BCC Minutes 03/13/2012 R BCC
REGULAR
MEETING
MINUTES
MARCH 13, 2012
March 13, 2012
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, March 13, 2012
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, also acting as
the Board of Zoning Appeals and 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, Finance Director, 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
March 13, 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 -243, 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.
March 13, 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 Richard Rogers - Unity of Naples
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended
(Ex Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for consent
and summary agenda.)
B. February 14, 2012 - BCC /Regular Meeting
3. SERVICE AWARDS
March 13, 2012
Page 2
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation recognizing IBERIABANK for its community
involvement through the "i Gives Back" initiative and its 125th
birthday. To be accepted by Keith Short, Keith Dameron, Yvette Saco
and Sara Dewberry. Sponsored by Commissioner Fiala.
B. Proclamation designating March 18 -25, 2012 as Florida Surveyors
and Mappers Week in Collier County. To be accepted by Marcus L.
Berman, P.S.M. Sponsored by Commissioner Coyle.
C. Proclamation designating March 11 -17, 2012 as Sunshine Week in
Collier County. To be accepted by Robert St. Cyr, Director of
Community Outreach, Clerk of the Collier County Circuit Court.
Sponsored by the Board of County Commissioners.
D. Proclamation designating March 4 -11, 2012 as Bascom Palmer Eye
Institute Save Your Vision Week. To be accepted by Dr. Eduardo
Alfonso, Chairman, Bascom Palmer Eye Institute; Dr. Stephan
Schwartz, Director, Bascom Palmer Eye Institute; and Ileana Daly -
Bronstein, Director of Development, Bascom Palmer Eye Institute.
Sponsored by Commissioner Hiller
E. Proclamation designating February 18, 2012 as Convenant Church of
Naples (NCA) Project Serve Day. To be accepted by Project Serve
Committee Members Skip Schoenhals, Dan Herwig, Bill Barnett and
Dr. Bob Petterson, Senior Pastor. Sponsored by Commissioner Hiller.
F. Proclamation designating March 17, 2012 as Junior Deputy Day at the
Collier County Fair. To be accepted by Sheriff Kevin Rambosk; Ellie
Krier, Executive Director, Collier County Junior Deputies League;
Wayne Arnold, President of the Collier County Junior Deputies
League; and Junior Deputies League Board Members. Sponsored by
Commissioner Fiala.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation of the Collier County Business of the Month for March
2012 to Collier 211. Accepting the award is Colleen Murphy, CEO of
March 13, 2012
Page 3
Collier 211, Chris Bray, Chair of Collier 211, Mario Valle, Jo Anna
Bradshaw, Bill Lange, Christine Flynn, John Sorey, Kathy Kircher,
Pat Jilk, Claudia Polzin, Bill Brock, Vicky Tracy and Steve
Sanderson.
B. Presentation by Steve Hart on behalf of the Energy Task Force on the
status of the Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public Petition request from Rob Samouce, Attorney for Quincy
Square at Madison Park Homeowners Association, requesting credit
toward future water bills.
B. Public Petition request from John Lundin regarding red light cameras.
C. Public Petition request from Rayburn Cadwallader regarding the
future of Immokalee.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
Items 8 and 9 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 pm unless otherwise noted.
8. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item continued from the February 28, 2012 BCC Meetinz
This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. PUDA- PL20110000047: Sabal Bay MPUD -
- An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 05 -59, the Sabal Bay Mixed
Use Planned Unit Development, by amending the PUD Document,
Exhibit A, to provide for: changes in development standards including
right of way widths and sidewalks; addition of general permitted uses
to include outside storage and telecommunication facilities; removal
of golf as a permitted use; addition of car wash, post office, docks and
electric boats as allowable uses in the recreation/village center tract;
increase of preserve by 45 acres; increase in floor area ratio for adult
March 13, 2012
Page 4
living facility and increase in height; removal of affordable housing
and removal of Bald Eagle Management Plan and Gopher Tortoise
Relocation Management Plan on property located south of Thomasson
Drive, south and west of U. S. 41, north and west of the Wentworth
PUD, and east of the Naples Bay intercoastal waterway in Sections
23, 245 25, 26 and 36, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, and Section
19, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida,
consisting of 2,416 +/- acres; and providing an effective date.
10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of members to the Black Affairs Advisory Board
B. Appointment of members to the Radio Road Beautification MSTU
Advisory Committee.
C. Appointment of a member to the Emergency Medical Services Policy
Advisory Board.
D. Appointment of member to the Animal Services Advisory Board.
E. Appointment of member to the Vanderbilt Beach Beautification
MSTU Advisory Committee.
F. Reconsideration of appointments to the Code Enforcement Board.
G. To discuss the County /Fire District Interlocal Agreement at the April
26, 2012 BCC -EMS Fire Service Workshop. (Commissioner
Henning)
H. Recommendation to direct the County Attorney to draft a Resolution
calling for a straw ballot referendum to be placed on the August 14,
2012 Primary Election concerning Collier County's Red Light
Running Camera Enforcement System. (Commissioner Coletta)
I. Advisory Board Vacancies press release March 8, 2012, with a
deadline for acceptance of March 29, 2012.
March 13, 2012
Page 5
11. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to award Contract # 12 -5 801 R for the construction
of the Collier Area Transit Intermodal Transfer station at the
Government Center, to Manhattan Construction (Florida), Inc., in the
amount of $3,844,449. (Michelle Arnold, Director, Alt
Transportation Modes)
B. Recommendation to approve Change Order No. 6 to Contract #10-
5206, with Atkins North America, Inc., for Design Services for
Collier Area Transit Transfer Station, in the amount of $79,900 for
post design services; to extend the contract by five hundred ninety
seven (597) days to account for the inclusion of construction and the
completion schedule; and to authorize the chair to execute the change
order. (Michelle Arnold, Director, Alt Transportation Modes)
C. Recommendation to accept the third annual report on the "Impact Fee
Program for Existing Commercial Redevelopment" and approve a
resolution extending the program for one year, to sunset March 24,
2013, unless otherwise extended. (Amy Patterson, Impact Fee and
Economic Development Manager)
D. This item to be heard at 11:30 a.m. Recommendation to approve
the Collier County 2012 Federal Legislative Agenda and policy
priorities. (Debbie Wight, Legislative Affairs Coordinator)
E. Recommendation to adopt a Resolution which replaces and
supersedes Resolution 2010 -101 so as to incorporate amendments
directed by the Board of County Commissioners relating to the criteria
for code enforcement lien settlement and release. (Diane Flagg,
Director, Code Enforcement)
F. Recommendation to direct the County Manager or designee to
advertise and bring back a proposed ordinance establishing the
adoption of the required State mandated Building Code 2010 update
effective March 15, 2012 and incorporate existing local amendments
and the updated County wind maps. Exemptions identified in
Ordinance 2009 -59 will remain in full effect until the filing of the new
Ordinance. (Jamie French, Director, Operations and Regulatory
March 13, 2012
Page 6
Management, Growth Management Division)
G. Recommendation to waive competition and declare Naples Physician
Hospital Organization Inc. d/b /a Community Health Partners, Inc. a
sole source for the provision of integrated Health Advocacy, Disease
Management, Workers' Compensation Managed Care and Physician
Hospital Network Services in an estimated amount of $382,319.28 in
calendar year 2012. (Jeff Walker, Director, Risk Management)
H. Recommendation to approve, and authorize the Chairman to sign, an
Interlocal Agreement with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission in order to facilitate managed public hunting at Caracara
Prairie Preserve. (Melissa Hennig, Principal Environmental
Specialist, Department of Facilities Management)
I. Recommendation to approve Tourist Development Council (TDC)
FYI (October 1, 2012 - September 30, 2013) Grant Application
changes for Category B and C -2 as recommended by the TDC. (Jack
Wert, Director, Tourism)
J. Recommendation to approve a Settlement Agreement and Release
with RWA, Inc. pertaining to consulting services provided under
Contract No. 07 -4112, in connection with Project No. 51803,
Gateway Triangle Stormwater Improvements — Phase 2 Construction,
and to authorize payment. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Growth
Management)
K. Recommendation to approve submittal of an application and
Memorandum of Understanding for a 3 year Safe Havens: Supervised
Visitation and Safe Exchange Grant in the amount of $350,000 from
the United States Department of Justice and authorize the Chairman to
execute all related grant documents required for submittal. (Kim
Grant, Interim Director, Housing, Human and Veteran Services)
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
March 13, 2012
Page 7
A. This item to be heard at 10:45 a.m. Presentation of the
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2011.
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND /OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
A. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND /OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Election or re- election of the Collier County Community
Redevelopment Agency (CRA) Chair and Vice -Chair for 2011.
2) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment to recognize
grant revenue awarded to the Immokalee Community
Redevelopment Agency in the amount of $810,000 through the
CDBG grant program (Grant Award # CD- 10 -13) for the
Immokalee CRA Public Facility First Street Plaza Project
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - --
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of each
item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will be removed
from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - --
A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
1) This item requires that ex 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
Tract E, Brentwood Two. This subdivision will result in three
commercial Tracts within the Brentwood PUD.
March 13, 2012
Page 8
2) Recommendation to approve the release of a $15,800 lien for
payment of $3,912.38, in the Code Enforcement Action entitled
Board of County Commissioners vs. Joshua S. Lainhart and
Melanie D. Meyer, Code Enforcement Special Magistrate Case
No. CESD2010- 00003657, relating to property located at 2170
20th Avenue NE, Collier County, Florida.
3) Recommendation to approve the release of a $40,200 lien for
payment of $9,912.29, in the Code Enforcement Action entitled
Board of County Commissioners vs. Estate of Alan D.
Montgomery, Code Enforcement Special Magistrate Case No.
CEROW2009- 0015230, relating to property located at 5133
20th Ct. SW, Collier County, Florida.
4) Recommendation to approve the release of a $97,600 lien for
payment of $450, in the Code Enforcement Action entitled
Board of County Commissioners vs. J.H. Prettyman, Code
Enforcement Board Case No. CEB 2007 -11, relating to
property located at 1294 Snook Aly, Chokoloskee, Florida.
5) Recommendation to approve and execute an agreement
between Collier County and the Florida Commission for the
Transportation Disadvantaged Shirley Conroy Rural Area
Capital Equipment Support Grant for the amount of $35,000,
for the purchase and installation of security cameras on -board
the paratransit vehicles; authorize the Chairman of the Board to
sign the grant agreement and approve the necessary Budget
Amendment.
6) Recommendation to approve a refund of inspection fees
requested by Davidson Engineering, Inc., totaling $33,869.66,
due to the cancellation of the Fisherman's Village (AR- 13199)
project.
7) Recommendation to approve post load restrictions of "Single
Unit Truck; 31 tons" and "Combination Truck 34; tons" on
bridge numbers 030138, 030139, 030140 and 030141 east of
S.R. 29 on Immokalee Road, Project Number #66066.
March 13, 2012
Page 9
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION
D. PUBLIC SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve a Work Order with Coastal
Engineering Consultants (CEC) to permit a long term
maintenance program to reshape the beach on Marco Island
under contract #09- 5262 -CZ for a not to exceed amount of
$35,190, authorize the County Manager or his designee to
execute the Work Order and approve all necessary budget
amendments.
2) Recommendation to approve and authorize structural pilings
inspection to the Clam Bay Draw Bridge, approve a budget and
a budget amendment of $15,000 to complete this work, and
make a finding that improvements to this beach park facility
promotes tourism.
3) Recommendation to approve one (1) release of lien for
Affordable Housing Density Bonus agreement for a unit sold
which is no longer subject to the terms of the agreement.
4) Recommendation to approve fifteen (15) releases of lien for
deferral of Collier County impact fees for owner occupied
affordable housing dwelling units that were transferred from the
developer to the new owner.
5) Recommendation to accept funds and enter into an agreement
with the State of Florida Department of Children and Families
(DCF) accepting Challenge grant funds, and approving
corresponding sub - recipient agreements with not - for - profit
organizations and corresponding budget amendment to
administer the grant funds. The Challenge Grant is used to
address homeless needs and homelessness prevention.
6) Recommendation to approve two (2) releases of lien for
deferral of 100 percent of Collier County impact fees for owner
March 13, 2012
Page 10
occupied affordable housing dwelling units that have been
repaid in full.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to piggyback on the State of Florida contract
with Wright Express Financial Services Corporation for Fleet
Fuel Card Services to purchase fuel and fleet - related items with
estimated purchases of $150,000 annually.
2) Recommendation to accept reports and ratify staff - approved
change orders and changes to work orders.
3) Recommendation to approve delegation of authority for County
Division Administrators to sign Certificate of Entitlement
related to Direct Material Purchases (DMP).
F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS
1) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance
proceeds) to the Fiscal Year 2011 -12 Adopted Budget.
2) Recommendation to approve a report covering budget
amendments impacting reserves in an amount up to and
including $25,000.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for
reimbursement regarding attendance at a function serving a
Valid Public Purpose. Will attend The Emerald Ball 27th
Anniversary Celebration at the Ritz Carlton Golf Resort in
Naples, Florida on March 17, 2012. $250 to be paid from
Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
March 13, 2012
Page 11
2) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for
reimbursement regarding attendance at a function serving a
Valid Public Purpose. Will attend the Collier County Medical
Society Spring General Membership meeting at Arthrex, Inc. in
Naples, FL on March 15, 2012. $30 to be paid from
Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
3) Commissioner Hiller requests Board approval for
reimbursement regarding attendance at a function serving a
Valid Public Purpose. Attended Driven to Triumph a Tribute to
Our Area's Own Holocaust & WWII Veterans, at the Rolls
Royce showroom, Naples, Florida on February 28, 2012. $125
to be paid from Commissioner Hiller's travel budget
4) Commissioner Hiller requests Board approval for
reimbursement regarding attendance at a function serving a
Valid Public Purpose. Will attend The Greater Naples AAUW
Celebrating Women of Achievement at Grey Oaks Country
Club, in Naples, Florida on March 8, 2012. $29.20 to be paid
from Commissioner Hiller's travel budget
5) Commissioner Hiller requests Board approval for
reimbursement regarding attendance at a function serving a
Valid Public Purpose. Will attend The Zoobilee Gala Event at
the Naples Zoo, in Naples, Florida on March 10, 2012. $140 to
be paid from Commissioner Hiller's travel budget.
6) The Board of County Commissioners request Board approval to
attend a conference serving a valid public purpose, Florida
Association of Counties Conference in Orlando, Florida.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous Correspondence to file with action as directed.
Document(s) have been routed to all Commissioners and are
available for review in BCC office until approval.
2) Advisory Board Minutes and Agendas to file with action as
directed. Document(s) have been routed to all Commissioners
March 13, 2012
Page 12
and are available for review in BCC office until approval.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
February 11, 2012 through February 17, 2012 and for
submission into the official records of the Board.
2) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
February 18, 2012 through February 24, 2012 and for
submission into the official records of the Board.
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
approve the State of Florida Annual Local Government
Financial Report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2011
as required by Florida Statute 218.32.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Request for authorization to advertise and bring back for future
consideration an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 75 -16, as
amended, as it relates to procedures for reconsideration of
agenda items.
2) Recommendation to approve a Settlement Agreement and Joint
Motion for Order Approving Same in the lawsuit styled
William G. Lhota et al. v. The School District of Collier
County, et al, Case No. 08- 8359 -CA Consolidated with Branch
Banking and Trust Company v. Clotilde Perez and Zenaida
Perez, et al., Case No. 10- 5560 -CA. (Fiscal Impact -None )
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF ALL
MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OR
March 13, 2012
Page 13
THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE BCC MEETING
ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD; AND 4) NO
INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE
ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS WHICH ARE QUASI - JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL
PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
A. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. PUDA- PL2011 -343:
Tuscany Reserve PUD. An Ordinance of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance No.
2003 -28, as amended by 2004 -47, the Tuscany Reserve Planned Unit
Development (PUD), by amending the PUD Document, Exhibit A, to
provide for: amendments to cover page; amendments to Property
Ownership and General Description section; amendments to Project
Development section; amendments to Residential "R" Development
Areas section; amendments to Golf, Open Space (GO) section;
amendments to Village Center section; amendments to General
Development Commitments section; adding a deviation from the
requirements for Mixed Use Planned Unit Development Standards;
providing for amendments to Master Plan; and providing an effective
date. Subject property is located in Section 12, Township 48 South,
Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 461.29 acres. No
increase in density or number of authorized dwelling units is
proposed.
B. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating carry forward, transfers and supplemental revenue) to
the Fiscal Year 2011 -12 Adopted Budget.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252 -8383.
March 13, 2012
Page 14
March 13, 2012
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic. Ladies and
gentlemen, please take your seats.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, the Board of
County Commission meeting is now in session. Would you please
stand for the invocation by Reverend Richard Rogers of Unity of
Naples Church.
Item #1A
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — GIVEN BY
REVEREND RICHARD ROGERS UNITY OF NAPLES CHURCH
REVEREND ROGERS: We come together to acknowledge the
presence and power of God. And our prayer today is that there be
light. Let there be the light of truth and wisdom, the light of judgment
and good - heartedness. Let there be light in fairness. And that all we
do today, we seek the blessings, the goodness, the direction, the
wisdom of God. That that one presence and one power guides and
directs us in all that we do.
And we know that every time we turn within and we seek that
inner guidance, that God speaks to each one of us. In the name and
through the power of that presence, we give thanks. And so it is,
amen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Please join us in the pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance
was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
County Manager?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This is an unprecedented event.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have no changes to the agenda.
Page 2
March 13, 2012
Item #2A
APPROVAL OF TODAY'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND
SUMMARY AGENDA AS AMENDED — APPROVED AND /OR
ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
MR. OCHS: I have no changes to the agenda, sir, and just two
time certain reminders. You have a time certain item at 10:45 a.m. to
hear your consolidated annual financial report and a 10:30 time certain
to hear your federal legislative agenda.
Other than that, let me repeat, there are no changes this morning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That could mean only one thing, that all
the Commissioners got in their changes before the agenda was
published.
MR. OCHS: No comment, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
County Attorney --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Wait, wait, wait. In silence there
is consent?
MR. OCHS: No comment, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Smart.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: No changes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This is going to be a bad day, I see that
now.
I hesitate to do this, but I've got to call on the commissioners
now.
Commissioner Hiller, do you have any more changes to the
agenda?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And any ex parte disclosure for the
consent and summary agendas?
Page 3
March 13, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: For 9.A, I have meetings, a -mails
and calls. And for 16.A.1, no disclosures. 17A, meetings.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, no changes, corrections. And
on the consent agenda, 16.A.1, have no disclosures. 17A, there was a
report that was issued to us on the 19th of this -- of January, excuse
me, this year. And also, I spoke to staff about it, and I also spoke to
one of their representatives.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And I have no other changes to
the agenda. With respect to the summary agenda, 17.A, I received a
staff report, and I had a meeting with Bruce Anderson who is
representing the petitioner.
And I have no ex parte disclosure for the consent agenda.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you, sir, and good
morning.
I have no changes to the agenda. I have nothing to declare on the
consent agenda and the summary agenda. Just like you, I have talked
to Bruce Anderson and received a staff report.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good morning. I have no
changes to today's agenda. And I have just ex parte communication
on 17.A. That would be the planning commission's report.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you very much.
Do I have a motion for approval of the agenda?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve the agenda.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Fiala, seconded by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
March 13, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Page 5
Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
March 13, 2 012
Time Certain Items:
Item 13A to be heard at 10:45 a.m.
Item 11C to be heard at 11:30 a.m.
4/17/2012 3:23 PM
March 13, 2012
Item #2B
MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 14, 2012 — BCC /REGULAR
MEETING — APPROVED AS PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have the February 14th, 2012 BCC
regular meeting minutes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
That brings us to proclamations.
County Manager?
Item #4
PROCLAMATIONS — ONE MOTION TAKEN TO ADOPT ALL
PROCLAMATIONS
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING IBERIABANK FOR ITS
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT THROUGH THE "I GIVES
Page 6
March 13, 2012
BACK" INITIATIVE AND ITS 125TH BIRTHDAY. ACCEPTED
BY KEITH SHORT, KEITH DAMERON, YVETTE SACO AND
SARA DEWBERRY — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: The first proclamation this morning is recognizing
iBERIABANK for its community involvement, for the "i" Gives Back
initiative and 125th birthday. Accepted by Keith Short, Yvette Saco
and Sara Dewberry. And this is sponsored by Commissioner Fiala.
If you'd please come forward and accept your award.
(Applause.)
MR. SHORT: A little something.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, my goodness. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Candy bars?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, how do we do this, County
Attorney?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is it under the legal limit?
MR. KLATZKOW: It's a candy bar.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Listen, Commissioners, if you consume
it quickly, there's no evidence of this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll start right now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
MR. SHORT: Keith Short. If I can, I just have brief comments.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Certainly.
MR. SHORT: Good morning. Again, I want to thank you for
this opportunity. My name is Keith Short, and I'm fortunate to serve
as market president for iBERIABANK.
I'm originally from Louisiana, and I've been with iBERIABANK
for over 12 years. When the company asked me to move to Naples to
serve as the local president, our family jumped at the opportunity.
And it's been a great place to live.
It's such an honor to receive this acknowledgment. I especially
want to thank Commissioner Donna Fiala in sponsoring this
Page 7
March 13, 2012
proclamation and all of you for supporting it.
We launched "i" Gives Back a few months ago to complement
our existing community outreach in charitable initiatives, and it's been
a huge success, thanks to the generosity of our community and hard
work of our associates.
Some of you may be thinking "i" Gives Back is improper
English. But if you've seen the iBERIABANK logo, you may have
noticed the lower case "i" is our focal point of our name. We like to
joke that we were the original "i", long before Steve Jobs and Apple
incorporated it into their marketing and products.
We have 11 locations in Collier and Lee Counties, and back in
January we collected over 300 cell phones specifically for the Naples
Shelter For Abused Women and Children as well as the Abuse
Counseling and Treatment Center in Fort Myers.
I'm pleased to publicly announce this morning that through our
February, "i" Gives Back campaign, we collected over 3,500 books to
be donated to Friends of the Library chapters in Collier and Lee
Counties.
I want to reiterate this campaign has been a huge success through
the generosity of our clients, our citizens of our community. This
month, as mentioned before, we're focusing "i" Gives Back initiative
through a variety of initiatives this year, but also very importantly,
yesterday we celebrated our birthday, our anniversary, 125 years. We
were founded in 1887. And this morning on the NASDAQ stock
exchange we're ringing the bell in honor of the celebrations.
Also, our bankers are hitting the streets to perform random acts
of kindness throughout the week. In particular, our bankers will be
picking up lunch tabs in the area and buying gas at locations
throughout the area. We've participated in giving out over $2,500 in
gas, companywide we'll give out more than $12,500 in the next few
days.
Giving back has always been a cornerstone of our company and
March 13, 2012
it's a contributing factor as to why we have been around for 125 years.
Volunteerism and charitable outreach is woven into the fabric of how
we operate. We believe a stronger community benefits us all.
Again, I want to thank the Commissioners, our Collier County
citizens and iBERIABANK's Associates for supporting the "i" Gives
Back initiative. And thank you for providing a few minutes to me to
speak to you this morning again. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you for benefiting our
community. Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MARCH 18 -25, 2012 AS
FLORIDA SURVEYORS AND MAPPERS WEEK IN COLLIER
COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY MARCUS L. BERMAN, P.S.M. —
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item 4.B is a proclamation
designating March 18th through 25, 2012 as Florida Surveyor's and
Mapper's Week in Collier County. The proclamation will be accepted
by Marcus Berman, Rick Ritz, Scott Rhodes and David Shepherd.
The proclamation is sponsored by Commissioner Coyle.
If you would please come forward.
(Applause.)
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MARCH 11-17, 2012
SUNSHINE WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY
CRYSTAL KINZEL, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE FOR THE CLERK
OF COURTS — ADOPTED
March 13, 2012
MR. OCHS: Item 4.0 is a proclamation designating March 11
through the 17th, 2012 as Sunshine Week in Collier County. To be
accepted by Crystal Kinzel, Finance Director for the Clerk of the
Circuit Court. And this item is sponsored by the entire Board of
County Commissioners.
Crystal?
(Applause.)
MS. KINZEL: Very quickly, Commissioners, for the record,
Crystal Kinzel.
The Clerk apologizes, he had a prior commitment, but certainly
appreciates the proclamation and cooperation. And to make everyone
aware, I obviously would be remiss if I did not mention the Clerk's
website at collierclerk.com where the availability of records, we hope
are improving, to the citizens of Collier County and working in
conjunction with transparency and Sunshine Law week.
Thank you.
Item #4D
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MARCH 4 -11, 2012 BASCOM
PALMER EYE INSTITUTE SAVE YOUR VISION WEEK.
ACCEPTED BY DR. EDUARDO ALFONSO, CHAIRMAN,
BASCOM PALMER EYE INSTITUTE; DR. STEPHAN
SCHWARTZ, DIRECTOR, BASCOM PALMER EYE INSTITUTE;
AND ILEANA DALY- BRONSTEIN, DIRECTOR OF
DEVELOPMENT, BASCOM PALMER EYE INSTITUTE —
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, 4.1) is a proclamation designating
March 4th through 11th, 2012 as Bascom Palmer Eye Institute Save
your Vision week. To be accepted by Doctor Stephen Schwartz,
director of Bascom Palmer Eye Institute. This item is sponsored by
Page 10
March 13, 2012
Commissioner Hiller.
Please come forward, Doctor.
(Applause.)
DR. SCHWARTZ: Well, thank you. My name is Stephen
Schwartz. I'm medical director at the Bascom Palmer Eye Institute in
Naples. We at Bascom Palmer are the Department of Ophthalmology
at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine.
The institute is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year. It was
founded in 1962. It has been ranked the number one department of
ophthalmology in the United States for the last seven years in a row.
We have been in Naples since 2004. That's when I came. And
we like it so much here, we're currently planning a major expansion,
recruitment of new doctors, recruitment of new staff, which we hope
to complete within the next two to three years.
We see patients, we conduct clinical research, we engage in
graduate medical education. I thank you so much for this honor, and
we're delighted to be a part of Collier County.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And we're delighted to have you here,
Doctor Schwartz. Thank you very much.
Item #4E
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING FEBRUARY 18, 2012 AS
CONVENANT CHURCH OF NAPLES (NCA) PROJECT SERVE
DAY. ACCEPTED BY PROJECT SERVE COMMITTEE
MEMBERS SKIP SCHOENHALS, DAN HERWIG, BILL
BARNETT AND DR. BOB PETTERSON, SENIOR PASTOR —
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4.E is a proclamation designating February
18th5 2012 as Covenant Church of Naples Project Serve Day.
Page 11
March 13, 2012
To be accepted by Project Serve committee members Skip
Schoenhals, Dan Herwig, Bill Barnett and Dr. Bob Petterson, senior
pastor. This proclamation is sponsored by Commissioner Hiller.
If you'd please come forward, accept your award.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now that's showing all the little
young ones growing up in the right frame in mind. In church.
PASTOR PETTERSON: Commissioners, and thank you,
Commissioner Hiller for sponsoring this.
And as you know, who were on the commission a few years ago,
Covenant regularly packed these -- this room as we were going
through our whole process of PUD changes, and we were able to, by
God's help, to build a $10 million project on Highway 41 across from
Pelican Bay and move in with all of the debt paid before we moved in.
But the point of that was not to build a beautiful church but to build a
training center and make a difference in our community and in the
world.
So on February the 18th of this year, 450 people from our church
dressed in T -shirts like this went out around the community to about
30 to 50 different projects -- I don't know the exact number of projects
-- but they built ramps for wheelchair people in their homes, they --
but the best part about this is all the people working is we took out
tons of children who went into Alzheimer's wards and who climbed up
in the laps of people who hadn't held a child in their arms for years,
and to see the tears of these people that are largely forgotten and
warehoused away, and of the different needs of the church.
And our church is really committed. We have a new slogan
called 50150150. We want for everything that comes in to our church's
operating expenses, we want at least that same amount to go for
missions. So that last year $1.1 million went from Covenant Church
to missions around the world and at home. And our desire is to have
50 percent of whatever we bring in for missions, 50 percent to go
Page 12
March 13, 2012
overseas, but 50 percent to stay in this area to make a difference in
Collier County.
So we're so thrilled that you allowed us to have our PUD, that
you allowed us to expand our facilities, and you've allowed us to build
a center and to begin to build a congregation of people that are not
only concerned about worshiping our God, but are concerned about
the children of God everywhere and ministering to them.
So thank you for allowing that to happen to us and thanks for
giving us the opportunity. We appreciate all of you and all you do in
our community, and we're so glad for the little bit we can do to give
back to our community. God bless you.
Item #4F
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MARCH 17, 2012 AS JUNIOR
DEPUTY DAY AT THE COLLIER COUNTY FAIR. ACCEPTED
BY SHERIFF KEVIN RAMBOSK; ELLIE KRIER, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, COLLIER COUNTY JUNIOR DEPUTIES LEAGUE;
WAYNE ARNOLD, PRESIDENT OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
JUNIOR DEPUTIES LEAGUE; AND JUNIOR DEPUTIES
LEAGUE BOARD MEMBERS — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item 4.F is a proclamation
designating March 17, 2012 as Junior Deputy Day at the Collier
County Fair. To be accepted by Sheriff Kevin Rambosk; Ellie Krier
Executive Director, Collier County Junior Deputies League; Wayne
Arnold, president of the Collier County Junior Deputies League; and
Junior Deputies League board members. And this item is sponsored
by Commissioner Fiala.
If you would please come forward.
(Applause.)
MR. ARNOLD: Commissioners, thank you. I wanted to take a
Page 13
March 13, 2012
brief moment. I'm Wayne Arnold, and I'm very proud to be this year's
president of the Junior Deputy League. And this year we happen to be
celebrating our 50th year as an organized nonprofit organization in
Collier County.
Our mission's really simple, it's to -- we're here to help the kids of
our community become law - abiding citizens by positive interactions
with our law enforcement community. I want to thank all the former
sheriffs, and certainly current Sheriff Rambosk for all of his continued
support for our organization.
And one of our annual activities that we conduct is to host a half
day at the Collier County Fair for all fourth grade students in Collier
County. Again, we expect about 3,000 kids to descend on us on
March 17th out at the Collier County Fair for a half day of fun. We'll
feed them hot dogs, and everyone's going to have a great time
interacting with our sheriffs agency, who's participating actively
again. And we thank them and the school district for their support as
well.
Thank you, Commissioners, we appreciate all the support.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mr. Chairman, can I just say one
word? The sheriffs deputies -- or junior deputies the other day had, I
know, two Saturdays ago, three Saturdays ago, something like that,
held this wonderful event near the Swamp Buggy. They have a
campground just for the junior deputies to work with the children.
And that was the day where they were teaching the kids how to fish
and how to do so many things. There were so many games and
everything there. And even -- they even had glasses, they put glasses
on to see what it's like to drive drunk. And that was very interesting.
That was a -- I think most of the teenage boys that were there were in
that line to see what it's like. And I hope it made a resounding
impression on most of them.
But I just want to thank you for all you're doing for the children
of our community. Thank you.
Page 14
March 13, 2012
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, is there a motion -- that was our
last?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve the
proclamations.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve, okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #5A
PRESENTATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BUSINESS OF
THE MONTH FOR MARCH, 2012 TO COLLIER 211.
ACCEPTING AN AWARD IS COLLEEN MURPHY, CEO OF
COLLIER 211, CHRIS BRAY, CHAIR OF COLLIER 211; MARIO
VALLE, JO ANNA BRADSHAW, BILL LANGE, CHRISTINE
FLYNN, JOHN SOREY, KATHY KIRCHER, PAT JILK,
CLAUDIA POLZIN, BILL BROCK, VICKY TRACY AND STEVE
SANDERSON — PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that takes you to Item 5 on your
Page 15
March 13, 2012
agenda this morning, Presentations. 5.A is a presentation of the Collier
County Business of the Month for March, 2012 to Collier 211.
Accepting the award is Colleen Murphy, CEO of Collier 211; Chris
Bray, chair of Collier 211, Mario Valle, Jo Anna Bradshaw, Bill
Lange, Christine Flynn, John Sorey, Kathy Kircher, Pat Jilk, Claudia
Polzin, Bill Brock, Vicky Tracy and Steve Sanderson.
(Applause.)
MR. BRAY: Commissioners, my name is Chris Bray, and I have
the privilege this year of being the chairman of the board of trustees of
the Community Foundation of Collier County. And on behalf of our
board of trustees, we want to thank you very much and the Chamber
greatly for the honor and the distinction of being named Collier 211,
which is a wholly owned non - profit business of the Community
Foundation Collier County. We want to thank you for being named
Business of the Month this month, we really appreciate that.
Just a year ago, the idea of Collier 211 was really just a business
plan, nothing more than that. But last month, February 11 th, actually,
2/11, we started our activity, Collier 211. And with Collier 211, any
resident of Collier County can call those three numbers, 2 -1 -1, and
have direct access to a phone counselor, multi - lingual training,
multi - cultural training and crisis training, and that person can identify
a need that they have and that counselor is trained in putting that needs
together with a non - profit or government provider in Southwest
Florida to help get a resolution to that need very quickly.
The phone's available, Collier 211, is available to anyone that
calls in Collier County 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a
year.
So we're very grateful to have the privilege to be able to bring
this to residents of Southwest Florida and Collier County. And again
we want to thank the Commission and Chamber for this honor this
morning.
And I'm going to introduce our executive director and CEO,
Page 16
March 13, 2012
Colleen Murphy.
MS. MURPHY: Thank you, Chris. Thank you Commissioners.
We started fundraising for Collier 211 just this past May 11th.
And we honestly thought it was going to take us a couple of years to
raise the capital to provide the operating support for Collier 211. And
thanks to so many individuals, private foundations, nonprofits and the
Collier County Sheriffs Department, we actually reached 90 percent
of our fundraising goal of $637,000. And we reached it in January this
past year.
I can't be remiss without saying thank you very much to Vicky
Tracy, who served as our community campaign chair, for all that she
did and all that the Arlington contributed during our fundraiser effort.
I want to say thank you to our board for taking a risk and starting
up this program, as they started it with $150,000 in grant money. This
gave us the leverage and the clout to approach our initial funding
partners, which include Wasmer Schroeder and Company, the United
Way of Collier County, the Kapnick Family Fund, Collier County
Sheriffs Office, Collier Health Services, Youth Haven of Collier
County, the Martin Foundation, the Richard and Maureen Schulze
Fund, the Sheila Smith Davis Fund and Marcia and Bates Lee Fund.
From the Community Foundation and its partners, I want to
thank the County Commissioners and the Chamber of Commerce for
this award. Thank you so very much.
(Applause.)
Item #5B
PRESENTATION BY STEVE HART ON BEHALF OF THE
ENERGY TASK FORCE ON THE STATUS OF THE PROPERTY
ASSESSED CLEAN ENERGY (PACE) PROGRAM —
PR F CFNTF.T)
Page 17
March 13, 2012
MR. OCHS: 5.B is a presentation by Steve Hart on behalf of the
Energy Task Force on the status of the Property Assessed Clean
Energy program, known as PACE.
Mr. Hart?
MR. HART: Thank you, Mr. Manager, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. How's everybody this morning?
We just -- the Energy Task Force, you will recall, was created a
couple of years ago to explore ways that we can in the community
reduce our energy use. And not long after we were convened, the
Florida Legislature gave us a huge advance and boost forward by
adopting the Property Assessed Clean Energy legislation, or PACE,
which allows, as you'll recall, local governments, municipalities and
counties, and subdivisions of counties to establish a pool of funds
from which property owners can borrow to make energy improvement
and hurricane hardening improvements to their homes, thereby
reducing energy use, making homes safer and in the process creating
jobs, which is a very important element of this.
We've been working for -- we've been working close to three
years on this. Been some setbacks on the national level in terms of
PACE. We can get into those if you want. But I wanted to give you
an update on where we are now and to let you know that there are
PACE projects moving forward in counties all around us.
Dade County began its PACE project last September. It awarded
a contract to the firm called Why Green, which is a coalition of
several different firms including Barclays Bank and Lockheed Martin,
and a subdivision of Lykes Brothers here in Florida. The town of
Lantana is moving forward with a PACE project and are inviting other
municipalities and counties to join them in that effort.
Lee County just to our north is moving forward with a PACE
project. And I think just last Friday was the deadline for submission
of requests for proposals from various third -party administrators to
Page 18
March 13, 2012
offer them a turnkey PACE project.
And on a statewide level an entity called the Florida Pace
Funding Energy, which was created by the City of Kissimmee and the
County of Flagler, was created as a funding source for PACE projects,
and seems to be morphing into a statewide PACE project.
And so we wanted to bring you that update and let you know that
we are moving forward. And also then in response to that to ask your
permission to go forward with a survey of property owners to gauge
how much interest there would be in a PACE project here in Collier
County.
So with that brief update, I'll open it for questions. Anybody --
we've talked about this several times before you, but I'm here to
answer questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Questions?
Commissioner Fiala -- or Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We look alike.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Hart, the survey you're
talking about, how is the survey going to be done?
MR. HART: Well, there's several ways. And once you give us
permission, we'll decide on the best methodology. I know Lee
County, when they did their survey, they simply put questions up on a
website. We've had a pacecollier.com website with a series of
questions for awhile. I'm not sold that just putting questions up on a
website give you a very accurate representation. So we really want to
drill down and look at some methodologies. One thing we know is it
won't cost any money. We'll figure out a way of doing a survey
without costing any money.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In the options we're talking
about, I see it in my executive summary, and it gives us about four
different options, from continue to develop a standalone PACE
program similar to Miami -Dade and Lee County. Those two, to begin
Page 19
March 13, 2012
with, how long have they been up and running?
MR. HART: The Dade County project began -- they awarded
their contract, the third -party administrator, in September. They are
getting it all together. I understand it is just not far from launching,
like within two or three months, but don't hold me to that. You know
how these things go. But they are on the verge of really cranking out
and actually seeing home improvements made.
Lee County, just on March 2nd was the deadline for submission
of a request for -- proposals to run the project, so they will be -- I don't
know how many firms submitted proposals. I can imagine there were
two or three, maybe more. We don't know that for sure. So they're
going to be a couple of months evaluating that and awarding a
contract and then moving on. I would guess that they're probably
eight months to a year away from really putting hammers to homes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So in this case it's still work in
progress --
MR. HART: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- on both of their -- but the
second item, which kind of ties right into the first is, join through an
interlocal agreement any of the neighboring PACE programs. So in
other words, that would be suggestive if we wanted to join with Lee or
Miami -Dade, we could join their program through an interlocal
agreement. Would there be an advantage to that?
MR. HART: You know, Commissioner, that's a very good
question, and it's something that's always been on the table, as well as
a regional approach to PACE overall. I know Charlotte County is also
very interested in pushing forward a PACE project, as is Sarasota
County. I know that from discussions we've had over the months and
the last couple of years.
And there's always been some talk that really, the best bang for
our buck in terms of energy reduction, in terms of also finding an
appropriate source of money to fund the home improvements has
Page 20
March 13, 2012
always been through a regional effort. And so the short answer to
your question, Commissioner, is that there's always been an
opportunity to join with other PACE projects; certainly Town of
Lantana. I mentioned the Florida PACE Funding Agency, they are
actually working toward creating a statewide energy conservation
district or a statewide PACE project.
I'm not sure, to be honest with you, of the legality of that. That's
something that we'll have to investigate. They seem to think it's fine.
So Lord knows, they're smarter than I am. But all these things are
evolving, and so the opportunity to join with another project has
always been there and will continue to be there at any point.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And this group that you have
put together and that I also attend the meetings of is being done by
individuals in the community, and we do have some staff
representation to help guide us along.
I guess the question would be is what would you recommend
from your perspective in where you are what we should do as our next
step?
MR. HART: You're asking me or you're asking the task force? I
think the task force is happy to move forward with a survey of
property owners to first gauge the interest of property owners in a
project like this.
And I think then the next step would be to either make a decision
to go forward with a request for proposal for companies to come in
and run a PACE project for Collier County, or join in the efforts of
one of the others. I think we're -- I think as a community we're ready
to move forward, and so I think everybody is more comfortable taking
a survey to judge the interest and then moving forward with a PACE
project, actually see energy use reduced in this community and jobs
created through the process.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And being that, you know, this
would be done by -- not by Collier County government but by a
Page 21
March 13, 2012
private group, this would be no cost to Collier County. So I can see
no harm to proceed in that direction; meanwhile, giving the other
entities that are out there and pulling their plans together a chance to
gel and to come up with something that's solid. And we can gauge our
public opinion before we take the next step.
MR. HART: Absolutely, yes --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you and the committee
for the work they're doing.
MR. HART: Well, thank you for all your help, and the staff, Len
Price and Alex Sulecki, for their guidance and assistance. And Jeff
has been helpful, and the finance team in Clerk's Office has
participated. The Property Appraiser's office has participated. Collier
Building Industry Association has participated all the way through,
very much advocates this program. We've had a number of -- while it
is a -- while the effort has been very much citizen run, citizen led,
we're getting great support from lots of good organizations, including
and especially county government as we move toward this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's a movement on foot to
limit government and government regulations. Actually, there's a
movement to reduce government regulations. I commend you as a
private citizen and a private organization, and I hope it really stays
that way.
Because FP &L, if you go to their website, they give you many a
tools to reduce energy cost. And actually what you're -- the true
concern of PACE, the program, is greenhouse gasses; is that correct?
MR. HART: Well, the effort -- the intent of property assessed
clean energy concept is twofold: One is to reduce energy use; and the
second is to create jobs. And so, yes, by extension of reducing energy
you are reducing the amount of power, you are reducing the amount of
foreign oil that's used to create that electricity, you're reducing the
amount of coal --
Page 22
March 13, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's a choice by government.
MR. HART: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's a choice by the federal
government because they don't want to -- federal government doesn't
want to tap their natural resources. So that's why we're so dependent
on foreign oil, correct?
MR. HART: That's one of the reasons. You know, as you know,
most of the -- most of the electricity that is generated in Collier
County is generated through the use of coal -fired plants, and also uses
a lot of oil. Our nuclear plants in Florida don't contribute that much to
the overall picture.
And while FPL is yes, very helpful in reducing energy, part of
PACE in Florida is also about hurricane hardening to make homes
safer in hurricanes, and it's also a way to shore up the structures so
they don't use as much -- make them more energy efficient, they don't
use as much energy. And FPL has some very good efforts in that way,
and this goes even farther and in conjunction with FPL, what they're
working on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you very much.
MR. HART: Thank you.
No more questions?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No more questions.
MR. HART: Thank you, Commissioners. Always a pleasure to
be here. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That brings us to public petitions,
County Manager.
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST FROM ROB SAMOUCE,
ATTORNEY FOR QUINCY SQUARE AT MADISON PARK
HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, REQUESTING CREDIT
Page 23
March 13, 2012
TOWARD FUTURE WATER BILLS — MOTION TO BRING
BACK TO A FULL HEARING — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. 6.A is a public petition
request from Rob Samouce, attorney for Quincy Square at Madison
Park Homeowner's Association, requesting credit toward future water
bills.
Good morning.
MR. SAMOUCE: Morning, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning.
MR. SAMOUCE: All the fun stuff s gone, it looks like, so we're
into business now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If that was the fun stuff, we're in real
trouble.
MR. SAMOUCE: The reason why I'm here today is I represent
Quincy Square at Madison Park Condominium Association, Inc.
They're an 88 -unit condominium association that assumed control, the
members, from the developer in July of 2010.
And the reason we're here, and I'll go over the details, is basically
through the wrong water meters being put in on 20 of their 22
buildings. They have basically overpaid for water for -- since the
buildings were constructed about $132,000, and for the last four years
about $98,000.
Now, how this came into being is the last two buildings came on
line right before turnover, and the association noticed that their water
bill was much less than the other buildings, about $2,000 a month less.
And they got looking into that and hired an engineer. And the
engineer found out that, well, the last two buildings had a 1.5 inch
water meter, where the first 20 buildings had a two -inch water meter.
And that was the big cause for the difference, because there's a flat fee
per month by size of water meter.
The engineer looked further into it and found out that the plans
Page 24
March 13, 2012
and specs for the buildings were for a 1.5 -inch water meter, and that
the plans called that the county was supposed to coordinate with the
developer to make sure the county put the right size meters in. And it
is our contention that that did not happen because, you know, for the
20 buildings, the wrong meter was put in.
From the meter to the house itself, the four unit complex house,
there was 1.5 -inch pipe. So it should have been, you know, very
obvious to the county when they came out to put in the meters that
they were feeding a 1.5 inch pipe, not a two -inch pipe, and therefore,
they should not have put in the two -inch meters and should have put in
a 1.5 -inch meter.
As a result of that, last fall the association talked to county staff,
and they worked with them and they went ahead and in January
swapped out all the two -inch meters, four 1.5 -inch meters, so now
they're correctly metered and they're paying the correct amount for the
water now. They got the first water bill in January of this year and
compared it to last year for the same buildings and it was about a
$2,000 a month difference in the cost.
The association has asked the county to calculate what the actual
difference would have been over the last four years. And they've not
got an answer from staff as to what that would be.
So basically, you know, my clients are asking -- they don't want
to be paid $98,000, they're asking for a credit in future bills, because
they've already paid the $98,000. Credit on future bills so that amount
is used up, so for the entire time they should have been paying the
correct amount for that water. That's about it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you very much.
You know, Mr. Samouce, we don't generally make decisions on
public petitions. We -- at the time they're presented we schedule them
for a full hearing. And now I certainly think that your petition
deserves a full hearing and I will make that motion --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second it.
Page 25
March 13, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- that we will bring it back for a full
hearing to see if we can't sort this out and get you resolution to it.
MR. SAMOUCE: That would be great.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a motion by me and a second
by Commissioner Fiala. And we have --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question on the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question on the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I want to -- I mean, from what I
understand, the size of the meter is providing the availability of
capacity of water. So what I would like to know from staff is, between
a -- you have a one and a half inch outlet pipe, how are you going to
get more capacity through that pipe to the house in order to reserve
that capacity?
In other words, if you had a two -inch pipe outlet with a two -inch
meter, would you have the availability of more capacity? Because
that's what they're charging for is capacity, versus a two -inch meter
with an inch and a half pipe.
Does that make sense?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It does, but it's something that I think
staff should explain when we bring it back for public hearing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's one of the things I'm
looking for in the executive summary. That's why I wanted to have
that discussion.
MR. OCHS: We understand, Commissioner, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's that?
MR. OCHS: We'll address that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And this is not the only circumstance.
We've got other circumstances we need to deal with too.
So a full hearing of this would be very beneficial for the residents
Page 26
March 13, 2012
as well as the Commissioners.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, there's several issues that I
want to address with respect to this. I had the opportunity to meet with
the individuals who have been hurt, as you describe, and with you.
And I want to thank you very much for giving me all the details
during the course of our meeting.
When we met, staff was present, and at no time during that
meeting did staff disclose what I read in the Naples Daily News,
which is that an audit was being conducted with respect to these
meters.
Now, that is very, very disturbing to me. Because when we met,
staff said there are no problems with the meters and we feel very
comfortable with the meters as functioning correctly. So I want that
on the record. Because what I read in the newspaper this morning
disturbed me tremendously.
What I have done is, I have put together a file of all my e -mails
to staff and all their responses. And it will be attached as an exhibit to
this discussion for your review so you can see everything I have.
Secondly, one of my neighbors was being charged for sewage,
and is on septic. And he raised the issue and the county turned around
and paid him right away, refunded the money. How could that even
happen in the first place? I don't even understand how there can
possibly be a difference in what you're being charged for water
coming through a one -inch meter versus a two -inch meter. It's
supposed to be a function of the quantity you use. So if you use it,
you pay for it.
I don't understand why if there is a hookup to a commercial
building and no water is being drawn that someone has to pay a fee
merely for the presence of a hookup that they've already paid for when
the hookup was installed in the first place.
There are so many issues and so many concerns I have with
Page 27
March 13, 2012
respect to utility billings, that quite frankly I think it really warrant an
audit. A very serious audit.
So you have my full support. I appreciate your concerns, I
appreciate your arguments and I will do whatever I can to help you
find the truth in this matter.
MR. SAMOUCE: Thank you, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we're going to bring it back for
scheduled public hearing and we'll flush all this out.
MR. OCHS: No pun intended.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, pun intended.
Item #6B
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST FROM JOHN LUNDIN
REGARDING RED LIGHT CAMERAS
MR. OCHS: Item 6.B is a public petition request from John
Lundin regarding red light cameras.
MR. LUNDIN: Hi, I'm John Lundin. First I'd like to announce I
received a letter from the Supervisor of Elections. I am on the ballot
with petitions. I am running as a Democrat in Collier County.
I'd like to request that the Board of County Commissioners put
on the November 6, 2012 ballot a binding referendum for or against
March 13, 2012
red -light traffic cameras. I researched the issue. You can do binding
referendums. On March 12th, 1996, the Board of County
Commissioners passed a resolution, number 96.134, which allows you
to do binding referendums.
The reason I'm requesting this referendum is because at your last
meeting on February 28th, after there was a 3 -2 vote in favor of the
new contract, Commissioner Coletta said that if the citizens objected
to the red -light traffic cameras he would put a referendum on the
ballot to let the voters decide the issue. Soon after that when the
Naples Daily News published their article, over 60 people blogged
that they opposed the red -light cameras.
I'd like to read a few of the comments.
Comment: Police state is winning here folks. Wake up. Coletta
is in error.
Comment: Coletta and pay -off equal a yes vote.
Comment: We should all get together and stage a sit -in. It
worked in the seventies, we can do it now. One by one, Coletta has to
go.
Comment: If they're not that money hungry, it's just they have
spent all the regular tax revenue to a point that the regular revenue
cannot even make the payments on the debt, which I believe is just
under one billion dollars.
I was at a meeting yesterday, it seems like you're in debt a
million dollars.
Comment: You lost my vote for the people. Pretty soon on every
corner, socialism.
Comment: Coletta and pay -off equal a yes vote. I'm beginning
to wonder myself. Just last week, Big Jim was talking the line that he
wanted to get rid of the cameras. I guess someone must have come
along and changed his mind. Maybe Mr. Sanders pulled an
(unintelligible) Coletta aside and told him to go back in line and vote
the proper way. I hope you good folks east of County Road 951 get
Page 29
March 13, 2012
rid of that in this coming election.
Comment: The cameras indirectly block emergency vehicles
because cars stopped at a camera hesitate to get out of the way. Other
side effects are rear - enders, local money sent to Arizona where it
won't come back, and tourists and shoppers driven away.
Comment: Another example of just how out of touch and
clueless our commissioners are.
Comments: It's all about the money, not about safety. Even
Coletta was convinced that there was no stats showing safety of the
things.
Comment: The roads are more dangerous with the cameras.
Motorists are slamming on their brakes at intersections, creating
multi -car pile -ups so they don't get a ticket. Over 100 separate
incidents since inception.
Comment: This sealed the deal. Someone please look and see if
there is a contribution to Coletta's campaign from the camera people.
I like that, camera people.
Comment: Next it will be drones, drones will be watching us.
Comment: Invasion of privacy. We will be like London pretty
soon, cameras everywhere, on the sidewalks, back streets. You watch.
Comment: I read that in some states they shorten the duration of
the yellow just to ticket in order to get more revenue after installing
the cameras. A judge ruled against them and they had to refund a
bunch of money. I also read that in this, that a local person was timing
the yellow duration and found that case to be there. It's all about the
money. They won't save one life. It may even cause more rear -ender
type accidents.
Comment: Hey, Commissioners, news flash, start looking for a
job. In the words of Donald Trump, you're fired.
Comment: Get rid of the three C's; cameras, Coyle and Coletta.
Comment: The cameras prevent nothing. They only take a
picture of a car after it's moved through an intersection. Red -light
Page 30
March 13, 2012
runners are not paying attention, are in a hurry and just don't care.
A civil cite with no points on a record is not going to change
much driver behavior in that regard.
Comment: Crooks.
Comment: I recommend you go on the Internet, you could buy a
license plate that covers up and blurs your plate when the camera goes
by.
I hear it works great.
Comment: Hey, Jim, if you want to err on my health and safety,
then stop waking up The Constitution.
Comment: I will remove the red -light cameras using taxpayer's
money to settle a lawsuit, saying there will be no taxpayer money, that
it came from the violators. Well, the violators are local taxpayers, as
far as I can determine. The violaters are hard - working citizens of this
community that get duped by the local government using taxpayer
money to stick it to the taxpayers. Taxation by citation.
Comment: Sure thing, Coletta is something. The best was
Jackson Labs and the super highway --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Your time has expired, Mr. Lundin.
MR. LUNDIN: I think for a petition I get 10 minutes, correct?
MR. MITCHELL: It was 10 --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You just got 10 minutes.
MR. LUNDIN: I spoke 10 minutes just now?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir.
MR. LUNDIN: I did not speak for 10 minutes. I spoke for about
four minutes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Lundin, you spoke for 10 minutes.
MR. LUNDIN: No, I did not. Did anybody hear me speak for
10 minutes? I think I spoke for about four minutes.
Are you fixing the time here so people can't get their 10 minutes?
I did not see 10 minutes on here when I started.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Naples Daily News, please listen very
Page 31
March 13, 2012
carefully. You hear all this garbage from bloggers, anonymous
bloggers who don't have --
MR. LUNDIN: You know, that's social media. Social media is
changing our society. Because of social media, I am here today and
you are forced to put this on a referendum. If it wasn't for the social
media or the Naples Daily News -- you know, we have revolutions in
Arab countries because of social media, and we're having a revolution
here with social media. People are instantly blogging, and you did not
give me 10 minutes. I did not --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Gentlemen, would you please remove
this man from the room.
MR. LUNDIN: Okay, you don't want to play by the rules, fine,
thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I'll continue. Naples Daily News,
that's what you create by publishing and providing a forum for
anonymous bloggers. People who can spout any kind of hate and mis-
information that they want to. And it's despicable.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Sir, this is not mine --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I know that.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I had nothing to do with it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I know that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Your name, for the record.
Item #6C
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST FROM RAY CADWALLADER
REGARDING THE FUTURE OF IMMOKALEE — PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes you to Item 6.0 on
public petitions. It's a public petition request from Ray Cadwallader,
regarding the future of Immokalee.
MR. CADWALLADER: You want me to follow that?
Page 32
March 13, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Cadwallader, you will add a lot after
that.
MR. CADWALLADER: I'm Ray Cadwallader. I'm 80 years old
and I moved here 10 years ago. And I'm happy I made the decision.
And what I'm going to say now relates to master planning. And I'll be
real quick. I won't take 10 minutes.
After the Second World War, why, Eisenhower came back from
the German defeat and they -- during that early time period, why, a
master plan was developed for the national defense highway system to
get troops from Baltimore to San Diego by way of a highway.
Lo and behold, along comes Harry Truman and says we want to
use another means, meaning the atomic bomb, and so the atomic bomb
was used to shortchange the Japanese situation. And the Japanese
were quickly moved away.
So you have in Washington a master plan that was never really
enacted until Eisenhower and his presidency started the federal
highway system.
And I am involved with a part of that national highway system,
meaning that I was doing the planning -- this is like 30 years ago, of
another link of it from Sault Ste. Marie down to Charleston, South
Carolina. And we got along quite well. What we did was we took
every area, every region along that designated highway plan and
developed Chambers of Commerce and the like to pursue that.
Now, 30 years goes by, and there are still parts of that master
plan being implemented in North Carolina, Michigan, and northern
Ohio.
So a master plan is meant to do quite a few things. It is meant to
plan into the future, it is also meant to be changed, because no master
plan is ever perfect. It is also meant to get the interest of the people up
to date as you go along with it.
I came down here and I witnessed the master plan for Immokalee
and I read the master plan. And I happen to have known the
Page 33
March 13, 2012
people that did that master plan and I commend you for picking them,
because they did a fine job on that master plan. And I've been working
with master plans for 20 years in Cincinnati on various projects.
The biggest one was a $100 million project where Coca -Cola Bottling
Company and U.S. Shoe Corporation met, where the home offices of
the Fifth Third Bank now exist.
With all of that background, I would beg you to proceed forth
with that master plan and make changes to it and do what is necessary
to -- because you're fooling around if you don't proceed forth, with
loss of potential monies. And I witnessed this here the first time when
the World Trade Center was hit. And one thing you have to have on
your shelf in government is to have some plan that has gone through
that master plan process. And if you don't go through that master plan
process, you've lost timing, because you're not there ready to go to
execute something that you have had on the shelf for a few years. So I
am wholeheartedly in support of that Immokalee Master Plan.
I think that another step that should be taken is to trigger some
event. And I have a pet thing, and it relates to the underground
railway, if you can believe this. The underground railway has another
-- besides the Civil War routine, there is also a Hispanic underground
railway that is in action. And I didn't even know this until I started
doing some reading and talking.
And I would like to invite you to invite a couple people down
that are acquainted with the underground railway from my
background in Cincinnati, where you can witness the underground
railway down on the riverfront. Because it's an amazing thing.
And that's it. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta? Commissioner
Coletta has -- I think his questions pertain to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Actually, my light was on
before, but it -- you know, while you recognize me, I can always say a
couple words.
Page 34
March 13, 2012
I just wanted to tell you how much I appreciate all the time, and a
lot of people don't realize it, you put into such communities as
Immokalee and Copeland and East Naples, with using your skill, not
only as an attorney but as a legislator. You were a member of the,
what is -- I'm sorry, Ohio?
MR. CADWALLADER: The Ohio legislative body.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And you've been tremendous in
helping different communities get their bylaws together for the new
civic associations. You've sat on the front porch, you've helped in
numerous ways that -- I could spend all day. And I didn't want this
opportunity to go by without recognizing your contributions, your
personal contributions, sir.
Thank you very much, on the behalf of District 5 and in Collier
County.
MR. CADWALLADER: Well, I appreciate that, and I would
have it no other way.
Thank you.
Any other questions?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala -- oh, yeah, Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you so much for your
presentation. I just have a couple of questions.
Are you under the impression that Immokalee does not have a
master plan at this time?
MR. CADWALLADER: I'm under the impression that it's going
through a process. And I have read that, but I didn't study it, just one
time through it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So do you believe that Immokalee
has a master plan right now or not?
MR. CADWALLADER: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You don't know?
MR. CADWALLADER: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, Immokalee does have a
Page 35
March 13, 2012
master plan, and it's a master plan that has been developed by the
community over the past decade, and that master plan is in full force
and effect, was last amended in 2008.
Have you read the current master plan?
MR. CADWALLADER: Yes, I have.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Or did you read the amendment?
MR. CADWALLADER: I've read what the firm in Cincinnati,
which I have no relation, presented at a meeting maybe a month ago.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Jim, which firm in Cincinnati?
Which Cincinnati firm?
MR. CADWALLADER: KM -- Keating Muething & Klekamp
is the law firm that owns the planning company subsidiary that did
that master plan.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So there is a law firm that owns
the firm that did the master plan?
MR. CADWALLADER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's that? You want to
elaborate on that, Jim?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: On the master plan that was put
together in Cincinnati?
Sure. I think they'll probably -- if you were in charge of it, sir, I
think you probably did an excellent j ob. I thank you for your service
there too.
MR. CADWALLADER: I didn't have anything to do with it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, we're talking about the
Immokalee Master Plan.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The original one is what they're
talking about --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I'd like to elaborate on
that. Thank you very much for giving me that opportunity.
The original area master plan was put together in a less than an
expedient manner. It reflected mainly the will of coastal Collier
Page 36
March 13, 2012
County when it was put together. Because I was around then, I was
putting together the master plan the same time for Golden Gate. We
had a very successful one, I was chair for it, finished it in a year and a
half.
The Immokalee one ran into numerous problems. The people that
were working on it interjected themselves, mainly from the County.
And it really wasn't the true will of the people of Immokalee. Yes, it's
a master plan, but the master plan in Immokalee is more of a coastal
master plan and hasn't provided the type of protection that the people
in Immokalee have been looking for. They don't want to be nailed
down to the archaic rules that we have here in coastal Collier County
regarding signage, regarding the planting of greenery. They want to
be able to be more their own entity rather than be identified as a part
of Naples. That might be a summary of it.
Is that what you were looking for? I can elaborate more on it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, that's not what I asked. You
were referring to some -- I wanted to know which plan you had
reviewed.
MR. CADWALLADER: I reviewed the plan that was presented
to you about a month ago.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you reviewed the amendment.
MR. CADWALLADER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. And that amendment is the
one that will be replacing, if adopted, the existing Immokalee area
master plan --
MR. CADWALLADER: Right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- that is in full force and effect.
What is it about the plan that you read that you like? Why do
you feel it's a good plan? Can you tell me specifically what you
thought was good about it?
MR. CADWALLADER: Well, there are three things that occur:
One is no plan; two is a plan that is a good plan but should be
Page 37
March 13, 2012
tweaked; and three is nothing. Third, I can't remember. And what I
readjust as a developer of projects in Cincinnati, not as a planner, but
as a developer, why, it read well.
Now, I can't pick out that or that, because it was just a quick
synopsis of the entire --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you didn't look at the
differences between what exists in the current plan and what's
proposed by this strike -all amendment.
MR. CADWALLADER: I did not look at the original plan, no.
Didn't even know it existed.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, there is a plan in full force
and effect, and I would encourage you to look at it and look at the
differences. And then I would love to have your opinion based on
your review in light of the interests of Immokalee and what the cost to
develop that amended plan would be. I would look forward to your
comments on that.
MR. CADWALLADER: I'd be happy to, once I see it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure. Well, it's readily obtainable.
In fact, I'll make sure my aide gets you a copy of the existing plan.
MR. CADWALLADER: Thanks. Anything further?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good work, Ray.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's it. Thank you very much, Mr.
Cadwallader.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, Ian.
MR. MITCHELL: With regards to Mr. Lundin, that was my
mistake, he -- the timer was set incorrectly, he actually only had six
minutes. So he was shorted by four minutes. So I apologize. I
apologize to Mr. Lundin as well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is he still here?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir, he is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
March 13, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I make a suggestion, that
we start over from zero and make sure he gets the full 10 minutes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, come on.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, no, you know, we did cut
him short --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You get four more minutes, Mr. Lundin.
MR. MITCHELL: Thank you.
MR. LUNDIN: Thank you. Thank you for reconsidering my
time.
I'm actually done with my part. I'd like to present some expert
technical testimony from Vinnie, who's running for sheriff.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What's our policy concerning that,
County Manager?
MR. LUNDIN: I've always seen people let petitioners have
expert testimony. He's an expert on traffic data on --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He can speak immediately after you
under public comment --
MR. LUNDIN: No, he can speak right now on petition. It's
always done here. I've seen it many times --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: It's a presentation. I've seen lots of different
things. This isn't public petition. Public petition would be limited just
to the petitioner on his --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This is a public petition.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Alright, what is the answer, clear, yes or
no?
MR. KLATZKOW: Then it's no.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. LUNDIN: No what?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, he cannot speak under public
petition. He can speak immediately after you.
MR. LUNDIN: Can you explain why I can't have someone with
Page 39
March 13, 2012
expert testimony on my petition? I'm not an expert on traffic data, he
is. And I've seen many lawyers come up here and support petitioners
on their petitions all the time.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, the public petition policy is always just
the petitioner. Then if the Board is interested in bringing it back, they
bring it back.
MR. LUNDIN: Are you saying you never had expert testimony
on any petitioner here? I've seen it many times.
MR. KLATZKOW: What I'm telling you, sir, is that you make
your public petition to the Board. If the Board wants to rehear it, it can
come back. And at that point in time you can have a full public
hearing.
MR. LUNDIN: But in those 10 minutes I've seen public
petitioners here have their lawyers come up here, their mothers,
fathers.
MR. KLATZKOW: I could say this to you for a fifth time, okay.
But the policy that the Board has had ever since I've been here is on a
public petition petitioner gives his presentation and the Board then
makes a decision whether they want to come back --
MR. LUNDIN: Okay, thank you very much. We're done.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess I'll wait under
Commissioner Coletta's, since Mr. Lundin is done.
Item #7A
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That brings us to public petitions
-- I'm sorry, public comments.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
March 13, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do we have any people registered for
public comments?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir, we have one person registered. It's
Mr. Lundin.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, Henning, you
want to ask your questions now or later?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Of Mr. Lundin under the
previous item?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Your lights are on, I'm asking if you
want to say something now or later.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know if he wants to
really communicate or if he just wants to --
MR. LUNDIN: Well, we've pushed it to public comments now.
You haven't taken a vote on that issue, have you. And you went to the
next agenda item, so it's out of Robert's rules of orders, actually. I
guess you do have to say if you want to agree with the petition and
forward it to the next meeting, right? I mean, so it's up to you.
I mean, you guys are violating all your rules here, so do whatever you
want, you know.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know what? Public
petition is over. So therefore I will hold my questions and comments.
It would be a comment now, because the petition is over with.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I was going to merely suggest that
we consolidate the question of whether a straw ballot should be held
during the primary or occurring during the general election to the
general agenda when we're going to discuss it. Just roll the two into
that one and then address them jointly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then we'll continue with public
comments on general topics.
And that's how many minutes, Ian?
Page 41
March 13, 2012
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, it's three minutes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
(Video played.)
MR. LUNDIN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any other public speakers, Ian?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, no, that was the only public speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. County Manager, what can we do
in less than 10 minutes?
MR. OCHS: Well, you have a series of appointments, sir, under
Board of County Commissioners. You may want to consider some of
those.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, let's go to appointments.
Item #I OA
RESOLUTION 2012 -39: APPOINTING DEBRA J. JOHNSON
HUBBARD & ROBERT WILLIAMS TO THE BLACK AFFAIRS
ADVISORY BOARD — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 10.A is appointments of members to the Black
Affairs Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve Deborah
Hubbard and Robert Williams.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, motion by Commissioner
Henning to approve the committee's recommendation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
Commissioner Hiller, is your light on from before?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That was from before.
aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
Page 42
March 13, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #I OB
RESOLUTION 2012 -40: APPOINTING DALE LEWIS & BETTY
R. SCHUDEL TO THE RADIO ROAD BEAUTIFICATION MSTU
ADVISORY COMMITTEE — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 10.13 is appointment of members to the Radio Road
Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve Dale Lewis and
Betty Schudel.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Fiala to accept
the committee's recommendation, seconded by Commissioner
Henning.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Page 43
March 13, 2012
Item #I OC
RESOLUTION 2012 -41: APPOINTING DR. TODD BETHEL TO
THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES POLICY ADVISORY
BOARD — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: IO.0 is appointment of a member to the Emergency
Medical Services Policy Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve Dr. Todd
Bethel.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve Dr. Todd Bethel by
Commissioner Coletta, seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #I OD
RESOLUTION 2012 -42: REAPPOINTING W. THOMAS KEPP, JR.
TO THE ANIMAL SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 10.1) is appointment of member to the Animal
Services Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve Tom Kepp.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
March 13, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Henning to
approve Tom Kepp, who is the committee recommendation, second by
Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
Item #I OE
RESOLUTION 2012 -43: APPOINTING WILLIAM SJOSTROM TO
THE VANDERBILT BEACH BEAUTIFICATION MSTU
ADVISORY COMMITTEE — ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
MR. OCHS: 10.E is appointment of member to the Vanderbilt
Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve the committee
recommendation William --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sostrum (phonetic).
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sostrum. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Fiala to
approve the committee's recommendation of William Sostrum.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seconded by Commissioner Hiller.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE:
Item #I OF
It passes unanimously.
March 13, 2012
RESOLUTION 2012 -44: REAPPOINTING LARRY D.
MIESZCAK, ROBERT KAUFMAN, GERALD J. LEFEBVRE &
JAMES E. LAVINSKI TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
— ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: IO.F is the reconsideration of appointments to the
Code Enforcement Board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to make a motion, to take
what was the committee recommendation previously, that's Mr. Larry
Mieszcak, Robert Kaufman, Gerald Lefebvre, and James Lavinski.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's no recommendation
from the committee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: As I said previously, it was the
recommendation from the last one. And let me tell you why. For
instance, Mr. Gerald Lefebvre, he's been the chairman, never misses a
meeting. He's been on this board for a number of years. But he has
been very active and a very, very solid member. I would hate to
remove somebody who is that dedicated to the committee.
Mr. Lavinski has also had perfect attendance. I don't really know
Mr. Mieszcak and Mr. Kaufman, but --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I can speak for Mr. Kaufman. Mr.
Kaufman is from the second district, and has been a very serious
March 13, 2012
participant and contributor. And I can only speak highly of him.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's probably why they
recommended him again.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, definitely. Very serious
candidate.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, this is a
quasi-judicial board. Like quasi-judicial boards of the -- just like the
Planning Commission, the committee cannot make recommendations.
And it was not on our last agenda of the committee making
recommendations.
MR. KLATZKOW: There is no committee recommendation on
this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not on this one, I thought it was on
the last one. I'm so sorry, I really thought it was. Excuse me. Thank
you for that correction.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So where --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I do -- I still make the motion
that the first four would be appointed to this committee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just need to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just need to understand, where
did you get the recommendations from that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I honestly thought that on the last
committee meeting, I honestly did, that they were recommended.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. There is a motion by
Commissioner Fiala, seconded by Commissioner Coletta for the
reappointment of the four members, Mr. Mieszcak, Kaufman,
Lefebvre and Lavinski.
Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The reason that this was brought
Page 47
March 13, 2012
back was because due to some unintentional oversight, one of the
applications was misplaced, and as a result was not included for
consideration. So in fairness to make sure that that individual had the
opportunity to be considered, we agreed to bring it back and include
that name in the pool of candidates.
And having done so, we now have a motion to reappoint the
same people we considered last time. So I just wanted that on the
record for clarification.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ian, correct me if I'm wrong, the
last executive summary had three members to be appointed. Is that
right?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So now we have four members.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't think that's true.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. There were four members to be
appointed. The problem is that one of the four that had previously
served, their application was not included.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we've got four -- we had four vacancies.
And last time you were given one, two, three, four -- you were given
five candidates to consider for those vacancies.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For four vacancies or three
vacancies?
MR. MITCHELL: No, sir, there were four vacancies.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. Thank you for the
clarification.
MR. MITCHELL: We gave you the gentleman, Mr. Lavinski,
his application was not included.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the -- just to close the loop on that,
at our last meeting, Mr. Mieszcak, Mr. Kaufman, Ms. Green and Mr.
Rauch -- or Dr. Rauch were the ones who I think were --
March 13, 2012
MR. MITCHELL: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- appointed. And so Commissioner
Fiala recognized that oversight and I asked for a reconsideration in
order to do that. And so that's how that all came about.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And so now we have a recommendation
and a second -- recommendation by Commissioner Fiala and a second
by Commissioner Coletta, to reappoint the four members of the
committee whose terms are expiring. And with that, I'll call the
motion.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion carries unanimously.
We don't have any other appointments. We're going to take the
break early. We'll be back here at 10:45.
We have to do a couple of things here. Number one, we have to
recognize Mr. John Norman's birthday. And so -- and there's his
birthday cake. And you all get an opportunity to sing happy birthday
to him.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think it's also important to note
that John Norman's been around for 80 years, even though it does
seem like it's been a lot longer.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think it's at least 90.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's do the birthday song.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, you want to lead us in singing
Happy Birthday to John?
March 13, 2012
(Happy Birthday was sung.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How about a word of wisdom?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: John says we're nine days early but
we should start celebrating early.
(Applause.)
MR. NORMAN: Thank you, everyone. You're nine days early,
but that's okay. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Happy birthday, John.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're cutting the cake out in the
hallway here. Please, everybody join in, don't leave any of it behind,
okay.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a 10:45 time certain on
your return.
(A recess was taken.)
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, ladies and gentlemen, Board of
County Commission meeting is back in session. We're going to go to
Item #13A
PRESENTATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL
FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 —PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Item 13.A, Commissioners, is your 10:45 a.m. time
certain this morning. It's a presentation of the comprehensive annual
financial report for fiscal year ended September 30th, 2011. Ms.
Kinzel will make the introduction.
MS. KINZEL: Yes, good morning, Commissioners. Another
good news item. Two in a row for one day. That's great.
But for the record --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What was the first one?
Page 50
March 13, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What was the first?
MS. KINZEL: The first one was Sunshine Week. Okay. Happy
news.
Anyways. For the record, Crystal Kinzel, Director of Finance
and Accounting for the Clerk's Office.
This morning we are here to give to the Board a presentation on
the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, commonly referred to as
the CAFR. This year's presentation includes a certificate of
achievement for excellence through fiscal year '10, which was the
25th year that Collier County received a certification of excellence in
financial reporting. So we're quite proud of that. And the community
should be proud of that from a perspective of financial integrity in
reporting to the public.
Before we get the presentation started, I would like to take a few
minutes, a couple Commissioners I got to introduce to the accounting
team that works all year to put the numbers together with all of the
county departments. They do a great job. And so I brought them so
they could actually see what happens to the end of their product and
get a firsthand view of what goes on down here at the Board of
County Commissioners meeting with the CAFR presentation.
I'd also like to particularly thank Derek Johnssen. Most of you
know Derek. He's been around for 100 years. No, he can't be that
long, I'm older. But Derek is obviously the primary financial expert in
our area. He works diligently on these numbers, works very closely
with your auditors. And I have to give him great credit. Also his
assistant there, Kelly, who is the senior financial supervisor, she
supervises preparation of the audit and gets everything put together,
coordinated with other department and does a great job. So both of
them lead this team to give you the document you have before you.
We'd also to really thank the County Manager's Office,
particularly Mark Isaacson, the Office of Management and Budget.
We work with them to coordinate all of the responses to the audit, all
Page 51
March 13, 2012
of the information all year. We could not do it without the total
cooperation yearly from all of your administrators, directors and
departmental staff that feed us data, issues, answers; everything that
goes into a year's worth of financial information.
So we just want to put all of those thank you on the record.
I would also like to thank E &Y before I introduce Mr. DiSanto.
They have sent us qualified, capable accountants for the term of their
engagements to date.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could you say who E &Y is?
MS. KINZEL: Ernst & Young. But they commonly go by E &Y.
But it is Ernst & Young, our external auditors. And they have sent us
good qualified accountants that have some experience in Collier
County. It makes all of our lives easier to work with people that are
knowledgeable. And we have appreciated that.
So with that, I would like to introduce John DiSanto, who is the
executive director with Ernst and Young. And he's going to make a
presentation and go over the agenda item that was in your packet.
And if you have any questions, he will be available, as will the
accounting team.
MR. DISANTO: Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the
Board. Again, for the record, my name is John DiSanto. I am an
executive director with Ernst & Young, and I was the partner in
charge of your audit this year.
We put together a summary of the 2011 financial statement audit
results. It's a pretty thick booklet. I plan on just highlighting some of
the key items and opening up for any questions that you may have
related to the audit.
As far as the reports that we issued as a result of our audit, we did
issue a clean or an unqualified audit opinion on the basic financial
statements of Collier County. We also issued separate unqualified or
clean audit opinions on each of the five constitutional officers and on
the county water and sewer enterprise fund.
Page 52
March 13, 2012
In addition to that, we did issue reports on internal control and
compliance with laws and regulations for the county as a whole and
for each of the five constitutional officers. And in those reports we
disclosed that there were no material weaknesses in internal controls
over financial reporting and no instances of non - compliance with laws
and regulations.
We also, as you're aware, audit the many federal and state grant
programs that Collier County receives. And we did audit 14 programs
in total, eight federal, six state. We did issue adverse opinions on two
of those programs, qualified opinions on five of those programs. And
unqualified or clean opinions on the remaining seven programs.
What I'd like to do is put this -- I put this slide together to kind of
compare audit results. You know, how did you do fiscal 'I I relative to
the two prior years. And you see as far as audit differences we
identified our audit adjustments; they were about the same. We had a
total of seven. Two audit differences were recorded. Five audit
differences we identified during the audit were determined by
management to be immaterial to the financial statements and were not
recorded. And we did concur with management's position on those
five audit differences.
As far as single audit findings go, again, I mentioned we audited
14 major programs. As I mentioned, eight were federal, six were
state. That number of programs was fairly consistent with the prior
two years. And while our findings have gone up and also I would say
that the severity of those findings have gone up, no different, our
findings were not any different than the findings by internal audit of
the county or by the federal agencies. But we did note that there were
11 findings in total, of which 11 of them were determined to be the
result of material weaknesses in controls over compliance with the
laws and regulations of those particular grant programs.
And as far as management letter comments go, I think this is an
area where you see the number actually coming down. There were
Page 53
March 13, 2012
four management letter comments on internal controls in 2009, two in
2010, and we just had one comment in 2011.
We also put together some three -year comparison information so
that the Board can see some trend information as to how the county is
doing. And what we're showing on this slide here is the fund balance,
the total fund balance in your general fund and then the unassigned or
the unreserved fund balance in your general fund as a percentage of
the total expenditures. And you'll note that the percent of the
expenditures of the total fund balance is 30 percent at the end of 2011,
and for the unreserved or unassigned fund balance it's 24 percent.
Based on the budget for fiscal '12 and where management
expects to be, that number will probably decrease a little bit in fiscal
2012. And I know you're all aware of that and I'm sure you're
monitoring that pretty closely. We do know the challenges that all
government in the State of Florida has been facing over the last
several years.
The bottom part of the slide compares the Collier County General
Fund fund balance as a percentage of the total expenditures, both the
total fund balance and again the unreserved or unassigned fund
balance. And it compares that to Manatee and Sarasota County. And
as you can see, Collier stacks up pretty favorably, to Sarasota County
anyway, on the unassigned on the unreserved fund balance. Total
fund balance, Collier is a little bit lower than those two counties. I
would say that that's due to many of the policy differences on the
boards of those two counties.
One of the other information that we put together, again a
three -year comparison, it's comparing outstanding debt per capita for
both governmental funds or governmental activities and your
enterprise debt. And you see here the trend is positive. It's continuing
to go down. Also comparing that to Manatee and Sarasota County,
you see Collier County is higher than those two counties. Just wanted
to give you a frame of reference as to how Collier County stacks up
Page 54
March 13, 2012
against some of its peer counties.
I'm actually trying to advance to another slide; I'm looking for
slide nine. Yeah, I can work off of the hard copy.
MR. OCHS: Page 9 here --
MR. DISANTO: Sorry about that.
Slide nine here starts the beginning of our required
communications. These are matters that we are required to
communicate to those charged with governance and organizations like
this board.
The one thing I wanted to point out on this slide nine is the very
first item, the auditor's responsibilities under generally accepted
auditing standards. The financial statements of course are the
responsibility of management. The auditor's responsibility is to
determine that those financial -- whether or not those financial
statements present fairly the financial position and the results of
operations of the county.
And as I mentioned, we did conclude positively on that through
the issuance of our unqualified or clean audit opinions.
One other thing I'd like to point out on this item is that with
respect to internal controls, our responsibility is to review, obtain an
understanding of internal controls, policies and procedures and
processes to enable us to plan and perform our audit, not to issue a
separate opinion on internal controls.
I think we're good here.
With respect to audit differences, again, I mentioned that we had
two recorded audit differences. With respect to auditor independence,
Ernst & Young is independent of Collier County in all respects, and
there were no matters that would bear on our independence to function
as your external auditor.
As far as the adoption of or a change in accounting principles,
during the year the county was required to adopt a GASB statement,
number 54, on fund balance reporting. And if you reviewed the
Page 55
March 13, 2012
CAFR, you'll notice that there are different titles or different captions
within your fund balance section. Those changes were made to better
express the spend - ability of the fund balances and the nature of the
constraints or restrictions upon fund balances.
With respect to fraud and illegal acts, again, we did not identify
any instances of fraud or any other illegal acts that would require us to
report to this Board.
I do want to point out with respect to fraud that we are
responsible for detecting fraud that is material to your financial
statements. We are not required to identify fraud that is immaterial to
the financial statements. And as far as materiality goes, just to give
you a ballpark about where that is; if you're looking at something like
the general fund, our materiality is somewhere between one million
and $1.2 million. So if there was fraud that was less than that amount,
we would not design audit procedures to detect fraud that would be
above that number.
I also wanted to point out that we continue to receive excellent
cooperation from management, management of the county, both in the
finance area and the County Manager's area, and that we did not have
any disagreements with management in performing our audit.
And there's a lot of other information in here that's really for your
information. But at this time I will just open up and ask if anybody
has any questions related to the audit in general or the results of the
audit.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, thank you.
Early on you talked about having issued some adverse and
qualified opinions with respect to some of the programs, and you
indicated that there were material weaknesses in internal controls with
respect to some of the grant programs.
Can you talk to us a little bit about some of those material
weaknesses that precipitated these adverse opinions?
Page 56
March 13, 2012
MR. DISANTO: Yeah. The material weaknesses, generally I
would say center around a couple of themes; the themes being that
there's non - compliance, whether it's things like unallowable costs or
questionable costs. We saw things such as pencil bids, which I know
you're all aware of, and it's previously been disclosed.
We also identified things in the area of eligibility where
individuals who -- well, I won't say they were not eligible, but there
was no support in their file for us to audit the fact as to whether or not
they were eligible to receive benefits under certain of the housing
programs. Those are just some examples.
And I think the themes that surround those particular findings are
that there seems to be a lack of what I would say adequate
management supervision, maybe a lack of understanding of program
requirements.
So I think our overall recommendations in that single audit report
were a couple of things. The first thing we recommended is maybe
better education and training of the individuals that are responsible for
particular program compliances. Also, better and more thorough
supervisory reviews of information, whether it's approving invoices
for payment, whether it's approving reports that get filed with your
grantor agencies, or whether it's making sure that all documentation to
support the eligibility of individuals to participate in certain programs,
you know, that there's that support in the file and that support is
reviewed and approved by an appropriate supervisory level individual.
In addition to that, we also recommend and think it would be a
good idea if, under the County Manager's Office, if the county were to
designate one or two individuals to have overall responsibility for
monitoring the compliance of these grant programs at the department
level, and they would then be responsible for performing that second
level, if you will, of supervisory review.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you also talk to the issue of
materiality? I mean, you don't look at transactions under, I think you
Page 57
March 13, 2012
said somewhere around two million. Which basically means that
those transactions could potentially involve fraud, you don't audit for
fraud specifically. So the importance of the role of the Clerk, as
internal auditor, becomes you know, extremely important. Could you
speak to that?
MR. DISANTO: Sure. I use the general fund as an example. In
your financial statements, the statements in the front of your CAFR,
you'll note that there are separate funds that are in their own specific
columns. Those are separate opinion units and each of those have
separate scopes. So for instance like the water and sewer fund, the
scope is about $250,000.
We do design our audit plan and our audit procedures to detect
whether or not there was a fraud or an irregularity or even an
accounting error above those thresholds. Anything lower than those
thresholds, while we don't design the audit specific to defect those
items, as you know, inherent in the audit process we do use sampling,
we do use random sampling. And even though we may -- the results
of that sampling may be, you know, we're looking at a $10,000
invoice, let's say, and during the course of performing the review of
that invoices we would look to determine whether or not there was
any fraudulent activity surrounding that particular item. But on the
whole we would not design our audit to defect fraud that is immaterial
to the financial statements.
That role is better filled by most governmental entities through
the use of their internal audit department where they actually get down
into the more smaller types of items and the smaller areas that we
would not look at an external audit due to the fact that they would not
be material.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think it's a great observation
and suggestion about training of the management of the contracts,
March 13, 2012
because that's what a grant is, it's a contract between a grantor and the
Board of Commissioners through its chairman assigning.
We asked the Clerk a number of months ago if he'd be willing to
assist the County Manager in training staff on managing, submitting
payments for reimbursement and so on and so forth. And I don't
know, Commissioner Coyle, if you have received any correspondence
of that, because I haven't seen it. Actually, that would really improve
the function and functionality of the Clerk and county staff.
MS. KINZEL: And Commissioner Henning, I appreciate that.
Let me emphasize, we do work consistently, I think with county staff.
The County Manager has added a couple of additional bodies, you
know, to work with from office of management and budget. We have
been working hand in hand.
I know that the grant area, and Kim might want to speak to that,
they brought in technical assistance for some additional training also.
So I think we are working very closely with them.
We did not prepare a particular report, but we are in an ongoing
working on contracts, grant awards, recipient agreements, and we're
doing that continuously both with the County Attorney's Office and
the department to try to make sure that things go more smoothly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe I mis- spoke. A while
ago the Board had a discussion up here, and Commissioner Coyle sent
a letter to your boss, the Clerk of the Court, the auditor, and whatever
else he does, asking to assist the County Manager in training and
education of the county staff to manage contracts and how to submit
an invoice for payment. I don't know if anybody has heard from your
boss on his reply.
MS. KINZEL: I will certainly get back with the Clerk and
discuss that with him and more formally respond to your question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Because maybe we're
out of line. Maybe it's not -- wouldn't be a good time spent educating,
communicating on processes --
Page 59
March 13, 2012
MS. KINZEL: Well, and let me say, Commissioner, we do try to
maintain some semblance of independence, because we don't want to
also be put in the position of auditing the things that we have worked
with them to do. Our audit function by its nature, when we are
submitted a bill or an invoice becomes training with the department.
If we reject an invoice for a payment issue or a payment problem, we
work with the project manager, we work with the department
individuals to say why we're unable to make those payments.
So we see it more as an ongoing communication with the
departments versus our standing in front of the room and maybe
training them. Because that takes over a management role that really
we try to work with the County Manager's Office in those areas. And
certainly we have made presentations to some of the contract people
with j oint -- j ointly with purchasing and grants. We've sat in on some
of those technical trainings. But I will get with the Clerk and we will
see that you are formally responded.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Crystal, several times we have
.items coming back to the Board of Commissioners --
MS. KINZEL: Oh, there's the Clerk --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We have several items coming
back to the Board of Commissioners because it's not per the Board's
direction.
MS. KINZEL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's not productive. And I'm
not blaming anybody on the Clerk's side. But it's just not productive
when we have an agreement and things are not, you know, processed
the right way by our staff.
I think it would be more productive for some training of what
needs to be submitted.
MR. BROCK: I will respond to that, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. Welcome.
MR. BROCK: There is a Florida Statute --
March 13, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Your name for the record?
MR. BROCK: My name for the record is Dwight Brock. I'm the
Clerk of the Circuit Court.
There is a Florida Statute dealing with contracting for goods and
services with state agencies, of which Collier County is one, which
has provisions in it, including a provision dealing with a requirement
for training with the CFO, Chief Financial Officer. And I think it uses
little CFO.
I have directed my legal counsel to do an analysis of all of the
Florida Statutes. And once that is completed, we will then set up a
time frame.
One of the concerns that Leo had expressed to me on at least one
occasion prior was that we need to all be on the same page and
understand exactly what the requirements are. I understand that. I
mean, my philosophy in the past has been one of -- well, I mean, we
can all read Florida Statutes, and that's the requirements. But be that
not the case, I do not have a problem sitting down with county staff
and setting forth the criteria in as succinct a way that I possibly can, in
conjunction with Leo and his people, so we all know the playing field
on which we're operating.
And, you know, I think after talking with Leo about that, that
that's a good idea for everyone's perspective. So we'll be more than
happy to do that. And I've already started the ball rolling. I've directed
legal counsel to actually be doing a synopsis of the Florida Statutes.
Once that is completed, I will get back with Leo, I will copy the
Chairman of the Board and each of the County Commissioners as to
setting up a time frame in which we can in fact begin working through
the issues that we have.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. BROCK: Not a problem. You know, I thought everyone
was aware of this. But if that's not the case, when I saw this on the --
the discussion taking place, it became painfully obvious to me that not
Page 61
March 13, 2012
everyone was on the same wave - length here. So I want to make sure
that we're all on the same wave - length.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nobody communicated to me
that you're seeking a legal opinion on what you can do.
MR. BROCK: Well, I mean -- and obviously, you know, I'm not
going to be able to tell you every little nuance. I'm going to be able to
simply set forth the general parameters of the statute that we're going
to be looking for. So, you know, that's the way it is. But at least that
will give -- you know, I understand some of the difficulty the county
staff has. I mean, you're dealing with people who are not attorneys.
You're dealing with my staff, who are generally accountants, but they
have an attorney at the end of a phone line plus an outside counsel that
they can call whenever they want to.
So, you know, the more help we can give everybody, I think the
better off we'll all be. I have a role that's separate and distinct from
that of the Board of County Commissioners and we will be carrying
out our role and I would expect the Board to be carrying out theirs.
But that doesn't mean that we can't work together and try to
accomplish things a little better.
I mean, you know, in talking to Crystal, you know, one of the
issues that we have in dealing with county staff is sometimes county
staff doesn't like the position that we have. And, you know, I
understand that. But that doesn't make life any simpler for anybody.
Life is what it is. The statute is what it is. The law is what it is. And
we're going to follow that to the best of our God -given ability.
Does that answer your question?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: More. More information.
MR. BROCK: You got it. Thank you.
MR. DISANTO: Any other questions on --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, is your light on
from last time or -- you want to go again?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want to ask a quick question.
Page 62
March 13, 2012
And I think this -- I understand this is not audited, but I actually
want to address this to Leo because it's part of our package. And I
guess I'm -- this has to be a mistake. I can't -- because I can't believe
it.
It basically shows that our full -time equivalent county employees
by function has gone up by about 400, and we basically moved back
to our highs -- in fact, we're higher than our -- well, actually, we're at
highest level than we've been since 2004. Is that a mistake?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What page?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: 158.
It must be a mistake, because I thought when we were doing the
budget you had said that --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you looking at positions or actual
employees?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's full -time equivalent county
employees by function. For the last eight --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Under what heading?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's Page 158 of your --
MR. JOHNSSEN: Commissioners, I'm Derek Johnssen for the
Clerk's Office. I'll take a look at those figures and get the source of
data back to you. I see what you're mentioning.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm just wondering. Because I
thought there had been a decline in -- these are -- I understand these
are unaudited figures, and I understand that Leo provided them. But it
basically shows that, you know, our staffing is the highest that it's ever
been in the last eight fiscal years and shows almost a 400 FTE
increase between 2010 and 2011. And I thought we had gone the
opposite way. So you might want to take a look at that.
MR. OCHS: We'll do that, ma'am. And you're correct, we have
gone the opposite way.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute, is it true that you've hired
400 more people or is this possibly incorrect?
Page 63
March 13, 2012
MR. OCHS: This is possibly incorrect, sir. We have not hired
400 people.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's why I would like to have
someone look at it. Because as I was kind of doing my own little
review, I saw that as a possible error.
MR. OCHS: This includes Constitutionals?
This includes all agencies of county government, including
Constitutional officers?
MS. KINZEL: It may be. And Commissioner, we'll go back and
review that. And if there is an adjustment, you have the only copies
that have been distributed, for obvious reasons as this. And we'll
certainly validate that. And if a page needs to be changed, we will
change that. But we will advise you where that number came from.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would appreciate that. Thanks a
lot.
And by the way, it's a beautiful, beautiful book. Congratulations.
MR. DISANTO: Any other questions on the audit or the results
of the audit?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No more questions.
MR. DISANTO: Thank you. I do appreciate your time this
morning, as always.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Item #I OG
TO DISCUSS THE COUNTY /FIRE DISTRICT INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT AT THE APRIL 26, 2012 BCC -EMS FIRE
SERVICE WORKSHOP — MOTION TO HAVE THE TOPIC OF
CONSOLIDATION PLACED ON AN AGENDA FOR
DISCUSSION AND CHAIRMAN COYLE TO WRITE LETTER
TO FIRE COMMISSION — APPROVED
March 13, 2012
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that would take us back to Item 9
on your agenda. We left -- excuse me, Item 10, 10.G is a discussion
item to discuss the county fire district interlocal agreement at the April
26th, 2012 BCC EMS fire service workshop. This is Commissioner
Henning's item.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioners, I'm sure you
received correspondence from the interim administrator for growth
management and fire plan review and heard numerous comments from
the public. We're not getting productive. And it's time to discuss how
we can get more productive, put the interlocal agreement with
independent fire districts on the workshop coming up in April. And
I'll make that a motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'll second the motion.
Are there any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we have a motion made by
Commissioner Henning, seconded by me.
Now, just a bit of discussion. Let me point to one specific issue
that has been recently brought to our attention. We've been trying to
get an organization into the Immokalee Airport that designs and builds
generators that are operated by essentially jet engines. And they are
about ready to pull out. They've been paying us rent on the property
for a long time. They spent money building a facility. And they're
just about ready to say we've had enough, because they cannot reach
agreement with the fire inspector out there as to what they have to do.
And their position is that they're going to have to redesign their whole
facility after they spent the money putting it together.
So this -- the actions by the fire inspectors are costing us
companies and jobs at a time when we need them most. And we
simply need to do something about that. And we need to do it fast.
And this would probably be one of the first opportunities to discuss it
with them. And I think we need to go there prepared to exercise all of
Page 65
March 13, 2012
our options, legal and otherwise, to get some control over the
interpretations that are being applied by these inspectors.
And I'm not asking whether we can take it over, I'm asking to
come there with positions which will let us take it over, and we do the
inspections ourselves. Because we simply cannot tolerate this kind of
activity when we're trying to get this company -- this county moving
forward again.
So I wholeheartedly support Commissioner Henning's suggestion
to at least discuss this.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir, thank you very much.
I'm glad you brought that up, because this has been a very, very
difficult thing. We've been working with this company in Immokalee
now for the last six months. Everybody's been bending over
backwards to try to make it happen. And then reaching this obstacle
with the fire department inspection is unbelievable. Of course they're
coming back, and they're at the point now, their correspondence to me
indicates they're about ready to throw in the towel, give up everything
they've put into it at this point in time to go someplace else to be able
to find someplace that would be a little more understanding to the fact
that they have a building that's built to, can test jet engines, made out
of solid concrete and very unlikely will not burn under normal
temperatures or probably take a temperature at the surface of the sun
to be able to melt.
Is there any way we might be able to implore you as the Chair to
write a letter to try to get them to review this and at least show this
company that we are sincere in our efforts to try to remove obstacles
from their ability to be able to build at the airport?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You know, the problem -- the problem is
the same as we have some time with the Clerk's Office. You've got a
Florida statute and somebody reads the Florida statute and says, okay,
I interpret that this way and I am not going to violate the Florida
MEMO
March 13, 2012
statute, okay. And so what's your argument going to be? You can't
make them violate the Florida statute. But that's their interpretation of
what the Florida statute means. It's not really what the Florida statute
intended.
And even law enforcement offices have discretion in the
application of the law. They can make judgments about whether or
not they're going to arrest somebody for an infraction or not. And,
you know, we need common sense. And we don't get it when people
have very rigid rules and they read a regulation and they say I'm going
to do exactly what it says in that sentence. And it deprives us of an
economic opportunity. That is intolerable. You can't do that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sir, I agree with you. But
getting to the point in time that we're at, the time this comes before us
to be able to discuss it in the public forum and the time we get some
action to go forward, this opportunity in Immokalee will go away.
I was just wondering if it might be possible to get them to rethink
it. It will show good faith on the part of the developer that we'd like to
build this facility out there at the airport.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I don't have any problem sending a
letter, but my experience -- you know, I've sent letters encouraging
consolidation too and nobody's paid much attention to those. So it's --
if you want me to send a letter asking the fire official to be more --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Understanding and to weigh all
the facts.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- understanding and to apply a little
common sense here, then I'll be happy to do that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I suggest you copy the fire
commissioners in on that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'll copy anybody.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Actually, it should go to the fire
commissioners, it's at the same level, not the fire code official or the
inspector.
Page 67
March 13, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, I'll do that.
County Manager, let's get a draft of something, okay?
All in favor of the -- I'm sorry, Commissioner Fiala, you had
your light on.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Well, I was just in agreement.
And I was going to back what you said, but rather than drag it out I
just won't say anything else.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes 4 -0.
(Commissioner Hiller is not present.)
Item 41 OH
RECOMMENDATION TO DIRECT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY
TO DRAFT A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A STRAW
BALLOT REFERENDUM TO BE PLACED ON THE AUGUST 14,
2012 PRIMARY ELECTION CONCERNING COLLIER
COUNTY'S RED LIGHT RUNNING CAMERA ENFORCEMENT
SYSTEM — MOTION FOR COUNTY ATTORNEY TO BRING
BACK SAMPLE BALLET LANGUAGE FOR REVIEW — FAILED
MR. OCHS: Sir, I want to go next to IO.H. It's a
recommendation to direct the County Attorney to draft a resolution
calling for a straw ballot referendum to be placed on the August 14th,
2012 primary election concerning Collier County's red light running
�•�" 1•
March 13, 2012
camera enforcement system. This item was brought forward by
Commissioner Coletta.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta, go ahead, please.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, as you recall, when this
item came up for discussion and we decided about renewing the
contract or not renewing it, we heard a lot of testimony. And at that
time the Sheriff spoke. And the Sheriff was very much in support of
keeping the red light cameras in place and for good reasons that he
stated. No argument over that.
However, with that said, I also mentioned at the end of that
meeting that if I received any amount of public comments on this that
I would bring it back to my fellow Commissioners, consider putting it
on the ballot.
I'll tell you what I've done since then. Before I came before you,
I went to the Sheriff two different times and talked to him about this.
And both times he said while he wouldn't personally support the
measure to put it on the ballot, he has no objection to it. And he
doesn't think it would do any harm at all to have it on there and give
the populace out there a final say.
I realize that the Collier County Commission is tasked to make
decisions like this in the normal course of events, and I totally agree
with that. In the editorial of the paper today they also mentioned that
as a course of events. However, in this case we have a very vocal
voice within the community over and over again that keeps bringing
up the intrusion upon their rights with these cameras in place. And
when you get down to the common denominator, when you have
something like this that is a bone of contention and you have two
different sides on it, the simplest thing to do would be to put it on the
ballot.
I understand too that Mr. Lundin in his public petition today was
suggesting we do it as a binding referendum. I was suggesting a straw
ballot for the simple reason I talked to the County Attorney before,
March 13, 2012
and unless he can tell me something different told me that we weren't
capable of doing a binding referendum, which I would have no
problem with if we did have that power.
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't believe you have that power. Under
the statutes you have the express power in Chapter 125 to do a straw
ballot. There's nothing in 125 that gives you the power to do a binding
referendum. There are other provisions of Florida Statutes that require
binding referendums, when it deals with taxes, for example, but not on
a case like this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make a motion at this time
that we direct the County Attorney to bring back ballot language for
our consideration at a future meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, a motion by Commissioner
Coletta to place a straw ballot referendum on the primary ballot. Is
there a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
And there must be some discussion. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was brought up at the last
meeting when we were considering a settlement with the vendor. And
Mr. Lundin said this is due process issue under the Fourth Amendment
of the Constitution. And now we want a ballot question to either -- for
the people to do away with their right. They can't do that, and we
can't do that.
I mean, I question the legality of due process and the traffic
lights. So to delegate to the voters what our authority is, and our
authority is to make policy, to make law and policy, and that's all
these -- this red light camera is, is a policy. We should say things for
the voters to vote on that -- like raising taxes or doing a hidden tax like
on your electric bill. Those are the things that we should be asking the
voters, or things that are required by law. That's what they elect to us
do is to make policy.
Page 70
March 13, 2012
My observation is you have two candidates in District Five, and
that is where the issue is is between two candidates in District Five on
an issue of red light cameras. And what we need is leadership and
make those tough decisions. I mean, I have gotten criticized for not
voting for the cameras, but yet other commissioners has got criticized
for voting for the cameras. You're going to get criticism. The rubber
meets the road when you start making decisions as a leader of the
community and not delegate those policy decisions to the voters.
We can put a lot of things on the ballot, but where does it stop?
You know, let's do our job, understanding it is campaign season, we're
going to have these issues over and over. But let's not burden the
people who we serve with questions of what our duties are. And I still
question due process under there and I'm not going to vote to put this
on the ballot. Doesn't make sense to me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You know, this is not supposed to
be about making money. These red light cameras allegedly are
supposed to be about safety. However, what we have never spoken
about as a board are the other mechanisms available to us that don't
involve cameras that will promote public safety at these intersections.
And I'll give you two examples. One is the yellow light change
interval and the other is the all red clearance interval.
Now, what I've done, and I'm going to enter this as part of the
record, is I have requested staff to give me the yellow change intervals
and the all red clearance intervals for all the monitored intersections.
Now, what Florida law provides is certain minimums, for example, for
the yellow change interval. But those are minimums. Those are not
maximums. And I think we need to review these because it is
unequivocal that a longer yellow light will help promote safety at the
intersections. It's also true that a longer all red clearance interval will
significantly impact intersection safety by reducing the probability of
the occurrence of right angle crashes, even if drivers run the red signal
Page 71
March 13, 2012
indication.
So I think we need to look into what we can do to improve public
safety at these intersections by reviewing what we are proposing as
yellow change intervals and all red clearance intervals, and maybe as a
result of doing that we can get rid of these red light cameras for
certain.
I don't support them for a number of reasons. And we have a
mechanism where we can increase safety without using them. So I'm
going to introduce this in the record for everybody to read at their
leisure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you, sir.
And I appreciate all the comments. And once again, I did make a
promise that I'd bring it back to my fellow Commissioners for
consideration. But one point as far as this being an election issue, let's
keep in mind that Mr. Lundin and I both are in favor of bringing it
back on the ballot. There's never been an argument there. You heard
him speak. I don't quite agree with the way he's going about it, but the
truth of the matter is there are a lot of people like him that feel the
same way, they'd like a chance to be able to express their opinion.
Who do we serve but the public out there. The only difference
that we had was is he was suggesting a binding referendum and I was
saying a straw ballot because of the fact I was told by the County
Attorney we can't do a binding referendum. If a binding referendum
was possible I have no problem with that either. So let's remove this
as a political consideration. It's not. It's not two candidates out there
warring over an issue, this is trying to just be able to get the sentiment
of the public out there so once and for all we can bring this issue to
rest.
We can play with the red light cameras -- or no, the red lights as
far as adjusting the yellow times and the sequence of events and
everything till the cows come home and it's not going to change the
Page 72
March 13, 2012
equation at all in the end.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, oh, it --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller and then
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Changing the timing on yellow
lights and the all red intervals certainly will make a difference in the
end. So to say that it won't is a very disturbing statement.
I wanted to ask if Mr. Lundin wanted to comment on what was
being discussed. I don't know if he's here or not.
You want to comment on this discussion? Okay. I offered that as
a courtesy, since you were deprived of your time.
You know, I really -- I tend to agree with Commissioner
Henning. I mean, what properly should be a ballot question versus a
decision made by the Board? You know, if we're going to put these
red light cameras on the ballot, then I would really like to put whether
or not we should have fluoridated water on the ballot also.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Make a motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I'll make a motion to that
effect.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You've got a motion on the
floor.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's not on the agenda.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It doesn't have to be.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, it does.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, it doesn't. Absolutely does not.
So I think that is something worth considering. And I think you
make a very good point, Commissioner Henning.
On the other hand, I am certainly not one to ever be opposed to
asking what the people think, so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. I'm really at odds
ends as to which way to go on this, because in my communities that
Page 73
March 13, 2012
have spoken to me about it, everybody seems to feel that they're a
safety feature and it's really made them drive a little bit better and
watch a little bit closer. And they were happy to see the right on reds
go. That was a big contention with them because that was the money
maker. And when we eliminated those things, they were fine with
that.
On the other hand, I do want to hear from other people as well.
You know, maybe there are people that disagree. I would also like to
-- this is the confusion I'm drawing, as Commissioner Hiller just said
there, adjusting the lights could make all the difference in the world.
So maybe we could try adjusting the lights first to see if that solves it.
But the other day as I was sitting there trying to get through on
Airport Road and the traffic just kept -- the light was green for me but
we couldn't move because the traffic turning left just kept right on
going. There must have been 10 cars and we're just sitting there
waiting. And by the time we were able to go through, the light was
turning red. So we don't have very courteous people out there. And
maybe we need something to help the rest of us. If you're in the
middle of that 10 -car line, you're just going right along with
everybody else whether you want to or not. Maybe the red light
cameras helped to discourage that. Although the cameras were on and
they were just -- they were pouring through there anyway.
So I don't know what the answer is, that's why I was -- that's why
I seconded your suggestion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you want the public's opinion,
the best thing to do is communicate with the public. Commissioner
Fiala does that all the time. She's said, I was at such and such event
and this person said. And how many times have we acted on that
because of public input? That's what we're here for is to communicate
to the public. That's the best way to govern, instead of govern by
ballot, by far.
Page 74
March 13, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just one last comment. I do
appreciate this discussion. I'm fulfilling my promise that I made that I
would bring this back for consideration to put on the ballot. And
thank you for giving me that opportunity here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm going to call the question. We've
gone back and forth on this enough.
All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Okay, it fails 1 -4, with Commissioners Coyle, Fiala, Hiller and
Henning dissenting. And that's it. Let's go to something else.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I make one comment?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just wish Commissioner Coletta
had been willing to put the question of the funding of Jackson Labs on
the ballot.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, let me --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can I --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, let me answer that.
The issue of funding Jackson Labs never came before the Board
of County Commissioners. Nobody ever had a proposal for Jackson
Labs to bring before the Board of County Commissioners because,
number one, the State had to reach their agreement for funding first.
They did not do so. Number two, Jackson Labs had to submit a
complete and acceptable business plan. They failed to do so.
So it was never brought to the Board of County Commissioners.
So neither Commissioner Coletta nor any other commissioner ever
Page 75
March 13, 2012
had the opportunity to discuss funding -- discuss the approval of
funding for Jackson Labs.
So we can keep telling this lie as long as you want to, but the
facts are there was never a Board of County Commissioners vote on
approval or disapproval of funding for Jackson Labs. End of story.
Okay. Thank you very much.
Item #1 I D
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE COLLIER COUNTY
2012 FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE AGENDA AND POLICY
PRIORITIES — MOTION TO CONTINUE TO THE MARCH 27,
2012 BCC MEETING TO REVIEW BACKUP MATERIAL AND
REPORT ON WHAT ITEMS HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN
PREVIOUS YEARS — FAILED; MOTION TO APPROVE BUT
EXCLUDE THE HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES SECTION
AND BRING BACK A REPORT ON PAST SUCCESS —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners -- I'm sorry. 1 LD is your 11:30
time certain. It's I LD, a recommendation to approve the Collier
County 2012 federal legislative agenda and policy priorities. And
Debbie Wight, your legislative affairs coordinator, will present.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This is item what?
MR. OCHS: I LD, sir, 11:30 time certain.
MS. WIGHT: Good morning, Commissioners. You have before
you an executive summary and the federal legislative agenda with a
new format. And I have Amanda Wood, our federal lobbyist, whom
you met in December when we had meetings to find out what you've
identified as needs of the county. And she's going to present your new
agenda draft, and you can discuss with her how you feel about it.
I just want to tell you one thing. On Page 2, the health and
Page 76
March 13, 2012
human services section, we pulled that out. In discussion with
Amanda, myself and Dr. Colfer, it just wasn't ready to be part of the
agenda yet. It had a teen pregnancy prevention program and then a
nurse practitioner's model that is a great model but we just weren't
ready to bring those forward yet. So you might see those in the future
but not quite yet.
Anyway, I'm going to introduce Amanda, and she can go over the
new format and whatever questions you have. Between the two of us
hopefully we can answer.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I've got a question on the -- is
what we have in the agenda different than what's going to be
presented? Is this new information?
MS. WIGHT: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Just the teen --
MS. WIGHT: It's a new format and she just wanted to explain it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just the teen pregnancy funding
is not a part of that. That's being removed.
MS. WIGHT: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Isn't that a policy? Wouldn't that
be a policy decision on --
MS. WIGHT: No, because we did -- it was a draft that we
haven't even brought to you to approve yet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that -- things like that or --
I would like to bring it -- that's a policy decision. And I would like to
make that policy before even asking for funding of it. Okay?
There's -- the concern that I have on some of the things in here,
there's not a lot of detail of it. Like Immokalee Road widening, after
talking to Nick Casalanguida and Norm Feder, it's where the casino is.
MS. WIGHT: It is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That makes sense. But we have
Immokalee Road runs from the coast all the way to the end of the
county. So I just need more details in the future.
Page 77
March 13, 2012
MS. WIGHT: Okay. This is your agenda. So if you don't like
things, you can pull them, you can add things if you want more.
MS. WOOD: Good morning. I appreciate the opportunity to talk
with you all today, because this is my chance to get feedback from
you on what I should be working on with you and your staff in DC.
So this is very important because it really does set the road map for
the rest of the year --
MR. OCHS: Your name for the record, please.
MS. WOOD: I'm sorry, Amanda Wood from the Ferguson
Group, your federal lobbyist.
So I was able to meet with you all in December, which I really
appreciated. I spent about a half hour with each of you talking a little
bit about the work we've done over the past year, the outlook for the
coming year, and to get some feedback from you all on what you view
as potential federal priorities.
The next day I spent a whole day with county staff, meeting with
all of your department heads, getting a little more information on
some of those priorities you brought up, but also learning of some
other ongoing projects in the county.
Based on that, we put together a draft federal agenda, which you
have. And if you'll notice, it looks a little different than it did in past
years. It's a little more expansive. And that's because we're always
working to respond to how the federal government is doing business
these days. So in the past we had an agenda that was shorter and
focused on several very specific projects. And that's because we were
pursuing funding primarily through the federal appropriations process.
Because your members of Congress at this point don't have the
ability to earmark funds directly to Collier County we're pursuing
those funds through federal agencies. And that doesn't mean it's not a
process where we don't involve your elected representatives, we don't
involve you coming up to DC to advocate for them, but it is a process
where, you know, we're really broadening the scope of what we can
March 13, 2012
pursue to different issue areas, and we're offering perhaps a little more
flexibility in how we pursue those funds as grants come up throughout
the year. So it's a longer agenda.
It also includes a number of policy issues. We've done that in the
past. I think we had a list of about 15 policy priorities last year. We
were able to check some of those off the list, which is great, the 1099
repeal and the two percent withholding issue, which both were -- I
think have a significant impact on Collier County and counties
throughout the United States.
So we've included many of the same policy priorities you've seen
in the past and we've added some new ones based feedback from you
and from staff. So that's sort of an overview. And I'm happy to
answer any questions or talk specifically about process or whatever
you all would like me to address.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: A great job. Just like to get money for
all of these things.
MS. WOOD: So would I.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Millions of dollars for each of them.
But I want to get clarification on the health and human services
issue.
MS. WOOD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are we going to be moving forward with
the ER diversion program, or are we dropping that from the funding
request also?
MS. WOOD: I think that, you know, this is a draft document,
and certainly with your feedback we can add or remove any projects
you'd like to have --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, I think the ER diversion program is
a great program, okay. But my understanding was when it was first
presented that we were removing the health and human services issues
because they were sort of new. But I think the ER diversion program
is a good one. It will save us money in the long run.
Page 79
March 13, 2012
Now, if someone wants to debate the teen pregnancy prevention
issues, we could pull that out and debate that as a policy and then we
can add it or leave it out. But I just want to make sure what we're
doing today.
So based upon what you're telling me, and Dr. Colfer, am I
correct that the ER diversion program is something you want to do, is
that correct?
DR. COLFER: Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, for the
record, Dr. Joan Colfer, director of the Collier County Health
Department.
Both of the projects were projects I wanted to do and there were
federal dollars to do them. If you all recall that in the county health
rankings, Collier is the healthiest county in the State of Florida. We're
very proud of that. But there are some areas that we don't do so well
in. Teen pregnancy is one of them, particularly in minority
populations. And access to care is another.
So the access to care piece was the ER diversion model that
would have allowed us to work with hospitals for patients that had
chronic diseases, hypertension, diabetes, asthma, the frequent fliers
that were in and out of the emergency rooms. We thought yes, it
would save everybody money.
My problem was that both of these efforts required partnerships,
you had to show partnerships with hospitals, partnerships with the
county. And I frankly couldn't get any support from the -- I'm sort of
plugged to public services for purposes of working with you all since
we're really a state entity. I couldn't get any support. I thought it was
a nice fit with public services, and I couldn't --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Support for which?
DR. COLFER: For either piece. The piece required a convener
of partners. And I thought it was a perfect fit for county government
to be that, particularly public services, since they have social services
in there, to be that are convener. And they didn't want any part of
0--m
March 13, 2012
another federal grant.
I then went to my state counterparts and said, well, how about if I
go for it, and, you know, the county piece, you know, we'll work
around that. I got the same kind of response. I couldn't get any
support on either end.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Hospitals don't want you --
DR. GOLFER: It wasn't the hospitals. I never even made it to
the hospitals. I couldn't --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. What would happen if we went to
the hospitals?
DR. COLFER: Pardon?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What would happen if we go to the
hospitals? Can we get them to participate some way and get them to
be the grantee?
DR. COLFER: I need -- well, but, you know, you needed all the
partners at the table and I couldn't get them there. So -- and I couldn't
be the recipient either. So I think I'm dead in the water this year on
these two projects.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So we're saying that we'll take
these out now and there's no point in trying from -- for right now?
DR. COLFER: Right now I think it's too late. I think we passed
the deadline for submissions at this point.
MS. WOOD: For that particular grant opportunity. There may
be other opportunities in the -- I'm sorry.
The grant that we've been discussing is the HHS Center for
Medicaid and Medicare services health innovation grant program.
And that did require collaboration. I think, you know, if you all
decided to move forward in support of that project I could continue to
look for other opportunities for it, if you'd like.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let me ask the Board. Do you have any
objection to continuing to look for funding for these two programs
under health and human services or do you want to pull them out?
March 13, 2012
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's just not enough
information. If you're not going to get a buy -in from the community.
You know, my fear under teen pregnancy is we're not asking fathers if
it's okay that we give their teenage daughter birth control or condoms.
There's not enough information on this program. And I don't want to
pass a program that is contrary to the community as a whole.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
DR. GOLFER: Well, that was not the program. The program
was -- is an intensive case management program with a nurse and lay
workers working with young girls.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's about education, it's about
prevention --
DR. COLFER: Right, it's prevention.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- of education. Part of the
prevention --
DR. GOLFER: And support.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Part of the prevention is birth
control and condoms, you know. That's where --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Or abstinence --
DR. COLFER: Abstinence --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Abstinence is another one.
There's nothing, there's not enough material here to tell us what kind
of program you want to do. And I'm very cautious of interfering with
parents' rights. So until I know exactly what you want to do, I don't
want to really see that on the agenda.
I have questions on other items, so I'm going to turn my light
back on.
DR. COLFER: Could I --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
DR. COLFER: And really, like most things that I try and do in
partnership, had we pursued that, I would have visited each of you and
O i
March 13, 2012
explained to you what each component to the project was.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I need to respond to that.
Before we ask for money, you should know what you're asking the
money for and what the program is going to do. And again, I would
like information well in advance before even asking for money. I can't
imagine asking for a grant, receiving a grant only to say, oh, no, that
isn't what I had in mind. You know what I mean?
DR. COLFER: Right, but this would have replicated a previous
very successful program that we ran at the Health Department with a
$50,000 grant. We targeted teenagers that had already had one child
in an effort to provide that support, education to them so as to not have
a second child, which would really kind of doom them to, you know,
living off of, you know, public assistance for the rest of their life.
And it was very successful, we had the lowest recidivism rates of
any program I've ever seen in the country. So we were looking to
really maybe go back and repeat that pregnancy -- that model, that
teen pregnancy prevention model. But again, had we pursued it --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not aware of that model
exactly what you did. I don't think this is the right venue to discuss
that. If you have information on your program -- detailed information
on the program, I'd be happy to look at it for possibly next year's.
DR. GOLFER: That would be terrific.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
DR. GOLFER: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I think we just ought to
honor the request to remove these items and then bring them back
when you have the information and you want to present it and you
know the funding's available rather than belabor the points too long.
But I have a couple of other questions or do you want to stick to
this subject matter?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller -- let me see what
March 13, 2012
Commissioner Hiller wants, Mr. Henning wanted to come back too on
some other items. You want to speak on this item?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I don't.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, then let's go -- we're finished
talking about this item?
DR. GOLFER: I think so.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is it okay with the Commissioners if we
pull those two items and ask Dr. Colfer to come back to us with a
detailed program, and then we can insert it into the process at any
point in time after it's approved. Is that right? You can --
MS. WOOD: Absolutely. This is an organic document. Things
change throughout the year. I completely understand that. We just
want to set sort of a road map for the year. And then as new
opportunities come forward or if you all identify new opportunities,
please let me know. Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. So let's agree that's what we'll do.
Dr. Colfer comes back with a detailed program, we can consider it,
and if we like it we'll say let's go get some money for it, and then we'll
add it to the list. Is that okay? Does that work for everybody?
DR. GOLFER: That's perfect. Thank you so much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thanks.
Now, with respect to some other questions, Commissioner
Henning wanted to continue his line of question on some other issues.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: On the Collier County Airport
Authority wanting to upgrade the security at the Immokalee Airport.
Being part of the Airport Authority, I don't know what those security
items are. Does anybody know?
MS. WOOD: I believe the items were card readers and lighting
and some fencing. I can get back to you specifics from my notes from
the agenda building sessions. But I believe that's what they were.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Do you have the
authorization to give me that information?
����-
6 il
March 13, 2012
MS. WOOD: Sure. Let me see if I can --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You don't have to do it now.
MS. WOOD: I'll get back to you with it, Commissioner, I
promise.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. Amanda, the
secure approval of the county's second appeal to FEMA determining --
determination on project work sheet 566 and 673 for over $9 million
in coastal damage sustained during Tropical Storm Gabrielle.
Man, I tell you, this has been going on forever. Can you tell me
how long ago that was?
MS. WOOD: Well, I can tell you. It's supposed to take FEMA
90 days to either request more information or respond with their
answer, yes or now. February 17th was the one year anniversary of
your submission, which I know you all find frustrating and so do I.
We've really been on top of FEMA in coordination with your
delegations, and are continuing to stay on top of that agency. I know
this is -- it's important that you all have an answer to this question.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Quick question for you, Leo, if I
may. That $9 million that we used to pay that came out of what, the
general fund or tourist tax and we're trying to get reimbursed. Where
did it come from?
MR. OCHS: I'm going to Mr. McAlpin to respond to that
quickly, Commissioner.
MR. McALPIN: Commissioner, for the record, Gary McAlpin,
coastal zone management. That came out of 195, beach TDC funds.
It funded those activities. Then we applied for FEMA funding for
that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So this $9 million, we feel
relatively certain we're going to get it back or is this a crapshoot?
MR. McALPIN: We won't know for sure until FEMA makes an
opinion. This is our second appeal for this money. We had the
M i
March 13, 2012
original -- there was two portions of this. The first portion was for
Hurricane Wilma and Katrina. We received $9 million for that.
With that money is on the exact same basis as hurricane -- Tropical
Storm Gabrielle. And we applied for that money. It was -- our appeal
was turned down the first time. This is the second appeal. And we've
been working on this relentlessly for the last year trying to go after
these funds. So --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I appreciate that. Then the other
question I got concerns the aviation infrastructure. That money you're
going to be going to FAA for, is it?
MS. WOOD: Yes, we'll be pursuing that through the Federal
Aviation Authority.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And is this something we're
relatively certain that we can get? Is this something that's -- what is it
90/10 that we get, 90 percent and we have to match it 10?
MS. WOOD: No, this would be a grant in aid to airport, so it
would be potentially fully funded by the FAA. You know, I hate to
say with certainty whether or not we'd be able to receive these funds,
but I can assure you I'll pursue them in the best way possible.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Since I've got the gavel at the
moment. I'm sorry, Commissioner Fiala, I know your light's not
working, so if you tried to turn it on, when was it you tried to turn it
on in relation to Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: She's first.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. Couple of concerns.
I mean, quite frankly, I think this item should be continued. I don't
think there's enough detail in here. And as I'm looking at some of the
items just under the water and coastal infrastructure section, you
know, I have concerns about issues that we've never discussed, never
addressed, and I'm not really sure what we're funding.
For example, you've got one thing here talking about county
O M
March 13, 2012
partners to continue to establish water interconnect plans with Marco
Island and the City of Naples. I mean, that is to me a meaningless
statement. I don't know what kind of water, I don't know what kind of
interconnect you're talking about --
MS. WOOD: I can provide you with a copy of the briefs specific
to that from last year.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think -- but the problem is, I go
through so many of these items -- here's another one, expected
population growth in Orangetree public works service area will
necessitate eventual construction of new water treatment and waste
facilities. For the Orangetree public utilities, you're lobbying for the
private utility?
MR. OCHS: No, ma'am. These are the potential northeast
Collier County water and sewer treatment plants that you previously
approved. They're in your AUIR.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because what it says here is the
Orangetree public works --
MR. OCHS: Service area --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Service area. So this is in addition
to whatever Orangetree is providing? Look, the bottom line is, I mean,
there's no point to go over all of this. I'd like to make a motion that we
continue it, that all the items in this packet be supported with the
detailed information to allow us to make a proper assessment of
whether or not we want to go forward with this as presented.
And the other thing I would like included in the back -up is a
summary of what you have accomplished with respect to what we
identified as our agenda for last year. So, you know, take what we
gave you last year, tell us what you got us based on what we asked
for, and give us the back -up for this year's proposal so that we can
make an informed decision.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to second that motion
because there are items in here that there's -- like I said, Immokalee
March 13, 2012
Road for one, staff needs to provide information of detail of exactly
what they're asking for.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we have a motion by
Commissioner Hiller to disapprove.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: To continue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: To continue this item.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: To continue and to bring back with
back -up for all the agenda items so that we can review it. And also as
part of the packet to bring us a report on, you know, what was
successfully accomplished based on our direction from last year so we
know as a matter of progress where we stand.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A motion by Commissioner
Hiller to do all those things. Okay, seconded by Commissioner
Henning.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, just a question, if I may. I
have no problem with getting more information. The only thing is the
time line that we're talking about. I thought I understood these items
fairly well. But the time line. In other words, if we wait another two
weeks. that's going to be putting us to the last meeting of this month.
How will -- will this enable you to be able to achieve our goals or is
this going to hamper your ability? I know you're at crunch time now.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: This is for next year.
MS. WOOD: This is for this year. This is for this current fiscal
year, fiscal year 2012. So some of these grant opportunities are
already coming out now. So staff may, and I'm not totally familiar
with the process of approval they must go by, but I imagine there may
be a situation where they'd want to ask your approval for a specific
grant that they are pursuing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, that's going to be on the
agenda. I mean, that's not going to affect this in any way.
MS. WOOD: Okay, that's fine.
::
March 13, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So in other words, whatever we
approve here today, if we approve this, before any of this could come
forward, we'd have to approve it again. I understand that.
But my problem is - - -is the fact that we have a legislative session
taking place now, there is everything in the works. And if you lose
another two weeks, is it going to hamper you? You can just answer
that, no it won't hamper me at all, or yes it will. That will help give us
guidance on how to handle this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It won't be two weeks.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why not?
MS. WOOD: And I think we can continue. We have gotten a lot
of feedback from you all on what your priorities are in terms of policy.
We can continue to pursue those. If a grant opportunity arises that
would have been contained in this document but that has not been
approved yet, I'm sure that the county staff will seek approval from
you so that we're not hampered by this delay at all.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So you can move forward and
then bring it to us after the fact.
MS. WOOD: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, one of the suggestions I
would make to the motion maker is they were asking for an
accounting from last year to this year, I don't think it would hurt to
have an accounting going back a number of years of what we've
brought in, it would give us some sort of true perspective of time.
Because, I mean, we've had a shift in the economy as time went by
too. And you give us a perspective over a period of time and I hope
the motion maker agrees with that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have no problem with that. How
far back do we want to go?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How far back --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How long have you been doing
this for the county?
March 13, 2012
MS. WOOD: Five years. I'm happy to go back to the beginning
of the contract.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If you want. Unless that's too
much work for you.
MS. WOOD: No, I keep a running tally of the work we've been
doing for you all, so I'm very happy to put that together.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure. And of course your analysis
will be a little bit different historically because you were actually able
to work on earmarks as opposed to now, where you're assisting with
grants, which is a very different animal.
MS. WOOD: It is different. We've had to adapt. Everyone in
DC has had to adapt. Luckily we started this process of adapting three
or four years ago. So we've got a really good system of assisting with
grants, working directly with federal agencies, working directly with
your staff and also building that political support for these projects
that is still essential. So yes, we have had to change.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll look forward to that report about
your progress, because I know you've done a lot of good things for us
and brought back a lot of money for us. We really appreciate that.
The concern I have is, as you were saying, because I was
concerned about the time limitations, if you have something coming in
front of you in the next week and it would be advantageous for us, and
then -- but like you said, well, you could -- you know, you could just
see if that would be okay, but you can't because everybody has to
vote. And they can't vote for another two weeks. And I'm concerned
with tying your hands at a time when it could be beneficial to us.
And so I would feel that if this motion said we wanted to see
more but if you had any opportunities other than the health care that's
already removed, if you had any opportunities to go forward with this,
because these are the suggestions that came from us. And I would like
to see you have the ability to do that.
March 13, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And, you know, I am basically
suspicious and concerned about wholesale delays on issues like this.
Because there's hardly an item here that we haven't heard about.
Everything has been brought to us. We've all had the opportunity to
review this list and ask for additional information since at least since
last Thursday. So -- and furthermore, it has been my experience that
when things are delayed in this manner, it is months before it comes
back and before agreement is reached on anything. Let me give you
an example --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm going to amend my motion to
add a time limit on when you have to bring it back --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You don't have the floor right now,
Commissioner Hiller. When I call on you, you'll have the floor.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You will recall that the ground vehicle
movement plan at the Immokalee Airport was presented to us a month
or so ago and we were going to have a workshop and we were going
to get that resolved. But we don't have a movement plan yet at the
Immokalee Airport and we probably won't for several more months.
So my -- I just think that if there was real concern about some
issues here, some questions would have come up before this morning
on these things. So I'm going to call the motion. All in favor --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Wait a minute, I'm amending my
motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, you're going to amend the motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I amend the motion that you bring
it back at the next meeting since you already have the information, it's
just a matter of compiling it. I saw that Leo gave you the heads up
that that wouldn't be a problem. So I amend the motion that all this
information just be brought back in two weeks.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that okay with the second,
Commissioner Henning?
Page 91
March 13, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just ask a question. But if
something comes up beforehand.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: She said she has no problem. And
remember, there's nothing they can do in that interval anyway,
because it has to come back to us. So it would have to come back to
us in two weeks regardless -- if something came up between now and
the next meeting, okay, she or staff would have to come back to us at
that next meeting and present it to us, so it would be basically
concurrent with her presentation. So we wouldn't lose anything --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I hear that. But say, for instance,
she goes back and Thursday of this week there's an opportunity to get
some of the funding for one of these projects.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: She has to bring it back to us.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So she can't do it then. So she would
just have to let it drop.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, if I might. The Board's had a long
standing policy in place that if there's a grant that has a deadline
attached to it that falls in between your regular Board meeting
intervals, the County Manager can sign the application and come back
to the Board for after the fact approval. If you don't give that approval
after the fact, we can always withdraw the application.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you can do that without this motion
at all.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You could approve this and achieve the
same goal. So the same thing is going to happen. So there's nothing
being gained by disapproving it. But nevertheless, the motion is to
continue this until the next meeting.
Okay, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have to share with you that the
only thing I found in this package that I didn't understand and was
Page 92
March 13, 2012
explained to me here was the Immokalee Road issue. I couldn't figure
how that fit together. Other than that, I understood the whole package.
I'll be honest with you, Commissioner Coyle. I think you hit the
nail right on the head. Delay, delay, delay. Just keep pushing
everything off to the future. All sorts of information's available out
there if you ask for it. So I'm not going to vote for the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, I'll call the motion. All in favor,
please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All opposed, by like sign?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. Motion fails with Commissioners
Fiala, Coyle and Coletta dissenting.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make a motion for approval
with the exception of the part dealing with -- and I lost my page.
MR. OCHS: Health and human services.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Health and human services.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Health and human services.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And also, that you want the report,
right?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right, we still want the report.
That's one of the things we need --
MS. WOOD: I'd be happy to provide that, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You don't have to bring it back
at a meeting, just send it to us.
MS. WOOD: Okay. I can have that to you very soon.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Was there a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Coletta to
approve the report as amended with the elimination of the health and
Page 93
March 13, 2012
human services elements, seconded by Commissioner Fiala. All in
favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes 4 -1, with Commissioner Hiller
dissenting.
MS. WOOD: Thank you very much. I appreciate the direction.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We are breaking for lunch now. We'll
can be back at 1:11.
(A lunch recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is 1:11. The Board of County
Commission meeting is back in session.
MR. OCHS: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats so we
can proceed. Mr. Chairman, you have the floor.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Item #9A
ORDINANCE 2012 -12: PUDA- PL20110000047, SABAL BAY
MPUD -- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 05 -59, THE SABAL BAY MIXED
USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, BY AMENDING THE
PUD DOCUMENT, EXHIBIT A, TO PROVIDE FOR: CHANGES
IN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS INCLUDING RIGHT OF
WAY WIDTHS AND SIDEWALKS; ADDITION OF GENERAL
PERMITTED USES TO INCLUDE OUTSIDE STORAGE AND
TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES; REMOVAL OF GOLF
Page 94
March 13, 2012
AS A PERMITTED USE; ADDITION OF CAR WASH, POST
OFFICE, DOCKS AND ELECTRIC BOATS AS ALLOWABLE
USES IN THE RECREATION/VILLAGE CENTER TRACT;
INCREASE PRESERVE BY 45 ACRES; INCREASE IN FLOOR
AREA RATIO FOR ADULT LIVING FACILITY AND INCREASE
IN HEIGHT; REMOVAL OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND
REMOVAL OF BALD EAGLE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND
GOPHER TORTOISE RELOCATION MANAGEMENT PLAN ON
PROPERTY SOUTH OF THOMASSON DRIVE, SOUTH AND
WEST OF U. S. 41, NORTH AND WEST OF THE WENTWORTH
PUD, AND EAST OF THE NAPLES BAY INTERCOASTAL
WATERWAY IN SECTIONS 23, 24, 255 26 AND 36, TOWNSHIP
50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, AND SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 50
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
CONSISTING OF 29416 +/- ACRES; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE — ADOPTED W /CHANGES
MR. OCHS: Sir, this takes us to 9.A, your advertised public
hearings. This item was continued from the February 28th, 2012 BCC
meeting. The item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
commission members, and all participants are required to be sworn in.
It's PUDA -PL- 2011- 0000047, the Sabal Bay MPUD, an
ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, amending Ordinance No. 05 -59, the Sabal Bay mixed use
planned unit development, by amending the PUD document Exhibit A
to provide for changes in development standards, including
right -of -way widths and sidewalks; addition of general permitted uses
to include outside storage and telecommunications facilities, removal
of golf as a permitted use; addition of car wash, post office, docks and
electric boats as allowable uses in the recreation/village center tract;
increase of preserve by 45 acres; increase in floor area ratio of adult
living facility; and increase in height; removal of affordable housing
Page 95
March 13, 2012
and removal of bald eagle management plan and gopher tortoise
relocation management plan on property located south of Thomasson
Drive, south and west of U.S. 41, north and west of the Wentworth
PUD, and east of the Naples Bay intercoastal waterway in Sections
23, 24, 25, 26 and 36, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, and Section
19, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida,
consisting of 2,416 plus or minus acres, and providing an effective
date.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. Would all
persons who intend to give testimony please stand, raise your hand
and be sworn in.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Now for Commissioners,
we'll start with Commissioner Henning for ex parte disclosure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. I briefly spoke to
Mr. Anderson, Bruce Anderson. And I received staff s report. I
viewed some of the Planning Commission's deliberation on this item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I also have met with the
petitioner and his attorney, and have received correspondence on this
and viewed this draft report of 12/15/11.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, and I have met with Bruce
Anderson and Pat Utter, who are representing the petitioner. And I
have received some e -mails concerning this petition. And that's it.
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I have also spoken to Bruce
Anderson and Pat Utter. I've spoken to staff, I've spoken to a couple
of the Planning Commissioners to -- and also reviewed some of the
Planning Commission meeting. And I've spoken to residents in the
area to get a feel from them as to how they feel about this project.
Actually, I've spoken to quite a few, so that's it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Page 96
March 13, 2012
Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, I've had -- can you hear me?
I've meetings with Bruce Anderson and Patrick Utter. I've had
meetings with staff, specifically Nick Casalanguida. I have had
e -mails and received the staff file, packet, if you will. And also spoke
to the representative for Windermere and to Mark Strain of the
Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Windermere or Windstar?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Windstar. Sorry. I had to disclose
our discussion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Anderson.
MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. My name is Bruce Anderson from the Roetzel and
Andress law firm. I want to introduce to you Pat Utter, vice president
of real estate and club operations, and Valerie Pike, project manager
for Collier Enterprises, real estate division. Along with us today is
Margaret Perry, senior project planner from Stantec, and Andy
Woodruff, environmental engineer from Passarella Associates.
This is an amendment to the Sabal Bay mixed use PUD. It was
last approved in 2005. Sabal Bay totals just over 2400 acres, and 55
percent of that, 1300 acres, will be in a permanent state of preservation
open space.
938 acres are identified for residential uses. 50 acres of
commercial uses. 32 acres for public facilities, which include a school
and a fire station, EMS location. 16 acres for a recreation village
center, uses that are wholly interior to the project. And of that
preserve acreage, 780 acres of it is slated to be deeded to Rookery Bay
Natural Estuarine Research Reserve.
The biggest change to this PUD is the removal of golf course as a
permitted use. In connection with the removal of the golf course, the
preserve area is being increased by 48 acres.
Some additional changes, we're adding approval for outside
Page 97
March 13, 2012
storage except for boats. In the title there's a reference to
telecommunication facilities, and that was included in an earlier filing.
However, we have since withdrawn that because staff has advised us
that underground telecommunication facilities are a permitted use in
any zoning district, except perhaps conservation. So that reference
should be removed from the title.
Also adding a car wash, post office, docks and electric boats as
allowable uses, in connection with the recreation village center tract.
The height for assisted living facilities is proposed to be
increased to a zoned height of 80 feet and a floor area ratio of .60.
Now, along U.S. 41, the ALF and continuing care retirement
community is limited to 60 feet zoned height and 75 feet actual height.
And also along U.S. 41, the setbacks for the ALF buildings must be
equal to the zoned height of those buildings. The reason for this
increase in building height and floor area ratio is to allow for
flexibility to meet market demands for larger units, and also it will
have the effect of having less building footprint.
This amendment also removes the affordable housing section of
the PUD, which contains requirements that were not uniformly
applied, and all recent instances that provision has been removed from
PUD's that come in for amendment.
The bald eagle management plan and the gopher tortoise
relocation management plan are both being removed from the PUD to
require compliance with U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the Florida
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
These species will still receive protection but it will be governed
by the regulations of those two agencies. Because if either of these
agencies change the requirements, my client wants to be able to
comply with them without having to come back in for a PUD
amendment to comply with state and federal law.
And that is also -- has been standard practice for new PUD's and
PUD's that come in for amendment.
March 13, 2012
Two access points are being added to the PUD master plan at
Danford Street and along U.S. 41, opposite the entrance to Lely at
Saint Andrew's Boulevard. The Danford Street access is to allow for
direct access to the Hamilton Harbor marina and clubhouse and the
new U.S. 41 access is to provide for direct access to a so- called orphan
parcel that is separated from the rest of Sabal Bay by FPL
transmission lines.
And at the request of county staff, additional detail was added to
the water management section.
And lastly, I need to state on the record that the conditional -- or
the PUD master plan dated February 16th will be the one that's
attached to the ordinance. It's the same as what you have except it's
legible. And again, that was done at the request of staff.
The Environmental Advisory Council and the Planning
Commission both recommended approval. And we respectfully
request that you vote for approval as well. I and the rest of the
members of the team are available, if you have any questions
regarding the PUD.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I have a question concerning the heights.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We've discussed this. Would you
perhaps more clearly state the heights that are going to be asked for,
not only in the central portion of the development but along or closer
to U.S. 41, with a special emphasis on how those heights are going to
be measured, what will be the base elevation from which they will be
measured?
MR. ANDERSON: I believe it's the crown of the road, or zoned
height. And for actual height or -- or is it the other way around? Top
of the roof for zoned height, actual height.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute. The crown of which
road? The crown of U.S. 41 or the crown of the road that you will
build internal to the project?
Page 99
March 13, 2012
MR. ANDERSON: It would be from the road that accesses the
buildings. So if it were 41, it would be measured from 41.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. ANDERSON: The crown of the road at 41.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The crown of the road to 41.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That will be the reference for all of the
heights in the development?
MR. ANDERSON: No, abutting, for properties that abut 41.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That will include the ALF facilities?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Not all of the ALF facilities. Some of
them will be --
MR. ANDERSON: Just along 41.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Along 41, yes.
And the ones that are centrally located in the development, they
will be measured from the height of the road which you construct; is
that correct?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're not going to construct an elevated
road there, are you?
MR. ANDERSON: Not unless the agencies would require it for
some unknown reason.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, Norm Feder might require a
six -lane elevated overpass there.
Okay, so just tell me again what the heights are for ALFs along --
or closest to U.S. 41.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay. Those will be 60 feet of zoned
height, 75 feet of actual height. If it's a 60 foot zoned height building,
there will be a required setback of 60 feet from the U.S. 41
right -of -way line.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But the height to the top of the building
Page 100
March 13, 2012
will be 75 feet max.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: From the crown of the road of U.S. 41.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right, thank you.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I have several questions.
Talking about the height that you now have settled on, first thing I
want to ask is Commissioner Fiala, I think you were meeting with
some residents to address the height concern. Have you satisfied
yourself with that, are all the residents okay?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for asking. What they --
as we met, there were about 20 of us there, and they felt that -- one of
them said well, as I look at Moorings Park and their buildings are that
high and they look beautiful from the road because they have plenty of
landscaping. So then everybody in the end agreed that it was okay.
So I told Bruce about the landscaping, to cut the effects of a
higher building, and Bruce said that they were going to be doing just
that, heavy landscaping in that area to cut the look of a high building.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So has that landscaping been
addressed with staff? And what is being proposed for that in order to
MR. ANDERSON: It will be what the code provides.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, can staff address that? Is
there any staff involved in this project?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you tell us what the code
provides and how that will reconcile with what Commissioner Fiala
would like to see and what the citizens are expecting?
MS. DESELEM: I don't know exactly what's been proposed as
far as enhanced buffers, because I wasn't aware of that. But I believe
Page 101
March 13, 2012
-- I have to go back and verify, but it's my understanding that along
roadway like U.S. 41 it would be a Type D buffer, which would be 20
feet wide.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And how high?
MS. DESELEM: There would be trees required, and I think they
are 30 feet -- I'm sorry --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think what we need, and I don't
mean to cut you off, but could we please know what is required of
Moorings? Could you find that out for us with respect to landscaping
so that we have that level of comfort that we know that we're going to
have the same type of landscaping that Moorings is having.
Are the buildings -- the buildings at Moorings the same height as
being proposed here?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, we didn't know that, we were
just guessing. But we do know that their landscaping is more than is
required by our codes. They just put in extra landscaping and trees
and so forth. And of course they've got a lot of mature ones there
already. But they do enhance the appearance. And that's what the
people were looking for, if it was that close to U.S. 41, was an
enhancement of the landscaping with larger -- or taller trees and
bushier trees and things like that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because if I follow on what
Commissioner Fiala is saying, if you've only got a, say, 60 -foot
setback from the road for a 60 -foot high building and you've got a
20 -foot vegetation buffer and without any specification of height and
without -- I mean, really, it's very -- I have some concerns about that.
So I mean, could you just take some time and research that and
come back with an answer, and in the meantime I'll go on with this
other stuff.
MS. DESELEM: I'll do what I can to get you an answer quickly.
But I don't know how quickly I can get that for you.
In fact, I think I forgot to say that my name is Kay Deselem and
Page 102
March 13, 2012
I'm a principal planner with Zoning.
But yes, I will look into that and get back to you as soon as I can.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That was a citizen concern and I
think it needs to be properly addressed. And if we need buffered
landscaping in order to protect the surrounding community from the
view, then I think that needs to be considered today.
MS. DESELEM: Again, I might add that they may have gone
above and beyond what the requirement for them was as far as --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand. But that's irrelevant
to the issue that if we need to propose an enhanced buffer in order to
properly shield the building today, then that needs to be addressed.
MS. DESELEM: I'll see what I can find out and I'll get back to
you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So that's one issue. The second
issue that I have is the relationship of the floor area ratio to these
heights that are being proposed. I would like to know how the
increase in the floor area ratio is reconciling with these multiple
heights that are being proposed, the 80 to 60 and the 75?
MS. DESELEM: I don't know that I understand --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You've got the ratio of the land to
the floors to the height. Do you have a depiction? Do you have a
picture of what this assisted living facility is going to look like?
MS. DESELEM: No, we have nothing like that at this point.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you don't have any rendering?
MS. DESELEM: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you can't answer my question?
MS. DESELEM: Not really, no, I can't, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's fine.
And with respect to the change in development standards
regarding right -of -way widths and sidewalks -- and by the way, let me
just add, to the extent that you can't answer, please turn to the
petitioner and let them answer any questions. I mean, they should have
Page 103
March 13, 2012
the opportunity to explain themselves if you don't have the
information, because they may be readily able to do it.
MS. DESELEM: Thank you, that's a good idea.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So Patrick, if your staff wants to
stand up and say anything and clarify anything.
MR. ANDERSON: The .6 floor area ratio has been commonly
requested and approved by the commission. The standard requirement
in the Land Development Code is .45. And we got the .6 number I
think based on discussions that there may have been with people that
were interested in an ALF, and also the fact that they had been
approved as standards, as I understand it, for other ALF uses in other
PUDs.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I understand that there's a,
you know, relationship between the floor area ratio and the height, and
I just want to make sure. And obviously I'm not going to run through
these calculations, but I just want to make sure that the calculations
are such that, you know, it all reconciles and works. Because I mean,
normally you -- I mean, a lot of jurisdictions are not even putting
height limitations on projects because they've got the floor area ratio
which is in effect governing. So just make sure that you can explain
that --
MR. UTTER: For the record, Pat Utter, Collier Development.
The floor area ratio, it really affects your land cover. It's not
related to the height.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But how much land you cover will
affect how many floors --
MR. UTTER: If you had a 30 -- say it's 60 percent, that means
60 percent of the lot area could be covered with the building. It
doesn't -- the height is limited by the 60 feet. So you could have a
building that was the same shape at the bottom and the same shape at
the top that was, in this case six stories tall.
So it doesn't -- the floor area ratio is not related to the height, it's
Page 104
March 13, 2012
only related to the land cover.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But the point being is that, you
know, depending on how much land you cover, if you cover more
versus less will determine how high or how low you will be. I mean,
obviously if you can cover more land you don't necessarily have to go
so high to have the same total square footage.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It affects the footprint only.
MR. UTTER: Right, but the specific request is trying to
concentrate development because assisted living have intense facilities
that are quite expensive. So you're trying to keep as many people
close to these core facilities. So that's the goal in trying to have a
higher floor area ratio.
It's all, you know, the real answer is the market's going to tell us
how many people want to live in an ALF. And that would determine,
you know, how large these buildings are. But typically if you have
lots of demand doesn't mean you build a bigger building, you build
multiple buildings of the same size because they're --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You can do that too --
MR. UTTER: But you could, you know, theoretically you could
build some massive building.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: There are different ways to
configure it, and so that's why --
MR. UTTER: Exactly. But the floor area ratio is actually -- it
limits how much coverage on the land, it's not related to the height.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, only to the extent that, and
there's no point to belabor this, but only to the extent that if you can
cover more land, you have the ability to stay lower if you're seeking a
certain number of total square feet.
MR. UTTER: Correct. But the height we've requested is the
same height that's approved across the street at C -4, which has a
75 -foot height limitation, and the -- so I think we're -- we're trying to
match what other PUDs have to be competitive in the market relative
Page 105
March 13, 2012
to ALF, and at the same time we're trying to be consistent with the
heights in the area. So I think we've tried to match those. We don't
have the ultimate site plan design at this point, it's just a zoning
hearing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure. No, I understand. And I was
only asking the question because since there are so many people that
are concerned about that height and, you know, the visual impact, if
you had a rendering that could make people feel comfortable with,
you know, what the visual might be, it could go a long way --
MR. UTTER: I have a building -- I have a picture of Moorings
Park. I'd be glad to share that. But I can't guarantee that's what's
going to be --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. And I know what Moorings
Park looks like. I mean, we need to know what your proposing --
MR. UTTER: At the zoning hearing it's, you know, we're not
going to have those types of details.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Understood. But I'm just saying
that if it helps the public and helps with your presentation, that it's --
MR. UTTER: Right. At this level, we just -- that's not practical,
based on the size of the project.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If you had a sample of a drawing,
you know, that would be great. And I just offer you the opportunity to
present it if you --
MR. UTTER: Well, I'd like to go ahead and -- I'll go ahead and
share the picture of Moorings, just so everybody is familiar with it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do you know what the height of
the Moorings buildings are?
MR. UTTER: It's a five story building. I don't have the exact
height on it, no.
This is the -- being constructed currently. It's probably about 80
percent complete. Five story.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And Moorings is a beautiful
Page 106
March 13, 2012
project. They've done a really exceptional job. I'm very impressed
with that.
MR. UTTER: Just to address the buffer issue. I don't expect that
our buffer is going to look like the trees in front of Moorings day one.
I just don't want that misconception that -- we have used Moorings
Park as a reference more in the building height rather than the buffer.
The intention, you know, along 41 is we're going to want to
buffer the noise and, you know, aesthetics of the building. But the
current zoning has a specific type buffer which is -- is it a B or a D?
It's a Type D buffer. And that's what -- now, we are also in addition at
that, we are allowed to build a berm and a wall which, you know,
we're likely to do. But not we're required, but we're likely to build
that for aesthetics and noise reduction.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Now, maybe staff could find out
for us how tall this building is in this picture from Moorings so again
we have a better visual of what we're approving, and then we can
know, relatively speaking, whether these five stories we're looking at
here is, you know, more or less than what you're proposing, just for
comparison. And of course that would be up to staff to come back.
MR. UTTER: I doubt that they'd have an ability to --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, they permit this --
MR. UTTER: It's in the city.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, it's in the city, then maybe not,
yeah, then maybe not. Okay.
MR. UTTER: But it's, you know, at five stories, 10 feet a story,
it's 50, and the roof parapet is -- it's roughly a similar building.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So it may be two stories more than
what's presented here?
MR. UTTER: No, no. Actually, what we've -- it's a 60 and 75.
So at 60 you could build five floors with a roof and maintain within it.
So this building might be, I would say it might be slightly higher, but
not significantly higher. I would think it's fairly close.
Page 107
March 13, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, so this would be similar to
what you would build on the road and then in the interior you're
building 80 feet?
MR. UTTER: The actual -- I think Bruce actually misstated that.
The way --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, because he said three. He
said 60, 75 and 80.
MR. UTTER: In the PUD, under development standards, 3.5,
number four, the change that we've actually requested, that's not in
your packet, it says the maximum height not to exceed a zoned height
of -- and it was formally 80. We're changing that to 60, and the actual
height of 75 feet.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just for clarification, if I could jump in a
moment, that applies to U.S. 41 and the interior of the project? All
ALF facilities?
MR. UTTER: That's all ALF. The -- the change relative --
there's no change relative to 41, but there is a -- the setback is
specifically different to 41. That's not related to the height. So the
setback along 41 is -- it's as written in your -- it says the same as the
height of the principal structure. That's not a change, that's in your
current document.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that's actual height, not zoned
height.
MR. UTTER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'm sorry, Commissioner Hiller,
go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, that's okay.
MR. UTTER: And the 60 and 75 would apply throughout the
project, not just 41.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we'll wait on the information
on the buffer from staff.
March 13, 2012
The next question I'd like to ask is with respect to the
right -of -way widths and the sidewalks. For the record, could you
explain the deviation from, you know, what you had with respect to
the widths in the sidewalks and with respect to what is required by
code for the interior of PUDs now.
MR. ENGLISH: For the record, John English, representing the
applicant.
The -- turning to this section right now.
The current PUD approval required six foot sidewalk on the local
roads or a minimum 10 foot, one 10 foot sidewalk on one side.
We have asked for a deviation to allow for a five -foot sidewalk
on both sides or the 10 foot on one side. The reason for that is on
cul -de -sac streets we would like to use five -foot sidewalks. And that's
fairly common in developments in Naples, Collier County.
We do have an extensive trails plan for the property -- for the
project, and there's cross sections on the master plan, and it depicts the
more significant roads do have 10 -foot sidewalk on one side, but then
as you get interior to the local roads, the subdivision streets -- the
cul -de -sac streets, it would be five.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. And the only reason I bring
this up is there's, you know, quite a bit of fervor in the community
with respect to sidewalks, both bordering PUDs and within PUDs.
And county staff has gone to great lengths to develop the code
provisions. So I'm not really sure -- again, help me out, why are we
deviating from what the code requires on this?
MR. ENGLISH: I'm going to have to --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Actually, you know what, let's let
Nick explain that. Because I've lately developed a great interest in
sidewalks, and I just want to understand why we're doing something
different here when you're so emphatic about following the code to the
letter everywhere else.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. PUD is the -- first of all, for the
Page 109
March 13, 2012
record, Nick Casalanguida.
The PUD is an opportunity for them to seek deviations that are
specific, and we encourage that in a unified design. So your typical
street section, 60 feet wide, assumes a, say, 22 -foot wide road width,
say, a five -foot grass strip and then a five -foot sidewalk and a
separation for planting. A lot of times what they do in these
developments is the right -of -way line can go right up to a sidewalk
where they can put a path on one side. So if they have an alternative
design, it's very common for them to seek a deviation from us, and we
support that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You know, the problem I have
with that is there are other PUDs that basically are seeking
alternatives, and you seem to be holding them to the letter of the code,
and yet I hear you say here that you're encouraging these deviations.
So I mean, I'm hearing, you know, two different arguments on two
separate occasions, one here and, you know, one with respect to the
other projects I've talked about.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Actually, we encourage it with all of
them, they just don't have that mechanism. Through a site
development plan they can't go through that deviation process like
they can through a PUD. So when an individual parcel comes in, if
they've already gone through the PUD process and then haven't sought
a deviation, then they have to go by our code. And I have no
flexibility on that, that's why.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But if they were approved in a
certain way, and this goes to the issue right here, I mean, if they're
approved in a certain way and down the road they need to upgrade or
improve, are you going to force them to go to the code or are you
going to approve what has been approved now as a deviation from the
code as part of their PUD?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I have no choice but to go by the
PUD, as the ordinance is written. So if they seek a specific typical
Page 110
March 13, 2012
section, then they have to go with that in their design and construction
of the project, and I can't waiver from that, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: All right. So, for example, with
another PUD then, I should be able to say that whatever was approved
as part of that PUD should be how that particular sidewalk in that
PUD will be replaced, regardless of what the code provides.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If it's written in specifically in that,
then that would apply in that other PUD as well too.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I mean, wouldn't it be?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Some of them are silent to that. Some
of them don't say anything, they just refer back to the Land
Development Code and then the problem is in history, the Land
Development Code has evolved over the past 10, 20, 30 years.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And when you reviewed what
they're proposing with respect to the right -of -ways and sidewalks in
this particular project, do you find based on your detailed review of
what they're proposing that this deviation from the code is a good
deviation and a justified one?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I didn't specifically do the review, but
I understand from talking to the reviewers that they were comfortable
with what they proposed.
Now remember, you typical section per the LDC is 60 feet wide.
And a lot of that, that doesn't include that that -- if I could draw you a
cross section, usually on the back of sidewalk, you have a flat area and
then it drops down to a slope to a lot. They incorporate these
sidewalks into the lot design. So a lot of times they say we don't need
60 feet, we can take the actual back of sidewalk and make that the
property line because we're going to grade and build these things all as
one unified design. So they'll seek a deviation to go from 60 feet to 50
feet because they don't need a 60 foot right -of -way. And that becomes
a more functional area for them. That's why we support that
deviation, it's done as one unified design.
Page 111
March 13, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And, you know, the Pathways
people keep pushing for the wider sidewalks, for the six feet and 12
feet. And what I'm hearing the community say and what I'm hearing
this developer say is that, you know, 10 feet and five feet. And quite
frankly, I can understand that. But I'm just reconciling all these facts
to make sure I appreciate exactly what's being proposed and why.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It depends on the type of a facility.
No different than if you look at a road, a six lane arterial to carry a
certain amount of volume versus a two lane local road. When they're
building these local streets, the five foot sidewalk is sufficient. If
they're going to do a main spine road like they've done on Treviso
Bay, they put in a 10 feet multi -use path. So, depends on what they're
trying to accomplish and what kind of volume they're going to
encourage for people to use.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I appreciate that. Thank you.
Thanks for that explanation.
The next question I have is with respect to the lakes that are
going to be added. And my concern about that is, while I think it
really is a good idea to get rid of the golf course and to go with the
lakes, my concern there is water quality and the impact on water
quality. And as you know, in many of our lake communities, we're
having major problems with algae bloom and other water quality
related issues.
What are you going to do to ensure that the water quality of these
lakes is preserved? And more importantly, because that whole area
has a water problem, water management problem across the board.
My second concern is to ensure that if there are any problems
with the quality of water within your project, that that doesn't move,
you know, through the ground to the neighboring communities that
also have lakes. And that, you know, while these people are working
hard to keep their lakes clean that you are not going to counteract that
because of the lake system that you're developing.
Page 112
March 13, 2012
MR. ENGLISH: Sure. Again, John English for the record,
representing the applicant. I'm the licensed engineer of this.
We spent a lot of time on the water management system in this
community. You threw quite a few things out there so I'm going to
take them one at a time.
Regarding neighboring communities, it's important to note that
we are the furthest downstream in this particular case. We're not
discharging downstream into another community.
But in regards to the water management system, there are
generally two types of things you're trying to treat. One are
pollutants, and the other are nutrients. And nutrients are getting a lot
of press lately. And that's what causes a lot of the algae blooms and
other such things.
And so we focused on creating a design that incorporated a
treatment train system. And first and foremost we lift off is the
reduction in golf. Because heavy users of fertilizer is a large source of
nutrients, unlike pollutants, which may come off a roadway. So we've
eliminated golf, which is a big contributor or a source of nutrients.
The second thing is we've provided larger than typical lake
volume. The first line of treatment in any system is generally the
storage in big open water. That volume of storage is what provides a
lot of the treatment, a heavy percentage. From there we started adding
on BMPs. And these are enumerated and described in the PUD
document in section eight.
From there we go into a BMP, a filter marsh, filter strip, so that's
further nutrient removal so the water is stored in the lake first. If the
water levels rise high enough they go in, it must go through a filter
strip, which is a shallow, wide planted conveyance to allow further
nutrient uptake. That water is held in there with a control structure, so
it's forced to reside there, travel into there, reside there prior to
discharge. Then eventually that water reaches an elevation and
discharges into another BMP, which is a created wetland, which is a
Page 113
March 13, 2012
larger, heavily vegetated area with more capacity for storage, and it is
treated there for more nutrient uptake prior to discharge. And all of
that is held behind several control structures to limit the rate of
discharge.
Did that answer the question?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: To a degree. The first question I
have with respect to your statements is what is downstream from you?
So what are you discharging into?
MR. ENGLISH: The points of discharge are to the Lely canal,
the Lely Manor canal, and there is one point of discharge that is to the
offsite existing grade. It's so far downstream, there's no formal county
conveyance like a Lely canal or Lely Manor canal to discharge to. So
we've discharged just outside the project boundary to sheet flow off
the site, off the property.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. The second issue is with
respect to the golf courses. It's really great that you have eliminated
them, and there's question that does help, but all the projects that we're
having problems with are non -golf course problems, like Village Walk
and Island Walk, for example, which are similar to the design that
you're proposing, have no golf courses and have major problems. So I
want to mention, while I appreciate the golf courses aren't there, I
don't believe that in of itself is going to eliminate the potential
problems.
Your next statement was with respect to the size of the lakes. I'm
not sure that, you know, where they say there's an expression the
solution to pollution is not dilution. And so I'm not sure to what
extent, you know, the larger lakes are going to help with the problem
of, you know, the potential impact on water quality and the
downstream impact with respect to that.
I just -- I would like to have some assurances from staff that there
is some mechanism to ensure that, you know, the water quality will be
monitored, that there will be, you know, attenuation at the source, and
Page 114
March 13, 2012
that there won't be any sort of discharge of anything that's bad into
these canal systems where this water will be discharging.
So I don't know at what level you do that, if you do it at this level
or at a future level --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's not us, ma'am, it's the Water
Management District. But Clarence is here and --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. That's great. Could he
address that?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, they have District criteria,
they'll have to meet all that criteria with their permitting process. At
the PUD stage they'll do some conceptual plans, but when they come
in with their actual plans, control structures, you know, they'll do their
methods to analyze bloom discharge, that has to all go through the
District.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would appreciate it if Clarence
could address that, if what they're proposing will any way adversely
impact, and, you know, how far they have to go to address that we
don't have problems downstream.
MR. TEARS: Clearance Tears, Director of Big Cypress Basin,
South Florida Water Management District.
We do have surface water management plans for our regulatory
process, and as long as the developer meets the requirements of that,
you know, they meet our criteria, but it's specifically concerned with
onsite retention and water qualify before it is discharged off -site. In
addition, they need to make sure they do not impact other properties
with their discharges.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Have you looked at this plan at
all? Has this been brought to you for consideration?
MR. TEARS: I personally have not reviewed it. I'm not quite
sure if our staff has initially looked at it or not.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Have they? I see a nod behind
you.
Page 115
March 13, 2012
MR. TEARS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Todd is saying --
MR. ENGLISH: Yes. It's been -- an environmental resource
permit has been applied for and has been approved by the South
Florida Water Management District.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, great. All right, that's
positive.
My last question goes to the bald eagle management plan and
gopher tortoise relocation management plan. I heard staff -- or maybe
it was Bruce who said -- I believe it was Bruce who said that now new
PUDs and PUDs that are coming up for amendment are being
modified to exclude management plans for things like the bald eagle
or gopher tortoises; is that correct, Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: That is my understanding, yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So have we adopted that as a
policy? I mean, this might have happened before my time, that we're
no longer incorporating these management plans in PUDs.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's my understanding. You might want
to ask staff that question.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, staff?
MS. ARAQUE: Summer Araque, senior environmental
specialist.
The Land Development Code was changed in 2010 so that the
PUD is no longer required to attach those management plans to the
PUD. Prior to that, they were attached to the PUD, so if the bald eagle
management plan needed to be revised, then we had to come back to
the Board to revise that and, like for example, the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service changed their criteria in the last five years or so with
the buffer zones, they've now been reduced so then a lot of people had
to come back in.
So this is less cumbersome for them.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So they still have a management
Page 116
March 13, 2012
plan but it's not part of the PUD.
MS. ARAQUE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, so we're not eliminating the
need for the plan, we've just eliminating that it be part of the PUD.
MS. ARAQUE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's great.
MS. ARAQUE: And that's it, as simple as that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're doing that for all PUDs
coming forward?
MS. ARAQUE: Yes. We cannot require, because the code now
removed that requirement, we cannot require --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, all PUD amendments.
MS. ARAQUE: Yes. For any PUD amendment or any new
PUD.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Great. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This is a DRI. Are we -- it is
not as DRI? It was a DRI.
MR. UTTER: Pat Utter, applicant, for the record.
It formerly was a DRI. We abandoned it several years ago, back
when the current PUD was approved. I think it was abandoned at the
same time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So concurrency still applies to --
it applies to this PUD then.
MR. UTTER: The DRI is not in effect currently. It's been
abandoned back in, I think, 2005.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I heard you say that.
The --
MR. UTTER: Does concurrency apply, is that your question?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. Because we're not
doing DOs for the DRI, so concurrency should apply in the PUD.
MR. UTTER: I'm going to let Nick address that.
Page 117
March 13, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess that's more of a
statement or understanding that I have.
The passive recreation, what are you removing from the passive
recreation?
MR. UTTER: I don't believe we're removing, I think actually,
we're adding a kayak launch and some trail systems and the potential
for the electric boat. I don't believe there was any elimination of
recreation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's what I read. The problem
with these pads is you can't -- it's hard to back to where I seen that.
But it's on the record.
MR. UTTER: I'm sorry, the intent of the community is very
much health and wellness and the environment. And there's extensive
trail systems planned, walking trails as well as the kayaking and
canoeing is a theme of the community.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the canoeing would be --
kayaking and canoeing would be in the Lely canal?
MR. UTTER: Potentially, there -- or it potentially could be in
the lake system as well.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I had the
opportunity to go up through Dollar Bay through that canal system in
a motorized boat. Couldn't get all the way up. And I understand
there's a lake. Now I understand it's on your property. So hopefully
the future residents will have that opportunity through kayaking.
MR. UTTER: We hope that's the case. That's the intention.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, that's super.
Commissioner Fiala, I don't recall which PUD it was, could have
been Treviso Bay, it was the concern of citizens of the access to the
PUD. Was that Danford Street or was it -- is that Treviso Bay that
there was a concern? Do you recall?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I don't. There's a concern that I
was going to talk about as far as access. And maybe that's the one
Page 118
March 13, 2012
you're thinking of, and that was Saint Andrews. Saint Andrews,
because the people in the Lely Golf Estates were concerned that most
of the access would be coming out of Sabal Bay and then go down --
you know, go down Saint Andrews all the way to Immokalee Road,
because then it becomes Santa Barbara. And they were concerned
with what would happen to their neighborhood because the houses
were so close to the street and they do a lot of walking and biking
there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, Danford Street --
MR. UTTER: Our main entrance though is not at Saint
Andrews, it's -- the Saint Andrews access point is only, you know, it
connects a small portion of the property. The main entrance is on 41
about half a mile from Saint Andrews.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The Danford Street access,
that's all --
MR. UTTER: That's actually -- I think that was an -- it's actually
Bay Street and Hamilton Avenue. It's not -- Danford is the road that
goes down to Bayview Park, so it's offset 100 yards or so.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, well, it does -- there's
actually an exhibit here.
MR. UTTER: The exhibit --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is wrong?
MR. UTTER: Well, it's right adjacent. They're all very close
together there, so I'm not sure the scale, if you can actually pinpoint.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's to the marina; is that
correct?
MR. UTTER: No, it actually provides access to both Bayview
Park and potentially to the marina. But it accesses directly at Bay
Street, right outside the gate to Hamilton Harbor.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you're not changing the
access point, right, or are you?
MR. UTTER: We're adding an access point. The current PUD
Page 119
March 13, 2012
does not have an access at Hamilton Avenue and Bay Street. So that
is an addition.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do we have a map?
MR. UTTER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's a good idea.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's not a good map.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Not so far it's not a good map.
Earthquake.
No, go way to the left. Now you're getting close. There you go.
Now go down. There you are.
Danford is the second street from the bottom, which goes to
Bayview Park.
MR. UTTER: Let's see if I can point to it. This is Bay Street that
runs up and down along the dry storage building. Danford's right
here, about 100, maybe 100 yards away, coming down to Bayview
Park. So the access location is right here, right outside the gate to
Hamilton Harbor.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So you're adding another
access—
MR. UTTER: Correct. The goal -- we're adding two access
points. One at Saint Andrews, that Donna mentioned, and then the
second one is at Bay Street, and that's to provide access to both
Hamilton Harbor and to Bayview Park so that our residents don't have
to drive on Thomasson Drive. It would provide internal access, which
is promoted within the community. And it would provide a link for
them to bike down to Bayview Park without getting onto Thomasson.
So it was -- that was the intention.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And there's no boat storage. If I
recall, you said in the PUD except for in the marina?
MR. UTTER: The marina is outside the PUD, so there's no boat
storage other than the electric boats that were referenced. And it won't
be a -- you know, the electric boats are meant to operate, but we're not
Page 120
March 13, 2012
storing -- the intention is not to store electric boats other than the ones
we would be using. But there's no additional boats stored on the PUD.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So, you know, in my opinion
this is a better plan of distributing the traffic or pedestrian traffic to
their destination.
MR. UTTER: That was the intention. And again, we're highly
promoting biking, walking, exercise, wellness, as well as the
environment.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's the only question I have.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, it's the perfect interconnect between
developments or facilities so they don't have to get out on the main
roads to get to Bayview Park.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And one point, one single point
of entry and exit.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's good.
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, especially for boats. Boat
owners that might have their boats stored right down there at Hamilton
Harbor will make it really easy for them and they don't even have to
get onto a main street or anything. I really enjoy that.
And as a side note, something that hasn't been mentioned, but I
believe that you're going to be teaming up with the Bayshore MSTU
and the CRA to improve Thomasson Drive to bring it up to a different
standard with lights and sidewalks and so forth. I think that you're all
chipping in to do that, right?
MR. UTTER: Correct. That's not actually a, you know,
commitment in the PUD was --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I know that --
MR. UTTER: But we are --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: --I'm just bragging for you.
MR. UTTER: No, we have been working for many years on
Page 121
March 13, 2012
assisting the CRA and MSTU on marketing and pathways and other --
a number of their endeavors.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, you've been very -- you've
worked very well with them on it. Thank you for that.
Okay, getting back to access on Saint Andrews. I'm just worried
about the people on Saint Andrews, because they were already
impacted when we opened Santa Barbara. Impacted a lot. And if this
opens up too, they're going to be impacted even more.
Is there something that we can do to work with them to make the
impact not as great?
Sorry about the English.
MR. UTTER: Again, just so -- I want to point out which --
where -- which parcels -- this is the Saint Andrews access point, and
you can see that the white area represents the potential development
area. The large mass of our residents are going to be on -- opposite
the Lely canal. And it would be very circuitous for them to come out
underneath the power line and then exit there.
So it's highly unlikely that the traffic volumes -- and we have had
a traffic study that, you know, which suggests that the traffic volume
exiting and entering there is minimal compared to the main entrance.
But I think it would provide interconnection to communities, which is
positive and, you know, provides safe access for both sides.
And we are enhancing the intersection with pedestrian
crosswalks when we actually connect to that intersection, that signal.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you.
Going back to the process in the very beginning. The Planning
Commission reviewed this, and their vote was 8 -l. The one objection
they had to deal with was the height, if I'm not mistaken.
MR. UTTER: Correct, the height on 41 was the primary
concern.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What was it that you weren't
Page 122
March 13, 2012
able to answer that that person voted against it?
MR. UTTER: I think -- I asked her if we extended the setback,
would we change her mind, and she said no. So we decided to leave
it. At that time it was 80 and 95. Since then we've actually reduced it
to 60 and 75. I can't tell you if that would have changed her mind or
not.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that's impressive though,
how many people you did get to agree with what you were doing. I
noticed the Planning Commission had quite a number of changes --
recommended changes, and I believe you incorporated just about all of
them in that.
Was there anything that was dramatic in those changes that they
were asking for?
MR. UTTER: Generally it was clean -up. Mark Strain is very
precise about making sure we follow the correct LDC. So there were
some items that were taken out because they were onerous on us, and
in some cases they were just -- he was trying to get conformance
between the PUD and the LDC. But in general there were no major
modifications, a lot of little changes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is it true that if you did receive a
unanimous vote from the Planning Commission, this would have been
on our summary agenda?
MR. UTTER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could you put the photograph of the
Moorings Park building back up there?
Just -- I want everybody to take a look at that palm tree on the
left. You see how much of the building that palm tree covers up?
That's about a 18 to 20 -foot tall palm tree.
If you took four of them and lined them up there, you would
cover up almost all of that building from this particular viewpoint.
MR. UTTER: Correct. The closer you are, there's no question
Page 123
March 13, 2012
that it would limit your visibility.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. So I think it's going to be
relatively easy to mitigate the impact of the buildings along 41 with
landscaping. But I'd like to point out that the setbacks for Moorings
Park buildings are a lot more than 70 feet. If I were to ask you to
extend the setbacks a little bit, would you be willing to do that?
MR. UTTER: Well, I live right next to Moorings Park and I jog
by it every morning. The new building they're actually constructing,
it's 10 feet from the FPL transmission line. In their case there's a
transmission line between the right -of -ways. So the setback is
measured almost 100 feet away, but when you see it from the fence
line, their new building is 10 feet away.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 10 feet away from the -- I'm talking
about the road.
MR. UTTER: Well, the road, in that case it's -- like I say, there's
a transmission line that runs along it alongside it. So technically their
setback from 41, I don't have the -- actually, I do have -- I have their
requirement, it might take me a minute for me to look it up.
But in general we're -- we increased it at the Planning
Commission from half the height to the full height along 41, which,
you know, should provide, you know, an adequate setback.
Do you have a specific thought in mind?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, I'm just suggesting to you that this
particular illustration shows how easy it is to mitigate the appearance
of a tall building when viewed from the street with vegetation. And
I've also made the observation that the distance that we're viewing it
from here is far more than 75 or 80 feet.
So if you can just address that for us a little bit and indicate what
your flexibility with respect to mitigating that impact, it would be
helpful.
MR. UTTER: I do have the Moorings setback, which is -- this is
from the city's PUD. It says structures greater than 35 feet shall be
Page 124
March 13, 2012
setback 20 feet plus one foot for each foot of building height above 35.
So if our buildings are 75 feet, let's say, as the maximum, then that
would be 40 feet above the 35. So I get one, so that would be 40 feet
plus 20, which would be 60. So in this case Moorings setback is 60,
where ours would be 75. So we're actually a little more restrictive
than their PUD.
But I don't have a specific site plan, so it's hard for me to say
twice the building height or one and a half times, because until you
really have a plan, it's hard to pinpoint those. But we've doubled the
setback from the original request.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The only problem I have, Pat, is that
you're not being specific with where the setback is measured from at
Moorings Park. What is the distance from the roadway on Goodlette
Road?
MR. UTTER: I don't have that dimension. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's the important dimension here,
because we're talking about a setback from U.S. 41.
MR. UTTER: But again, the roadway is offset from the
pavement a fairly large distance on U.S. 41. It's a much -- it's wider
road than Goodlette Road. And our setback comes from the
right -of -way line.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, that's good. Now, tell us, what do
you believe the setback --
MR. UTTER: From the pavement?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: From the pavement would be? Because
most people who are looking at this are thinking that the setback is
going to be 75 feet from the pavement?
MR. UTTER: We'd have to measure it. I think it's at least
another 25 feet before the pavement. Because you have a large swale
there, and then you have a five foot sidewalk running up and down
U.S. 41. The sidewalk is pretty much right at the property line.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, yeah.
Page 125
March 13, 2012
MR. UTTER: So you have a sidewalk --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So that gives it about a 100 foot setback
from the pavement.
MR. UTTER: Would be about 100 feet from the pavement. I
would think that's very close to that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I would think so too, okay.
How many speakers do we have, Ian?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have three speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioners, I'm going to ask
that we have the public speakers right now and we'll continue the
questions afterwards?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, the first speaker is Ken MacLaren.
MR. MacLAREN: Ken MacLaren. I am a resident of Windstar.
We've been in this community for 12 years. And I applaud the people
who are doing this project.
I was a member of the club board at Windstar for three years and
currently serve on the Windstar master board. Tom Melvin will speak
also, he is the president of the master board for Windstar.
I'm not going to spend a lot of your time on this but I was going
to reiterate to you that we at Windstar support this project
wholeheartedly. And I'm speaking for myself and for the Board.
Obviously I can't speak for all 556 people that live there. But I'm
sure you have total support from the Windstar community for this
project and I hope you do approve it. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Brian Holley.
MR. HOLLEY: Hi, I'm Brian Holley, executive director at
Naples Botanical Garden. We actually had Pat Utter come and
present this project to our board and we had unanimous support for the
project.
The things that we were particularly concerned about were some
of the sensitive areas that are in the area in the PUD, and their
handling of those was exemplary.
Page 126
March 13, 2012
The other thing we were concerned about was traffic in the area,
which was also handled to our satisfaction.
And the third thing we were concerned about was buffering to
the south end of our property which abuts this development. And
there's more than adequate buffering taking place down there. So we
would encourage you to approve this development we think is really
exceptional and will be an asset to Collier County. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Brian.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, your last speaker will be Thomas Melvin.
MR. MELVIN: Hi, I'm Thomas Melvin, president of the master
association of Windstar at Naples Bay. I just want to say on behalf of
our board, we are very excited about this project. We think it will be
an excellent addition to all of Naples, especially to south Naples, and
continue the development of our area. We think the developer has an
excellent reputation, has done a super job in the preparation of this.
And in terms of the changes proposed here, we support them
fully. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, we're removing the
affordable housing requirement. Did this project get density bonuses
when they were required to put affordable units in as part of the
project?
MR. ANDERSON: No. And in fact this project is below the
allowable density limits.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you didn't get any bumps for --
MR. ANDERSON: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, great. Thank you.
MR. ANDERSON: And Commissioner Henning, I want to make
sure your question got answered about concurrency. This project is
Page 127
March 13, 2012
subject to concurrency. There is some vesting for some of the units,
but they are subject to it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, first of all, I appreciated all the
questions you asked in the beginning, because you asked some of
mine so I didn't even have to ask them. Thank you very much.
And I wanted to -- isn't it also the affordable -- that was just what
you were supposed to pay for each house back when we had -- you
had to pay $100 or something like that, or $1,000 for each house that
you built. And nobody's doing that anymore, but that was, yes, about
five years ago. So you weren't required to put any affordable housing
in there, it was just that you were paying to -- for -- you know, as
everybody was.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, I just want to clear that up.
Lastly, I want to make a motion to approve this Sabal Bay
project, understanding that we're going to have a nice buffering
landscape around the ALF and also you are going -- we wanted to
make sure that the setback was -- we spoke 100 feet, didn't we?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, it will be the height of the building.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The height of the building, that's
what they said.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, but the only point I was trying to
emphasize was that that's measured from the right -of -way, which is 25
feet from the edge of the road. So if you're trying to determine how
far the building will be from the road itself, it will be about 100 feet
from the road. But the legal definition of setback is from the county
right -of -way.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, good, as long as that's the
county right -of -way, then that works really well, because I was next
going to go into crest of the road and, you know, this is a divided
highway with the landscaping in the middle. So I thought whoa that
Page 128
March 13, 2012
would really knock it down. So you've explained that all. Thank you.
And so, with that --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And the second is here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Fiala to
approve, seconded by Commissioner Hiller. And the approval will
include the changes that have been stated and placed on the record.
And Kay, you have something you want to tell us.
MS. DESELEM: Thank you. For the record, Kay Deselem,
principal planner with Zoning.
I did want to go on the record to say that staff is recommending
approval. We are recommending that it be found consistent with the
Growth Management Plan. And I also wanted you to clarify what you
mean by an enhanced buffer. Because we need to be able to make sure
that we can review it and make sure it meets the intent of the
ordinance.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, like Commissioner Coyle
pointed out, like these palm trees for instance in the picture of
Moorings Park, I think just a few of those in front of the building
would do a lot to just -- to enhance it. You can't hide it but just
enhance the look of it. And I've never seen Collier Enterprises do
anything cheaply anyway. If they're going to do it, they're going to do
it right. I don't have any fear, I just wanted to put it on the record to
make sure it's done.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the county standards prescribe the
height and the spacing of the trees and shrubbery. So why don't you
tell us what those are with respect to the Type A and /or B?
MS. DESELEM: I've put on the visualizer what is described as a
Type D, which would be what is required along U.S. 41. And it
shows you that -- the width can vary. And in this case it would be the
20 foot wide width, because it's a designated road of a certain width.
And then it would require trees that are 30 feet on center and the
Page 129
March 13, 2012
double staggered row of hedge. And that's code requirement.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. But am I to conclude from this
that this means a shrub that will be 24 foot high and will be
maintained at 36 feet? That's not what we're talking about.
MS. DESELEM: That's why I wanted you to clarify it. This is
the minimum requirement. But if you want something more than that,
staff needs to understand what it is so that it's measurable and we can
make sure that we enforce what it is you want done.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think what we want to have done is --
huh?
MS. DESELEM: It's shrubs.
MR. UTTER: There's a tree every 30 feet, that's the -- the 24
inches is for the shrub, which is there's two levels of hedge --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, but I can't read all of the
information concerning the height of the tree. What is the initial height
of the tree?
MR. OCHS: What's the height of the tree, not the spacing in
between?
MS. DESELEM: If I can take just a moment to look through the
Land Development Code that I have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's not specified here.
MS. DESELEM: No.
Looking quickly, I'm unable to find the exact height, and I don't
have access to the Land Development Code. It runs in my mind that it
is 14 foot high.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then why don't we specify 14
foot high trees with Type D buffer, 30 feet on center with the shrubs
24 inches high at planting and maintained at a height of 36 inches.
And you've got a type D buffer.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that B as in boy or --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Delta. Although I would prefer Charlie
but --
Page 130
March 13, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I agree with that, I think Charlie is
the way to go. Pardon me for interrupting. But I think you make a
good point. I think we should amend the motion and propose a Type C
buffer with the same height specifications that you were proposing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll include that in my motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I'll second it.
MR. UTTER: Pat Utter for the record.
Where exactly -- is this for the ALF along 41 ?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes.
MR. UTTER: Because we have other areas along 41 that that
buffer would not be appropriate.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, just by the ALF. You can't hide
the commercial and retail section.
MR. UTTER: I want to make sure you know -- you know, it's
from the power line to there. How do we -- we describe it from there?
I mean, the power line's not moving. Is there a number on it?
It's roughly from the power line down to Treviso Bay.
MS. DESELEM: We're trying to discuss how we might
understand exactly where it's to be applicable. I think it could follow
with whatever SDP is approved that would allow for the ALF. So the
confines of that ALF SDP tract would define where that would be,
rather than trying to look at the master plan and guess at this point
where it might be.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Pat, go ahead.
MR. UTTER: Only problem is the ALF could go in another
location. So I don't want to -- along 41 there's an easy delineation is
the transmission line from our -- from the transmission line at U.S. 41
to the Treviso Bay property line. That's the parcel we're talking.
We'll agree to the Type C buffer with the 14 feet as the tree.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You would not build ALF along U.S. 41
-- you would not build buildings this high along U.S. 41 at any other
location, is that true?
Page 131
March 13, 2012
MR. UTTER: Well, the site from the power line to the Lely
canal is our primary main entrance. So we have no contemplation of
large structures there. There may be a few model homes on the canal.
But there is a commercial area from the canal to Publix. And within
that commercial area, we are anticipating a hotel potentially, which is
not planned to be right on 41. And that could have a height of up to
75 feet within the commercial piece.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would you have a problem with a Type
C buffer at that point?
MR. UTTER: Yeah, we can't have a -- a Type C buffer on a
commercial is -- you just block all visibility. It eliminates the
marketability of that center.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then what limits would properly
define the area where you would place the ALF facilities?
MR. UTTER: The ALF is allowed anywhere there's residential
except for there's three, the three back parcels that are backed by
Hamilton Harbor and Bayshore.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then I would be happy if you came up
with a definition which told us what that was, and that --
MR. UTTER: It's clearly defined, I just don't have it right in
front of me. I can -- the ALF is restricted from this parcel here out --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute, I'm not seeing that.
Where is that information?
MR. UTTER: Okay, again, just -- this is Hamilton Harbor, so we
-- there's a parcel here, there's no ALF allowed in this parcel up to, this
is Bayshore. It's not allowed here or here or there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just tell us where it is allowed along 41.
MR. UTTER: Oh, along 41, you know, technically it could be
from here to there. But our main entrance is there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. UTTER: But technically, if you want the answer from a
zoning, you could actually put one right there. It's just that's where
Page 132
March 13, 2012
our model center is designed.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would you have a problem with a Type
C buffer there?
MR. UTTER: I'm not concerned about where the model is, but
right at the -- again, I don't want to limit my main entrance. I have an
entry feature.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Your entry feature isn't going to be an
ALF, is it?
MR. UTTER: No, it's not. But that's what I'm saying, it -- by
right, it's considered R. And it would be zoned for an ALF
potentially. I'm saying my main entrance, I'm going to have a divided
roadway, a very nice entry feature, signs on both sides. I don't want to
block that with a C buffer across there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner, maybe we can just
say a Type C buffer in front of the ALF --
MR. UTTER: Is required for an ALF. Maybe we just live with
that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, rather than choosing an area.
MR. UTTER: All right, let's just say that. If an ALF is built,
which I doubt, but if it is, we'll use a Type C buffer.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then we have a motion and a
second, which incorporates that requirement of a Type C buffer.
Now, is there anything else we need to do, Kay?
MS. DESELEM: I think I'm done. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, do you have
another comment or question?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, you clarified it with what
type buffer.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 133
March 13, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Dare I say that it passed unanimously.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You dare say.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Congratulations.
MR. UTTER: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I think it's very close to break time,
isn't it? Okay, we're going to take a 10 minute break. We'll be back
here at 2:37.
(A recess was taken.)
MR. OCHS: You have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Board of County Commissioners
meeting is back in session.
Where do we go now?
Item #1 l K
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE SUBMITTAL OF AN
APPLICATION AND MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
FOR A 3 YEAR SAFE HAVENS: SUPERVISED VISITATION
AND SAFE EXCHANGE GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $3505000
FROM THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE ALL RELATED
GRANT DOCUMENTS REQUIRED FOR SUBMITTAL —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, with your and the Commission's
indulgence, I'd like to go to I LK under the County Manager's Report.
It's a recommendation to approve submittal of an application,
Page 134
March 13, 2012
a Memorandum of Understanding for a three -year Safe Haven
Supervised Visitation and Safe Exchange Grant in the amount of
$350,000. I got my signals crossed --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Motion to approve.
MR. OCHS: -- with Commissioner Hiller earlier this week on
the agenda. I think I may have inadvertently moved this to regular
when she didn't intend it to be, but I'll let her speak for herself on that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Hiller.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we do have a public speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you opposed or in support?
MR. MITCHELL: It's Gail Tunnock.
MR. OCHS: She's not here but she was in support for the record.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we've got a supportive motion.
Okay, all in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion carries unanimously. Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners.
Item #101
ADVISORY BOARD VACANCIES PRESS RELEASE MARCH 8,
20129 WITH DEADLINE FOR ACCEPTANCE MARCH 29, 2012 —
READ INTO THE RECORD
Page 135
March 13, 2012
That will take us quickly back to Item 10.I on your agenda.
That's the last item under Board of County Commissioners advisory
board vacancies.
Mr. Mitchell?
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, we released a
press release on March the 9th, and the deadline for these applications
is March the 29th.
The Affordable Housing Advisory Committee has a vacancy for
an alternate member, and this member must be a resident of the
Immokalee area.
The Animal Services Advisory Board has two vacancies.
The Development Services Advisory Committee has one
vacancy.
The Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage Advisory Committee
has one vacancy.
The Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee has one
vacancy.
The Hispanic Affairs Advisory Committee has one vacancy.
The Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Committee has one
vacancy.
And the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board has two vacancies.
And the Tourist Development Council has two vacancies as well.
That's all the vacancies we have at the moment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you very much.
What's the next item? We have a couple of items we need to get
through before it gets too late in the day. Commissioner Hiller has to
leave by 3:30.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no, no. No, no, no,
Commissioner Coletta has to leave.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, no, I've got it here, Commissioner
Hiller has to leave at 3:30.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Really? Is there a surprise party I
Page 136
March 13, 2012
don't know about?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, great, I'm leaving. It's a party,
I'm going.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. We'll give you an address.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
Item #1 I A
RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD CONTRACT #12-5801R
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE COLLIER AREA TRANSIT
INTERMODAL TRANSFER STATION AT THE GOVERNMENT
CENTER TO MANHATTAN CONSTRUCTION (FLORIDA) INC.,
IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,844,449 — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Okay, let's go ahead on 1 l.A. That's a
recommendation to award a contract No. 12-580 1 R for the
construction of the Collier Area Transit Intermodel Transfer Station at
the government center to Manhatten Construction, Florida,
Incorporated in the amount of $3,844,449. Michele Arnold is available
to present or answer the Board's questions.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Coletta. Second by?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute, somebody else had their
lights on before you did.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll make a second to approve it but
I have a question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, he already seconded it.
Page 137
March 13, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, did you? Can I second it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I'll remove my second.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you going to remove your motion
now?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't make a motion, or the
second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It was Coletta, yes, I know.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Can you bring Mr. Carnell
up to the podium, please.
Mr. Carnell, this bid was subject to a bid protest; is that correct?
I'd like you to highlight what was identified in the bid protest and your
determination.
MR. CARNELL: Well, briefly, the bid protest presented a
couple of arguments. The primary argument was that the apparent
low bidder had not identified a primary or major subcontractor for the
work. That would be the provider of the covered walkway or canopy,
which is about a quarter of the bid price. They had not named their
subcontractor. And there is a place in the bidding documents where
they are required to name major subcontractors.
The second issue was that they made the contention that the
apparent low bidder had gotten pricing after the bid opening from the
canopy supplier of choice. And they essentially had gotten an unfair
advantage in naming that pricing several days after the bid opening.
And so we -- they also pointed to a Florida statute that states that
when you're awarding a bid that you're not permitted to -- as a bidder
to change your named subcontractors without just cause. So those
were the primary concerns and issues.
As we look through the issues, we weren't sure with absolute
certainty that state law applies to county governments. It's written to
state agencies. But we are receiving state funding. It's federal funding
Page 138
March 13, 2012
through the state.
And so we -- irrespective of that, the bigger concern was that
when we checked into the facts, it was determined that the apparent
low bidder sure enough had not -- we knew that they had not named
their subcontractor for the canopy. We had verified that they were
going to hold their bid price, which was part of why we originally
recommended them for award. But we found out through the protest
process that they had contacted the canopy supplier that they were
going to use six days after the bid opening to get a hard price.
And to explain a little bit more on that, if I could, this is really
the key issue here, the bidding specifications named a particular
product that was deemed acceptable by the designer for the canopy.
And in the interest of being competitive, the architect named two
alternative products that were considered to be equal. So we thought
we were being good in terms of offering three competitive alternatives
for the bidders to go get pricing on.
Well, what we found out was, and unfortunately did not find this
out till the bid opening day, that only one of the three had provided
pricing to the bidders in advance of the opening. And that was the one
who was named in the specifications. And the people who were
named equal had not provided pricing to anybody in the marketplace.
And what happened was the apparent low bidder had gotten a
price from the named supplier, as did all of the other bidders. And
everybody got essentially the same price, give or take a few cents. I
mean, I think they were virtually identical prices received from the
one supplier.
But what happened was the apparent low bidder had talked to
another supplier who was not prior approved and who had offered the
product at a lower price, and essentially, from best we could tell,
picked a number in between for their canopy price. And it created the
appearance as though the low bidder might be intending to try to get
the product changed out afterwards, after award.
Page 139
March 13, 2012
Now, what we did to try to circumvent that initially was we said
to the low bidder, you have to honor your bid, you have to meet your
price, and you have to build using one of the approved canopy
manufacturers. And we got assurances that they would, which is why
the staff moved forward with the recommendation initially.
But we found out through the protest process that the low bidder
had not actually gotten a price from one of the competing canopy
providers until six days after the bid opening. And essentially what
happened, this is the important part to understand, is they're now
sitting -- we have a bid opening, a public bid opening, they are sitting
there with the exposed apparent low price. And the two canopy
manufacturers who had not extended a price, essentially they read our
spec as being noncompetitive. Didn't communicate this to us, but they
thought because the other product was named and because there was
some design work involved by each manufacturer in the product, they
didn't want to invest the time to price it out, the two competitors.
Well, when Lodge Construction came in with a low price, Lodge
went back, unbeknownst to us, this was after the bid opening, and said
to them, hey, we're in the catbird's seat, we're the apparent low bidder.
In fact, it's now worth your time, Mr. Manufacturer, to price it out,
because if you'll give me an acceptable price, we're going to go with
you.
Well, we didn't know this until the bid protest. Everything I just
-- the last little piece of information I said to you, we were not aware
of in full until we received the bid protest.
So it's our position, briefly, as staff, that Lodge Construction
gained an unfair advantage by being able to get a price that other
people could not get and getting it after the prices were opened and
exposed.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, you know, I thank you for
your explanation. And the protest in your response are part of the
record with respect to this agenda item.
Page 140
March 13, 2012
But quite frankly, I'm left very concerned, because I did look at
the information presented, and it was obvious by looking at the
package that Lodge presented that they did not identify their two
largest subcontractors; not only the one with respect to the canopy, but
also the one with respect to the site work.
And I don't understand how come your staff and your selection
review committee did not note, you know, the obvious failure to
provide the subcontractors on this job when Lodge submitted. And I'd
like you to explain why not.
MR. CARNELL: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And quite frankly, but for the bid
protest you presented Lodge as the recommended contractor and we
would have voted on that.
MR. CARNELL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that is a big problem.
MR. CARNELL: Well, ma'am, I understand your point. But this
is the benefit of your protest process, and this is how it's intended to
operate. And it's intended to bring things to light that we might not
have otherwise known. The bidders were in a better position to know
what pricing they were or were not getting from the suppliers. And
that's why things did not fully come to light until we had made our
recommendation.
Now, to clarify further, just so everybody's clear, we did receive
a list of subcontractors from Lodge Construction, and we saw that the
canopy manufacturer was not named. We went back to Lodge and
said you are going to provide the canopy per the specifications and
you're going to hold your price. And they said yes.
Now, we were of the understanding at that moment -- and
frankly, Commissioner, there was some misunderstanding frankly on
my part at that very moment about what had happened that did not
come clear until I received the protest. And that was, I was under the
understanding that Lodge had gotten prices from the other canopy
Page 141
March 13, 2012
guys in advance. They just didn't name, they didn't commit to one of
them.
And so in our view when we said Lodge, are you willing to build
this job and provide the canopy per the specifications -- we thought
they were working with prices they had gotten before the bid opening.
And we did not understand that they did not have a price in full until
we received the bid protest. And that's why -- my answer to you,
Commissioner, is that's why you have a protest process. It allows for
further discovery to take place.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you go back to the statement
you made? You said that you knew from talking to them that they
were going to get the price after the fact?
MR. CARNELL: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's what you said earlier.
MR. CARNELL: No, no. What was said was we thought the
assumption was that Lodge had gotten pricing but just hadn't named
anybody, and they needed to commit to building it per the
specifications. And it wasn't until we got the bid protest that we found
out that nobody had priced the job to any of the eight contractors
except the one supplier that Lodge didn't use. But we didn't know that
until we got the protest. Because remember, the subs are all talking to
all the bidders. There's communication out there between them that
we're not necessarily privy to.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: My concern remains.
MR. CARNELL: I understand.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. My concern is, has been and
still is, and I just want to put this on the record, I know that we have
now grants from the state coming from two different sections of the
state grant -- of the transportation department. But I've been told, and
I'm going to ask you this on the record, that they cannot use that grant
for anything else but this location.
Page 142
March 13, 2012
MS. ARNOLD: That's correct. For the record, Michele Arnold,
Alternative Transportation Modes Director.
We checked with the state and they indicated that the grant
dollars that have been allocated for this particular project has to be
used on this location. It cannot be transferred to another location.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And just for the audience's sake I'll
explain to you. We had this perfectly wonderful building next door
that's called DeVoe and it's sitting there empty and it has a huge
maintenance area in there, 14 bays, I think it is, and they have another
facility that you can wash the vehicles in plus a two -story facility
where not only could the people wait and be sheltered and plenty of
parking in there but also you could put the Supervisor of Elections, all
of her storage that we have now, we rent space out all over for her
stuff, we could pull it all in and save money there.
Yes, the building would cost money. We wouldn't have too, too
much repair to do. I mean, we could probably move into it very
quickly. And of course there's room for expansion.
Here on the government grounds we have no room for expansion,
and that bothers me. But when you turn it around, and this is what I've
been told, you can't use the money for anything but the facility here.
It seems a shame that we're spending the money on something that we
can't even expand into instead of buying this building that makes so
much more sense.
But I guess I'm going to have to go along with this because
there's nothing else to do. Would have been nice, though.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, would you make Commissioner
Fiala feel better by saying that's true? I mean, it can't be used for any
other purpose, and --
MR. OCHS: No, it can't. And it's got to be on this location.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, explain why.
MS. ARNOLD: Because the grant applied -- that we applied for
was for this particular location. And as the representative for the state
Page 143
March 13, 2012
explained is that these are dollars specifically -- we applied for a
portion of the dollars as a competitive process. And we have to apply
the dollars as our application specified. Our application did not
specify an alternate location.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, but how about the matching
requirement?
MR. OCHS: I was just going to say, also the local match is in
kind in land values from the land on this government complex and it
couldn't be transferred to a match off -site.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's make sure everybody understands
it. If you had applied for the grant for the automobile dealership, you
would have been asked to pay a million or so dollars in matching
funds; is that right?
MS. ARNOLD: For the automobile dealership?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. OCHS: It would have applied --
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, we would have to put $2.7 million.
Because as I said we got two separate grants. Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So if you applied for the grant for the
automobile dealership you would have had to come up with $2.7
million in cash --
MS. ARNOLD: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- as a --
MS. ARNOLD: Match.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- match for the grant. But by going
with property on the government center, you use the value of that
property as a match so that you had -- didn't have to shell out $2.7
million.
MS. ARNOLD: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So that's the reason that you did that.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And let me say also -- and you're
Page 144
March 13, 2012
absolutely right, thank you for clarifying that. They've already
explained that to me.
And also, at the time that they applied for this grant, the DeVoe
place wasn't up for sale --
MS. ARNOLD: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- so they did not know that. I think
if they would have known that, the circumstances would have been
different. But they didn't, it wasn't for sale and now it's after the fact.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. I just -- we're just not
explaining to the public why we make decisions like this. And it
seems to me that by making the decision you just saved us $2.7
million in cash.
MS. ARNOLD: Right. That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's sort of important. And I don't hear
clear explanations of that sort of thing sometimes when we do these
complex deals. And it's important for the public to understand that
we're not completely nuts here.
MS. ARNOLD: Not completely, no.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Not completely. We're getting there.
All right, wait a minute, who else was next now?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You can turn mine off.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Were you next, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think so. I can't be absolutely
sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
Steve Carnell? Yeah, if you would, sir, seeing what took place,
I mean, unforeseen circumstances happen all the time in business.
I mean, but normal businesses don't share this with the whole world.
The thing is, is to be able to make sure we keep our bidders as honest
as possible, how about going to a bid bond where they have to post the
bond to guarantee the performance of their bid where if they fail to
Page 145
March 13, 2012
come through they have to pay that bond? Why don't we do that?
MR. CARNELL: Oh, we are. We did that for the bid itself, and
the awarded contractor is going to give us a performance bond as well
for the delivery of the work.
The bid bond bonds your offer. That saying, if you offer $3.8
million for the project, by golly you're going to do it for 3.8 and you're
not going to back out from the time the bids are open til the contract's
awarded.
What we're saying here Commissioner, is Lodge Construction,
they were $147,000 lower overall than Kraft Manhattan. But they
were $170,000 lower on this canopy without using really the correct
pricing method. And so they gained an unfair advantage because they
were able --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. But going back to the bid
bond, the bid bond wouldn't be able to cover --
MR. CARNELL: It really doesn't apply in this instance. The bid
bond --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If we had it, we couldn't write it
in such a way that we could collect?
MR. CARNELL: Oh, we could do that, sir, but what's happening
is you're giving Lodge an unfair advantage because they got this price
after --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, don't get me wrong, I'm not
talking about going back. That's the past.
MR. CARNELL: All right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm talking about the future.
Bid bonds would probably avoid this type of performance taking place
where all of a sudden you have somebody coming in and doing
something that's less than fair. You want to make sure that you're --
we're the government, we're supposed to give everybody a level
playing field, allow as many people as possible to participate and then
take the lowest price with everybody bidding on the same item with
Page 146
March 13, 2012
the same materials and producing at the same point in time with the
finished project.
MR. CARNELL: We did that here. We did have bid bonds.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We did have bid bonds?
MR. CARNELL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So everybody did pay a bid
bond.
Can the bid bond be extended to cover discrepancies like this
where somebody less than honest about what they're doing --
MR. CARNELL: I'd have to research that. That is not typically
the way they're used. I could follow up with that in general, if you'd
like. I mean, I appreciate the discussion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just keep it in the back of your
mind.
MR. CARNELL: If I could --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm always looking for a better
solution.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The bid bond would not have prohibited
the unfair advantage. It wouldn't have cured the unfair advantage that
Lodge --
MR. CARNELL: That's our position.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- got. You can't use it for that purpose.
Okay, Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Fiala, I don't want
you to give up so easily, I really don't. And the reason I say that is I
know that Commissioner Henning and I both supported you when you
brought this up when we were at the MPO.
And I have never gotten a clear financial analysis on the
comparison between these two alternatives. And by that I mean if you
look at the cost of the DeVoe site last -- whatever grant we could
apply and the statement that they made is we didn't have that site
available at that time. We can always apply to request for a different
Page 147
March 13, 2012
site. You basically amend your grant application.
And we had talked about that back then also. Leaving us with
some sort of cost. So if you take the cost of the DeVoe site less
whatever the grant would be, you'd find out whatever our cost is,
whatever the match may be and whatever our cost to improve would
be.
That has to be reconciled against the construction cost of this new
facility and the grant being applied to that, as well as what we're
giving up by way of lost parking spots that we have already paid for.
And I've never seen the reconciliation that shows that financially
we're better off doing this. The reconciliation that Commissioner
Coyle just gave us is a partial explanation, it's not a true reconciliation.
And I think we should have that reconciliation to make sure we're in
fact taking the more cost - effective approach.
And also considering the fact that, you know, the Supervisor of
Elections needs more in way of a facility. So we're going to have the
-- and we have to factor that into the analysis as well, because down
the road we're going to have to get an additional facility for her.
Where is that going to be? Where are we going to move her? Of
course we could move her in with Nick --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It is true.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Since you're so --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But the thing is, in order to buy that
building, I don't know what it would be now. I've heard it was
between 4.5 and 6 to buy that DeVoe building. And that was from a
pretty reliable source. But the thing is if we only have 2.7 and it
would cost us millions and then we'd be criticized for spending --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But we have to run the numbers.
I mean, I don't know if that's the case. I mean, until we actually
do the financial analysis, consider, you know, what's the additional
cost of getting a location for the Supervisor of Elections. You know,
what's the cost of improving this location and what's the cost of giving
MIME
March 13, 2012
up the parking spots that we've already paid for. You basically have
to reconcile all the numbers with all the information we have.
And this is the first time we've really had all the information to
be able to do that analysis to make a determination if we're positive or
negative on this particular location in this deal. And we've never done
that, or at least I've never seen it.
MS. ARNOLD: We have looked at the cost for that property.
We've also looked at where we are with respect to parking spaces.
We're actually coming up ahead 20 parking spaces. Because currently
we're located on the museum parking spot. And if we relocate to the
garage, we're taking up less, 20 fewer parking spaces by relocating to
the garage than we're using on the museum parking space.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But you're destroying a number of
parking spots we have in the physical building right now in order to
build --
MS. ARNOLD: That's what I'm saying, the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: --the addition.
MS. ARNOLD: -- parking spaces we're consuming as a part of
this project would be 20 less parking spaces than we're currently
utilizing now for the existing facilities. So by relocating from the
museum to the garage, we would be giving back to the county 20
additional parking spaces.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So basically we're freeing up 40
and removing 20 plus; is that what you're saying?
MS. ARNOLD: We're freeing up 20 parking spaces by
relocating to the garage. Currently we're using --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand that. But in the
garage facility, by remodeling the garage facility, my understanding
was that we were going to be losing parking spaces inside. How many
spaces are we --
MS. ARNOLD: Thirty.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- losing in the building?
Page 149
March 13, 2012
How many?
MS. ARNOLD: Thirty.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, so we're gaining 20 -- so
we're losing 10.
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, we're going to be using 34 in the garage.
We're currently using 54 in the museum parking space.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So then that's the net 20.
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Got it, okay.
So then that's not a factor in the analysis.
MS. ARNOLD: That's not a factor.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we just have to look at the total
cost of the two.
MS. ARNOLD: Right. And the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the cost of additional space
needed for the Supervisor of Elections. Because we're going to have
to bear that. That will be part of her budget.
MR. OCHS: No, ma'am, that has nothing to do with this item.
You know, there's offices that request space all the time. That doesn't
mean the Board's obligated to give it. Especially right now.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Does she not need space?
MR. OCHS: I don't know. I mean, maybe she believes she
needs space, but that's up to the Board to decide. We've got vacant
space in Nick's building.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, that's what I said, she could
move in with Nick.
MR. OCHS: That's fine. We've made that offer.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: All right, so that eliminates that.
So what's the difference between the two?
MS. ARNOLD: Okay, there's a -- we looked at the two. We've
looked at the DeVoe site and it's not on the market currently that we
could find any MLS listings or anything like that. So we've got the
Page 150
March 13, 2012
property appraiser's assessment at $4.8 million. And then we also
have a letter from the representative for the property owner that
indicated $11.5 million. So we've got a huge range in there.
If we went on the lower end, for us to go into that particular
property, utilizing that $4.8 million with construction costs and
rezoning -- we do have to rezone that property, it's not currently zoned
appropriately -- and time associated with that, we're at $7.6 million at
the low end.
If we were to use that high end, we're at $14.3 million to move
into that property.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And compare that to the total cost
of this particular project.
MS. ARNOLD: For this total cost, it's $6 million.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Compared to -- what was the low
end?
MS. ARNOLD: The low end at $7.8 million.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: 7.8. And that's assuming we were
able to buy it at 4.8 million, based on the Property Appraiser's
valuation.
So basically we're looking at a difference of 1.8 million?
MS. ARNOLD: Uh -huh.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So if that's the case, and obviously
this is a better decision -- go ahead, Norm.
MR. FEDER: The only thing I wanted to point out -- for the
record, Norman Feder, Growth Management Administrator -- is yes,
not only is there that dollar difference, and I'm glad you got there,
Commissioner, is also the fact that the two grants only speak to that.
At the MPO meeting the state and in follow -up discussions that
we did tried to pursue it directly, as the Board asked us to. They were
unwilling to move it.
You've got two grants: One has been quite a while and has been
holding, which was the intermodal grant. That one was tied to the
Page 151
March 13, 2012
land and the land was put up as the collateral match on that. And we
got that intermodal specifically for this purpose on this facility
because of the trips here on campus and because the DRI of the
campus. So that money, they made clear, was really suspect if we ever
gave it up on the site.
The other one was a trip grant. It specifically had to be
prioritized by both MPO's, put on that regional priority list, go through
the effort and it was specifically identified where. It comes open
again. Both of those are very suspect at the state level right now if
they are freed up. DOT has told us emphatically, the first is gone, the
second is all but gone.
So when you say the six million, you've got to take out both of
those grants in the real cost to the county.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, not necessarily.
MR. FEDER: I think they've said it specifically at the MPO --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It doesn't matter.
MR. FEDER: -- and that's what they've told us directly; at least I
can relay that to you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But the analysis so far based on
assuming that we can get those grants would be a difference of 1.8.
So almost two million.
So my motion still stands, or my second still stands.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, you wanted to
make a comment?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. The -- I had asked staff
to analyze the difference between the government complex and the
DeVoe site. So if you put in all the costs to -- including construction
costs, there's a difference of $8.5 million, okay?
For the government site, including all the costs, is $5.8 million.
The DeVoe site is $14.3 million, okay?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And it would be nice to
Page 152
March 13, 2012
have extra square foot for other uses. However --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I see that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- I'm concerned about our debt
and paying our debt. It's going to take us quite a few years to bring
that down. I want to get it in a manageable way so when growth does
come back that we can provide for our new residents. And right now
we're kind of hamstrung of paying down debt. And when growth
comes back, and if it comes back even in two years where we need to
provide capital improvements, we're going to struggle. Okay?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was just questioning whether it
could be moved. I understand what you're saying, and I know that I'm
-- you know, I have to vote for this. It just seems to be such a loss.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, well --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I mean, we can't do anything about
it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who made the motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I made the motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I seconded it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta made a motion --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I seconded it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- Commissioner Hiller seconded it.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it passes again unanimously.
Page 153
March 13, 2012
Item #1113
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 6
TO CONTRACT #10-5206, WITH ATKINS NORTH AMERICA,
INC., FOR DESIGN SERVICES FOR COLLIER AREA TRANSIT
TRANSFER STATION, IN THE AMOUNT OF $79,900 FOR POST
DESIGN SERVICES; TO EXTEND THE CONTRACT BY FIVE
HUNDRED NINETY SEVEN (597) DAYS TO ACCOUNT FOR
INCLUSION OF CONSTRUCTION AND THE COMPLETION
SCHEDULE; AND TO AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO EXECUTE
THE CHANGE ORDER — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, 11.13 is somewhat of a companion
item. It's a recommendation to approve a change order to Contract
10 -5206 with Atkins North America for design services for the Collier
Area Transit Transfer Station in the amount of $79,900 for post- design
services to extend the contract 597 days to account for the inclusion of
construction and the completion schedule, and to authorize the Chair
to execute the change order.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning, seconded by Commissioner Coletta.
We don't have any public speakers.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
Page 154
March 13, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it passes unanimously.
MS. ARNOLD: Thank you.
Item # 14B 1
ELECTION OR RE- ELECTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) CHAIR
AND VICE -CHAIR FOR 2011 — MOTION APPOINTING
COMMISSIONER FIALA CRA CHAIR — APPROVED;
MOTION APPOINTING COMMISSIONER COLETTA CRA
VICE -CHAIR — APPROVED
MR. OCHS : Mr. Chairman, we had a request by Commissioner
Coletta to see if we can move now to the Community Redevelopment
Agency portion of your agenda, Item 14.13.1. It would be the election
or re- election of the Collier County Community Redevelopment
Agency chair and vice - chairman for 2011 --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make a motion for
Commissioner Fiala to be our chair for the coming year.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, is there any discussion?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Opposed?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The ayes have it unanimously.
Page 155
March 13, 2012
Please pass the gavel.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute you've got one more item.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no, no, no, no,
Commissioner Fiala's the chair now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Already?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you going to go to 14.B.2?
MR. OCHS: Do we have a new vice - chair?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No we didn't, we a chair so far.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I have a motion for the
vice -chair of the CRA?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Make a motion we appoint
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, move on to number 14.13.1.
Item #14132
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT
TO RECOGNIZE GRANT REVENUE AWARDED TO THE
IMMOKALEE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
IN THE AMOUNT OF $810,000 THROUGH THE CDBG GRANT
PROGRAM (AWARD #CD- 10 -13) FOR THE IMMOKALEE CRA
PUBLIC FACILITY FIRST STREET PLAZA PROJECT —
APPROVED
Page 156
March 13, 2012
MR. OCHS: Next item is 14.B.2.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yes.
MR. OCHS: It's a recommendation to approve a budget
amendment to recognize grant revenue awarded to the Immokalee
Community Redevelopment Agency in the amount of $810,000
through the Community Development Block Grant Program for the
Immokalee CRA Public Facility First Street Plaza project.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
The detail is -- doesn't reconcile with the presentation that was
made to us. The appraisal presented by the County Appraiser was
lower than what's in the backup material presented as part of the
810,000. I don't have the numbers off the top of my head, but I think
it was something like 344 or 345 as part of this grant amount. But the
appraisal came in at significantly less.
So I think, you know, obviously this amendment needs to be
reflective of what we're going to pay and not allow for a penny more.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I agree with that. We've
had a lot of conversation on that.
But also, I have a concern about it being developed as a park,
810 -- $810,000 for a park when really they need parking downtown.
There is absolutely zero parking except for on- street parking and a
little bit of off - street parking.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I would just like to make the observation
that this is not an authorization to spend a penny on anything. It is a
request for a budget amendment to recognize the grant revenue. And I
don't know why we'd want to refuse to recognize grant revenue. So
why don't we approve the grant revenue, and if there's to be a
purchase for land, we can debate it when it comes back for approval.
Page 157
March 13, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that a motion?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That is a motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, I had a second on the motion.
Any further comment? Any speakers?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Further comment, Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's deliverables in the grant
specifications of what this money is going to be spent for, correct?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Nothing can be spent until it comes back
for another hearing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So are we going to remove the
grant, since this is really the Board's grant, Community Development
block grant. Are we going to remove the retirements of what this grant
could be used for and make it more or less specificity what the
money's going to be used for?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What we'll do is recognize grant
revenue, and then if -- when the time comes for the staff to take action
relative to expenditure, they will come to the Board of County
Commissioners and seek our permission to do whatever they can do
under this grant.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. That's my concern.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And if we find that there is disagreement
among the Board to use the money, then it will have to be returned.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, there's a sub - recipient
agreement in here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Doesn't make any difference. It's the
same thing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, the sub - recipient agreement
though specifies how this money is going to be used. I mean, is this is
Page 158
March 13, 2012
sub - recipient agreement being approved as part of this motion?
Because, I mean, it's part of the backup.
MR. OCHS: Go ahead, Brad.
MR. MUCKEL: For the record, Brad Muckel, Immokalee CRA.
The sub - recipient agreement was approved I believe last month,
and this is merely a budget amendment request to bring the revenue
into the CRA budget. That's all.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But the sub - recipient agreement
was approved subject to the change with the appraisal and the agreed
upon purchase price. And I don't see that change in this document that
we have here.
MR. MUCKEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that's not what we approved.
MR. MUCKEL: Penny's out of town right now, it's her item, so I
apologize on her behalf.
MR. OCHS: Ma'am, they have to bring the proposed purchase
contract back to this Board --
MR. MUCKEL: This will come back to you at your next
meeting.
MR. OCHS: -- for approval. All you did was approve the
sub - recipient agreement. And as Mr. Muckel said, now you're going
to set up the $810,000 as a budget appropriation in the CRA. But they
can't buy any land until they come back to this board with a sales
contract and the appropriate appraisals.
MR. MUCKEL: You'll see that at the next meeting, the actual
sales contract.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would you like to say anything else.
Brad?
MR. MUCKEL: No, thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Well, stay there in case there
are any questions, okay? Thank you very much.
Commissioner Henning?
Page 159
March 13, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, back at Page 1182, the
acquisition of the two properties, land cost is $344,000. So that's --
what has really changed if we said, you know, you've got to reflect the
property valuation by the county. And nothing has changed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know what you really said.
Tell me again.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Look on page --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm looking at it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you see the budget?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you see the line item for
acquisition of --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- two parcels in closing is
$344,000?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's no different than it was
prior. And we said --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're not approving that figure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's in our backup material.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is it my turn to speak?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, go ahead.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, here's the sequence of events:
The people in the CRA can't go out and talk with somebody about
purchasing something unless they have something in the budget to talk
about purchasing it with. So you put it in their budget. Then they go
out and they negotiate.
MR. MUCKEL: We put an estimation in the budget item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
Then you go out and you negotiate and then you bring it back to
the Board and say will you approve this. And the Board then has the
Page 160
March 13, 2012
chance to say no, we won't approve it at $344,000. But if you come
back with $275,000, we might approve it.
So that's the sequence of events. We do these things one step at a
time. And that's why these things keep coming back to us time and
time and time again, because we take one step at a time. And that's the
only way we can do these things.
So all we're saying is let's put the money in their budget. We've
got the grant, we'll put the money in a budget. You can't spend a
penny of it, you can't approve a contract for purchase of anything.
You have to come back to us and present what is the best deal you can
get, and then we get a chance to say that's not good enough or yeah,
that sounds fine and we'll approve the expenditure.
Is that right, County Manager?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. It appears there's some confusion about
what the sub - recipient grant was for. It was for more than just the
acquisition of the parcels, it was also to construct certain
improvements that you approved as a Board some time ago as part of
the public realm master plan for downtown Immokalee.
So it's purchase of the land and the money used to build the
improvements on that acquired property that makes up the total of that
810,000. And in fact it may ultimately cost more than that, but that
was all the grant funds that were available to be awarded in that
sub - recipient agreement.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you.
Brad, we've been talking about numbers, we've been talking
about what's said, who said and how this comes back. I think the
general public out there that's listening to what's taking place right
now is a little bit confused as far as the actual item we're talking about.
Can you give us a little bit of a description of what this plaza is going
to be all about?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that's not what we're approving.
Page 161
March 13, 2012
That's not what we're even talking about.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know that.
MR. OCHS: You're just setting up a budget.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're just setting up a budget.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you get into the plaza, it's going to get
more complex.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then forget my question. But
I'll tell you that the dream is absolutely beautiful and it's got a lot of
support.
MR. MUCKEL: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, thank you.
If my memory serves me correctly, what happened was when this
first came to us, the reason we had to identify the property through a
vote of the board was because in order to get the grant it had to be
property specific. Subsequently we found out the price being
proposed for the property was suspect because of the number of times
the CRA staff went out to get it appraised. In fact, that was done in
total four times: One time to an outside appraiser because the
statement was made that the seller, you know, basically didn't like the
appraised value that the County Appraiser had come up with so, you
know, county staff went out and shopped for something that the seller
would be satisfied with.
We identified that as a problem and then the project came back to
us and the appraisal was redone by the county appraiser and the Board
decided to accept the County Appraiser's lower price and the seller
apparently is agreeable to that.
So we need to insure that the sub - recipient agreement is modified
to reflect that adjusted agreed upon purchase price and that the grant
funds are used only up to that amount for that specific -- or those
specific parcels. And that is my concern.
Page 162
March 13, 2012
Now, as far as recognizing the revenue, Commissioner Coyle is
correct, that is one issue here. And yes, that is what's on the table
right now. But looking at the backup material, it is very clear that we
have a problem that has not been corrected.
So, you know, I would suggest that we can make a motion to
approve -- or I'll make a motion to approve recognizing the 810,000 as
revenue. And part two of the motion is to go back and amend the
sub - recipient agreement to properly reflect the reduced adjusted value
for the purpose of the property.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do I hear a second on that motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You already have a motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Who made it?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I forgot already.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I did too.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, it's been a long time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Who made the motion? I can't
remember.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I believe I did.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
And you seconded it. Yes, come to think of it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm going to amend my second to
include -- you know, to suggest that we amend the motion to correct
the sub - recipient agreement. Because it has to be correct. I mean, we
know that the numbers in that are incorrect.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning was next, but I'd
like to ask a question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'll get you right after
Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't have a light.
Page 163
March 13, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The backup material doesn't
reflect what Commissioner Coyle stated. But if everybody recognized
what he stated, that it doesn't -- this is only a budget amendment.
However, at some point in time that sub - recipient agreement has
to be amended so that money could go back to other things. So they
provided information in the backup material that really didn't need to
be in there.
And the explanation of what Commissioner Coyle said, if that's a
Board understanding, then I'm okay with it. However, the executive
summary needs to match the backup material, and it doesn't in this
case.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Coyle, if that's what
he --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, and you're absolutely right. You
can't get an exact number to put in a sub - recipient agreement until
you've had a negotiation to find out what you can buy it for. You can't
negotiate to buy something with somebody unless you've got money
in the budget that allows you to negotiate toward something.
And there isn't anything to my knowledge in this executive
summary that says that we're approving a sub - recipient agreement.
But everybody is absolutely right about the fact that if we agree on a
purchase price and we think that purchase price is reasonable, then
that purchase price has to be written into the sub - recipient agreement.
And everybody needs to understand that.
But really, all we're asking to do now is to have a budget
amendment that says yeah, we're going to recognize the grant
proceeds. And all the other stuff comes afterwards. And that really is
all this executive summary says we're doing is --
MR. MUCKEL: After the acquisition process is complete, the
agreement will be brought back to you by Housing and Human
Services to be corrected with an exact figure to the penny for the land
acquisition.
Page 164
March 13, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I think what the Board members
will find is that the price will be very attractive and it will be well
within what the Board had discussed the last time we talked about
those appraisals.
So I think we ought to give them a chance to finish up their work
and recognize this revenue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, where are these locations
relative to where there is going to be -- you know, where they're going
to store all the pipes and all the other stuff for that drainage project?
MR. MUCKEL: This site is nine blocks to the east of where
they'll be storing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, so this project will not be
interrupted by that?
MR. MUCKEL: No, not at all. It's opposite ends of Main Street
and Immokalee.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So there's only going to be
a plaza at one end of Main Street? I thought you were going to
bookend Main Street.
MR. MUCKEL: That's why they're the bookends. They're at
opposite ends of Main Street. There's two of them.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But where is the facility? What
piece of land are you going to be storing all the pipes on?
MR. MUCKEL: At Ninth and Main. The subject parcel in front
of you now is at First and Main.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And where is the other parcel?
MR. MUCKEL: Ninth and Main.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you're using one of the two
bookends to store materials on?
MR. MUCKEL: Yes. For another project.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So when are you going to develop
the other park?
Page 165
March 13, 2012
MR. MUCKEL: When we get the funding to do so.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So this is -- so the funding is only
for this one park?
MR. MUCKEL: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Wow that's expensive for one park.
MR. MUCKEL: 810,000?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's a lot of money for that -- for
a very small lot, for a very small park. I mean, I'm thinking of
Commissioner Fiala who's been trying to get a community center in
East Naples. And how much were we talking about for that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 1.4.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: 1.4 million. And we're spending
800,000 just for one plaza?
MR. MUCKEL: 344,000 for land acquisition and 466 to
construct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Wow.
MR. MUCKEL: That's development, that's vertical construction,
that's --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's expensive. That's extremely
expensive. So for the two it will be about a million six?
MR. MUCKEL: Maybe that will go down then.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's --just doesn't make sense.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. You know what, we're
getting off track. I just got reeled in a few minutes ago for stepping a
couple of inches off and now we've gone all the way from Immokalee
to Eagle Lake for a CRA project with money that's generated within
the community of Immokalee and cannot be transferred anyplace else.
Am I correct? And the grants that are coming in too are specifically
designed for this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So then I'll rein it in and say
we have a motion on the floor and a second. All those --
Page 166
March 13, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No you don't. The second's
been amended. So I'm not sure where we are on it, that's the problem.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Call the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, we have a motion and a
second from Commissioner Coyle, rather than the first second. And
so now everybody understand?
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, that's 5 -0 unanimous. Okay.
MR. OCHS: Back to the regular agenda, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Happily.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: CRA meeting is closed.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Move to adjourn.
Item #1 I C
RESOLUTION 2012 -45: RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT THE
THIRD ANNUAL REPORT ON THE "IMPACT FEE PROGRAM
FOR EXISTING COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT" AND
APPROVE A RESOLUTION EXTENDING THE PROGRAM ONE
YEAR, TO SUNSET MARCH 24, 2013, UNLESS OTHERWISE
EXTENDED — ADOPTED
Page 167
March 13, 2012
MR. OCHS: Next item is I LC on the agenda. Recommendation
to accept the third annual report on the impact fee program for existing
commercial redevelopment and approve a resolution extending the
program for one year to sunset March 24th, 2013, unless otherwise
extended.
Ms. Patterson is available to answer questions or make a
presentation at the pleasure of the Board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it. But I've got a
question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This program was supposed to
be in place until the point in time the economy picks up. Was that the
general idea?
MS. PATTERSON: That was the general idea when the program
was adopted. I'm sorry, Amy Patterson for the record.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And at this point in time there's
still a need for it. We still have customers coming in asking for that
consideration.
MS. PATTERSON: We do. We have continuing inquiries into
the program. You have probably noticed that program activity was
down a little bit this year from last year. However, what we did
experience over the past year was a good amount of redevelopment
that involved buildings being taken down and rebuilt, which are
outside confines of this program, but probably opportunities that
maybe those would have participated in this program but for whatever
deals they got on that redevelopment.
So we're still seeing activity and we do field plenty of inquiries
on this program.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, this program is designed
to allow people to take existing buildings that have been built some
Page 168
March 13, 2012
time ago to be able to retrofit different industry into that building
without us paying the additional impact fees.
MS. PATTERSON: That's correct. It is limbed strictly to
existing buildings. They may not tear the building down in part or
totally. They may not add any square footage, so it's --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, because it's got me a little
confused for a moment when you're talking about tearing down
buildings. But I understand. I'm fine. Thank you.
MS. PATTERSON: I'm sorry, I went onto a tangent about why
maybe program activity was down in this particular program, as we've
seen a little bit of an increase in tear -down projects. But this program
is strictly limited to existing buildings. No tear -down, no additions.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you for the clarification.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I think the program is a very
good one, and I think, you know, everything we can do to promote
redevelopment, especially with respect to an increase in intensification
of use of something that already has been built is a good thing.
That being said, I will repeat my position, that this is a waiver of
impact fees. And because it is a waiver and because the increase in
intensity does have an impact on infrastructure, there is a cost. And
that cost has to be made up from some source, otherwise you're
shifting the burden to the next developer in the chain and the effect is
to turn the impact fee into a tax. And therefore while I completely
support the waiver program, the county has to reimburse the impact
fee fund for whatever is being waived, since there is a cost.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Attorney, are you going to tell us
again that it's okay?
MR. KLATZKOW: We're fine with the program as constructed.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good.
There was a motion by me, seconded by whom?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll second it.
Page 169
March 13, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seconded by Commissioner Hiller.
All in favor, please -- oh, Commissioner Fiala, you want to say
something?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was going to make a comment, but
like a waiver in kind, that is they spend money to improve the building
and improve the neighborhood, so you kind of get a payback that way
instead of the money coming into our coffers. But --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no, no, it's not -- I'm talking
about the county has a requirement. It's an inter -fund transfer. In other
words, the general fund has to reimburse the impact fee fund for the
waiver, not -- that has nothing to do with the developer. The
developer is fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the County Attorney says that is
absolutely not true.
So all in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. Thank you.
Item #1 I E
RESOLUTION 2012 -46: RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT A
RESOLUTION WHICH REPLACES AND SUPERSEDES
RESOLUTION 2010 -101 TO INCORPORATE AMENDMENTS
DIRECTED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
RELATING TO THE CRITERIA FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT
LIEN SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE — ADOPTED
Page 170
March 13, 2012
MR. OCHS: 1 LE is a recommendation to adopt a resolution
which replaces and supercedes Resolution 2010 -101 to incorporate
amendments directed by the Board of County Commissioners relating
to criteria for code enforcement lien settlement and release. Jen
Baker, your Code Enforcement Supervisor, is available to answer
questions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning.
Seconded by whom?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Me? Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nice presentation.
Item #1 I F
RECOMMENDATION TO DIRECT THE COUNTY MANAGER
OR DESIGNEE TO ADVERTISE AND BRING BACK A
PROPOSED ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING ADOPTION OF A
REQUIRED STATE MANDATED BUILDING CODE 2010
UPDATE EFFECTIVE MARCH 15, 2012 AND INCORPORATE
EXISTING LOCAL AMENDMENTS AND UPDATED COUNTY
WIND MAPS. EXEMPTIONS IDENTIFIED IN ORDINANCE
Page 171
March 13, 2012
2009 -59 WILL REMAIN IN FULL EFFECT UNTIL THE FILING
OF THE NEW ORDINANCE — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 11.17 is a recommendation to direct the County
Manager or designee to advertise and bring back a proposed ordinance
establishing the adoption of the required state mandated Building
Code 2010 update effective March 15, 2012, and incorporate existing
local amendments in the updated county wind maps. Exemptions
identified in Ordinance 2009 -59 will remain in full effect until the
filing of the new ordinance. Mr. Jamie French, your Director of
Operations /Regulatory Management is available to answer questions
or present at the pleasure of the Board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve. Why is this
on the regular agenda?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Somebody I think must have pulled it.
But motion by Commissioner Henning for approval. Is there a
second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you address the updated
county wind maps?
MR. FRENCH: Certainly. For the record, Jamie French with the
Growth Management Division.
Commissioners, in the 2010 version of Florida's Building Code,
the State of Florida has increased wind pressure categories for
three- second gusts. So much so, that they've come up with three
different wind maps based on the type of construction, where they had
one before. So if you have a Category 1, that would be for an
accessory use structure, like a garage or screened porch. Category 2's
are going to be for most other buildings. Category 3 and 4 are going
to be primarily for fire stations, hospitals, places of -- where you
Page 172
March 13, 2012
would have emergency services provided.
The increase is pretty phenomenal if you look at what it was
before compared to where they're going as of the 15th. What happens
is that this is adopted at a state level so the counties and cities have no
right of appeal. They can either adopt a more stringent code, as I've
said to this Board before, or they can adopt a code that comes down
from the state.
But what they do allow for is they allow for a lineal interpretation
between the wind zones, and that's something that Collier's been very
good at doing over the past years, so if there's a line drawn that says
this section is 170 and then the next one might be six or eight inches
up on that map, that one may drop to 160.
So that space in between, unless the county comes back and says
for every inch it drops one mile an hour, then everything would be at
the higher rate. So that's what we're doing with county wind maps.
And we'll bring that back for your review and consideration as well.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think it's very, very important
that, you know, this be made clear to the public that they understand
that the standards are being bumped that significantly and, you know,
where people fall in terms of what they're doing with respect to this.
MR. FRENCH: Now, and if it's -- we're happy to sit down with
you individually, if it's of interest. We've been working with the
industry.
I would tell you that in this building code a lot of the industry has
supported it. Because this is the first time that the state is actually
addressing an internal pressure coefficient that would actually, even
though the wind zones are up but because that coefficient exists based
off the square footage and type of construction, we're actually seeing
where some of the construction costs may actually drop. Just because
you've got a higher wind load doesn't necessarily mean that you
couldn't make improvements in other areas.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are these maps currently available
Page 173
March 13, 2012
on the county website for viewing?
MR. FRENCH: The current adopted map is, and as of the 15th --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You'll have the new map?
MR. FRENCH: -- we'll put new -- yes, ma'am, we'll put new
maps up.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, it's very important. Thank
you.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How do they find it on the website,
under maps?
MR. FRENCH: No, ma'am, it is currently on the Colliergov.net
website under building permits. And we would address that there be
three separate layers based off of new building types.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we have a motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, you got some lights on.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Turn mine off.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That doesn't mean that you can't vote on
the motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll make a motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We already have a motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Who made it?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We already have a motion and a second.
So does anybody have anything else --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just a question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- to say?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just wanted to ask Leo, was
this originally on consent somewhere?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, I believe it was.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. We have a -- I thought
we had an understanding when anything was going to be moved to
consent, whether it was staff or it was commission or anyone, we were
going to see a little notation on that. Not that I have any objection to
Page 174
March 13, 2012
this being pulled; I think it's an excellent item to bring in front of the
public.
MR. OCHS: Well, Commissioners, sometimes I get requests
from commissioners to move items off the draft agenda before it even
goes to the printer from the -- what I have on the consent agenda to the
regular agenda, and I routinely accommodate those requests.
So when I say it was on consent, I had intended it to be a consent
agenda item. If a Commissioner asks me before we go to the printed
agenda to move it to the regular agenda, I routinely do that at the
commissioner's request. So that's why some of the items, even though
they're under County Manager regular agenda, weren't necessarily
placed there at my request. They were --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, why isn't that clear in here? It
makes it appear that Jamie asked for this thing to be pulled off the
consent agenda.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's all there is to it.
MR. OCHS: Well, there goes the clean change sheet. I mean,
now we're going to have a change sheet of moves prior to the
published agenda and then another set of changes after the published
agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Hey, if I ask you to remove something,
either before or after, why don't you say it's moved at Commissioner
Coyle's request? Why would you put Jamie's name down on it?
MR. OCHS: Well, he's the presenter of the item. That's what
those names are for are.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, yeah, but --
MR. OCHS: If that's the will of the Board, I'm happy to do that.
It's just that's the explanation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think it's important that you do that.
Because you're leaving us with the impression that this is something
the staff wanted to have here and to discuss.
MR. OCHS: Okay.
Page 175
March 13, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If we knew that these were things being
pulled by a particular commissioner, then I would go immediately to
that commissioner and say do you have any questions --
MR. OCHS: Well, I do that routinely, sir. And sometimes we get
them answered, sometimes we don't, to the satisfaction of the
commissioner, before we go to the published final agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, but I don't have the opportunity to
do that here because I don't know who pulled it. So I can't say
Commissioner Fiala, will you tell us what your problem is and then
just turn it over to her to ask questions.
You know here I'm thinking Jamie did this. And that's a bad
thing, Jamie. These are bad marks against you. You don't want your
name on here.
this?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: See -- can I make a comment to
MR. OCHS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I actually would compliment you,
Jamie. You see, I would say you're being a really good public servant,
because this is a very, very important issue that building codes are
changing, that these county wind maps are changing. It's something
that you absolutely want to have made known through a presentation
to inform the public.
To bury this on the consent and expect that the public will
somehow, you know, at some point discover it by, you know, some
need is really unfair.
So, you know, if you put this on here, then I have to say Jamie,
two thumbs up and I support you all the way, even though
Commissioner Coyle doesn't.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, this was just the initial authorization
to bring the ordinance back --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
MR. OCHS: -- you know, which is an advertised public hearing.
Page 176
March 13, 2012
So you would have had it on the regular agenda ultimately.
But anyhow, back to the point. Without belaboring it, we can
talk about this during communications or we can keep going right
now. If you prefer to do it during communications --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right, let's go to item number G.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let's vote on this one.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, yes. All in favor, please signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE:
Okay, let's go to G.
Item #1 I G
Any opposed, by like sign.
It passes unanimously.
RECOMMENDATION TO WAIVE COMPETITION AND
DECLARE NAPLES PHYSICIAN HOSPITAL ORGANIZATION
D /B /A COMMUNITY HEALTH PARTNERS, INC. SOLE
SOURCE FOR THE PROVISION OF INTEGRATED HEALTH
ADVOCACY, DISEASE MANAGEMENT, WORKER'S
COMPENSATION MANAGED CARE AND PHYSICIAN
HOSPITAL NETWORK SERVICES IN AN ESTIMATED
AMOUNT OF $382,319.28 IN CALENDAR YEAR 2012 —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: I LG is a recommendation to waive competition
and declare the Naples Physician Hospital Organization Incorporated,
Page 177
March 13, 2012
doing business as Community Health Partners, Incorporated, a sole
source for the provision of integrated Health Advocacy, Disease
Management, Workers' Compensation Managed Care and Physician
Hospital Network Services in an estimated amount of $382,319.28 in
calendar year 2012.
And Mr. Walker, your Risk Management Director, is here to
answer questions or present the item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Anybody have questions?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I do. I actually was the one
who pulled this from the pre - published draft non - public unread,
unseen agenda. And here was why.
My concern was that this was actually not put out to bid. And in
the backup material it was described as being sole source. And while I
understand there's no one else in the local market that provides this
particular service, there are providers outside of the market that would
provide the local -- the local government with this service. And I feel
it really should be competitively bid. At end of the day we may
choose Community Health Partners as our provider. But we will
know for sure that we've gotten the best possible deal because we will
have basically gotten into an agreement with them through
competitive bidding.
MR. WALKER: Mr. Chairman, Jeff Walker, Risk Management
Director.
With me is Kathy Jardone, Chief Operating Officer for
Community Health Partners, we want to address issues best as we can.
I think this can be summed up really in two areas. One is the
design of our program, which is a wellness -based incentive program.
What we're trying to do and what we began in 2008 was really
what's now referred to as population health management. What that is
is it's designed to identify chronic health conditions within our insured
group, and to work within the network of physicians and hospitals
locally in the community to try to manage those chronic health
Page 178
March 13, 2012
conditions so that we can ultimately reduce our cost.
This particular program was nonexistent before we created it.
And today we have this program, NCH has the same program, and the
district schools have the same program. It was created locally, it was
created using local physician network, and it was created using
Community Health Partners at the time.
All of those services, Physician Network, Disease Management,
pre- certification of hospital stays, Smart Choice Program, all of those
things have been integrated into a single program which now we call
Population Health Management. There is no other provider, locally
certainly, that can do this and integrate all of those elements.
Let me talk about the second issue and then I'll come back to the
first. The second issue related to this has to do with the network itself.
And when I speak about network, I'm talking about the network of
physicians and hospitals who -- where you go to get your services. So
if you have a local physician, they're typically in the network.
Community Health Partners was the original PPO network within
Collier County. As a matter of fact, the four members of the
consortium, the schools, the hospital, the district, us and the sheriff
worked to create that network about a dozen years ago. At that time
we were paying about 160 percent of Medicare RBRBS fees. Today
we're paying about 119 percent of those fees. So we had an impetus
in making that network come into play, along with the physicians, so
we helped create that.
As it stands today, there are essentially three independent
physician networks in Collier County. That would be CHP, that
would be Blue Cross /Blue Shield and it would be United Health Care.
Two of the three of those networks we cannot independently access.
In other words, I can't go to Blue Cross/Blue Shield today and say I
want to rent your network. They will not sell it to me. The only way I
can get the Blue Cross network is if I give all of our business to Blue
Cross/Blue Shield. They want the whole ball of wax. They want the
Page 179
March 13, 2012
administrative part, which is at about three times the rate of what we
pay Allegiance to manage our claims.
As a matter of fact, we put a bid out last year for third -party
administration services. Blue Cross bid on that. They were three
times higher than the lowest bidder.
So in order to get their network, I have to use their claim services
and pay a whole lot more. So essentially that network is not available
to me.
The second one was United Health Care. United Health Care
does not deal in self - assured public entities or private entities. They
only service their own group. So unless I move all of our business to
United Health Care I can't get that network.
That leaves CHP, okay.
There are other so- called carrier networks in Collier County.
Cigna has a network. Aetna has a network. They access the network
through CHP.
So essentially if I chose the Cigna network, I would be going
through CHP again to get it. Essentially we're contracting directly
with the network they would contract with.
So when I talk about sole source in terms of a network, from a
practical standpoint, unless I go out and build my own, CHP is the
network we would be using essentially.
So getting back to the population health management issue, it is
essential with this program that we work with our local health care
providers. CHP has over 700 physicians in the network. They're
broader than any other network in the county. Their disease
management through CHP works directly with physicians, the
personnel in the offices of those physicians to make sure that care is
delivered appropriately.
The fees that we pay those physicians are competitive with any
other network. We know that because we just did an actuarial study
evaluating how those fees compare to Blue Cross and United Health.
March 13, 2012
For us to unbundle this means that we would have to have --
essentially CHP is our physician network over here. We would have
to go find someone else to do disease management, case management.
We'd have to find someone else over here to do health advocacy.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve, second by
Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. Thank you.
Item #1 I H
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH
THE FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION
COMMISSION TO FACILITATE MANAGED PUBLIC HUNTING
AT CARACARA PRAIRIE PRESERVE — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 11.H is a recommendation to approve and authorize
the Chairman to sign and interlocal agreement with the Florida Fish
and Wildlife Conservation Commission in order to facilitate managed
public hunting at Caracara Prarie Preserve.
Melissa Hennig, your principal environmental specialist --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
Page 181
March 13, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Coletta, seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
Question by Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Melissa, one of the
concerns I have when I see this is that you are supposedly, and please
confirm that you are, in the process of setting up a mitigation bank at
Caracara for us.
MS. HENNIG: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what provisions are there in
this interlocal agreement to protect us that when we try to set up this
mitigation bank that when it comes back to us that we're doing this
we're not going to have a problem?
MS. HENNIG: We've been working closely with -- oh, Melissa
Hennig, Principal Environmental Specialist.
We've been working closely with US Fish & Wildlife Service
from the beginning. They've been aware that we've wanted hunting
on the property since we started.
The two things they asked is that we have -- we don't allow
vehicles and we restrict or halt hunting if the panther prey base falls
below acceptable levels.
When I spoke with FWC they didn't want to put this in this
interlocal agreement. What they did, and I'm looking for it now, they
put a section in here that it refers back to the management plan that
this agreement will be facilitated or run based on our management
plan. And in the management plan it says that there will be no
vehicles and hunting will be restricted if the panther prey base goes
below acceptable levels.
And also there's a termination clause that either party can
terminate. So if they do change their mind, we can terminate the
hunting.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So the hunting will in no way
Page 182
March 13, 2012
affect our ability to get that bank?
MS. HENNIG: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And you'll be monitoring it to
make sure it doesn't drop.
Where are we in the banking process?
MS. HENNIG: We are -- we had our final conference call,
hopefully our final conference call, with U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
and the clerk and the county. And we have a meeting with the clerk
this Friday to go over revisions and hopefully that will be it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Wonderful. So how many
mitigation units will we end up having as a result?
MS. HENNIG: At Caracara, 2,060.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Any water units there?
MS. HENNIG: No. No wetland.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you feel compelled to speak?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, go ahead.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion carries unanimously.
Item #111
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE TOURIST
DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (TDC) FYI (OCTOBER 1, 2012 -
Page 183
March 13, 2012
SEPTEMBER 30, 2013) GRANT APPLICATION CHANGES FOR
CATEGORY B AND C -2 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE TDC —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 11.I is a recommendation to approve Tourist
Development Council grant application changes for Category B and
C -2, as recommended by the Tourist Development Council.
Mr. Wert is available to answer questions or present.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we do have a public speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I see.
Motion to approve by Commissioner Coyle, second by
Commissioner Coletta.
Commissioner Fiala, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just one fast question, Jack. On the
first page of the executive summary under overall guidelines, it says
they changed guidelines of room nights for events from 100 to 250 to
reflect the type of events we wish to attract. Can you tell me why they
raised this criteria?
MR. WERT: Yes, Commissioner. For the record, Jack Wert,
your Tourism Director.
The Tourist Development Council and the industry, the Sports
Council of Collier County all participated in this discussion at this
Tourist Development Council meeting where we reviewed these.
It was really felt that because we're investing tourist development
tax dollars, we would like to see a return much like we do when we
advertise and promote. And I've told you before that we get a pretty
good return on those dollars, about 20 to one. We certainly would like
to be able to measure a good return. And at that minimum amount of
100 room nights, those are pretty small numbers and a very small
amount of actual recovery of tourist tax dollars.
0- - ,au
March 13, 2012
So everyone felt that if we raise that a little bit, that will help us
attract the larger events that will in fact bring more overnight guests
and more revenue eventually to the community.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks, Jack.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's call the first -- the only speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: Joan Lundin.
MR. LUNDIN: Thank you for letting me speak.
I read the executive summary. It seems like it contains many
conflicting issues such as physical year seems to overlap with grant
cycle, and event dates seem to overlap with physical year. This seems
to be confusing in trying to understand the budget.
Other changes such as changing it from committee to panel with
the purpose of allowing a tourist director to be the facilitator of the
TDC Committee, to me this seems to contradict the role of a tourism
director in the TDC. Why would a tourism director be the facilitator
of the TDC and all the committees? Isn't the purpose of the TDC and
its committees to monitor and provide oversight as opposed to the
tourism director providing and monitoring oversight of the TDC?
So I would ask the Clerk of Court, if they could do a full audit of
all the finances of the TDC, just to make sure that everything that's
going on with finances conform to county ordinances. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all in favor, please signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, the motion carries unanimously.
That brings us to item J.
Page 185
March 13, 2012
Item #1 I J
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT AND RELEASE WITH RWA, INC. PERTAINING
TO CONSULTING SERVICES PROVIDED UNDER CONTRACT
NO. 07 -41129 IN CONNECTION WITH PROJECT NO. 518031
GATEWAY TRIANGLE STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS —
PHASE 2 CONSTRUCTION AND TO AUTHORIZE PAYMENT —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: I LJ, sir, is a recommendation to approve a
settlement agreement and release with RWA, Incorporated pertaining
to consulting services provided under contract number 07 -4112 in
conjunction with project 51803, the Gateway Triangle Stormwater
Improvement Phase II Construction and to authorize payment.
Mr. Ahmad is available to present or respond to questions, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Anybody have any questions?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move not to approve.
Lack of second, I'll make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm going to vote against that motion.
Motion by Commissioner Henning to approve, seconded by
Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
March 13, 2012
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATION
And if I remember correctly, that brings us to staff and
commission general communications.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, he's gone, isn't he?
MR. OCHS: No, he's here, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
a reason?
Oh, he's here? Can I go first for
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Keith Arnold is here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Okay, he's on the telephone.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's all right. I might take a
while. No, I'll try not to.
Actually, I have three things, but if I could just cover this one,
because Mr. Arnold has family in the hospital so we want to try to
move this along.
The Florida legislature provided counties, local counties, an
unfunded mandate, maybe two. One in particular is the Medicaid
reimbursement. And our staff has provided me preliminary figures. It
will cost us up to $2 million.
So I would ask the Board to write the Governor and tell him that
we're opposed to these unfunded mandates and we don't even think it's
lawful the way the legislature has done this.
Furthermore, I've asked staff to -- the legislature is trying to cut
taxes and budgets in Tallahassee, okay. I've asked staff to provide
information about -- just about Collier County and its historical budget
since this economic slump that we've had, what percentage of
difference of reduction that we have to work with, opposed to the
State of Florida's budget for the same time period.
And just so we can show, at least our delegation, of you know,
Page 187
March 13, 2012
what they are doing opposed to what we are doing so they have an
understanding.
But anyways, that's the action that I want the Board to take, in
particular is write the Governor opposing House Bill 5301.
And Keith, is there anything else?
MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, with your permission, members
of the Board, thank you. Keith Arnold, for the record. And I'm here
on behalf of Fowler - White, and I'm glad I'm able to respond to your
questions and inquiries today, Commissioner Henning, because I think
the precedence established by the legislature is indeed a new one, it's
unique, and it's something that has most communities throughout the
state concerned with.
Just very briefly, since you are asking for a gubernatorial veto,
that is a fairly significant item. And if this Board adopts that
resolution, you might have the opportunity to present the Governor
with some sort of letter or resolution urging the same.
And absent a gubernatorial veto, FAC and others are considering
a legal challenge to this particular bill. And that's something that you
might want to consider in conjunction with the Florida Association of
Counties or on your own, should you choose to do so.
Let me back up and tell you what House Bill 5301 is, what it
does and why this is a unique and rather unprecedented move on the
part of the legislature.
Essentially House Bill 5301 is called a conforming bill to the
budget. And it's actually a part of the budget process. It's one of the
many bills which really comprise the budget of the State of Florida.
But it's a bill which refers to statutory references.
The budget itself, the actual numeric budget, is in a different bill.
And this is a bill which conforms to the numeric budget by changing
Medicaid statutes to make it conform with assumptions which were
made in the actual appropriations act itself. So it's a freestanding bill
is the point I'm making. And freestanding in the sense, that if there
96
March 13, 2012
was to be a gubernatorial veto it wouldn't undo the rest of the budget.
Now, 5301 has a lot of Medicaid issues in it. But the more
egregious one that you're concerned with today is the fact that the
legislature has determined that they're going to bill counties for a
backlog in Medicaid payments that the counties regularly make to the
State of Florida to support the Medicaid population within this
community.
Specifically the state is very concerned that counties are
inappropriately withholding funds and not paying Medicaid payments
to the state to help support the Medicaid program. There's been a lot
of accusations as to why counties are slow in making payments for
their portion of the Medicaid program.
But simply stated, I don't think Collier is behind in its Medicaid
payments. And there is a constant rub between local communities and
the state as to the residency of Medicaid recipients.
So when you receive a bill from the state for your portion of the
Medicaid program, typically you would verify that the person is a
resident of Collier County. When and if you identify that person as a
resident of Collier County, then you would go through a normal
process of adjudicating the bill and making sure appropriate charges
were made to that bill, that there's no duplicative charges, that indeed
the care that the state is billing you for was actually rendered.
And in the course of the last several years, as the state has moved
to a new computer program for those billings, counties have fallen
about $300 million behind, in the state's estimation, as to making those
Medicaid payments.
In terms of this legislative session, the idea that you have before
you emanated out of the Senate, and the proposal was very simple.
The legislators involved and particularly the sponsor of this legislation
assumed that counties were inappropriately withholding resources
from the state so they said that we're going to give you two options
which are contained in this bill. One is we can charge you for all the
March 13, 2012
backlog and you will have to pay 100 percent for that backlog, which
in Collier's case is about $2.3 million.
If you pay all that backlog upfront, we'll give you an opportunity
to retroactively dispute some of those claims. However, they're
making you go through a Chapter 120 process, which is a quasi
judicial process to dispute all those claims. It's a very, very expensive
process, a very delayed process, and it's not likely that you could get
through that process economically or in some sort of efficient manner
whereby it would make it worthwhile to challenge some of the claims.
The second option, which is contained in this bill, is if you agree
not to dispute any of the charges that the state charges you for, then
they'll give you a 15 percent discount and so you only pay 85 percent
of those past claims. And then that actually is spread out over a
number of years.
As Commissioner Henning suggested, it raises a couple of legal
and I would suggest Constitutional issues as to the appropriateness of
this. Hence the possibility that FAC and others are contemplating
litigation against the state.
Number one, as Commissioner Henning has mentioned, there is a
question as to whether or not this violates the mandate clause of the
Florida Constitution. Florida Constitution requires that if there are
new mandates on local governments, then those provisions pass the
legislature by a two- thirds vote of each chamber. This measure did
not pass by two- thirds. In fact, it barely passed. It was extremely
controversial. And the vote at the end was 23 to 17, hence not making
the two- thirds requirement.
Now, there's a stretch as to whether this is a mandate, because
they're not telling you you have to do something, they're simply
saying that if you don't pay your bills on time, we're going to hold the
money from your revenue sharing, from your half -cent sales tax.
The second Constitutional issue which is raised is whether or not
they can withhold revenue sharing, because there are Constitutional
Page 190
March 13, 2012
provisions which pertain to that. And those provisions would suggest
again that the legislature to the extent that they pull money away from
you from revenue sharing, they can only do so with a super majority.
These are Constitutional issues which are way over my pay
grade, but nevertheless it's something that certainly the Florida
Association of Counties and others are considering from a legal
standpoint.
I think the issue for FAC and other communities throughout the
state is very clearly this: Is that virtually every entity in context of
paying any bill has a process where they can look at the bill,
determine whether that bill's appropriate and then remit a payment to
the appropriate vendor for that bill.
In this particular case, the state is saying no, we're going to take
the money first. And if you have a problem with the billing later, you
have to sue us, essentially, go through a 120 process to get your
money back. And fundamentally counties, cities, generally most
businesses would be opposed to that sort of idea, and hence the legal
posturing which is going on in Tallahassee right now.
As I said, House Bill 5301 is a part of a series of bills which
comprise the entire appropriations process. But should this bill
actually be vetoed, it would not affect any Medicaid funding but for
the $47 million contained in this specific provision which does pertain
to this year's Medicaid budget. And I would suggest to you that out of
a $70 billion budget the state would have the wherewithal to handle
that shortfall.
So specifically that's the issue teed up as best as I can, Mr.
Chairman. I'll be happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who were the supporters of this bill?
MR. ARNOLD: This bill came first and foremost out of the
Senate by two senators; Senator J.D. Alexander who is the principal
architect of this, as was to a lesser extent I believe Senator Don Gates
out of the Panhandle.
Page 191
March 13, 2012
And again, they saw it as a way to collect back taxes, if you will,
from county governments for those Medicaid taxes they perceive that
were owed to them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm going to pass on commenting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I guess I got a question
of Leo and he may want to ask our budget department. Do we owe
any money?
MR. OCHS: Sir, according to -- yes, we do. And according to
FAC, over the last four years their estimate is that our back charges or
past due amounts to about $2.3 million.
As Commissioner Henning said, we budget to pay our invoices
from the state to the tune of about $2.1 million a year. This would be
in addition to that in fiscal '13.
So if we don't take advantage of the non - dispute resolution
process, if you will, and take advantage of that 15 percent discount,
what I believe I hear Mr. Arnold telling you is that the state would
withhold that amount of money from either our half -cent sales tax or
our shared state revenue.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just a clarification, sir, because
this is quite a bit different than anything else we've ever dealt with.
In other words, there's a set amount that we were told years ago
we had to pay. We pay a lesser amount and nobody's challenged it
until now?
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, as Keith said, we get invoices from
the state for Medicare billing for services provided outside of Collier
County to Collier County residents. When we get those invoices over
in Human Services, we scrub them very hard to make sure that as
Keith said there's not duplicative billing or that these individuals who
were getting charged for it do in fact have permanent residency in
Collier County. There are other problems with incorrect rates billed.
Page 192
March 13, 2012
So we pay on the amount of the invoice that we can verify. And
sometimes we don't agree with the invoicing for those very reasons.
So what Keith is saying is that the state doesn't really care
whether their database is accurate or not, they just want all the money
that they've billed for.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And this is uniform across the
whole state, Keith?
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. Some communities are behind a
lot more. I would say this backlog in Collier County is not a
comparatively significant one to a lot of communities. But 2.3
million, if you assume that the state is wrong in that 2.3 million, as I
think Collier would assert, then that becomes a fairly significant
number. And over time it grows.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why couldn't we -- Commissioner
Henning, why wouldn't we want to join FAC in opposing this?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, my opinion is you try to
reason with somebody -- this came up at the last minute, the last day.
The Governor has veto power. So I would prefer trying to educate the
Governor on our position first. And then the backup plan would be
join in.
I provided the County Attorney; the Florida Constitution is very
clear what it says and what the legislators have to do. They have
failed to do that. However, you know a fight in a court is time
consuming, expensive and maybe unnecessary.
Here's the thing what -- in my opinion what they did. They said,
all these submittals of bills, you need to pay and don't contest it.
What it -- in factual what it's going to do, really do is cut down
Medicare (sic) fraud. Because there's not going to be any challenges
of it and it's just going to be paid.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, but that won't cut down fraud, that
would just mean people who defraud Medicaid are getting paid for it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It will be more fraud.
Page 193
March 13, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So their solution to it is, you
know, not -- is not good for the taxpayers in my opinion.
But Mr. Klatzkow wants to say something.
MR. KLATZKOW: I think Commissioner Henning's approach is
dead on. Right now it's not a law. It's not law until it's signed by the
Governor or enough time has passed, so this is the time to get it now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, why don't you draft a letter for me
on both the Constitutional as well as the -- I guess the legal aspects of
the action by the legislature, and get it to me for signature fast.
MR. KLATZKOW: We could do that, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I amend that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't you provide the
practicality of law and what it's going to not provide. And if you want
to provide a legal standpoint in it also, that's fine. I mean, it's just
saying -- it's saying like Keith said, it says well, don't argue our
findings, just pay it.
And in the meantime -- is my assessment right, it's going to cause
potential (sic) more fraud?
MR. ARNOLD: I think absolutely correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I think the Governor would
be very interested in that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I think there's several elements
that I'd like to try to make very, very clear. The first is the
constitutional element concerning the way in which this was passed,
okay? They didn't get 60 percent of the vote to do this, did they?
MR. ARNOLD: No, sir, they did not.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And that is required; is it not?
MS. ARNOLD: Two - thirds.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Two - thirds. I'm sorry, two- thirds.
Page 194
March 13, 2012
So that's one issue. The other issue is that it represents an
unfunded mandate.
The third issue is that many of the funds are disputed. There's a
dispute between us and the legislature or the state about whether or not
these funds are in fact legal bills of the counties.
So I think all of those need to be spelled out very clearly, because
I would suspect the Governor doesn't understand this any better than
we do, and if we can spell it out in fairly clear terms, it should
hopefully be persuasive.
But I'd like to see FAC do the same thing. I'd like to see them
marshal all the other counties to start writing letters too.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's actually what FAC has
encouraged all the local counties to do. They sent an e -mail, I believe
it was yesterday --
MR. ARNOLD: Yep.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- urging all the county
commissioners to write the Governor to ask him to veto it.
MR. ARNOLD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I make a suggestion?
Commissioner Fiala is our representative, in fact the official one.
Even though I go there myself, she's a member of the board of
directors.
Why don't we entrust her with reaching out to FAC in making
sure that Collier County does play a role in the broader outreach?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'd love to do that, thank you.
And then meanwhile each one of us could write a letter, just as FAC
encouraged, right, or do you want to write one on behalf of all of us?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think one on behalf of all of
US.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, you guys get it drafted. Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good. And I will reach them
Page 195
March 13, 2012
tomorrow. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Good, what else, Commissioner
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have other things on the
agenda. Is it okay to talk under commissioner communications?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, sure. We're finished with
everything else.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we need Keith to stay anymore?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
The last meeting we talked about NSP monies in the houses that
we have.
After much consideration after that, I thought it was a very
healthy discussion. And in fact NSP -1 monies, I'm not sure when it's
going to come due. However, we have a lot of capital assets out there
in these houses.
I still think that Habitat, because we have exposure, they should
go to Habitat so we can remove that exposure. However, NSP money
-- NSP -2 monies, I think that it was well stated that, you know, there's
-- it's being underserved in the middle class for these.
And the other concern was not going out to bid. Personally I
would like to see the NSP -2 monies go out to bid for middle income
families. So --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And it's not actually middle
income, if I may say, but it's up to 120 percent of the median income,
which is the most recurring number, which I think was about 58,000.
So 120 percent of 58,000.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. That's what I would like
to see come back from staff on those NSP -2 monies is ask the
community -- you know, some kind of proposal to expend these
monies on the 125 percent of median income.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can you do that?
MR. OCHS: How about if I come back at the next meeting with
Page 196
March 13, 2012
a report on what would be required to change where we are? Because
we were coming back with a contract for Habitat at the next meeting,
based on the last decision by the Board, so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I understand.
MR. OCHS: Yeah, we're going to have to kind of go back to the
drawing board a little bit.
I'm only worried about the timeliness, sir, you know, the
spend -down requirement of that NSP money, both 1 and 3. So --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, it's 3, excuse me.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
But we'll come back.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'm concerned about that
too.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But there's only a small amount
that is supposed to be spent down in the next year. The bulk of it is in
the successive year or years.
MR. OCHS: Year, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I don't see that as a real issue. I
think there was only about 600 or so that needed to be spent within
this text cycle which --
MR. OCHS: By June of this year, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. Which is not that much.
MR. OCHS: So okay, you want to see the NSP -3 dollars
allocated for a more affordable --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Less affordable.
MR. OCHS: I mean, yes, a more -- higher income bracket of
workforce housing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Target the 80 to 120 median, since
all the other properties are targeting it under. And to do it by
competitive bid, to give everyone the opportunity to bid on it is what
you said.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
Page 197
March 13, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That makes sense.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Come back with a bid proposal.
That's all I have. And I apologize for -- and I meant to talk to
you about this on our one -on -one. But I thought it was a healthy
discussion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You got the marching orders, okay?
You know where we're going?
Okay, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, thank you.
As we know, we're hoping that very shortly we'll have a direction
to go with the Immokalee Master Plan and how we might be able to
pick up where we left off and go forward. However, given it much
thought, I'd like us to direct the County Attorney to ask the Attorney
General to be able to make a determination on myself, my wife's
property in Arrowhead to see if there's any possible conflict as far as
the Attorney General goes, and also Commissioner Henning's
property, which is held in trust, to give us some guidelines to be able
to work with. Is that an unreasonable request, sir?
MR. KLATZKOW: You want to ask the State Ethics
Commission whether or not --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would that be the State Ethics
Commission or --
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I already asked as far as
Commissioner Henning goes, and they said his position was
absolutely appropriate. I can do the same for you, if you want.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, can we put the question this
way, that would it be all right with the parameters that are established
already, in other words, Commissioner Henning's property being held
in trust, my wife's property being held by herself, if either one of them
would be a conflict against us voting. Now, that's a little bit different
MIME
March 13, 2012
direction than you asked before.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is your property being changed
for the future land use map?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have no idea. But I imagine it
could be somewheres down the road.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's not apples to apples then.
It's not some down the road, it's what is before you that day.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But once again, if we could get
the Ethics Commission to rule with the question being would this be
an impediment; should Commissioner Henning avoid voting on this?
I'm just asking the question that way, including myself. I think that
would get the direction going in the right way.
I think the question that was asked before, was his position
appropriate and the answer was yes, because it was supposed to be his
determination. But asking them a determination the other way gives
us a different way to look at it. What do you mean no?
MR. KLATZKOW: I can tell you right now, I know Chris
Anderson. He is the State Ethics Commission when it comes to these
things. I talk to him many times, all right? Commissioner Henning's
position is fully supported by the State Ethics Commission.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I didn't say it wasn't.
MR. KLATZKOW: They're very comfortable with it. They'd be
very comfortable. And if you decided that this does not give the
flavor of a conflict, that he could vote, they're very comfortable with
that too.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that's the question I
wanted to ask. I'm glad that you brought that up. In other words, if he
made his mind up the other way -- did they actually state that in so
many words in something in print that we got? Because then that
would take care of the question that I got.
MR. KLATZKOW: There is -- I spoke with him. There's
nothing in writing.
Page 199
March 13, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I would love to see
something in writing.
MR. KLATZKOW: What I will tell is that --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't think it's an unreasonable
request.
MR. KLATZKOW: But a request what, that if Commissioner
Henning does not feel this is a conflict that could he vote?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, you're twisting what I just
said. The question would be, would this be a conflict if nothing was
said, if you don't come up and say okay, Commissioner Henning's not
deciding one way or the other. The question to them would be, very
simply, is it a conflict to vote? In other words, for him to vote. Just
ask him the question that way. I would love to know the answer to
that. That would be a simple one. If you want to ask it as far as my
wife's property goes too, that would be fine too.
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, I'd be happy to work with
you to draft something for you to ask Chris Anderson whether or not,
you know, you could vote on that. If Commissioner Henning wants to
ask the state ethics, that's his prerogative.
They're not going to answer a question from one commissioner
based on another commissioner. They don't get into that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think we're missing the whole
point.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I yeah, I think you are too. And I don't
think you're going to get anywhere this way.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Absolutely not.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The Ethics Commission has a policy that
if your special private gain does not represent more than one percent
of the gain for the entire class, it is not a conflict of interest to vote.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's under the CRA,
provisions of the Florida Statutes 112.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry?
Page 200
March 13, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's under the provisions -- if
you're making decisions under CRA.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, no.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I mean, I have opinions
that -- and also, I'll tell you what, today if that same plan was before
me I would vote no. Okay? And in fact, I might just vote no. And I
can do that because A, it would not be a perceived conflict.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, because of special gains.
There isn't a loss. So I'm more likely to vote no on it because the
commissioner on the district just wants to shove it down everybody's
throat instead of having dialogue to try to have a very good plan.
Your existing master plan, Commissioner Coletta, has elements
in it that was removed that would help the community, okay. You got
a shifting of property or density and instead of going into the
downtown area that has no parking, there's a lot of capital
improvements that need to be made, you'd have to deviate from.
And people -- a lot of people in District 5 in Immokalee think
that you are -- you actually create a slum.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, and I appreciate that,
Commissioner Henning, and it's great dialogue we're having here.
And right off the bat let's get something straight. You just got through
saying that you most likely would vote no because it wouldn't be a
conflict of interest. So, I mean, you kind of shorten the time span of
what we have to do and where we're going to go with all this.
As far as the Immokalee Master Plan goes, I personally sat on
those meetings for eight years, I seen the community meetings take
place in the evenings, I seen them take place in Spanish, I seen these
things take place and become the will of the community, then I seen
you vote for it in favor to transmit it to Tallahassee before all this
thing became a political problem. The only thing I'm trying to do is
get this thing moving forward. And I'll tell you right now that if we
Page 201
March 13, 2012
could ever get the people of Immokalee just to be able to sit down
with us, to have a meeting there, I think you'd be surprised at the
amount of support that's there.
I don't know where you're coming from with this dialogue about
the fact that it's being shoved down people's throat. Eight years in the
making, over a half million dollars. Everybody and his brother played
into this. And I don't recall seeing you at any of those meetings
during those eight years. Now we're down to the last little part of it
where maybe something can be still done as far as making these
people whole and they're being held hostage. And I don't appreciate it
one bit.
But we're getting away from the request I made. Obviously the
County Attorney is not supportive of doing it. So I'm not going to
force him to do something he doesn't want to do. I thought the request
was an extremely simple request, where if they wrote us back and they
say, you know, we're not going to rule on this, this is crazy or this is
something that's beyond us, we're not -- this is the commissioner
himself, that would've been fine. That hasn't happened.
So here we are. We're in the horns of the dilemma once more.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If the majority of the commission wants
me to write a letter to ask a question, then I'll be happy to do that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It has to be the person affected
by the property, that's what he's trying to get at.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't think so.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But it's an issue that affects the
community and Board of County Commissioners. And if you want --
if there's a majority that wants me to write a letter to the Ethics
Commission, I will do so, to merely ask them to tell us, is it a conflict
of interest for someone to vote on an issue where that person's private
special gain is less than one percent of the class. Yes or no. And you
know what I'll get? I'll get an answer that says no, it is not a conflict of
Page 202
March 13, 2012
interest.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would like to have you draft
that letter.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I think that -- and I'll go even
further. The point -- the Ethics Commission almost always errs on the
side of keeping politicians out of trouble. So they will almost always
say if it's below that one percent level, then you are not in conflict.
There is one circumstance that I am aware of recently where a
person with more than one percent of private -- personal private gain,
special private gain, was found not to have violated the ordinance
when they voted in favor of the motion.
So they have a lot of discretion. And I think it's entirely
appropriate that you ask them, based upon these circumstances would
you hold somebody in violation of an ethics ordinance.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't you just provide
what I provided by law into the record to the Ethics Commission and
ask them was Commissioner Henning correct in his assumptions.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Because they'll say yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They'll probably say yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you want a special outcome
of the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's all how you phrase the
question, right? I mean --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: See, that's what these two want.
They want --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Leading the witness. It's a leading
question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They don't want to really
address the issue, they just want a special outcome.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's so funny.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm totally willing to address the
issue, and I'm willing to do it now. The outcome is would it be a
Page 203
March 13, 2012
violation for you to be able to vote on the Immokalee Master Plan
with the holdings you have in Immokalee. It's a very simple question,
not the other way around that it's your right to be able to determine it.
It's to find out the other way. I think it's a very simple thing to find
out and I think this commission would be very wise just to have that
answer on the book, just so when the time does come you can make
decisions for all the right reasons.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, anything else?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I comment on what was just
discussed? Since -- before we move on to the next item?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, because I think you'll have
more to talk about after I do this next one too. Give me enough to roll
everything into one.
We met a couple times now. I've talked to the County Attorney
about the Blocker petition that we had referenced in these halls
numerous times. In our decision - making process we listened to a
petition that's out there. We seen the one that was pro Immokalee
Master Plan and I can't remember how many signatures are on it.
But supposedly there's a Blocker petition out there that has 800
some anti signatures on it. I've never seen that petition. Now, that
petition's never been entered into the records like the pro petition was.
It's still the property of whoever has it, which I assume since they call
it the Blocker petition, it's probably in the possession of the Blockers,
unless somebody here has it.
I think that that should become a public record to be able to
balance the equation. And if it doesn't become a public record, at that
point in time we should no longer be able to refer to it if it's not a
public record. It's just one of those things that really gets in my crawl,
the fact that you got one side that's trying to comply with all the rules
and regulations of Sunshine, and we're in Sunshine week, and the
other side that's trying to find ways to avoid it.
Page 204
March 13, 2012
And making the public record's no big deal, just bring it down
here, turn it in and we're off and running.
Okay, now you've got two things to talk about.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The first thing is I want to
comment on the statements you made, Commissioner Coletta, that are
completely false with respect to an Immokalee Area Master Plan
being eight years in the making.
First of all, there is a Immokalee Area Master Plan that is in full
force and effect that was last amended in 2008. And by the way, I got
an estimate of the cost and they didn't have the exact number but I
think it was in the neighborhood of 130 or 150,000 to do that.
And then I think it was in 2009 and 2010, in that period of time,
that the decision was made to amend the existing plan, which is in full
force and effect. And that amendment, which is what is the subject of
this discussion here today, is a strike -all amendment. And by that I
mean what they're doing is they're taking -- or you're taking all the
work that the community has done through this point in time and you
are rejecting everything that this community worked on to develop the
current plan.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, my God.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Now this plan is at a cost of
somewhere between 800 and 900,000 just for this strike -all
amendment. So I want to correct that for the record.
And it doesn't reflect the will of the people. I actually went back
and pulled all the public meetings and I have them all in a box of the
CRA, with respect to all the discussion. And it wasn't the will of the
people, it was the will of a few landowners. Because it's always the
same people that come to these meetings and it's a very small number.
And anyone can get it. I asked for a copy of the sign -in sheets and the
information from Penny. And anyone is welcome to see what I have,
but you can also get it directly from her. So I just want to correct that
Page 205
March 13, 2012
for the record.
The second thing is, you know, with respect to what you're
saying about transparency and Sunshine and so forth, that is with
respect to government. It's government's duty to be transparent and to
put forth what information we have so the public knows that we're not
doing things behind closed doors.
With respect to any private citizen, they're not obligated to put
anything forth. In fact, they have the opposite, they have right to
privacy. And we as government can't compel them to produce a
document unless they want to voluntarily deliver it.
So I'm not really sure where you're going with that,
Commissioner Coletta, because that is not the way our society deals
with these issues. So it's a little concerning to hear you talk like that.
Anyway, I don't know whose turn it is to talk next.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's mine.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Go ahead.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't have anything more to say.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Couple things.
I will call FAC tomorrow about this conforming bill and see all
we can do as a community to support any efforts to oppose it, and I'll
get back to you. I'll probably do that in writing. I can one -way
communication, right, on that?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you very much.
Second thing is we had 211 here today before us. And for people
who are out there in the community, 211 is really an information and
referral number. This all started way back in the nineties as far as we
were concerned, Collier County, but it was already going tout suite up
in Tallahassee. They had a model. I went up there to see what it was.
I was working with interagency at the time, we were trying to put an
NI &R together and it never went.
Page 206
March 13, 2012
But anyway, so this is a wonderful, wonderful asset to our
community because it helps anybody who wants to buy a fishing
license or where to go for a broken arm. You know, everything in
between. I was really happy. They persevered and they came through
with it and so I just wanted to congratulate the 211 people.
Third thing is, Mr. Steve Holmes is the Executive Director of the
Transportation Disadvantaged for the State of Florida. He came down
here to visit Saturday. I met with him, along with Michele Arnold to
talk about the transportation disadvantaged program here in Collier
County and so forth. And he said he'd love to come down and talk to
our whole commission, if that was acceptable. So we were talking
about the 27th. And I don't know if that's available or not, to put him
not only on the 27th but at a time certain, say, I don't know, at 11:00
or something.
How about that Leo, is that something that can be acceptable?
And I could give him a time limit, 15 -20 minutes, something like that?
MR. OCHS: Is he going to just make a presentation or is --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. OCHS: -- is he going to have some materials submitted that
would go on the agenda in advance; do you know?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think he's just going to make a
presentation on --
MR. OCHS: We'll just put him under presentations. That's fine.
Item five would work.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, very good. I'll let him know
that, because he's going to drive specifically for that. And then he's
going to head over to the other coast where he's going to also be
giving a presentation. So -- and what he's trying to do is just catch us
up on the monies that are received and how they're spent and what the
program is and so forth. Just make us aware.
And the last thing is the conversation that just took place about
the master plan. I think what you'll hear, if you take everything else
Page 207
March 13, 2012
aside and just pull out what they're saying, is trying to figure out really
what's the will of the people in the community. And, you know,
everybody feels that they're speaking for the majority, but I don't
know a way to approve it -- to prove. What it is really, is maybe we
could think about what a fair analysis would be of the community, like
a community census or something, I don't know how that could be
done, where you could reach all aspects of the community and get
their input without it being biased. I'm just talking about fair, without
it being biased. I don't know if they'd come to a voting poll or go to a
certain spot or if they'd even know what we were talking about. I
mean people instrumental in it certainly do. But some of the other
people just don't. And they want somebody to do the right thing for
them, whatever it is.
So I'm just asking everybody to put your thinking cap on and see
if there's a fair way to actually get a census of the community, a sense
of their feelings and a census to prove it. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Fiala, I think you
made some very good comments.
I think the Immokalee Area Master Plan, although it's important
that it proposes things that the community wants, also has to be looked
at in terms of cost and whether the project is financially feasible. And
obviously that has an impact on the rest of the county.
So, you know, whenever a plan is developed for any part of the
community it has to also consider -- you also have to consider what
the impact on the rest of the county will be. In many different ways,
cost being one of them. And that hasn't been considered. So it isn't
just what these people want but it's, you know, what they want and,
you know, what the burden or the benefit to the rest of the community
will be also that has to be contemplated.
I want to thank you very much for giving me this sheet of paper.
This is the document Commissioner Fiala gave me regarding the
Collier Area Transfer Station. And it was the cost benefit analysis
Page 208
March 13, 2012
done between the government complex and the DeVoe site.
And while yes, the DeVoe site would be more expensive based
on the price proposed -- and Nick, I'd like a copy of the letter that was
sent to you by DeVoe.
What was shocking to me when I ran the numbers is what the
price per square foot is that we just approved for this particular
project. The cost is $1,173 per square foot for a 5,008 square foot
building. That's outrageous.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How much?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: $1,173 is what -- per square foot.
And this transit station is going to be 5,008 square feet. That is an
outrageous price. And I would like to have this revisited, because I
find it unacceptable. By comparison, if I just run the numbers on the
DeVoe site and while yes, we would pay more out of pocket, and I'm
not suggesting that is the building we should buy, the price per square
foot for that is $342 per square foot.
So I'm left very concerned about the cost of this project.
And the last thing I want to say is thank you very much to
Commissioner Henning for listening to Commissioner Fiala and I with
respect to our concerns about a segment of the population in our
community that has not been considered for housing -- for its housing
needs. And, I mean that group is suffering also.
And lastly, Happy St. Patrick's day. And that's it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, is there a motion for --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to adjourn.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Motion to adjourn.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second it.
MR. OCHS: Sir? I'm sorry, at the risk of belaboring this, I didn't
get a chance to talk to you, but we talked a little bit during the meeting
about this idea of putting names of commissioners that move items
prior to the printed agenda. Is that something the majority of the
board does or does not want me to do, or is there --
Page 209
March 13, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, you know how I feel about it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: My feeling --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You waited until after one of them was
gone.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: My feeling is that, you know,
anything that's pulled after you go to publication, I think, you know,
you can disclose that a particular commissioner pulled it. But prior to,
I don't understand why it would make a difference.
Because, you know, you move things back and forth from
consent and general. I mean, are you exempted or do we put, Leo
went back, Leo went forth? I mean, it's just nonsense.
So whatever you've been doing up till now has been a very
reasonable practice, and I think that, you know, you should continue
doing what you've been doing all along.
MR. OCHS: So I have one and one so far.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think you're doing a great job.
MR. OCHS: Oh, thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just really enjoy working with
you. Keep up the great work.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that very nice smile. It's
really nice to see how you can put up with, you know, whatever
negative goes on and still keep smiling all the way through these
meetings. So you should be commended for that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We call him Leo good guy.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Three thumbs up.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, there was a motion for
adjournment, right?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we're adjourned.
Page 210
March 13, 2012
""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
RECORD THE FINAL PLAT OF TRACT E, BRENTWOOD TWO.
THIS SUBDIVISION WILL RESULT IN THREE COMMERCIAL
TRACTS IN THE BRENTWOOD PUD — LOCATED OFF OF I -75
IMMOKALEE ROAD
Item #I 6A2
RELEASE A $15,800 LIEN FOR PAYMENT OF $39912.38, IN
CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION ENTITLED BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS VS. JOSHUA S. LAINHART AND
MELANIE D. MEYER, CODE ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL
MAGISTRATE CASE NO. CESD2010- 00003657, RELATING TO
PROPERTY AT 2170 20TH AVENUE NE, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA — FORECLOSED UPON PROPERTY PURCHASED BY
FEDERAL NAT'L MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION NOVEMBER,
2011 THAT HAS SINCE BEEN BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE
Item #I 6A3
RELEASE A $40,200 LIEN FOR PAYMENT OF $9,912.29, IN
CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION ENTITLED BOARD OF
CO UNTY COMMISSIONERS VS. ESTA TE OF ALAN D.
MONTGOMERY, CODE ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL
MAGISTRATE CASE NO. CEROW2009- 0015230, RELATING
TO PROPERTY AT 5133 20TH CT. SW, COLLIER COUNTY,
Page 211
March 13, 2012
FLORIDA — FORECLOSED UPON PROPERTY PURCHASED BY
FEDERAL NAT'L MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION NOVEMBER,
2011 THAT HAS SINCE BEEN BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE
Item #I 6A4
RELEASE A $97,600 LIEN FOR PAYMENT OF $450.005 IN
CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION ENTITLED BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS VS. J.H. PRETTYMAN, CODE
ENFORCEMENT BOARD CASE NO. CEB 2007 -11, RELATING
TO PROPERTY AT 1294 SNOOK ALY, CHOKOLOSKEE,
FLORIDA — THIS PROPERTY HAD BEEN BROUGHT INTO
COMPLIANCE IN AUGUST, 2008
Item #I 6A5
AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND
THE FLORIDA COMMISSION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION
DISADVANTAGED ACCEPTING A SHIRLEY CONROY
RURAL AREA CAPITAL EQUIPMENT SUPPORT GRANT
IN THE AMOUNT OF $35009 FOR THE PURCHASE AND
INSTALLATION OF SECURITY CAMERAS ON -BOARD
PARATRANSIT VEHICLES; AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO
SIGN THE AGREEMENT AND APPROVE THE NECESSARY
BUDGET AMENDMENT — THIS GRANT WILL ALLOW CAT
TO EQUIP THE TEN REMAINING PARATRANSIT VEHICLES
WITHOUT SECURITY CAMERAS
Item #I 6A6
TO REFUND INSPECTION FEES REQUESTED BY DAVIDSON
ENGINEERING, INC., TOTALING $33,869.66, DUE TO THE
Page 212
March 13, 2012
CANCELLATION OF THE FISHERMAN'S VILLAGE PROJECT
(AR- 13199) — A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED IN
2008 ON BAYSHORE DRIVE SUBSEQUENTLY CANCELLED
FOR ECONOMIC REASONS
Item #I 6A7
ENFORCING POST LOAD RESTRICTIONS OF "SINGLE UNIT
TRUCKS; 31 TONS" & "COMBINATION TRUCKS 34; TONS"
ON BRIDGE NUMBERS 030138, 0301399 030140 AND 030141
EAST OF SR29 ON IMMOKALEE ROAD, PROJECT #66066 —
COMPLYING WITH THE MOST RECENT NOTICE FROM
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) AND
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION (FHWA) THAT THE
WEIGHT LIMIT OF SINGLE UNIT TRUCKS COULD BE
LIFTED FROM 29 TO 31 TONS AND THE WEIGHT LIMIT ON
COMBINATION TRUCKS FROM 33 TO 34 TONS
Item 416D 1
WORK ORDER UNDER CONTRACT #09- 5262 -CZ WITH
COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS (CEC) TO PERMIT
A LONG TERM MAINTENANCE PROGRAM TO RESHAPE
THE MARCO ISLAND BEACH FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO
EXCEED $35,190, AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER
OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE THE WORK ORDER AND
APPROVE ALL NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS — FOR
SERVICES INCLUDING A TOPOGRAPHIC DESIGN SURVEY
FROM BEACH MONUMENT R-1235 TO R -143 TO ANALYZE
CURRENT CONDITIONS AND AID PRELIMINARY DESIGN
TO DETERMINE THE PERMITTING PROCESS
Page 213
March 13, 2012
Item #I 6D2
AUTHORIZE STRUCTURAL PILING INSPECTION TO THE
CLAM BAY DRAW BRIDGE, APPROVE A BUDGET AND A
BUDGET AMENDMENT OF $155000 TO COMPLETE THE
WORK, AND MAKE A FINDING THAT IMPROVEMENTS TO
THIS BEACH PARK FACILITY PROMOTES TOURISM — FOR
AN INSPECTION PERFORMED IN APRIL, 2011 BY CRONIN
ENGINEERING, INC. WITH RESULTS THAT WILL HELP
DETERMINE FUTURE REPAIRS TO THE FACILITY
Item #16D3
RELEASE OF LIEN FOR AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING
DENSITY BONUS AGREEMENT FOR A UNIT SOLD AND NO
LONGER SUBJECT TO THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT —
FOR PROPERTY AT 4510 BOTANICAL PLACE, UNIT 105
Item #I 6D4
FIFTEEN (15) RELEASES OF LIEN FOR DEFERRAL OF
COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR OWNER OCCUPIED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DWELLING UNITS THAT WERE
TRANSFERRED FROM THE DEVELOPER TO THE NEW
OWNER — AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #I 6D5
ACCEPT FUNDS AND ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH
THE STATE OF FLORIDA'S DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILIES (DCF) FOR CHALLENGE GRANT FUNDS,
AND APPROVING THE CORRESPONDING SUB - RECIPIENT
Page 214
March 13, 2012
AGREEMENTS WITH NOT - FOR - PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
AND A CORRESPONDING BUDGET AMENDMENT TO
ADMINISTER THE FUNDS THAT ARE USED TO ADDRESS
HOMELESS NEEDS AND PREVENTION — TO RECOGNIZE
$63,397 THAT WILL BE USED BY ST. MATTHEW'S HOUSE
AND THE SHELTER FOR ABUSED WOMEN AND CHILDREN
TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE AND PREVENT HOMELESSNESS
Item #I 6D6
TWO (2) RELEASES OF LIEN FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF
COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR OWNER OCCUPIED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DWELLING UNITS THAT HAVE
BEEN REPAID IN FULL — FOR DEFERRAL AGREEMENTS
ENTERED INTO IN 2006 FOR A PAYMENT OF $8,908.61 ON
PROPERTY AT 4510 BOTANICAL PLACE CIRCLE, # 105 AND
$85712.70 FOR PROPERTY AT 4510 BOTANICAL PLACE
CIRCLE. #204 IN NAPLES, FLORIDA
Item # 16E 1
COLLIER COUNTY TO PIGGYBACK ON THE STATE OF
FLORIDA'S CONTRACT WITH WRIGHT EXPRESS
FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION FOR FLEET FUEL
CARD SERVICES TO PURCHASE FUEL & FLEET - RELATED
ITEMS W /ESTIMATED PURCHASES OF $150,000 ANNUALLY
— THE " WRIGHT" CARD REPLACES A CURRENT VOYAGER
FUEL CARD AND WILL BE USED BY EMPLOYEES DURING
EMERGENCIES, WHEN TRAVELING OUTSIDE THE COUNTY
AND MAY ALSO BE USED FOR TOWING, MINOR VEHICLE
REPAIRS AND TO PURCHASE FUEL AT LOCAL MARINAS
Page 215
March 13, 2012
Item #I 6E2
ACCEPT REPORTS & RATIFY STAFF - APPROVED CHANGE
ORDERS AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS — FOR THE
PERIOD OF JANUARY 26 THROUGH FEBRUARY 24, 2012
Item #I 6E3
DELEGATING THE AUTHORITY FOR COUNTY DIVISION
ADMINISTRATORS TO SIGN CERTIFICATES OF
ENTITLEMENT RELATED TO DIRECT MATERIAL
PURCHASES (DMP) — COMPLIES WITH RECENT CHANGES
TO FLORIDA LAW AND ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AND
ALLOWS THE COUNTY TO SAVE ON PAYING SALES TAX
Item # 16F 1
RESOLUTION 2012 -37: APPROVING AMENDMENTS
(APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS
OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO FYI 1-12 ADOPTED BUDGET
Item #I 6F2
A REPORT COVERING BUDGET AMENDMENTS IMPACTING
RESERVES IN AN AMOUNT UP TO AND INCLUDING $25,000
— BA #12 -211, TRANSFERRING ADDITIONAL FUNDS TO THE
TAX COLLECTOR'S OFFICE TO COVER OPERATING
EXPENSES FOR THE COLLECTION OF AD VALOREM TAXES
Item # 16H 1
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT
Page 216
March 13, 2012
REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. HE WILL ATTEND AN EMERALD
BALL 27TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION AT THE RITZ
CARLTON GOLF RESORT, NAPLES, FL ON MARCH 17, 2012.
$250 PAID FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL
BUDGET — BENEFITTING COLLIER COUNTY CATHOLIC
CHARITIES
Item #161-12
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT
REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. HE WILL ATTEND COLLIER
COUNTY MEDICAL SOCIETY'S SPRING GENERAL
MEMBERSHIP MEETING AT ARTHREX, INC., NAPLES, FL ON
MARCH 15, 2012. $30 PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET — AT 1370 CREEKSIDE
BOULEVARD, NAPLES, FLORIDA
Item #I 6H3
COMMISSIONER HILLER'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED DRIVEN TO TRIUMPH, A
TRIBUTE TO OUR AREA'S HOLOCAUST & WWII VETERANS,
AT THE ROLLS ROYCE SHOWROOM, NAPLES, FLORIDA ON
FEBRUARY 28, 2012. $125 PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
HILLER'S TRAVEL BUDGET — HELD AT SWFL HOLOCAUST
MUSEUM & EDUCATION CENTER LOCATED AT 4760
TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH, NAPLES, FL
Item #161-14
Page 217
March 13, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE GREATER NAPLES AAUW,
CELEBRATING WOMEN OF ACHIEVEMENT AT GREY OAKS
COUNTRY CLUB IN NAPLES, FL MARCH 8, 2012. $29.20 PAID
FROM COMMISSIONER HILLER'S TRAVEL BUDGET —
LOCATED AT 2400 GREY OAKS DRIVE N, NAPLES, FL
Item #161-15
COMMISSIONER HILLER'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE ZOOBILEE GALA EVENT AT
NAPLES ZOO, NAPLES, FL MARCH 10, 2012. $140 PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER HILLER'S TRAVEL BUDGET — LOCATED AT
1590 GOODLETTE ROAD, NAPLES, FLORIDA
Item #161-16
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S ATTENDANCE
AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE.
DESIGNATED COMMISSIONER(S) AND STAFF WILL
ATTEND A FLORIDA ASSOC. OF COUNTIES CONFERENCE
IN ORLANDO, FL — IS BEING HELD AT THE ORLANDO
WORLD CENTER MARRIOT, 8701 WORLD CENTER DRIVE,
ORLANDO, FLORIDA JUNE 19-22,2012
Item # 16I
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH
ACTION AS DIRECTED
Page 218
March 13, 2012
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Item #1611
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE TO FILE WITH
ACTION AS DIRECTED. DOCUMENT(S) HAVE BEEN
ROUTED TO ALL COMMISSIONERS AND ARE AVAILABLE
FOR REVIEW IN THE BOARD OFFICE UNTIL APPROVED
Item # 16I2
ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES AND AGENDAS TO FILE WITH
ACTION AS DIRECTED. DOCUMENT(S) HAVE BEEN
ROUTED TO ALL COMMISSIONERS AND ARE AVAILABLE
FOR REVIEW IN THE BOARD OFFICE UNTIL APPROVED
Page 219
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES
March 13, 2012
2. ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS
DIRECTED:
A. Minutes:
1) Affordable Housing Commission:
Minutes of4 /11/11;9/12/11; 11/15/11
2) Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee:
Minutes of 114/11; 12/7/11; 1/4/12
3) Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board:
Minutes of 10/4/11; 11/1/11; 12/6/11; 1/3/12
4) Collier County Citizens Corps:
Agenda of 8/16/11
Minutes of 8/16/11
5) Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee:
Minutes of 5/17/10 (Wiggins Pass Subcommittee); 11/10/11;
12/19/11 (Wiggins Pass Subcommittee); 1/12/12
6) Collier County Code Enforcement Board:
Minutes of 9/22/11; 11/1/] 1 (Special Magistrate); 11/18/11; 12/2/11
(Special Magistrate); 1/6/12 (Special Magistrate)
7) Collier County Planning Commission:
Minutes of 10/20/11; 11/3/11; 11/17/11; 12/1/11; 12/15/11
8) Contractors Licensing Board:
Minutes of 10/19/11; 12/21/11
9) County Government Productivity Committee:
Agenda of 7/20/11; 9/21/11; 10/19/11
Minutes of 7 /20/11; 9/21/11; 10/19/11
10) Development Services Advisory Committee:
Minutes of Minutes of 11/2/11; 11/14/11 (Land Development
Regulations Subcommittee); 11/28/11 (Land Development
Regulations Subcommittee); 12/6/11 (Land Development Regulations
Subcommittee); 12/7/11; 12/14/11 (Land Development Regulations
Subcommittee); 12/2 1 /11 (Land Development Regulations
Subcommittee); 1/4/12
11) Emergency Medical Services Advisory Board:
Minutes of 11/4/11; 11/18/11 (Emergency Meeting)
12) Environmental Advisory Council:
Minutes of 11/2/11
13) Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage Advisory Committee:
Agenda of 11/9/11; 12/14/11; 1/11/12
Minutes of 9/14/11; 11/9/11; 12/14/11
14) Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee:
Minutes of 10/3/11; 11/7/11
15) Historical /Archaeological Preservation Board:
Minutes of 10 /19/11; 11/16/11
16) Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisory Committee:
Minutes of 6/10/11; 10/24/11; 11/22/11; 12/15/11; 12/22/11
17) Land Acquisition Advisory Committee:
Minutes of 10 /10 /11; 12/12/11
18) Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee:
Agenda of 11 /17/11; 12/15/11
Minutes of 10/20/11; 11/17/11
19) Library Advisor Board:
Minutes of 9/21/11
20) Pelican Bay Services Division Board:
Agenda of 10/26/11 (Clam Bay & Landscape Water Management
Subcommittee); 11/2/11; 12/7/11; 12/14/11; 1/4/12; 1/10/12
(Landscape Water Management Subcommittee); 1/17/12 (Budget
Subcommittee); 2/1/12
Minutes of 10/26/11 (Clam Bay & Landscape Water Management
Subcommittee); 11/2/11; 12/7/11; 1/4/12
21) Radio Road Beautification Advisory Committee:
Agenda of 12/12/11; 1/9/12
Minutes of 11/14/11
22) Radio Road East of Santa Barbara Blvd to Davis Blvd Advisory
Committee:
Agenda of 8/3/11; 1015111; 11/2/11; 1/4/12; 2/1/12
Minutes of 8/3/11; 10/5/11; 11/2/11; 12A /11; 12/7/11; 1/4/12
23) Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU AdvisoEy Committee:
Agenda of 12/1/11; 1/5/12
Minutes of 11/3/11; 12/1/11
24) Water and Wastewater Authority:
Minutes of 8/8/11; 10/24/11
March 13, 2012
Item # 16J 1
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD FEBRUARY 11, 2012
THROUGH FEBRUARY 17, 2012 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #I 6J2
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD FEBRUARY 18, 2012
THROUGH FEBRUARY 24, 2012 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #I 6J3
THE STATE OF FLORIDA ANNUAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT
FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING
SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 REQUIRED BY FL STATUTE 218.32
Item # 16K 1
ADVERTISE AND BRING BACK FOR CONSIDERATION AN
AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 75 -165 AS AMENDED, AS
IT RELATES TO PROCEDURES FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
AGENDA ITEMS — WOULD ALLOW THE BOARD TO REHEAR
THE IMMOKALEE AREA MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT
Item #I 6K2
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND A JOINT MOTION ORDER
APPROVING SAME IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED WILLIAM G.
LHOTA ET AL. V. THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF COLLIER
COUNTY, ET AL, CASE NO. 08- 8359 -CA CONSOLIDATED
Page 220
March 13, 2012
WITH BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY V. CLOTILDE
PEREZ AND ZENAIDA PEREZ, ET AL., CASE NO. 10- 5560 -CA
(FISCAL IMPACT - $0)
Item #I 7A
ORDINANCE 2012 -11: PUDA- PL2011 -343, TUSCANY RESERVE
PUD. AN ORIDINANCE AMENDING 2003 -28, AMENDED BY
2004 -475 THE TUSCANY RESERVE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (PUD), AMENDING THE PUD DOCUMENT,
EXHIBIT A, PROVIDING AMENDMENTS TO: COVER PAGE;
PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION
SECTION; THE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SECTION; THE
RESIDENTIAL "R" DEVELOPMENT AREA SECTION; THE
GOLF, OPEN SPACE (GO) SECTION; THE VILLAGE CENTER
SECTION; THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS
SECTION; ADDING A DEVIATION FROM REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS; PROVIDING AMENDMENTS TO THE MASTER
PLAN; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. FOR
PROPERTY IN SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FL AND CONSISTING OF 461.29
ACRES. NO INCREASE IN DENSITY OR NUMBER OF
AUTHORIZED DWELLING UNITS IS PROPOSED
Item #I 7B
RESOLUTION 2012 -38: APPROVING AMENDMENTS
(APPROPRIATING CARRY FORWARD, TRANSFERS AND
SUPPLEMENTAL REVENUE) TO THE FY 2011 -12 ADOPTED
BUDGET
Page 221
March 13, 2012
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:55 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
BOARD AND AIRPORT AUTHORITY
luaw.
FRED W. COYLE, Chairman
ATTEST fa "V��
DWIG E:, BK, CLERK
_ a
Rtt+esi� a�'�� ii�rrn �
These minutes app ed by the Board on lop
tot 2 ,
as presented or as correct 4d
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM
Page 222