just like they
didn't build any more roads because we might -- you know, way back
in the '90s and we didn't fix the water - treatment plant and didn't fix up
the landfill because something might happen. Well, you know, I think
you also have to have a vision and you have to -- and you have to start
thinking of the future.
And if you've got the money there, I think it's a good
expenditure. But if it isn't going to hurt these projects, I would say I
wouldn't mind continuing them till after the 17th, because I know
you're going to prove right. But I don't want to see things not go
Page 244
February 14, 2012
forward. This is so important to that community. It's the only way --
the only way you can build it up to make it a better place. It's kind of
like you can't just sit in an eggshell and not be allowed to move
forward.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Hiller, was your
motion --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Motion to continue it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- to continue it?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Essentially.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Till the 17th?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, no. The 17th is when they're
going to present to us.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: After the 17th.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: After the 17th.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You know, to after -- to after when
the board has come to a conclusion as to how to handle the debt issues
facing the CRA.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Jackson?
MR. JACKSON: Mr. Jackson, Executive Director of
Bayshore /Gateway Triangle CRA.
Commissioners, what I would recommend is, as we continued
two other items that were grant items to the 28th, that you continue
these two items to the 28th, because that is when the finance
committee will report to you.
You'll receive the finance committee report prior to hearing the
items on the CRA agenda. And at that point in time you can decide
what you -- you can make your decision.
Suspending all programs was an item that I don't know that I
would recommend that you motion and approve here because it wasn't
on the agenda, and the public hasn't had a chance --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That wasn't my motion.
MR. JACKSON: And the public hasn't had a chance to vet it, so
Page 245
February 14, 2012
if -- I would like the motion maker to make it to continue these items
until the February 28th agenda.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yep.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that what you motioned?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That was my motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Continue till the 28th?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, we can continue to the 28th,
and if by the 28th we don't have resolution of this matter, we'll
continue it again. We definitely need to continue it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And both items would apply, but we
can only vote on one at a time here.
MR. JACKSON: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor of the
motion, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it 4 -0 with
Commissioner Coyle absent.
The next item. Go ahead.
Item #13B3
A LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENT GRANT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CRA AND A GRANT APPLICANT WITHIN
THE BAYSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE AREA. (2416
FLORIDA AVENUE — FISCAL IMPACT: $987.05) — MOTION TO
CONTINUE ITEM UNTIL THE FEBRUARY 28, 2012 MEETING,
Page 246
February 14, 2012
UNTIL FINANCE COMMITTEE GIVES
REPORT/RECOMMENDATIONS — APPROVED
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I make a motion to continue the
next item to the meeting of the 28th.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Hiller, second by Commissioner Fiala to continue the
item to the 28th.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What item?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 16134, which is now 13B3.
MR. OCHS: 13133, yes, sir. It's a Landscape Improvement Grant
Agreement.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Last item on your sheet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just want to make sure it's
recorded in the record what we're voting on. That's all.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's fine. Let the record show that
it's 13133, which was formerly 16134.
MR. OCHS: And let me read the title, Mr. Vice Chairman. It's a
recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency to
approve and execute a Landscape Improvement Grant Agreement
between the CRA and a grant applicant within the Bayshore /Gateway
Triangle area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would just like to say one
thing. I remember when Commissioner Hiller was taking a lot of
flack from her colleagues for pointing out this flaw in the CRA.
Anyways.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was constructive.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was constructive.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Constructive or destructive?
Page 247
February 14, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Destructive.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That was destructive, yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. It's getting to be that magic
hour, folks, and I hope everybody's very well entertained.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 4 -0 with
Commissioner Coyle absent.
Item #14
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, that takes you to Item 14 on your
agenda, public comments on general topics.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we've one speaker. That's Roger
Jacobsen.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you for staying this long.
MR. JACOBSEN: Hello, Commissioners. Roger Jacobsen.
Most of you know me as the City of Naples employee. But I'm not
here as an employee; I'm here as a Collier County resident. I'm not
here to complain about anything, and I'm not here to ask for anything.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are you here to wish us Happy
Valentine's Day?
MR. JACOBSEN: That, but then I'll give you something else to
smile about. As you know, I do coach the Collier County Special
Olympics basketball team. This past weekend was the state
tournament in Tampa at USF, and Collier County won the gold medal
Page 248
February 14, 2012
again.
(Applause.)
MR. JACOBSEN: I wanted to give you good news. That's why I
hung around. That's all I got.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was so nice of you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. And thank you for
coaching them.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And if you'd ever like to come back
for a proclamation, we'd love to have them.
MR. JACOBSEN: Thank you. And maybe I'll bring a couple of
the kids in with me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's the idea.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, you should. In fact, the
whole board will give you a proclamation. We'll do it unanimously,
because I think we all unanimously support you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did you announce it to the Daily
News?
MR. JACOBSEN: I have, and I'm going to do it at city council
tomorrow, too.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, great. Did the Daily News
announce it in the newspaper?
MR. JACOBSEN: Well, hopefully city council isn't watching, so
they don't know until I get there tomorrow morning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's great.
MR. JACOBSEN: So thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Anyone else?
MR. MITCHELL: There's no more speakers, sir.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
Page 249
February 14, 2012
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's go to the County
Manager.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Two quick items, Commissioners.
The first one is you recall that Mr. Saunders had addressed the
board a few weeks ago on behalf of the two municipal fire
departments and the North Naples Fire Control and Rescue District
requesting a workshop on the subject of ambulance transports.
The board had directed Mr. Saunders to get letters from those
three entities from their elected bodies demonstrating that -- the
agreement with that approach by those bodies. We have those letters
in hand. I believe Mr. Mitchell has reserved March 5th on your
calendar for that workshop.
My question to the board is one of format, Commissioners.
Obviously, you had three agencies approach you. It's a topic that I'm
imagining all the fire departments in the county would have some
interest in. My specific question is, do you have a preference on who
you want sitting at the table and who do you want in the audience?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Somebody could take my seat.
I think this is not a very productive workshop myself.
MR. OCHS: My thought was, perhaps, we'll get one elected
official and the chief from the respective department to sit at the table
with the County Commission and myself and --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think that makes sense.
MR. OCHS: The only question is, do you want to reserve space
for every district or just the three that petitioned the board for this
transport question?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, I --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think you open it to everybody.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Invite them all.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You've got it right; all of them.
MR. OCHS: Okay. Then on that -- if we do that, I might further
Page 250
February 14, 2012
suggest that we hold the workshop at the large conference room on
Horseshoe Drive where we have the capability to broadcast live, but
it's a much bigger room. It would be -- it would be virtually
impossible to get everybody in a good position in this room in a
workshop setting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's good.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Leo, the discussion's going to be
limited, or can we get into other issues like the consolidation?
MR. OCHS: Sir, you know, it's -- they've asked for the
workshop. I have not seen any of the proposals yet, so --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But we're a party to it.
MR. OCHS: I understand. You can direct, obviously, whatever
you would like me to direct them to cover. But they had asked
specifically to talk to you about the prospect of the two municipalities
in North Naples doing their own ambulance transports. I think that is
the primary topic of discussion for them.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But it doesn't have to be the only one.
I, personally, would like to see -- the public's had a great interest in
consolidation. I'd like to see that on there, even if it only takes a small
part of the meeting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let's face it, it was brought up this
morning.
MR. OCHS: That's fine, sir. I'm looking for board direction so I
can get with Mr. Saunders.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go right down the line.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: In terms of what would be better
for the workshop?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, the workshop we're talking
about now.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I guess we should maybe
bifurcate the issues. I think if we combine the two, we'll lose focus on
Page 251
February 14, 2012
one or the other and get nowhere. So it may be better -- and I know
that it takes more time, but maybe have a series of workshops and just
focus on the issue of transport right now. And I think transport is very
important because, you know, it's an immediate public - safety concern.
We need to provide, you know, the best possible service.
So I would hate to see the discussion of transport basically not
given the consideration it's due because we start talking about
consolidation.
And then I think we should have a separate workshop about
consolidation and, you know, EMS and the bill -- and maybe what we
do is for that second workshop is wait til the bill is approved by the
House and the Senate to make sure we know what the law is and what
we're talking about, and then bring that forward for discussion with
the districts.
So maybe the first workshop we leave to the two or three that
wanted to talk to us specifically about transport, and then have a later
one with the others about consolidation.
MR. OCHS: Well, we can invite all the districts to the table but
limit the topics essentially to that --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, or limit the discussion.
MR. OCHS: -- that item.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Or limit the discussion to
transport.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Let's say that the -- as we
heard this morning from the head of one of the fire unions, they're
talking about consolidation. And if they're talking about consolidation
and that consolidation includes EMS, it's kind of interesting if we
make -- vote on something or at least make a decision to go forward
with one thing, and then here they're planning on consolidating the
whole thing together.
Page 252
February 14, 2012
We're kind of wasting time doing the one. Maybe we could either
-- right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. We're wasting our time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But the only reason we probably
need to talk about transport is transport is an immediate issue. The
time it will take to do the program, to get consolidation and get it to
referendum could take, you know, a year or two years even though the
steps are underway, and in the meantime we haven't done anything to
address transport.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. I'm going to ask you, please,
just be recognized.
It's Commissioner Henning's turn next.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And so let me just finish.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, I'm sorry. Forgive me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I don't know if we should
combine them together or if -- but if we have two separate, I think we
should first do the consolidation one before we get into the transport
one, because one will -- might just cross out the other one.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just go to the meeting and tell
them, "Go consolidate, and don't come back until you consolidate."
They're always skirting this issue. They're trying to play with the
millage. You know, we said a long time ago, is you go -- you guys go
consolidate. Go play nice and consolidate. We'll give you EMS so
you can provide efficient, economically and -- better for the citizens, a
better delivery product.
If you consolidate, send one vehicle to some of those calls
instead of one of those large trucks, okay, and we keep on going all
the way around it. And the real issue is consolidation. Do it one
service.
So we're not going to get anywhere with this "North Naples, I
Page 253
February 14, 2012
could always do it better." They could always do it better. North
Naples, I've heard them; they're the best. I've also heard it from
Golden Gate and East Naples and the rest of them. They're all really
good. But the issue is consolidate, provide a better service to the
citizens. Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So what do you think about the
workshop?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's a waste of time, and I told
you that a long time ago. I told them to go consolidate. I'm going to
say the same thing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So should we have the workshop on
consolidation then first?
MR. OCHS: Ma'am?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There you go.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, with respect, I mean, what you were
-- what you were asked to do was to schedule a workshop to hear a
presentation on ambulance transport service proposals from those
three entities. What you told him was you would do that if you got a
letter from the elected officials of those entities confirming that that's
what they wanted to talk about, and I'm telling you today I have those
letters.
So if you're going to change the topic, we ought to at least
consult with those three entities, because that's not what -- I don't
believe what they signed on to have a workshop.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We need to put consolidation on
there, because that is truly serving the citizens instead of this shuffling
-- shuffling around. Just tell them --
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. I'm not arguing with you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'm going to interrupt everybody
for a minute. We're going back and forth, back and forth, and I'm
hearing you.
Commissioner Henning's right, but in order to get them to the
Page 254
February 14, 2012
table, we're going to have to talk their subject too. So let's combine
the two items together, and we have one where we talk about
consolidation and the efforts, and then, two, they can talk about how
the ambulance service would be beneficial.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So divide the topics in two in one
workshop --
MR. OCHS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- so you can have, you know,
Topic 1, and then, boom, finish that topic and then move to Topic 2 so
we're not jumping back and forth and we have, you know, distinct -- a
clearly - defined agenda.
MR. OCHS: Very good.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think that works. How about you,
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, could you
agree to that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, consolidation first.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, really, you're right. Yeah, I
agree.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. That's fine. Yeah, and tell
them it's not meant as an affront. It's just meant that we want to try to
do the people's business in an orderly way, and we're willing to listen
to them.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So then should we postpone the
workshop until the workshop has been approved?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Indefinitely.
MR. OCHS: Well, I don't think they set the meeting date. I
think Ian was holding that open. I don't think there's anything magical
about doing it on March the 5th. You can hold it later.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't think the bill matters.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, we can -- well, we -- yeah,
Page 255
February 14, 2012
because that --
MR. OCHS: If you'd like to wait till after the legislative --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- will tell us how --
MR. OCHS: -- session concludes, we can schedule it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- we can consolidate.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's fine. I mean, if they're
agreeable to that, then I'm fine with it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That solves the consolidation.
MR. OCHS: That's probably a good idea. Why don't we look
for a date that gets us past the legislative session.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're right. One at a time now.
Okay. I'm sorry about that. I let it get away for a minute. I won't
again. That's why I've got this magic instrument.
I didn't say you could speak. Watch it. I'm watching you every
minute, sir.
You got anything else?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir. The original question that the
county manager asked you, would you prefer it here or would you
prefer it at Horseshoe Drive?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Horseshoe Drive.
MR. OCHS: And are we in agreement we're going to look for a
date past the conclusion of this year's legislative session?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Look into 2013.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll look for a date, a realistic date.
MR. OCHS: Okay. Thank you, Commissioners. That was
wonderful.
This next one should be a little bit easier. We also have a separate
workshop date scheduled for the board on March the 20th for you to
hear the EAR -based amendments that will be coming to you for
transmittal in late March, probably the second meeting in March.
Staff believes, you know, with some parameters around this, we
could handle this as an agenda item instead of dragging you out for a
Page 256
February 14, 2012
separate workshop.
It depends on how in depth you want to get. But you recall, you
know, we tried this the last year with the AUIR and the CEI, and it
worked out fairly well, but it's the pleasure of the board. We obviously
have the time reserved for a workshop. I was speaking with Nick
about it. I think he believes the content of the EAR -based
amendments is not that difficult and could probably be handled as a
regular agenda item. But I wanted to -- Nick, anything to add on that?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is this where the RLSA --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hold it, hold it. I'm sorry. Let Nick
go first, then I'll recognize you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. Commissioners, what we could
do is get you the information early, get your feedback, and so we
maybe talk on specific topics. Usually Mr. Bosi does an introduction
which lasts 15 minutes, and then we go into each sub - element in a
workshop format. Where this EAR was, I would say, pretty
rudimentary kind of cleanup, we might be able to handle is as, you
know, a regular agenda item.
So if we send it to you early, you have a chance to review it, and
then we get the feedback and we're prepared to talk specifically about
those topics you have questions on, that's maybe a proposal you may
enjoy, eliminate a meeting.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Hiller, then
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. Is this going to
include the RLSA amendments?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: When are those coming up?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Those are separate. We still have to
figure out the RFP. That has to go out for the independent consultant.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So that will not be included in this
discussion?
Page 257
February 14, 2012
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am.
MR. OCHS: Nick, do we need to address the public - petition
item, though, today in the EAR -based amendments?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. We're going to bring it back --
MR. OCHS: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- and then let the board decide if
that's going to come as part of the EAR.
MR. OCHS: Okay. So that might be -- just that specific piece.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The TDR -- the TDR?
MR. OCHS: The early -entry bonus.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, not only the early entry, but
that whole program, make sure that it's working the way we intended
it to. Make sure we don't have to tweak it, look at price and so forth.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. So it's -- the idea is, we can do
this maybe a half hour, 40 minutes as a regular board agenda or, you
know, we schedule -- if you go in through -- by piece, it could be a
four -hour workshop, because we do break it out into, you know
separate segments. But Mike said it's been cleanup, and it's been
going through the EAC and the Planning Commission pretty
smoothly. So we wanted to give you that as an option.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Agenda item.
MR. OCHS: Yeah.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Anything else, Commissioner
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
MR. OCHS: Is that consensus?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah.
Any other items, Leo?
MR. OCHS: No, sir, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: County Attorney?
Page 258
February 14, 2012
MR. KLATZKOW: Oh, no.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning, we'll
start with you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm six minutes late.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Give me just one minute for what I've
got. Do you have anything at all?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
(Commissioner Henning left the boardroom for the remainder of
the meeting.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I appreciate your patience.
Today we approved the revised posting of certain bridges due to
their age, and at the last meeting we approved the reconstruction of
two aging bridges on Golden Gate Boulevard.
I know soon that we will be hearing the White Boulevard's bridge
reconstruction project. It includes the construction of a new bridge on
23rd for maintenance of traffic and consistency with our bridge study.
Many residents continue to contact me about the early
construction of 23rd Street bridge as we prepare to rebuild White. In
recent discussion with the budget office, we've been told that our
revenues continue to decline, and impact fees are also declining.
Due to continued revenue reductions, I would like to ask staff to
revisit our options on the 23rd Street bridge to see if we can evaluate a
temporary bridge again.
My concern is that the funding of the 23rd Street bridge and the
associated improvements now could jeopardize other projects like
Golden Gate Boulevard and the Collier Boulevard.
I'd like to get a consensus for us to ask staff to reevaluate the
options, put in a temporary bridge on 23rd, and bring that back for our
review at the next meeting.
Now, we've been through this a dozen times, and every time we
were right on focus that we had to do the whole situation at one time.
The 23rd bridge was going to be a permanent bridge. We were going
Page 259
February 14, 2012
to redo the whole street over to be able to accommodate the bridge
being there; however, with that said, millions of dollars were going to
be spent to be able to meet the needs of the residents, money we no
longer have.
Now, they come back to me from budgeting and they're telling
me that they have to cut projects all over the place. If we cut this one,
I can keep everything else on schedule, but we need to be able to get it
before us again for consideration, and I'd like your permission to ask
staff to bring it back.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, that's fine.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It should be brought back.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You've got three nods.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Great.
MR. OCHS: Will do, sir. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Donna.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. This is for you. I'm sorry,
I've got quite a few things, but I'll make them very quick, if I can.
I've gotten a few complaints from residents talking about the
people that are dancing around the sides of the street holding signs,
and then I had some people coming into my office on Marco talking
about the same thing.
But they offered a solution. They said, you know, it really
doesn't -- it really kind of cheapens the city to have those people
dancing around. Not only that, but people look away from the road
that they're supposed to be watching to look at the people holding the
signs.
They say that the reason that that began in the first place was
because the county suggested -- instead of having the sandwich boards
down closer to the street where people could see them, we put them by
the front door. But the thing is, the front door could be 30 feet back
from the road. Nobody can see the sandwich signs anyway, so they
Page 260
February 14, 2012
were asking if, instead, we have the dancing people -- if they could
just put the sandwich signs back.
Now, I realize we cannot make a decision or anything. I was just
wondering if anybody wants to bring it back and talk to it -- talk about
it. I haven't even talked with Diane Flagg about this. I just thought I'd
bring it up and see if anybody would be interested.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. There's a First Amendment
issue with that. There are time, place, and manner restrictions which
are and are not acceptable, and those people holding signs to promote
businesses is considered commercial speech. And so --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- if anything, I would say we have
to be very careful on what type of restrictions we impose, and I would
ask the county attorney to comment.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me add to that, and that is --
because I said the same thing to the people that came into my office.
And they said, so if we had to decide between a sandwich board or
people dancing, it's much cheaper for us to print a sandwich board and
put -- and I said, it can't be in the right -of -way and it can't be, you
know, in the sidewalk. It has to -- you know, you have to give (sic) it
away from the street so that it provides clear passage and it's not in our
right -of -way.
They said, just so that we could have a sign that's visible from the
street so we don't have to be paying somebody to dance around.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let's try this. Let's talk to Jeff.
My understanding was a First Amendment right, too.
Jeff, what can you tell us?
MR. KLATZKOW: I had asked the board some time ago if you
would be interested in a broad prohibition of soliciting within the
county's right -of -way, which would be from the sidewalk all the way
in -- that would include everything -- and the board was not interested
Page 261
February 14, 2012
in that, primarily because of -- the boot truck might be affected.
But if you direct me, I'll come back at a future meeting in an
executive summary and fully flesh out the issue. It won't be the next
meeting, ma'am, but --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, no. That's all right. Just
sometime.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I tell you where I am on this right
now. I'm extremely troubled by this, because I know these businesses,
these small businesses that are doing it, are doing it out of absolute
necessity to try to make the ends meet. It's an extremely effective
means of advertising.
If we're going to do it, maybe we could phase it in so it happens
at a point in time in the future when the economy is a little bit better.
But right now, if you were to cut it off, it would be like -- when you
live up north when you're feeding the birds, in February stop putting
the seeds out there and see what happens.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, see, these were mom - and -pop
businesses that called on me and who have written me because they
feel it's cheaper for them -- they'd still get their signage. They'd still
get it out near the road. They would still have their freedom of
speech. It would just be that they didn't have to pay somebody. It
would cost them less.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Especially when you're just selling
hot dogs or ice cream cones or cupcakes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So I see what you're saying.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We bring it back, we've got time to
consider it, we've got a chance for the public to be able to interject
their feelings on it. That's fine.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't have a problem. We need one
Page 262
February 14, 2012
more nod to make it work.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You've got three nods.
MR. KLATZKOW: I just need two now.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: My second one is -- and I think
Commissioner Hiller and I are on the same track, so what I wanted to
do was discuss Dr. Tober's -- we've never done an evaluation on him
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- actually, and we -- his contract is
automatically renewed every year. He's been under contract for, what,
20 years? And it's just automatically renewed. And I think that
maybe we ought to be taking a look at that. And so I was just
wondering if anybody else agreed with me.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I absolutely agree with you. And
since we need two nods, and you're nodding and I'm nodding, I
suggest we bring Dr. Tober's contract -- well, we should, one, evaluate
him and, two, I think we should open up his position for bid. Or
maybe not evaluate him, just open up his position to bid.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You know, may I make a suggestion?
Why don't you have this on the next agenda and deal with it then.
There's only three of us here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And on this one here, I'd rather not do
it without giving it some more thought to even direct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just put it on the agenda.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Yes, because you had no
forewarning. That would be fine.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So why don't you bring it back on
the next agenda.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I will. I'd like to put it on the next
Page 263
February 14, 2012
agenda, please, okay.
MR. OCHS: Sure. Under Item 9, we'll help you, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Very good. Okay.
Next I wanted to tell you a good -news item, and that is that the
Treviso Bay people have come forward, and they are going to put up a
traffic light at Whistler's Cove, Southwest Florida Boulevard, Trail
Acres area. That's where the woman just got killed a few weeks ago
and where the 11 th grader had severe head trauma when he was
smashed into by a car, and they've also had many accidents.
Treviso Bay came into my office on Wednesday and offered to
pay for this thing right now. It was in their contract, but many years
down the road, to put a light there, but they've just stepped that up.
They've already talked with FDOT and gotten their nod of approval,
and I'm just proud of that, and I wanted to tell you about that.
Oh, there's so many other things, but --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Three items, Donna. That was the
limit.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. I don't dare stop you. Keep
going.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let's see. Oh, gosh. There was
something else.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Take your time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Happy Valentine's Day?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. Tow truck rates. I had people
in from the tow truck rates, and they were saying that -- they even felt
that the tow truck rates that we're charging were really high. They said
they really just came in to get rates for abandoned cars, and what they
got was, they walked home with the prize. We have a higher rate than
anybody else.
And according to WINK News, it's higher than Lee County, and,
you know, they really -- nobody's going to fight about getting a lot
Page 264
February 14, 2012
more money, but it's been very difficult for people who've been in an
accident or something and their car has been towed away. In some
instances they say they were never given a choice. You know, it's one
person's word against another. I've had a number of complaints saying
they weren't even asked if they could use AAA.
So there they are, towed away. And then they've had to lose their
car because they couldn't pay for the tow rates and the storage.
And when they've called, if it costs $470 to tow it to -- and store
at a tow truck place, just the towing alone, I guess, was four and a
quarter. But if you call the tow truck company and just have them
come out but it isn't the cops calling them, it's $90. It's a tremendous
difference.
And so they were asking if we could possibly explore and maybe
adjust them downward somewhat. They're not asking us to break the
bank, but they're saying adjust them downward so it's fair to the
people who are already a victim of the accident. And so I was going
to ask you about that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, don't stop until you find out if
we've got direction on it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have no problem bringing that back.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I had one more.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You've got to ask the lady next to you
how she feels.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I support everything Donna says.
Consider this the two - cats -in -a -block vote.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, that's fine. So you want us to come
back on executive summary on the issue? Do you want to -- some sort
of review of other jurisdictions' rates or --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I even talked to the head
of the tow truck, like -- I don't know if he's a union, but he kind of
heads the tow truck guys around in a region. I had his card
Page 265
February 14, 2012
someplace. And he even said -- I guess he works for Bald Eagle, but
he also works as, like -- not a union boss, but a guy that heads the tow
truckers, and he even agreed that the rates were rather high. And he
would be happy to talk with you and put something together. He said
just call him.
MR. KLATZKOW: Again, are you asking us to come back with
a survey of other jurisdictions' rates? These are your rates that you set
after public hearing, all right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I understand that.
MR. KLATZKOW: We can lower those, that's fine.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How long ago were those rates
set?
MR. KLATZKOW: Maybe nine months ago.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, really?
MR. KLATZKOW: We're happy to come back. I'm just looking
for direction. Do you want us to come back on executive summary to
review the rates?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: With a new plan once you talk with
these people.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I think what you suggested,
Jeff, which is to do a market analysis and see what other jurisdictions
charge to make sure that what we're charging is not excessive, and if it
is, that we have the opportunity to adjust, that would make sense.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And this guy would even do it for
you. Because he said it depends on who you ask as to what figures
you come out with, right? Yeah. And so he said he would even help
you with that, and he would do some of the work -- background for
you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So you got your direction?
MR. KLATZKOW: I guess, yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, great.
What else you got on that list of yours?
10 :- •i
February 14, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I can't remember. I might have
to come back. Public vetting.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll come back to you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. I've got it. Last one, last
one. Sorry about that, guys.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Planning communities. I am talking
to our staff about planning communities within our county. They're
rather odd shaped right now and oddly distributed. And on the heels
of the census -- and the planning communities haven't been adjusted
since 1985, I think maybe it's important for us to have a public vetting.
I've been working with Nick, and I've been working with Leo.
They've come up with some very interesting information. And I don't
think -- how many of you even work with the planning communities?
I was -- I don't ever. And I don't know if anybody else does. Is there
really even a need for them? I don't know that.
But maybe Nick and Leo could come back and give us a report.
You want to say something right now?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We'll come back if you want to.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Okay. And in that report I
want to know what they've done to help the BCC in our decision
making, okay. Thank you.
MR. OCHS: We'd be happy to do that, ma'am. It's a good time to
look at them on the heels of the census. It's been a long time since
we've taken a good look at the number and what they actually are
designed to accomplish.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you know there's a Royal
Fakapalm that has 9,000 people in it?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I did not.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner --
Page 267
February 14, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm glad we don't have
commissioner trivia.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
Well, first of all, I want to begin by saying happy Valentine's
Day to everybody.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Happy Valentine's Day.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think that's very important. We
haven't had an exchange of good wishes, and to share with you that
my son was asked in school to write a love poem, and so he did, and
it's for you -all, especially you because you guys are running for
election.
So I'm going to read it. And it's by George, not me, George
Hiller. It's called the "Love Caucus."
"Republicans are red.
Democrats are blue.
If you were a candidate.
I would vote for you.
Incumbent or not.
Doesn't matter to me,
Washington to Camelot.
You'd hear cheers from sea to shining sea!
Your opponents are few and far between.
Boy, they are really losing steam.
My love for you is like a candidate's debate.
Once it starts, my mind just can't escape.
You're the front runner with my heart,
I wish you well; take good care of every part.
So, my darling, when it finally comes to election day,
Remember what I had to say:
'Hey! Make sure you vote the right way!"'
And so that is to the Board of Commissioners from my son,
� •i
February 14, 2012
Happy Valentine's Day, love George.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Tell him thank you. We send our
love back.
COMMISSIONER HILLER;
Coyle and give it to Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
And you can give it -- give it to
Got one on him.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, and give one to Henning.
So you can't say I didn't give you -all something on Valentine's Day.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would prefer a heart with candy,
but this is good.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I'm sure you would.
All right. And I really don't have any comments. I'm very happy
that we finished this early. I think it was very positive, and I can't
believe I'm not coming back. I was worried what dress I was going to
wear to top this red.
MR. MITCHELL: We're actually going to turn the lights back
UP.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's that?
MR. MITCHELL: We're going to turn the lights back up.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Don't you dare. Don't you dare.
Don't even think of it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One quick last thing before I forget.
Cumulative- effects study. My understanding is is that this is on the
interchange on 75, possibly Everglades Boulevard; hasn't been
decided totally yet. We passed it. We -- there's no serious objections.
From what I understand, negative consequences would come if the
interchange was there or wasn't there. But we'll be hearing more
about it next Tuesday, is it?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thursday. Thursday we have a
meeting.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In any case. No, that's okay, Nick.
That's close enough.
Page 269
February 14, 2012
And with that, unless Crystal's got something she wants to add to
this.
MS. KINZEL: Just Happy Valentine's Day, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, thank you very much. We're
adjourned.
""Commissioner * *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
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR MORAYA BAY BEACH TOWER, 11125 GULF
SHORE DRIVE, TOWER AND RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR
THE DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED AGENT — ON -SITE WATER
AND SEWER UTILITIES WILL BE MAINTAINED BY OWNER
Item #I 6A2
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR GATEWAY SHOPPES AT NORTH BAY, 13565
TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH, AND RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR
THE DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED AGENT — ON -SITE WATER
AND SEWER UTILITIES WILL BE MAINTAINED BY OWNER
Item #I 6A3
AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
NAPLES AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR CONTRACTOR
Page 270
February 14, 2012
LICENSING BY COLLIER COUNTY FOR THE CITY OF
NAPLES — A CONTINUATION OF LICENSING REGULATION
AND INVESTIGATION FROM PREVIOUS YEARS
Item #I 6A4
THE RELEASE OF A $102,400 LIEN FOR PAYMENT OF
$25,800, IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION ENTITLED
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS VS. JOSEPH H.
DEROMA LIVING TRUST LTD., CODE ENFORCEMENT
SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CASE NO. CEPM- 2009 - 0008163,
RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 836 96TH AVENUE
N., COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA — PROPERTY WAS
ACQUIRED BY FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORP.
AND BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE ON OCTOBER 10, 2011
Item #I 6A5
A BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING REVENUE FOR
PROJECTS WITHIN THE TRANSPORTATION SUPPORTED
GAS TAX FUND (313) IN THE AMOUNT OF $442,461.37 —
FUNDS TO BE TRANSFERRED INTO THE FOLLOWING
PROJECT ACCOUNTS: FAIR SHARE INTERSECTIONS, PUD
MONITORING /TRAFFIC COUNTS, COUNTYWIDE
PATHWAYS AND TIS REVIEW
am:3� • 41
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) #11 -5677 "GROWTH
MANAGEMENT DIVISION PLANNING AND REGULATION
STAFFING" TO NOVA ENGINEERING AND
ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC. IN AN ANNUAL AMOUNT NOT TO
Page 271
February 14, 2012
EXCEED $100,000 — ASSISTING STAFF WITH BUILDING
PERMIT INTAKE, REVIEW AND INSPECTION SERVICES AS
WELL AS PLANNING, ZONING, ENGINEERING AND
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS
Item #I 6A7
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF TRADITIONS, THE
VILLAS AT GREY OAKS, APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD
FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY - DEVELOPER MUST RECEIVE A CERTIFICATE
OF ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES PRIOR TO THE
ISSUANCE OF THE CONSTRUCTION PLAN FINAL
APPROVAL LETTER
Item #16A8 — Continued to the February 28, 2012 BCC Meeting
(Per Agenda Change Sheet)
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF ARTHREX COMMERCE
PARK, WHICH HAS BEEN REVISED FROM THE PLAT WHICH
WAS APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS ON DECEMBER 13, 2011, APPROVAL OF
THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #I 6A9
THE COUNTY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO PROCEED WITH
THE ALTERNATIVE #2 DESIGN OF A PATHWAY
CONNECTION ON THE NORTH SIDE OF IMMOKALEE ROAD
Page 272
February 14, 2012
CONNECTING EAST AND WEST OF I -75 — THE PROPOSED
ALIGNMENT IS AWAY FROM THE ROAD ON THE NORTH
SIDE OF THE CANAL
Item #16A10
POSTING LOAD RESTRICTIONS OF "SINGLE UNIT TRUCK:
28 TONS" AND "COMBINATION TRUCK: 31 TONS" ON
BRIDGE NUMBERS 030138, 030139, 030140 AND 030141 EAST
OF S.R. 29 ON IMMOKALEE ROAD; AND POST LOAD
RESTRICTIONS OF "SINGLE UNIT: 29 TONS" ON BRIDGE
NUMBER 030161, ON C.R. 29 OVER CHOKOLOSKEE BAY.
PROJECT NUMBER 66066
Item # 16A 11
RECOGNIZING LOCAL GRANT MATCH REVENUE
TOTALING $21,206 AND FEDERAL TRANSIT
ADMINISTRATION (FTA) SECTION 5303 PROGRAM GRANT
REVENUE IN THE AMOUNT OF $239,831 WHICH WILL
ESTABLISH THE REMAINING FY 2011/12 METROPOLITAN
PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO) BUDGET; AND ALL
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS — AS DETAILED IN
THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16B1 - Continued to the February 28, 2012 BCC Meeting
(Per Agenda Change Sheet)
A SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CRA AND A GRANT APPLICANT WITHIN THE
BAYSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE AREA. (3042 COTTAGE
Page 273
February 14, 2012
GROVE AVENUE — FISCAL IMPACT: $2,258.33)
Item #16132 - Continued to the February 28, 2012 BCC Meeting
(Per Agenda Change Sheet)
A SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CRA AND A GRANT APPLICANT WITHIN THE
BAYSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE AREA. (2718 GULFVIEW
DRIVE — FISCAL IMPACT: $8,000)
Item #16B3 — Moved to Item #13B2 (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16134 — Moved to Item #13B3 (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item # 16C 1
SELECTION COMMITTEE RANKINGS AND ENTER INTO
NEGOTIATIONS WITH AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.,
CDM SMITH INC., AND HOLE MONTES, INC. FOR THREE
CONTRACTS FOR REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 11 -5782,
"WASTEWATER BASIN ANALYSES," PROJECT NUMBERS
700435 700449 70046, 700505 70051, AND 70064 — EXAMINING
INFRASTRUTURE NEEDS WITHIN EACH BASIN BY
INCORPORATING MULTIPLE TECHNICAL SUPPORT
PROJECTS
Item #16C2
REMOVING UNCOLLECTIBLE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE
AND THEIR RESPECTIVE BALANCES FROM THE FINANCIAL
RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES
DIVISION IN THE AMOUNT OF $4235644.77 — FOR ACCOUNTS
Page 274
February 14, 2012
REACHING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR
COLLECTIONS, COMMERCIAL ACCOUNTS THAT WENT
OUT OF BUSINESS, STAFF ERRORS AND NSF CHECKS THAT
ARE NOT COLLECTIBLE
Item # 16D 1
INVITATION TO BID #12 -5799 "SENIOR FOOD PROGRAM ";
TO GA FOODS, INC. TO PROVIDE HOME DELIVERED AND
CONGREGATE MEAL SERVICES FOR ACTIVITIES FUNDED
THROUGH THE OLDER AMERICANS ACT AT AN
ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST OF $360,000 — SERVING 70,000
MEALS EACH YEAR, 40,000 ARE SERVED TO CONGREGATE
CLIENTS AND 30,000 ARE SERVED TO HOMEBOUND
CLIENTS
Item #I 6D2
ITB #12 -5810 TO TAYLOR- PANSING, INC. FOR
CONSTRUCTION SERVICES TO EXPAND THE LOUISE HASSE
COMMUNITY CENTER AT MAX HASSE COMMUNITY PARK
IN THE AMOUNT OF $450,333 — TO ACCOMMODATE THE
CHILDREN'S RECREATIONAL PROGRAMMING
Item #16D3
A SECOND AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT WITH
THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE FOR THE
CONTINUED USE OF COUNTY -OWNED OFFICE SPACE AT
THE COLLIER COUNTY AGRICULTURE CENTER FOR A
FIRST YEAR REVENUE OF $215199.28 — EXTENDING THE
Page 275
February 14, 2012
LEASE TERM FOR AN ADDITIONAL FIVE YEARS WITH A
FIVE YEAR EXTENSION AND INCREASING THE ANNUAL
RENT EACH YEAR BY 4% OVER THE PREVIOUS YEAR'S
RENT
Item # 16D4 — Moved to Item # 101 (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item # 16D5 — Moved to Item # I OJ (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item # 16E 1
THE ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT FROM E.B. SIMMONDS
ELECTRICAL, INC. TO SIMMONDS ELECTRICAL OF NAPLES,
INC. AS IT RELATES TO CONTRACT #09 -5325 "ON -CALL
ELECTRICAL REPAIRS AND NEW INSTALLATIONS",
CONTRACT #10 -5503 "INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE
OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND ROADWAY LIGHTING", AND
CONTRACT #11-5747 "NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER
TREATMENT PLANT (NCRWTP) MAIN ELECTRICAL
SWITCHGEAR REPLACEMENT." — DUE TO THE PURCHASE
OF E.B. SIMMONDS ELECTRICAL ASSETS ON DECEMBER
23, 2011
Item #I 6E2
THE HOURLY BILLING RATE AND PAYMENT OF ANY
ASSOCIATED INVOICES FOR TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES
HIRED UNDER CONTRACT #09 -5215, TEMPORARY LABOR
TO EJ SERVICES D /B /A BALANCE STAFFING IN AN
ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $379000 — FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT UTILIZES LABORERS TO BALANCE
MAINTENANCE WORK REQUESTS
Page 276
February 14, 2012
Item # 16E3 — Moved to Item # l OK (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #I 6E4
RATIFY PROPERTY, CASUALTY, WORKERS'
COMPENSATION AND SUBROGATION CLAIMS SETTLED
AND /OR CLOSED BY THE RISK MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR
PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION #2004 -15 FOR THE FIRST
QUARTER OF FYI 2
Item #16E5
REPORTS AND RATIFY STAFF - APPROVED CHANGE
ORDERS AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS — FOR THE
PERIOD OF DECEMBER 22, 2011 THROUGH JANUARY 24,
2012
Item # 16E6
REJECT REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) #11 -5790 FOR
SECURITY SYSTEMS AND ACCESS PROGRAMS AND THE
ASSOCIATED PROPOSAL SUBMITTED — TO REDEFINE THE
REQUIREMENTS IN ORDER TO GET MORE COMPETITIVE
PROPOSALS
Item # 16F 1— Moved to Item # l OL (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #I 6F2
RESOLUTION 2012 -17: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING
GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE
Page 277
February 14, 2012
PROCEEDS) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2011 -12 ADOPTED
BUDGET — BA #12 -133 COVERING ITEMS THROUGH
FEBRUARY 14.2012
Item # 16F3 — Moved to Item # I OM (Per Commissioner Fiala during
Agenda Changes)
Item #I 6F4
RENEW COLLIER COUNTY'S CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR ADVANCED LIFE
SUPPORT TRANSPORT FOR ONE YEAR AND EXECUTION OF
THE PERMIT AND CERTIFICATE — BOTH COPCN AND
PERMIT EXPIRING ON DECEMBER 31. 2012
Item #16F5
A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE
OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT AND THE UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, THROUGH THE
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, BIG CYPRESS NATIONAL
PRESERVE — ESTABLISHING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
FOR WHICH THE PARTIES WILL PROVIDE MUTUAL
ASSISTANCE
Item #16G1
TWO (2) FIRST AMENDMENTS TO TWO (2) SUB -LEASE
AGREEMENTS WITH GREGORY SHEPARD — FOR PROPERTY
WITH IMPROVED BUILDINGS AT THE IMMOKALEE
REGIONAL AIRPORT
Page 278
February 14, 2012
Item # 16G2 — Moved to Item # 13A 1 (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item # 16H 1
COMMISSIONER HENNING'S REIMBURSEMENT
REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. ATTENDED THE REGIONAL
LUNCHEON WITH SENATOR MICHAEL "MIKE" BENNETT
ON JANUARY 5, 2012 AT THE PLANTATION GOLF &
COUNTRY CLUB, FT. MYERS, FL. $23 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER HENNING'S TRAVEL BUDGET — LOCATED
AT 10500 DARTINGTON DRIVE, FT. MYERS
Item # 161-12
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. ATTENDED THE EAST NAPLES CIVIC
ASSOCIATION BANQUET ON JANUARY 23, 2012. THE SUM
OF $40 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL
BUDGET — HELD AT THE NAPLES LAKES COUNTRY CLUB
Item #161-13
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. ATTENDED THE NAPLES PRESS CLUB
LUNCHEON ON JANUARY 26, 2012. THE SUM OF $20 TO BE
PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET —
HELD AT THE HILTON - NAPLES
Item #I 6H4
Page 279
February 14, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. ATTENDED THE UNITED ARTS COUNCIL STARS
IN THE ARTS LUNCHEON ON FEBRUARY 10, 2012. THE SUM
OF $45 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL
BUDGET — HELD AT THE NAPLES GRANDE RESORT
Item #16H5
COMMISSIONER HILLER'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. ATTENDED THE NAPLES VISITOR'S BUREAU
MEETING AND DINNER ON JANUARY 19, 2012 AT THE
LAPLAYA BEACH & GOLF CLUB IN NAPLES, FL. $30 TO BE
PAID FROM COMMISSIONER HILLER'S TRAVEL BUDGET —
LOCATED AT 9891 GULF SHORE DRIVE, NAPLES
Item #I 6H6
COMMISSIONER HILLER'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. ATTENDED THE WOMAN'S NETWORK
LUNCHEON ON DECEMBER 8, 2011 AT ROBERTS RANCH IN
IMMOKALEE, FL. $7.50 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
HILLER'S TRAVEL BUDGET — LOCATED AT 1215 ROBERTS
AVENUE
Item #161-17
COMMISSIONER HILLER'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
O
February 14, 2012
PURPOSE. ATTENDED THE MYRA DANIELS GALA EVENT
ON JANUARY 14, 2012 AT THE NAPLES PHILHARMONIC IN
NAPLES FL. $125 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
HILLER'S TRAVEL BUDGET
Item #1611 & #1612
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH
ACTION AS DIRECTED — NONE SUBMITTED
Item # 16J 1
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 7, 2012
THROUGH JANUARY 13, 2012 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #I 6J2
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 14, 2012
THROUGH JANUARY 20, 2012 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #I 6J3
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 21, 2012
THROUGH JANUARY 27, 2012 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item # 16J4
AN AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING THE COLLIER COUNTY
SHERIFF'S OFFICE TO HAVE TRAFFIC CONTROL
Page 281
February 14, 2012
JURISDICTION OVER PRIVATE ROADS WITHIN THE
CARLTON LAKES SUBDIVISION
Item #I 6J5
A BUDGET AMENDMENT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $210.535
RECOGNIZING CARRY FORWARD EARNED FROM
PREVIOUS YEAR'S INTEREST AND CURRENT INTEREST
EARNED IN SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS 09/10 FEDERAL
ELECTION GRANT
Item #I 6J6
A BUDGET AMENDMENT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $808.509
RECOGNIZING CARRY FORWARD EARNED FROM
PREVIOUS YEAR'S INTEREST AND CURRENT INTEREST
EARNED IN SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS 2009 FEDERAL
ELECTION GRANT
Item #I 6J7
A BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING CARRYFORWARD
EARNED FROM PREVIOUS YEAR'S INTEREST AND
ESTIMATED CURRENT INTEREST IN SUPERVISOR OF
ELECTIONS GRANT FUND (081). FISCAL IMPACT $146.44
Item #I 7A
ORDINANCE 2012 -07: AN ORDINANCE, ENTITLED "COLLIER
COUNTY SECONDARY METALS RECYCLERS ORDINANCE,"
IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH LIMITATIONS, IN ADDITION TO
THOSE SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 538, PART II, FLORIDA
Page 282
February 14, 2012
STATUTES, ON THE SALE OF REGULATED METALS
(SECONDARY METALS)
Item # 17B
ORDINANCE 2012 -08: AMENDMENTS TO THE TOURIST
DEVELOPMENT TAX ORDINANCE NO. 92 -60, AS AMENDED.
AMENDMENTS INCLUDE (1) REVISE LANGUAGE
RELATING TO CATEGORY B USE OF FUNDS; (2) DELINEATE
THE ALLOCATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS FOR
TOURISM PROMOTION AND BEACH PARK FACILITIES AND
BEACH IMPROVEMENTS; (3) REALLOCATE FOR A PERIOD
OF ONE YEAR $100,000 FROM FUND 193, MUNICIPAL
OWNED MUSEUMS AND MUSEUMS OWNED AND
OPERATED BY NOT - FOR - PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS OPEN
TO THE PUBLIC, TO FUND 198, COUNTY -OWNED OR
OPERATED MUSEUMS TO BE USED FOR A ONE -TIME
PAYMENT PURSUANT TO A CATEGORY C(2) AGREEMENT
WITH THE MARCO ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY AND
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS
Page 283
February 14, 2012
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Vice -Chair at 6:23 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS /EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
7"l� W.
FRED COYLE, C
ATTEST
DWIGHT K, CLERK
. 0-a4-
kttst i���aM#ywrti t
IrtYl�'R. �j�w�
These minutes appr red by the Board on Y Utal 13 'L o, Z. ,
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT
REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.
Page 284