BCC Minutes 04/10/2012 R BCC
REGULAR
MEETING
MINUTES
APRIL 10, 2012
April 10, 2012
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, April 10, 2012
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as
the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such
special districts as have been created according to law and having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Fred Coyle
Jim Coletta
Donna Fiala
Georgia Hiller
Tom Henning
ALSO PRESENT:
Leo Ochs, County Manager
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney
Crystal Kinzel, Clerk's Finance Director
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
17171
LA
AGENDA
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor
Naples FL 34112
April 10, 2012
9:00 AM
Fred W. Coyle - BCC Chairman; Commissioner, District 4
Jim Coletta - BCC Vice - Chairman; Commissioner, District 5; CRAB Vice -Chair
Donna Fiala - BCC Commissioner, District 1; CRAB Chairman
Georgia Hiller - BCC Commissioner, District 2
Tom Henning - BCC Commissioner, District 3
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS MUST
REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE
EXECUTIVE MANAGER TO THE BCC PRIOR TO PRESENTATION OF THE
AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. ALL REGISTERED SPEAKERS WILL
RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY
THE CHAIRMAN.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53 AS AMENDED BY
ORDINANCE 2004 -05 AND 2007 -249 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS
SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE
BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
April 10, 2012
Page 1
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS."
PUBLIC PETITIONS ARE LIMITED TO THE PRESENTER, WITH A
MAXIMUM TIME OF TEN MINUTES.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN
ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3335 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL,
SUITE 1, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112-5356,(239) 252 -8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Reverend Sammy Mosquero - United Pentecostal Church
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for consent and
summary agenda.)
B. March 13, 2012 - BCC /Regular Meeting
3. SERVICE AWARDS
April 10, 2012
Page 2
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation designating April 20 -21, 2012 as Relay for Life Days in Collier
County. To be accepted by Mary Jo Thurston and Kate Kerwin. Sponsored
by the Board of County Commissioners.
B. Proclamation designating April 2012 as Child Abuse Awareness and
Prevention Month in Collier County. To be accepted by Dr. Rosanne Winter,
Executive Director of Youth Haven, Inc. and Jackie Stephens, CEO,
Children's Advocacy Center of Collier County. Sponsored by the Board of
County Commissioners.
C. Proclamation designating April 2012 as Water Conservation Month in
Collier County. To be accepted by Clarence Tears, Big Cypress Basin
Administrator, South Florida Water Management District. Sponsored by
Commissioner Coyle.
D. Proclamation designating April 16, 2012 as National Healthcare Decisions
Day in Collier County. To be accepted by Annalise Smith, Regional
Director, SeniorBridge; Gail Schultz, Director of Professional Relations,
SeniorBridge; Lavigne Kirkpatrick, External Affairs Manager, Avow
Hospice; Vicki Tracy, Director, The Arlington of Naples; Dianne Wehr,
Sales Representative, Seniors B1ueBook; Yvette Saco, Senior Vice - President,
IBERIABANK; Earl and Thelma Hodges, Hodges Funeral Home; and Taylor
Hamilton, Marketing Director, Physicians Regional Healthcare System.
Sponsored by Commissioner Fiala.
E. Proclamation celebrating the opening of the von Arx Wildlife Hospital at the
Conservancy of Southwest Florida and designating April 19, 2012 as Sharon
and Dolph von Arx Wildlife Hospital Day. To be accepted by Barbara
Wilson, Conservancy of Southwest Florida. Sponsored by the Board of
County Commissioners.
F. Proclamation designating April 15 -21, 2012 as National Volunteer Week in
Collier County. To be accepted by Meryl Rorer, Volunteer Coordinator,
Collier County Parks and Recreation and Steve Smith, Retired Senior
Volunteer Program (RSVP) Coordinator on behalf of all Collier County
Volunteers. Sponsored by Commissioner Fiala.
April 10, 2012
Page 3
G. Proclamation designating April 2012 as Sexual Assault Awareness Month in
Collier County. To be accepted by Project Help, Inc. staff and board
members. Sponsored by Commissioner Coyle.
H. Proclamation designating April 2012 as Parkinson's Awareness Month in
Collier County. To be accepted by Michael and Gretchen Church. Sponsored
by Commissioner Fiala.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation of the Collier County Business of the Month for April 2012 to
Waste Management, Inc. Accepting the award is Larry Berg, Senior District
Manager.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public petition request from Christina Pujol of Commerce Bank regarding e-
payables.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
Item 8 and 9 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 Pm unless otherwise noted.
8. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of member to the Collier County Planning Commission.
B. Appointment of member to the Animal Services Advisory Board.
C. Advisory Board Vacancies press release April 5, 2012 with a deadline of
April 26, 2012.
D. Request by the 5 member Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Board
to have the terms of office altered to allow board member terms to be
April 10, 2012
Page 4
staggered for renewal at 2 members, 2 members, 1 member.
11. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. This item to be heard at 11:00 a.m. Recommendation to approve the
Conceptual Plans for the FY2013/14 beach renourishment of Barefoot,
Vanderbilt, Clam Pass, Park Shore and Naples beaches along with
FY2012/13 Marco South beach renourishment/structure rebuild plan and
make a finding that these items promote tourism. (Gary McAlpin, Coastal
Zone Management Director)
B. This item to be heard immediately following Item #11A.
Recommendation to approve shortlist of firms for contract negotiations for
RFP No. 11 -5772 "Beach Renourishment Engineering Services ". (Gary
McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management Director)
C. Recommendation to accept the financial contribution from the Conservancy
of Southwest Florida of up to $90,000 dollars to allow for a third party firm,
not associated with any interest group concerning the Rural Land
Stewardship Area (RLSA), to provide for an independent review of the
amendment process and complete the associated steps outlined in the scope
of services described in Exhibit "A" to this Executive Summary and approve
all necessary budget amendments. (Mike Bosi, Growth Management
Division Comprehensive Planning Manager)
D. Recommendation to approve a budget amendment in an amount up to
$25,000 from Unincorporated Area MSTD General Fund (111) reserves to
retain an outside firm to provide a cost - benefit analysis of the Ave Maria
SRA and determine if the development has demonstrated fiscal neutrality, as
required by the Land Development Code. (Mike Bosi, Growth Management
Division Comprehensive Planning Manager)
E. Recommendation to approve Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP)
Developer Agreements with Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc.
thereby implementing the NSP Exit Strategy and providing access to
$3,495,749 in federal grant funding. (Kim Grant, Housing, Human and
Veteran Services Interim Director)
April 10, 2012
Page 5
F. Recommendation to review and provide direction regarding the ABC
Finance, LLC's protest of the recommended award of RFP #11-5785,
Management of Pelican Bay Tennis Center. (Len Price, Administrative
Services Administrator)
G. Recommendation to award RFP #11-5785, Management of Pelican Bay
Tennis Center, and authorize the Chairman to sign a contract with Naples
Tennis Academy, LLC. (Barry Williams, Parks and Recreation Director)
H. This item to be heard at 1:30 p.m. Recommendation to adopt a Bond
Resolution authorizing the issuance of Bonds in an amount not to exceed
$50,000,000 in order to refund a portion of Collier County's outstanding Gas
Tax Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 2003. (Mark Isackson, County
Manager's Office)
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND /OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
A. AIRPORT
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, acting in
its capacity as the Collier County Airport Authority, approve the
attached Sub -Lease Agreement with Three Mayhoods LLC.
2) Response to the Collier County Clerk of Circuit Court Internal Audit
of the Marco Island Executive Airport Parallel Taxiway and Apron
Expansion Construction Project and Request Approval of Staff
Clarification issued by the Zoning Manager and Planning Manager
Finding the Airport in Compliance.
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
April 10, 2012
Page 6
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water utility
facility for Tall Oaks, Phase 4 and to authorize the County Manager,
or his designee, to release any Utilities Performance Security to the
Project Engineer or the Developer's designated agent.
2) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Reflection Lakes, Unit 2, Phase 2 and 3, and to
authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to release any Utilities
Performance Security to the Project Engineer or the Developer's
designated agent.
3) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water utility
facility for Collections at Vanderbilt, Phase One and to authorize the
County Manager, or his designee, to release any Utilities Performance
Security to the Project Engineer or the Developer's designated agent.
4) Recommendation to authorize the County Manager, or his designee,
to release the Utility Performance Security Bond to the Project
Engineer or the Developer's designated agent for Collections at
Vanderbilt, Phase Two.
5) Recommendation to approve a Right -of -Entry Agreement with the
Collier County School District to allow for connection of a proposed
sidewalk on Bayside Street with the existing sidewalk on the
Shadowlawn Elementary School property. Fiscal Impact: $27 Project:
#69081.
6) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the final plat of Lipari — Ponziane Replat. This
April 10, 2012
Page 7
is a replat of Tract "FD -1" of the Lipari — Ponziane" plat.
7) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve an extension for completion of subdivision improvements
associated with the Esperanza Place subdivision pursuant to Section
10.02.05 B.11 of the Collier County Land Development Code.
8) Recommendation to recognize the commitment of the prepayment of
road impact fees in the City Gate Developer Agreement (Agreement)
recorded in O.R. Book 4517, Page 640 and to convert a temporary
five year Certificate of Public Facility Adequacy (COA) into a COA
in perpetuity.
9) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Fiddler's Creek Phase 3,
Unit Four with the roadway and drainage improvements being
privately maintained and authorizing the release of the maintenance
security and acceptance of the plat dedications.
10) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Sterling Oaks — Phase 2A
with the roadway and drainage improvements being privately
maintained and authorizing the release of the maintenance security
and acceptance of the plat dedications.
11) Recommendation to approve the award of Contract #11 -5724 to Hole
Montes, Inc. for Construction Engineering Inspection, Landscape
Inspection and Site Restoration Services for the "Vanderbilt Beach
MSTU: FPL Underground Conversion Project - Phase 1, 2, 3"
pursuant to RFP #11-5724, in the estimated amount of $165,544.
12) Recommendation to approve the award of RFP #11 -5753, Electronic
Fareboxes for the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Intelligent
Transportation Systems (ITS) Program to Fare Logistics Corporation
for an estimated $564,228 in FY 2012/2013 and authorize the
Chairman to execute the attached contract funded by the Department
of Transportation Federal Transit Administration 5307 formula grant
April 10, 2012
Page 8
and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) with
100% capital grant dollars.
13) Recommendation to approve the partial release of lien in the Code
Enforcement Actions entitled Board of County Commissioners vs.
Francisca Alas, Code Enforcement Board Case No. 2007 -49, relating
to property located at 4100 31st Place SW, Collier County, Florida.
14) Recommendation to appoint a designee to submit Board - approved
Federal Transit Administration grants applications, to accept and
execute grants and cooperative agreements, and to execute the annual
electronic certification and assurances on behalf of the County.
15) Recommendation to approve Addendum number two to Software
License and Services Agreement and the Customer Support
Agreement Between RouteMatch Software, Inc. and Collier County
for the RMGATE software interface license, a component of the
Collier Area Transit Intelligent Transportation System.
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
to approve and execute a Site Improvement Grant Agreement that is
financially assisted by a Fifth Third Bank grant award between the
CRA and a Grant Applicant within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle
area. (2718 Gulfview Drive — CRA Fiscal Impact: None)
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve Agreement No. 4600002607 with the
South Florida Water Management District for the Continued
Collection of Surface Water Quality Samples in Collier County in the
Amount of $210,000.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve a Work Order with Atkins North
America, Inc. for Clam Pass Joint Coastal Permit under Contract #09-
April 10, 2012
Page 9
5262 -CZ for a not to exceed amount of $7,672.
2) Recommendation to approve a budget in the amount of $41,360 for
the Vanderbilt Beach Access signage installation and access amenities
pursuant to a Board approved Settlement Agreement dated August 29,
2011, and make a finding that this item promotes tourism.
3) Recommendation to approve an updated State Housing Initiatives
Partnership Program (SHIP) Subordination Policy for minor
administrative changes.
4) Recommendation to approve one (1) release of lien in the amount of
$19,300.01 for a satisfied Impact Fee Deferral.
5) Recommendation to approve a "Grantee Application for Advance
Funding" to the Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF)
and the corresponding budget amendment to recognize revenues in the
amount of $182,830.
6) Recommendation for the Chairman to execute a "Delegation of
Authority to Act as Certifying Officer" form designating the Collier
County Manager as the Certifying Officer for Environmental Reviews
required for federally funded grant projects.
7) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) Division
of Marine Fisheries Management, Artificial Reef Construction Grant
Application for the Coastal Zone Management Department in the
amount of $60,000.
8) Recommendation to approve an amendment to an existing
Community Development Block Grant Subrecipient agreement with
David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc. (DLC) allowing for a
time extension due to a need to re- procure a contractor under this
agreement, and for additional administrative changes.
9) Recommendation to recognize Community Development Block Grant
Funds (CDBG) in the amount of $775,016 for construction of the
Immokalee South Park Project and transfer $775,016 of Fund (346)
April 10, 2012
Page 10
funds to the Eagle Lakes Community Center Project.
10) Recommendation to approve a modification to Disaster Recovery
Initiative Grant Agreement # l ODB-D4-09-2 1 -01 -K09 between the
Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and Collier
County and amend the associated subrecipient agreements to reflect a
reallocation of funds to provide for resurfacing work within the
Immokalee Stormwater Improvement Project, include a bathroom
expansion in the Immokalee Shelter Improvement project and update
project work plans; all with no fiscal impact.
11) Recommendation to approve the electronic submittal of Senior Corps
Retired and Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP) application to the
Corporation for National and Community Service, for the
continuation of the Collier County sponsored RSVP program in the
amount of $78,170 for the first of a three year grant cycle.
12) Recommendation to approve a non - exclusive license agreement
between the Board of County Commissioners and the Goodland Civic
Association, Inc. approving the use of County -owned property, the
Goodland Boat Park, for conducting three annual events.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to award Request for Quote #12 -5831 for
Unemployment Cost Management Services to TALX Corporation in
an estimated amount of $3,160 annually and authorize the Chairman
to sign the Agreement and Power of Attorney to appoint TALX UCM
Services, Inc. dba UCeXpress as the County's Unemployment Tax
Agent.
2) Recommendation to accept reports and ratify staff - approved change
orders and changes to work orders.
3) Recommendation to authorize additional facilities and services to
Contract #09 -5203 for Pest Control Services, to confirm approval that
staff is authorized per Contract #09 -5203 to identify additional
services and rates, and direct Finance to release payment on past
invoices (approximately $1,090). The estimated additional annual
April 10, 2012
Page 11
expense amount is $9,000.
F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS
1) Recommendation to approve the Memorandum of Understanding
between Collier County and Emmanuel Lutheran Church in support of
Emergency Management activities related to natural and manmade
hazards emergency response.
2) Recommendation to approve the Memorandum of Understanding
between Collier County and Salvation Army in support of Emergency
Management activities related to natural and manmade hazards
emergency response.
3) Recommendation to approve the Memorandum of Understanding
between Collier County and Harry Chapin Food Bank of Southwest
Florida, Inc. in support of Emergency Management activities related
to natural and manmade hazards emergency response.
4) Recommendation to approve the Memorandum of Understanding
between Collier County and Goodwill Industries of Southwest
Florida, Inc. in support of Emergency Management activities related
to natural and manmade hazards emergency response.
5) Recommendation to approve the Memorandum of Understanding
between Collier County and the Catholic Charities in support of
Emergency Management activities related to natural and manmade
hazards emergency response.
6) Recommendation to approve the Memorandum of Understanding
between Collier County and Mayflower Congregational United
Church of Christ in support of Emergency Management activities
related to natural and manmade hazards emergency response.
7) Recommendation to approve Department of Homeland Security Grant
Agreement #12DS- 9Z- 09 -21 -01 between Collier County and the
Florida Division of Emergency Management in the amount of $19,000
for Emergency Management planning and exercises and approve all
April 10, 2012
Page 12
necessary budget amendments.
8) Recommendation to approve Department of Homeland Security Grant
Agreement # 12DS- 29- 09 -21 -01 between Collier County and the
Florida Division of Emergency Management in the amount of $20,000
for State Homeland Security Grant Program to conduct training and
exercises and approve all necessary budget amendments.
9) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
to the Fiscal Year 2011 -12 Adopted Budget.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose. She
attended the East Naples Civic Association Luncheon on February 16,
2012. The sum of $18 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel
budget.
2) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose. She
attended the East Naples Civic Association Luncheon on March 15,
2012. The sum of $18 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel
budget.
3) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose. She
attended the Naples Press Club Luncheon on March 22, 2012. The
sum of $20 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
4) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the Immokalee Chamber of Commerce Breakfast at Roma
Havana Restaurant, Immokalee, FL on March 7, 2012. $10 to be paid
from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
April 10, 2012
Page 13
5) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the Marjory Stoneman Douglas Luncheon at the Seafood
Depot in Everglades City, FL on February 21, 2012. $20 to be paid
from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
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 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 March
10, 2012 through March 16, 2012 and for submission into the official
records of the Board.
2) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of March
17, 2012 through March 23, 2012 and for submission into the official
records of the Board.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to approve an Agreed Order Awarding Expert Fees
in connection with Parcels 1 l OFEE and 1 l OTCE in the lawsuit styled
Collier County v. A L Subs, Inc., et al., Case No. 09- 3691 -CA, Collier
Boulevard Project No. 60092 (Fiscal Impact: $9,953.75).
2) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment in the
amount of $2,898.05 in settlement of Parcel 111 as to easement
holder, Publix Super Markets, Inc., in the Lawsuit Styled Collier
County v. NB Holdings Corporation, et al., Case No. 06- 0658 -CA,
Santa Barbara Boulevard Project No. 62081. (Fiscal Impact:
April 10, 2012
Page 14
$2,898.05)
3) Request to approve a Resolution revising the County Attorney Office
Fiscal Year Pay and Classification Plan effective April 10, 2012, and
to reinstate the job description for Managing Assistant County
Attorney.
4) Recommendation to approve the settlement prior to trial in the lawsuit
entitled Collier County, Florida Board of County Commissioners v.
Oliver Scott Vanoy and Max Stankeveh, filed in the Twentieth
Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida, Case No. 11-1242 -
CC to settle a property damage claim for the sum of $12,281.22 and
authorize the Chairman to execute the Settlement Agreement and
Release.
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS WHICH ARE QUASI -
JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252 -8383.
April 10, 2012
Page 15
April 10, 2012
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, the Board
of County Commission Meeting is now in session.
Item # 1 A
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — GIVEN BY
REVEREND SAMMY MOSQUERO, UNITED PENTECOSTAL
CHURCH
Would you please stand for the invocation to be delivered by
Reverend Sammy Mosquero of the United Pentecostal Church.
REVEREND MOSQUERO: Good morning, everyone.
We are gathered here today, with an intent of doing good work,
we seek to represent fairly and well those who have given us this task
to do today.
May our efforts be blessed with insight, our deliberations with
wisdom, our work with clarity and accuracy and our decisions with
impartiality guided by understanding and wisdom.
We seek to act with respect for everyone by our personal faith to
give us the strength to act honestly and well in all our matters that are
before us today.
Heavenly Father, which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name,
your kingdom come, you will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread and forgive our debts as we also
forgive those who are our debtors, and lead us not into temptation, but
deliver us from evil.
Amen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Please join us for the Pledge of
Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. County Manager, can you lead us
Page 2
April 10, 2012
through the changes to the agenda today, please.
Item #2A
APPROVAL OF TODAY'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND
SUMMARY AGENDA AS AMENDED — APPROVED AND /OR
ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
MR. OCHS: I'd be happy to, Mr. Chairman. Good morning,
Commissioners.
These are the proposed agenda changes for the Board of County
Commissioners' meeting of April 10, 2012.
The first proposed change is to continue Item 11 E to the April 24,
20121 BCC meeting. That is the recommendation surrounding the
Neighborhood Stabilization Program Developer Agreements. This is
asked for a continuance at staff s request to clarify and finalize some
contract language that came up in discussions yesterday with the
Clerk's Office.
The next proposed change is to add Item 11I. It's a
recommendation to provide direction to resolve the outstanding
Quincy Square Homeowners' Association discussion topics that was
heard previously at the last meeting on March 27th. That was at the
staffs request.
The next proposed change is to move Item 16D 1 from your
consent agenda to become Item 11 J on your regular agenda. It's a
recommendation to approve a work order with Atkins North America
for the Clam Pass Coastal Permit. That is moved at Commissioner
Hiller's request.
We have one agenda note. On Item 16D2 there was an incorrect
dollar amount in the title of the executive summary. It should read
that it's a recommendation to approve a Budget Amendment in the
amount of $21,880 instead of $41,360.
Page 3
April 10, 2012
Then we have a series of time certain items in today's meeting:
11 A to be heard at 11 a.m. immediately followed by 11 B; 11 H is
scheduled to be heard at 1:30; if the board adds 111 to the agenda
today, the petitioners have asked to be heard at 2 p.m.; and then,
finally, we have two items under your Airport Authority Regular
Agenda that have been requested to be heard at 3 p.m.
Additionally, Commissioners, with respect to Item 14A2, the
clerk and the county attorney and I have spoken this morning, and we
would recommend that we continue that item till the next meeting to
allow the three of us to work out some final details that will hopefully
resolve this payment issue with the contractor for the Marco Island
Taxiway.
Mr. Klatzkow and Mr. Brock are both here this morning if you
have some questions on that request, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much.
Yes, I do have a question. What happens to these poor people
who aren't getting paid until then? They can't pay their
subcontractors, and I'm afraid that we're going to drive people out of
business instead of -- you know, we can handle these things, this
paperwork outside of this, at least pay these people for all of the work
that they've done. It's not their fault. And I don't understand why it's
going to go on another two weeks.
MR. OCHS: Perhaps you want to ask the clerk. He generated the
request.
MR. BROCK: Commissioner, I'd be more than happy to answer
that question for you.
This is not a problem of my making. I make payments when the
payments can be determined to be lawful. The people who did this
and created this scenario are the people that have now put us in a
posture where we can't make the payments. The Clerk's Office cannot
lawfully make payments when it is not lawful.
April 10, 2012
Further, the Board of County Commissioners is lawfully
prohibited from approving the payments if they are not lawful. We're
trying to resolve this. We're asking -- the resolution that the County
Attorney's Office came to me with this morning came to me on my
way to work.
We certainly have not had time to hash through that to determine
all of the legal issues that we need to resolve.
But one of the things that, you know, I'm a little concerned about
with regard to the board, I keep hearing this, that, you know, we do
things, we do it wrong, but we want to pay it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Brock, tell us what you think is
illegal.
MR. BROCK: You borrowed money based upon having
appropriate zoning to do what you wanted to do, which was extend the
airport. You borrowed money; you got money from the Federal
Government based upon that. You don't have that zoning,
Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Brock, do you make the zoning
decisions in Collier County?
MR. BROCK: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We are the zoning authority, aren't we?
MR. BROCK: Well, through a certain procedure you are. You
don't ultimately make those decisions without going through a
process, Commissioner. Don't act like you can stand here on the dais
just on your own and make a decision, because that can't be done.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, let me explain something to you.
MR. BROCK: Okay. You explain something to me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What apparently has happened is there's
a difference between the Land Development Code and the Airport
Master Plan and the Growth Management Plan. It clearly states that if
there's a difference between the two, the Growth Management Plan
prevails. The Growth Management Plan is perfectly fine.
Page 5
April 10, 2012
MR. BROCK: I've heard that before.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. BROCK: Okay. But I don't necessarily agree with it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. BROCK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I've heard what you're saying
before, and I don't necessarily agree with it either. So where does that
leave us, Mr. Brock?
MR. BROCK: It leaves us in a posture where we've got to either
resolve it, or the bill does not get paid.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I would suggest we get it resolved
fairly quickly. And 30, 40 days is not quick. So we need to get the
issue resolved. And we have a decision by our attorney and our staff
that says the zoning is fine. There is no problem with the zoning.
MR. BROCK: I mean, you better check with your attorney
before you make that representation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, I'd rather check with my staff, quite
frankly, okay.
MR. BROCK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So in any event, I don't understand why
we're going to take two more weeks to deal with this.
MR. BROCK: Commissioner, nobody can make you take two
weeks to deal with it. You do what you have to do. I'll do what I have
to do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that's what bothers me.
The important thing is that we find ways to get legal bills paid
rather than finding ways not to pay them. And differences of
interpretation in zoning between you and us is clearly way out of your
jurisdiction, so you're talking --
MR. BROCK: I beg to disagree with you. If it's illegal, it's
illegal. And that's within my jurisdiction with regard to making
payments, Commissioner.
April 10, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you haven't proven that it is, so --
MR. BROCK: And I don't have to prove that it is. All I have to
do is not be able to establish that it is legal. That's what the law
requires of me. You know, I have a law that requires me to ensure
that before I make a payment of a bill, that the payment be lawful.
You have a responsibility that before you approve a payment you
make the determination that it is lawful. I have come to the point
when the bill has been submitted to me for payment. My counsel and
I cannot make the determination that the payment of that bill would be
lawful. I'm trying to resolve it. My objective is to get the bills paid
too, but I get them paid only if they're lawful.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, you've offered no proof to indicate
that it's unlawful, quite frankly. So it's your opinion, that's all it is, and
it's nothing more important than that.
MR. BROCK: I think it's more than my opinion, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But let's get --
MR. BROCK: It's a whole lot of people's opinion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's get this issue resolved. Do you
want to -- Board, do you want to take another two weeks of delay and
waiting for this issue to be resolved, or do you want to just instruct the
county attorney and the staff to get with Mr. Brock and work this out
so it gets paid without having to come back here for another meeting?
Now, is there any -- go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I have a concern about
continuing it. My understanding, that the grant -- the FAA grant is
expiring March 31 st or March 30th. You know, the completion of it
needs to be done by that date.
So if we need to do a zoning action, then that -- we might not fit
the timeline, because we have certain rules and regulations about how
we do zoning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Quite frankly, I think it would
Page 7
April 10, 2012
be worthy of discussion today, and maybe we can -- maybe not
resolve it, but maybe we can come closer to where we need to be.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have some other
commissioners. You want to hear from -- Nick, you have something
you want to tell us?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. Commissioners, for the record,
Nick Casalanguida.
I think no matter what action is taken, it will require some
concurrence from the board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If Mr. Brock -- and I've been privy to
some of the discussions with Jeff this morning. If we can finalize
those actions in the next two weeks so that there are clarifications that
the board makes on the record, I think that would be to our benefit.
If what I'm hearing up front from Jeff this morning is the way
we're going, I'm perfectly comfortable waiting that two weeks,
because then it becomes very clean, I believe. If the intent that I've
heard this morning in discussions with the county attorney is not
where we're going, then I think we have another problem.
But if we're going to lay something out back in front of this board
in two weeks that the clerk has concurrence with, I think that's fine,
and we can get everything solved at that point in time, because this
board will have to take an action that concurs with staffs
interpretation, formally.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure that
there's going to be an agreement in two weeks.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I don't know.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's my concern.
MR. BROCK: Well, I -- Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I would just prefer to leave it on the
agenda, let us take our action on the issue today, and then let the clerk
deal with it.
April 10, 2012
MR. OCHS: Well, I was going to suggest that same thing. I was
just speaking to Nick. If we're going to need a board action, if we get
that today, then we could take that and work with Mr. Brock over the
next however many days it takes. And if we need to come back to the
board a second time, fine, but perhaps we wouldn't have to if we have
the board action, and then the follow -on discussion between Mr.
Klatzkow and Mr. Brock and myself. I don't know if that works or
not.
MR. BROCK: How you do it is not germane to me, Leo. The
issue that I have to wrestle with is the legality of the payment.
MR. OCHS: I understand.
MR. BROCK: Unless and until we get to that point, we're all at a
standstill. I've been working with Jeff.
MR. OCHS: I understand.
MR. BROCK: I'll continue to work with Jeff; I'll continue to
work with you.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
MR. BROCK: But, you know, that's the bottom line.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And I appreciate the fact
that every time these issues come up, I always hear our staff is ready
to work with the Clerk's Office. The Clerk's Office is ready to work
with our staff. And these issues don't seem to get resolved in a timely
fashion.
There's a number of vendors out there that have never been paid,
and they probably will never be paid in the future because of other
issues that have come up.
I don't know where we find the way to be able to navigate this in
a way that will be advantageous for all. I mean, when people are
working on a timeline and they need their money to pay their subs and
everything, you know, we get a disagreement that takes place in here
that has more political overtones than realities, as far as I'm concerned.
April 10, 2012
Now, that's my opinion.
MR. BROCK: This has absolutely nothing to do with political
overtones.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sir --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Brock?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I've got the floor at the moment,
will you please. I'm expressing an opinion. And my opinion's my
own, just as your opinion is that this isn't a legal bill to pay. I'm going
to say it the way I see it.
I don't like the looks of this whole thing. How about -- here's a
suggestion that you guys can consider to try to get this thing resolved.
Can you get together and send this on to the Attorney General's
Office or something and ask for a finding from him?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That will take too long.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It will take too long?
MR. BROCK: I wouldn't have a problem doing that at all.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But it would take too long.
MR. BROCK: I'll be more than happy to do that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But some way we've got to find
a way to make this work. Is there a possibility that at some point in
the future we could make you in charge of all purchasing contracts,
and then it would all be in one house so that we know there'd be no
mistakes? I don't know. There's got to be a way that we can reach a
way to be able to make business flow here.
We're not doing things intentionally to make these things go
wrong. We've got to be able to find a way to be able to make it work.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just wanted to say, while
we're discussing this, we ought to discuss in the future as well --
excuse me -- Mr. Brock, our county people said according to the law,
everything is in place. The GMP trumps the LDC, and so we moved
Page 10
April 10, 2012
forward because we were confident that we were doing the right thing.
Mr. Brock said, and I quote, in his opinion it was wrong. Now,
we're going to have to clarify if in each case it's in his opinion, and he
says it isn't legal and we're saying it is, how heavy should opinions
weigh rather than the facts? I don't know that, but I think that's
something we need to discuss further at another point in time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. BROCK: Commissioner, you better ask your staff whether
or not they think that what you just said is absolutely correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Say that again.
MR. BROCK: You better ask your staff this morning whether or
not they believe that what you just said is correct, and you better start
with your legal advisor.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, if we're going to hear the item, then
let's leave it on the agenda and --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, we'll hear the item as scheduled, I
hope.
MR. OCHS: -- or let's continue it, one or the other.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, thank you.
Let me begin by saying that -- I want to address what I hope will
be your answer this afternoon if we do continue this, or at the next
meeting if it is continued to the next meeting.
I'm going to read the quote from the Executive Summary.
According to the county staff, the project is consistent with the
County's Growth Management Plan and, per policy, if there's a
conflict between the Growth Management Plan and the Development
Code, the provisions in the Growth Management Plan prevail.
This is fascinating. Is that only in this specific case, or does it
apply to any conflict between the GMP and the LDC? Maybe we
don't really need a rezoning process. Just asking.
Now, Mr. Brock, your statement that there is a process by which
Page 11
April 10, 2012
changes in use, or I should say adoptions in changes of use and
adoptions in changes in zoning are conducted is absolutely true. In
fact, there is notice and hearing. There is procedural due process.
The Board of County Commissioners cannot make zoning
decisions merely by a vote here at this dais. And the way this plan
was adopted and the way the Immokalee Airport Master Plan was
adopted on consent does not create a change in use or a change in
zoning.
MR. BROCK: I do not know anything about the Immokalee
issue. But with regard to this one --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm just bringing that out as an
example. And so as a result, until we go through all the formal
requirements to change the zoning to conform with what is to be built
on this airport property, there is nothing that this board can do. It has
to be noticed, it has to go before the Planning Commission, and then it
has to come before the board with respect to any zoning decision.
MR. BROCK: That process is what is known as a quasi-judicial
process.
COMMISSIONER HILLER:
to be under oath --
MR. BROCK: That's correct.
That is correct. All testimony has
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- and a decision has to be made in
this public forum. It cannot be made by a decision on the consent
agenda by this board, nor can it be made by a decision by this board
by a vote.
And I had a discussion with Mr. Casalanguida on Friday, and
Crystal Kinzel was present, and he said, oh, but, Commissioner, we
had a 4 -0 (sic) vote. I'm like, really? You mean, because it was 5 -0
on the consent? No, I don't think so. That doesn't cut it.
So, number one, I want to see proof that the Growth Management
Plan provides for the use, I want to see the zoning that allows for the
development, and I want to see that the development was done in
Page 12
April 10, 2012
accordance with the specifications in the Land Development Code.
And I want to know that in every single instance -- I want to see
where in the minutes we had notice and hearing at every appropriate
level.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're going to have the hearing,
Commissioner Hiller. You're going to hear all that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I want to see all the evidence.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're going to have a hearing
today, and you'll get to hear all that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And, again, the statement that
Commissioner Fiala is relying on, legally, is false.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We appreciate your legal advice, too,
Commissioner Hiller. Thank you very much.
MR. OCHS: That's all the changes I have, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. County Attorney, do you have
anything?
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We'll start with ex parte
disclosure today with Commissioner Henning and any further change
to the agenda.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have no ex parte
communication on today's summary agenda. The -- I would like to
move 16 David 6 to the regular agenda.
MR. OCHS: That will become 11K, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I also would like to continue the
add on item, 11I. The information wasn't provided in our packet,
some technical information that I would like to have the time to study,
since I just received that packet yesterday.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: On the Quincy?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The Quincy item I would like to
Page 13
April 10, 2012
continue to the next meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have no ex parte disclosure
and have no changes to the agenda. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And I have no further changes to
the agenda. I have no ex parte disclosure for the consent or the
summary agenda.
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have no changes to the
agenda and nothing to declare on the consent agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And, Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. First I'd like to address the
issue about Quincy. We as a board committed at the last board
meeting to bring back this item for settlement at today's meeting.
I don't know why staff delayed in producing the information that
they had. But we did make a commitment, and I really think that the
item should be heard and have staff fully explain all the information
that was submitted to us yesterday. Let them take -- let them take us
through everything in that packet and, essentially, do the review with
them concurrently.
If after hearing it we decide we want to continue the decision to
the next meeting, at least the Quincy group will have the opportunity
to put forth their position with respect to what staff has said.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think delaying it would be
inappropriate, given the fact we made a commitment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we've got it. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, if I may. I spoke
to their representative, Rob Samouce, last night. He's okay with
continuing it. And, again, there's a lot of technical information that I
haven't had time to study.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So if you've spoken to
Page 14
April 10, 2012
them and if they find that acceptable, then it's fine with me. I just
don't want to be unfair to them since we made a commitment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, let's have a vote on that issue. So
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm not done with my comments.
Do you want to take a vote now?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We can get that motion out of the way.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller -- I mean,
Commissioner Henning wants to continue it.
Is there support for the continuance? Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously to continue Item
11I.
MR. OCHS: To the next meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: To the next meeting, and certainly no
later than that.
Go ahead, Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. On Consent Agenda A7,
Leo, I had requested some information, and I'm not sure that we
received it on Esperanza. My --
(Cell phone ringing.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, my goodness. I'm so sorry.
Page 15
April 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Nice ring.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I never do that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It sounds like an alarm clock.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I usually leave it in my car.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I wanted to make sure that this
extension that we were providing to them wasn't in any way going to
cause a problem with respect to, you know, the grant timelines,
because I understand that they're funded by numerous grants, and I
wasn't sure which ones were open.
And part and parcel of my question on that item was also, you
know, what funding have they received and, you know, where we are
in that funding.
So I'm questioning if this should be pulled and moved to the
general so you can provide the answers to that. Because at this point I
don't know that I can vote on it without the additional information.
MR. OCHS: Why don't we move it then?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do you want to move it? Go ahead
and --
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am, sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- just move it and then just
present the information and, you know, that way we can have the
assurances that we're not running afoul of, you know, any deadlines.
And, again --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- I would like all the information
on all funding for Esperanza. Give me the total of every grant that
we've received and where we are with respect to those grants, what's
open, what's closed, so we know what the total on this project is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Where's that moving to?
MR. OCHS: That will become Item I IL on your --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 11L. And that is item?
Page 16
April 10, 2012
MR. OCHS: 16A7 moves to 11L.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: A7 to 11L, okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So with respect to that item, with
respect to disclosures, I have had emails and now communication with
you -all on that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: With respect to 16A6, I have no
disclosures, and I'm fine with the rest of the agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Very well.
Is there a motion to approve the agenda as --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- amended this morning? Motion by
Commissioner Coletta to approve the agenda as amended.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Page 17
Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
April 10, 2012
Continue Item 11E to the April 24, 2012 BCC Meeting: Recommendation to approve Neighborhood
Stabilization Program (NSP) Developer Agreements with Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc.
thereby implementing the NSP Exit Strategy and providing access to $3,495,749 in federal grant funding.
(Staff s request to clarify and finalize contract language in discussions with the Clerk's Office)
Add Item 11I: Recommendation to provide direction to resolve the outstanding Quincy Square
Homeowners Association discussion topics from the March 27, 2012 meeting, Agenda Item 11F. (Staffs
request)
Move Item 16D1 to Item 11J: Recommendation to approve a Work Order with Atkins North America,
Inc. for Clam Pass Joint Coastal Permit under contract 09- 5262 -CZ for a not to exceed amount of $7,672.
(Commissioner Hiller's request)
Note:
Item 16D2: Title on the agenda index should be revised to read the same as the executive summary:
Recommendation to approve a budget in the amount of $4360 $21,880 for the Vanderbilt Beach Access
signage installation and access amenities pursuant to a Board approved Settlement Agreement dated August
29, 2011, and make a finding that this item promotes tourism.
Time Certain Items:
Item 11A to be heard at 11:00 a.m.; immediately followed by Item 11B
Item 11H to be heard at 1:30 p.m.
Item 11I to be heard at 2:00 p.m., subject to Add -On being accepted by Board
Item 14A2 to be heard at 3:00 p.m.; immediately followed by Item 14A1
4/10/2012 8:43 AM
April 10, 2012
Item #2B
MINUTES OF THE MARCH 13, 2012, BCC /REGULAR MEETING
— APPROVED AS PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now with respect to the minutes of March the
13th, 2012, BCC Regular Meeting, is there a -- are there changes or a
recommendation to approve?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Recommendation to approve the
Regular Meeting Agenda (sic) for March 13th.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve by
Commissioner Fiala, seconded by Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- Coletta.
Okay. All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion is passed unanimously.
That brings us to proclamations, County Manager.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
Item #4
PROCLAMATIONS - ONE MOTION TAKEN TO ADOPT ALL
PROCLAMATIONS — ADOPTED
Item #4A
April 10, 2012
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING APRIL 20-21,2012 AS
RELAY FOR LIFE DAYS IN COLLIER COUNTY, ACCEPTED
BY JERRY SOLOMAN AND MELISSA KAHN — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 4A is a Proclamation designating April 20th and
21 st, 2012, as Relay for Life Days in Collier County. To be accepted
by Jerry Soloman and Melissa Kahn.
And this item is sponsored by the entire Board of County
Commissioners. Please come forward.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who's izoiniz to take this? Jerry? Good
to see you.
MR. SOLOMAN: Thank you so much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have to get here in the center and
take a picture.
MR. SOLOMAN: Oh, okay. We'll be selling copies of the
pictures.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, we have the copyright.
MR. SOLOMAN: Thank you so much.
(Applause.)
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING APRIL 2012 AS CHILD
ABUSE AWARENESS AND PREVENTION MONTH IN
COLLIER COUNTY, ACCEPTED BY DR. ROSANNE WINTER,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH HAVEN, INC. AND
JACKIE STEPHENS, CEO, CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER
OF COLLIER COUNTY — ADOPTED
Page 19
April 10, 2012
MR. OCHS: Item 4B is a proclamation designating April 2012
as Child Abuse Awareness and Prevention Month in Collier County.
To be accepted by Dr. Rosanne Winter, Executive Director of Youth
Haven, Incorporated; and Jackie Stephens, CEO of Children's
Advocacy Center of Collier County.
This item is also sponsored by the entire Board of County
Commissioners.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for all your hard work.
MS. STEPHENS: My pleasure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Jackie, thank you so much for all
you do.
DR. WINTER:
(Applause.)
Item #4C
Thank you. My joy. I love it.
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING APRIL 2012 AS WATER
CONSERVATION MONTH IN COLLIER COUNTY, ACCEPTED
BY CLARENCE TEARS, BIG CYPRESS BASIN
ADMINISTRATOR, SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4C is a Proclamation designating April 2012
Water Conservation Month in Collier County. To be accepted by
Clarence Tears, Big Cypress Basin Administrator, South Florida
Water Management District.
This item is sponsored by Commissioner Coyle.
Mr. Tears?
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How you doing? Nice to see you. You
LOWE
April 10, 2012
going to have something to say?
(Applause.)
MR. TEARS: Yes.
Clarence Tears, Administrator of Big Cypress Basin, South
Florida Water Management District.
Well, the reason we're here today is this is usually the dryest
month on record. And this year, as usual, we never had an average
here, so we're below average on rainfall; however, the county's efforts
and events, wastewater treatment, using reuse water to meet your non -
potable demands, using the deeper aquifers to be more draught
tolerant is really moving us forward as a community to protect the
water resources.
And I challenge everybody to take a look at their water demands
and try to tweak it and use a little bit less, because it is a precious
resource, and we all need to protect it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Clarence, can I ask you a
question?
MR. TEARS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I know it's not typical under
proclamation. But you're bringing up some very important issues, and
I am very, very sensitive to the limited amount of water that we have
here in Collier County which directly affects how much we can
develop this county.
MR. TEARS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is there a projection with respect
to how much water we have with respect to, you know, what our
population can grow to and what development can grow to in light of
the scarcity of this resource?
MR. TEARS: Yes. Actually, we produce, on a five -year basis, a
lower west coast water supply plan, and it's actually in the process of
being produced right now, and I think the final draft is due in August.
But we work with local utilities, we work with the agriculture
Page 21
April 10, 2012
community, we look at all the demands and we look at future
projection.
What I try to tell everybody, there's three types of water. You
have free water, cheap water, and expensive water. You know, the
free water has been used up; the cheap water's used up, that's our
surficial aquifer; and then you get the expensive water.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would really appreciate if you
could come back and present to the board what the conclusions of
your current study are --
MR. TEARS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- because I think it will be very
important for us in terms of our decision making with respect to
approval of development plans going forward.
MR. TEARS: And as part of the lower west coast water supply
plan, what we do is identify what's required to meet your 20 -year
projections and demands on all the utilities. You know, basically, we
give them a toolbox and say, these are the tools you can use to meet
your future demand.
But Collier County, to meet those demands, is moving more
towards reuse to meet nonpotable demands and also the deeper
aquifers to meet their potable demands.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would really appreciate that.
And thank you for all you're doing. Are you going to stay to
participate in the discussion on the pond in front of the zoo?
MR. TEARS: I'll be here to listen, yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
MR. TEARS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And congratulations.
Item #4D
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING APRIL 16, 2012 AS
Page 22
April 10, 2012
NATIONAL HEALTHCARE DECISIONS DAY IN COLLIER
COUNTY, ACCEPTED BY ANNALISE SMITH, REGIONAL
DIRECTOR, SENIORBRIDGE; GAIL SCHULTZ, DIRECTOR OF
PROFESSIONAL RELATIONS, SENIORBRIDGE; LAVIGNE
KIRKPATRICK, EXTERNAL AFFAIRS MANAGER, AVOW
HOSPICE; VICKI TRACY, DIRECTOR, THE ARLINGTON OF
NAPLES; DIANNE WEHR, SALES REPRESENTATIVE,
SENIORS BLUEBOOK; YVETTE SACO, SENIOR VICE -
PRESIDENT, IBERIABANK; EARL AND THELMA HODGES,
HODGES FUNERAL HOME; AND TAYLOR HAMILTON,
MARKETING DIRECTOR, PHYSICIANS REGIONAL
HEALTHCARE SYSTEM — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 4D is a Proclamation designating April 16, 2012, as
National Healthcare Decisions Day in Collier County. To be accepted
by Annalise Smith, Regional Director, SeniorBridge; Gail Schultz,
Director of Professional Relations, SeniorBridge; Lavigne Kirkpatrick,
External Affairs Manager, Avow Hospice; Vicki Tracy, Director of
the Arlington of Naples; Dianne Wehr, Sales Representative, Seniors
B1ueBook; Yvette Saco, Senior Vice President IBERIABANK;
Bernadette LePaglia, Community Liaison, Hodges Dignitary; and
Kelly Lavelle, Physicians Regional Healthcare System.
This item is sponsored by Commissioner Fiala. Welcome.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Somebody's going to speak? You going
to have something to say? Okay, good.
MS. LaPAGLIA: Good morning, everyone. I'm Bernadette
LaPaglia, community liaison for Hodges Funeral Homes at Naples
Memorial Garden, a dignity memorial provider.
This is a great thrill to be here this morning in honoring the Fifth
Anniversary of National Healthcare Decisions Day. It's an
anniversary that is growing in popularity and awareness. And we
Page 23
April 10, 2012
have a young lawyer in Richmond, Virginia, Nathan Kottkamp, to
thank for this initiative. As a member of several ethics boards on
hospitals as well as through his practice as a lawyer, he began to
realize how at risk our community is in failing to designate advanced
directives.
It is very befitting that, as a funeral home provider and in my
capacity as community liaison, which reflects a new mindset in the
funeral home industry, that basically shifts the emphasis from at need
to pre -need. We have found time and time again that those families
who have pre- needed are much more in optimal state to enjoy what we
call a beautiful bereavement versus a burdened bereavement.
In thanking all of you, especially Commissioner Fiala for
sponsoring this and for Commissioner Hiller for supporting it, I join
with so many of my colleagues throughout the healthcare continuum,
because at all stages, this issue impacts how care is given and
accommodated, and it can make the difference between whether or not
a family is united in death or dispersed.
I'm very enthusiastic and grateful that the accompanying
document that has been used throughout the country is a document
called the Five Wishes. This is a user - friendly document. And we
have several events that are taking place to commemorate this day,
Monday, April 16th.
And I would just like to note why April 16th. Nathan Kottkamp
drew on the adage from Benjamin Franklin. The only thing certain in
death is -- the only thing certain in life is death and taxes. So, of
course, we all know what April 15th is, and let us never forget April
16th.
So Five Wishes we have endorsed with all of our Hodge's
Dignity Memorial providers throughout Lee and Collier County. And
please check newspapers for the various places that you can pick them
up for free; otherwise, Five Wishes is five dollars. It's our privilege to
provide it for free. And I can't thank you enough for this moment.
Page 24
April 10, 2012
Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4E
PROCLAMATION CELEBRATING THE OPENING OF THE
VON ARX WILDLIFE HOSPITAL AT THE CONSERVANCY OF
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA AND DESIGNATING APRIL 19, 2012
AS SHARON AND DOLPH VON ARX WILDLIFE HOSPITAL
DAY, ACCEPTED BY JOANNA FITZGERALD,
CONSERVANCY OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Agenda Item 4E is a Proclamation celebrating the
opening of the Von Arx Wildlife Hospital at the Conservancy of
Southwest Florida and designating April 19, 2012, as Sharon and
Dolph Von Arx's Wildlife Hospital Day. To be accepted by Barbara
Wilson and Joanna Fitzgerald, Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
This item is sponsored by the entire Board of County
Commissioners.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, and I love all the articles you
have in the paper every week about all the animals you rescue.
(Applause.)
MS. FITZGERALD: My name is Joanna Fitzgerald, and I'm the
director at the von Arx Wildlife Hospital at the Conservancy of
Southwest Florida.
And I just want to say a quick "Thank You" to the commissioners
and specifically all of the Collier County residents who believe in
what we do, and our amazing donors. We work really hard to do a
good job for the wildlife in the community, and we really appreciate
all your support and belief in us. So thank you.
(Applause.)
Page 25
April 10, 2012
Item #4F
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING APRIL 15 -21, 2012 AS
NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY,
ACCEPTED BY MERYL RORER, VOLUNTEER
COORDINATOR, COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND
RECREATION AND STEVE SMITH, RETIRED SENIOR
VOLUNTEER PROGRAM (RSVP) COORDINATOR ON BEHALF
OF ALL COLLIER COUNTY VOLUNTEERS — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 4F is a Proclamation designating April 15th through
the 21st, 2012, as National Volunteer Week in Collier County. To be
accepted by Meryl Rorer, Volunteer Coordinator, Collier County
Parks and Recreation; and Steve Smith, Retired Senior Volunteer
Program Coordinator on behalf of all Collier County Volunteers.
This item was sponsored by Commissioner Fiala.
If you'd please come forward, accept your award.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning. How are you? Who gets
this?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Look at this great group. Hi, Murdo.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who gets this? Are you going to take it?
Okay.
We have lots of volunteers here today.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This is the backbone of our
community right here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why don't you stay on all day. We'll
find something for you to do.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We would do it, too.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'll bet you would.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Folks, you're looking at the
Page 26
April 10, 2012
backbone of our community right here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You are.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Which one? This row or that row?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: All of them. That row.
(Applause.)
MS. RORER: Thank you so much for the opportunity to accept
this proclamation, one that honors the outstanding individuals that live
among us and make such a difference every day in our community and
all over the world.
I'd just like to share a little Chinese parable that I recently
discovered. One day an elephant saw a hummingbird lying on its
back with it's tiny feet up in the air.
What are you doing, asked the elephant?
The hummingbird replied, I heard that the sky might fall today,
so I'm ready to hold it up should it fall.
The elephant laughed cruelly. Do you really think that those tiny
little feet could help hold up the sky?
The hummingbird kept his feet up in the air, intent on his purpose
as he replied, not alone, but each must do what he can do, and this is
what I can do.
We're blessed in Collier County with thousands of hummingbirds
lying on their backs with their feet up in the air. They deliver meals to
the shut -ins and the elderly, they coach youth sports teams, they tutor
and assist in after - school programs, they represent abused and
abandoned children, they volunteer at animal shelters, they help in
libraries, museums, places of worship, soup kitchens, and homeless
shelters and numerous other venues. The list goes on and on.
At parks and rec last year, where I'm privileged and honored to
be the volunteer coordinator, 529 volunteers served nearly 60,000
hours. I've been informed by my director that that converts to 30
full -time staff positions. And with the past few years of budget cuts
and eliminated positions to counter this, I'd say, without reservation,
Page 27
April 10, 2012
volunteers certainly are making a difference. Wouldn't you agree?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely.
MS. RORER: I'll close with a quote from Edward Everett Hale,
which reflects my feelings as a volunteer, and I know resounds in the
mind of many others. I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do
everything, but I can do something. And I will not let what I cannot
do interfere with what I can. Sounds a bit like the hummingbird
talking to the elephant, doesn't it?
Thank you, Commissioners, for the opportunity to speak on
probably the subject closest to my heart personally and professionally,
and thank you volunteers in this room. Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item# 4G
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING APRIL 2012 AS SEXUAL
ASSAULT AWARENESS MONTH IN COLLIER COUNTY,
ACCEPTED BY PROJECT HELP, INC. STAFF AND BOARD
MEMBERS — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4G is a Proclamation designating April 2012
as Sexual Assault Awareness Month in Collier County. To be
accepted by Project Help, Incorporated, staff and board members.
And this item is sponsored by Commissioner Coyle.
Would you please come forward.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you going to take this? Thank you
for the good work you do. Thank you so much.
(Applause.)
MS. WESLEY: Hi. I'm Eileen Wesley. I'm the Victim Service
Coordinator for Project Help.
Project Help has been in Collier County for 26 years fighting the
April 10, 2012
violence of sexual assault and violent crimes against the citizens of
our community.
We want to thank you very much today to take the time to
recognize April as Sexual Assault Awareness Month. It is our job as
advocates for Project Help to make sure that violence against women
and children and men in this community is stopped.
With your support -- and you've always supported us and we've
been very appreciative of that -- we work daily with a small staff to go
out and alert the community of the need for our services,
unfortunately, in the community.
The month of April is full of events that we're doing to bring
awareness to the community and to those who don't know who we are.
If you'd like to check our website, which is
www.ProjectHelpNaples.org, we have a calendar of events. We have
quite a bit happening, and we'd love to have you come out and support
US.
And we're going to work very diligently and hard to keep our
community safe in this terrible time that we are fighting sexual
violence.
We also would like you to like us on Facebook. We have an
awful lot of things on there that bring awareness to the community.
And, again, I want to thank you very much for the support. The
county's always been there for us. Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Item #4H
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING APRIL 2012 AS
PARKINSON'S AWARENESS MONTH IN COLLIER COUNTY,
ACCEPTED BY MICHAEL AND GRETCHEN CHURCH —
ADOPTED
Page 29
April 10, 2012
MR. OCHS: Item 4H is a proclamation designating April 2012
as Parkinson's Awareness Month in Collier County. To be accepted
by Michael and Gretchen Church.
This item is sponsored by Commissioner Fiala.
If you'd please come forward.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thanks for being here today.
Thank you for all that you do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for all you did, Teddy.
That was so nice. Thank you. He was a good man.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good to see you. Thank you. Who is
going to take this?
(Applause.)
MS. CHURCH: First of all, we want to thank the commission
for sponsoring the proclamation.
Parkinson's affects thousands of people within the Southwest
Florida region. And, on a personal note, it affects both my husband
and myself. So as you can see, it's not just for people who are older.
It is also for younger people as well.
And one of the great, great resources we have in Naples is the
Parkinson's Association of Southwest Florida, or PASFI. They do a
tremendous job. The director is here, Ruth Hubing, and they have
monthly activities, they have speech class, support groups, and we've
got a golf tournament coming up this month as well as several things,
and they do a tremendous job. And as a matter of fact, my husband
and I are leaving for speech class as soon as we finish.
But we encourage the community to support them and to check
out their activities. And, certainly, if you know anybody that has
Parkinson's, we encourage them to stay active, get involved, and keep
that quality of life up.
Thank you very much.
Page 30
CHAIRMAN
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS:
April 10, 2012
COYLE: Thank you.
Commissioners, may I get a motion to approve the
proclamations this morning?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to make a motion to approve
the proclamations.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala makes a
motion to approve the proclamations, seconded by Commissioner
Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion is passed unanimously.
Thank you.
That brings us to presentations, County Manager.
Item #5A
PRESENTATION BY THE COLLIER COUNTY BUSINESS OF
THE MONTH FOR APRIL 2012 TO WASTE MANAGEMENT,
INC. ACCEPTING THE AWARD IS LARRY BERG, SENIOR
DISTRICT MANAGER — PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. One presentation this morning,
Commissioners. It's 5A, presentation of the Collier County Business
Page 31
April 10, 2012
of the Month for April 2012 to Waste Management, Incorporated.
Accepting the award is Larry Berg, senior district manager;
Stephanie Kissinger; and Fernando Casey.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What a good job you guys do.
How's that Waste Watch program going?
MS. KISSINGER: He's going to say something.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Stand up, Fred.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is this better?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'm going to catch one more.
MR. BERG: Good morning, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning.
MR. BERG: Larry Berg, Senior District Manager, Waste
Management.
And first of all we just want to thank the Naples Chamber and the
commission for recognizing us for what we do in the community. We
have 147 employees who work daily for both the collection company,
which I represent, and the landfill, which Fernando Casey represents.
And we just want to highlight a couple of things that are going on
with the company and we're doing in the local community. First of all
is the energy plant that has been established at the landfill. It collects
all the methane gas, it generates power for 2,200 homes within the
community, and it was an enormous project for both the county and
the company to get finished and finalized, and it's up and running
today.
In regards to the collection company, we have the Waste Watch
Program, as Commissioner Fiala is well aware of. We've had a couple
instances within the community where we had a young lady attacked
by a pit bull in Marco Island. It just happened our vehicle happened to
be in the area at that time, witnessed it, reacted appropriately with a
pool -- with a gentleman from a pool company to get the dog off the
lady, and get the authorities there immediately.
Page 32
April 10, 2012
And then the second one, we had a little toddler that got out of
their house, six o'clock in the morning, was walking down the road.
Nobody in sight. And it just happened to be -- our truck happened to
be there, and our driver, once again, took the appropriate action, called
authorities immediately.
We found out that the family was sleeping, and just happened --
the baby just happened -- the husband, I guess, went out to work, and
the door was unlocked, and the baby happened to get out and get out
in the street.
So we just tell our employees, just get involved. If they see
something out there, you know, make the call to the Sheriffs
Department, get the authorities involved, and to be able to assist the
community and assist in maybe some difficult situations that are going
on out there. So we appreciate that our employees do that.
Also we have the recycle rally program going on. Commissioner
Henning was just involved with the Naples Christian Academy.
PepsiCo and Waste Management have a program where we promote
recycling to the youth, and there is a nationwide program going on
with Pepsi and Waste Management in Naples.
Christian Academy has done a marvelous job. They just received
a quarterly award from the contest of $3,000 for their school, and
they're in third place nationwide. It ends the end of this year (sic), and
it is by -- product by the number of students they have in the school.
Whoever has the highest product value regarding the school size could
win up to $50,000, and it ends the end of this month, so we'll know.
And we've all got our fingers crossed. The kids and the teachers and
the parents have been working really hard at the Christian Academy to
hopefully bring this award to them.
And, as I said, once again, we want to thank everybody, thank
the chamber, and thank the commissioners for recognizing us for the
things that we do out in the street. So, appreciate it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Page 33
April 10, 2012
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That brings us to public petitions,
County Manager?
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST FROM CHRISTINA PUJOL OF
COMMERCE BANK REGARDING E- PAYABLES - MOTION TO
BRING BACK FOR DISCUSSION — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. 6A is a public petition request from
Christina Pujol of Commerce Bank regarding e- payables.
MS. PUJOL: Good morning, Board of Commissioners. I want
to make sure you hear me.
In the many, many years that I've worked with Commerce Bank,
I, unfortunately, have never had to do this, and many of the
government accounts that I currently have on this e- payables program,
I have never had to approach a board in this matter.
So if -- I apologize that I do have to read. It's just a brief thing.
Good morning, Board of Commissioners. I am here with
Commerce Bank to ask you, the board, to vote on moving forward
with LOI 10 -5562 e- payables program.
This LOI was short listed number one to Commerce Bank,
November 16, 2010. Both the county and Clerk's Office were present
at this meeting. Since November 16, 2010, Commerce Bank, the
county, and Clerk's Office have been negotiating the contract. We
have had over 14 conference calls and several in- person meetings.
Basically, it's been over 15 months of contract negotiations on a
contract that is at will.
Board, please understand that this is -- that this is an at -will
agreement with no implementation costs and no cost to the county or
Clerk's Office. We do everything at no charge. There is no risk --
Page 34
April 10, 2012
there's basically no risk to this program.
So far Collier County has lost over 300- to $400,000 in revenue
share in money that we pay you for doing this program in the past 15
months.
And -- okay, sorry. I mention this because typically when an
LOI is awarded or short listed to number one to government entities
with Commerce Bank, implementation takes six to eight weeks after
LOI is awarded.
For example, some of my accounts in Florida are city of Delray
Beach, Broward, City of Hallandale, City of Homestead, and many,
many government hospitals, you know, that are -- and we also have
several accounts in the United States on this program. I'm just talking
about mine in Florida, because I work for Florida and I live in Florida.
Okay. I apologize. Due to the fact that Commerce Bank has
incurred over $40,000 in legal fees, within the last -- within the last 15
months we have -- we have incurred $40,000 in legal fees by
negotiating an at -will agreement. And I can imagine that's what you
guys have had to incur, too, because if we've -- you've had two
attorneys on your side and we've had two attorneys on our side going
back and forth.
Commerce Bank typically spends no more than $5,000 to
negotiate a contract because of the fact that it's at will.
Commerce Bank, unfortunately, right now is not willing to spend
any additional resources on legal fees for an at -will agreement and
LOI that was awarded to us in 2010, because you've got to put
yourself in Commerce Bank's position. We won and we -- the LOI in
2010, and it's like we don't ever see that it's going to end. So it gets to
a point, after $40,000 of attorney fees, that the president of Commerce
Bank, a bank that's been in business for 148 years, says, okay, we
need to walk away from this.
So I'm here asking for the board to please move forward with the
latest agreement presented. I know this is a program that is beneficial
Page 35
April 10, 2012
to the county clerk's office and, most important, the taxpayers.
I feel very passionate about what I do. I've been doing this for
over five years. I love my job, because what I do for a living is help
government entities earn revenue share for doing exactly what they do
and doing exactly what they do at this moment.
So what I do is a wonderful job because I can give you guys
revenue share for doing exactly what you do at no cost. And the
reality is, it's an at -will agreement. You're not happy with the
program, in 30 days -- you can give us a 30 -day notice, and you can
walk away from this.
But within the past 15 months of negotiation between the clerk
and the county -- and the county is ready to move forward with this --
the clerk still continues to have issues with this at -will agreement. We
-- you guys have lost 300- to $400,000 in money.
We just gave a check to Broward for $100,000 -- 112 to be exact
-- a check for $112,000 for two months of this program.
So I sit down -- and I feel so passionate about this that I had to
come to you guys and say, with the times that we're in and the way the
economy is, how can you walk away from revenue share?
And that's why I wanted to come to the board and ask for
approval to move forward with this program.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. What is the -- can you explain to
us what the problem is as far as getting approval?
MS. PUJOL: Well, basically, this is how it's been. We've been
actually having great negotiations back and forth with Colleen Greene
and with Josh Mourning, our attorney. The people on the clerk's side,
Crystal, Connie, you know, we've had Steve Carnell, Lynn, Linda
Valentine, who's no longer here, who I -- I care for her dearly, because
I worked with her since 2008 on this.
Everything was going great until January 2012 when an outside
attorney for the clerk's side got involved, and ever since then it just
nothing -- it just -- honestly, I don't understand.
Page 36
April 10, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. PUJOL: I'm just as confused as you guys are right now. I
thought everything was moving forward. I met with Dwight and
Crystal on January -- I have dates here -- in -- January 20th -- 10th --
January 10th of this year. We had a great meeting with Crystal, great
meeting with Dwight. And it was supposed to go on the January 24th
agenda for approval.
Come to find out, two days after our meeting, I -- they would like
to have a conference call with a brand new attorney.
So we already spent, at the time, $32,000 in legal fees. So my
boss's boss is saying, wait a second. We've already spent 32,000,
we're ready to move forward. Now a brand new attorney is brought in
at the final hour.
So I'm very confused, but I'm willing to work through it and
willing to come to an agreement. The problem that I have is, I'm being
told by my superiors, Christina, we're not spending any more legal
fees, you know.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Welcome to our world.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the e- payables is where
the bank pays the invoices, and then the clerk pays the bank; that's my
understanding.
The problem is that I see -- well, it's not a problem. It's the
checks and balance. The clerk is the holder of the checkbook. And
this is really not our issue. I don't think that we should be getting
involved with it, personally.
And, you know, Miami -Dade is a charter government. They
have a different form of government than Collier County does.
MS. PUJOL: I have accounts all over Florida. It's not just
Miami -Dade. We have accounts all over Florida. And usually the
board does have to approve this, because it's a resolution that needs to
be signed.
Page 37
April 10, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
Who was next; Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I think this bears another
look -at, and I'd like to have this come back. Whenever we get to the
point we can make commerce flow smoother and we can pick up
revenue that's not available, it would -- it's our responsibility to try to
recover all the funds we possibly can.
So I'd like to have this come back to see if we can come up with a
better understanding how this works and maybe come up with a
matrix to make it work in.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, first of all, you're really in
the middle of the bidding process right now, correct?
MS. PUJOL: No. We actually were -- we were short listed to
number one.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You were short listed, but you're
in the middle of the bidding process.
MS. PUJOL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And, quite frankly, procedural --
and, Jeff, help me out on this. My understanding is is that you can't
really be communicating with the board till you're actually chosen by
the board to have this contract.
I understand that you're all in the middle of negotiating the
provisions of a contract that you assume you will be awarded, but the
reality is, this board has not awarded you anything.
MS. PUJOL: Absolutely, and we -- but we are not willing to
negotiate anymore.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think the first step is -- you
know, I think we formally have to -- before we can really discuss this
-- quite frankly, I think we were procedurally wrong to even, you
April 10, 2012
know, allow you to communicate with us before we agreed to waive
our local laws that preclude any vendor from communicating with the
board before the board approves the contract.
So I mean, I think -- I don't know. I mean, it's just a procedural
point, but I think it's important, because we don't allow any other
vendors to communicate with us, directly or indirectly, before the
award of a contract.
MS. PUJOL: No. And I apologize, and I respect that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have a problem with this, and I
have a problem with the fact that the county attorney let this come
forward as a public petition in light of that. So maybe you could
suggest a remedy.
MR. KLATZKOW: Whoa, whoa. I sent you each a
memorandum on the issue, all right. You voted on the agenda. You
were aware of this. You implicitly consented to hear this.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh. It's implicit?
MR. KLATZKOW: It's implicit. I mean, you could have very
easily, Commissioner Hiller --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I certainly didn't understand
it that way. I don't -- you know --
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, during the setting of the agenda, you
could have raised the issue, and you didn't.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, no, because I expected it
would be raised at the time of the public petition. You know, and I
would have raised it earlier, but I expected that you would.
Okay. Now --
MS. PUJOL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- let me ask you a question.
MS. PUJOL: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, you are, like, just very,
very ambitious to get this contract, and I appreciate all the work you're
doing. You're expending all the legal fees. How are you making
Page 39
April 10, 2012
money on this?
MS. PUJOL: Well, we -- how does Commerce Bank make
money?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I mean, you obviously --
you must be making quite a bit of money to be going to this length to
try to get this contract. I want to know exactly what you are doing to
-- you know, how are you making money on this, and how much
money are you making on this contract?
MS. PUJOL: Well, at this point we haven't made any money.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I understand. If you were
awarded this contract.
MS. PUJOL: How this program basically works is we get -- Visa
pays a percent to us, and we share half the percent with the -- with you
guys or whatever account we have. So we are paid by Visa.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And how much do you get paid?
MS. PUJOL: Half.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Half oP
MS. PUJOL: Like a percent, so half of the percent.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Half of one percent?
MS. PUJOL: It's -- basically that's how it works. The percentage
of whatever it is -- the program is negotiated.
So, for an example, we get paid -- Visa pays us a percentage, and
whatever that percentage is, half of it is shared with the customer and
we keep the other half.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So do we --
MS. PUJOL: So we are paid through Visa.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So do we get a copy of the
Visa contract to --
MS. PUJOL: You could absolutely get that, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. What were the issues raised
by Mr. Pires, the Attorney for the Clerk?
MS. PUJOL: Honestly, he wants -- the main issue -- we pretty
April 10, 2012
much did everything that they wanted from us. The main issue is, is
he would like for Commerce Bank to police the relationship between
the clerk and the county, and we're not going to do that. We're not
going to do that. We would literally have to hire somebody to come
and work here to police that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Crystal, would you like to explain
what the issue is?
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner, yes, thank you. For the record,
Crystal Kinzel with the Clerk's Office.
The largest departure that we've had with Commerce Bank is the
original agreement that was presented to Collier County under the
letter of interest that was issued was their purchasing card contract,
and it referenced P cards and all that throughout. That is not what this
is.
This is our -- the vendors for Collier County would do work for
Collier, the invoice would be processed through us. Commerce Bank
would pay the vendors based on a report that we send them from the
Clerk's Office. They pay the vendors. The vendors are charged an
additional fee for their payment from the county. That fee is what is
split and what she's referencing as how they make their money.
What we asked that they articulate in the contract were several
things. Number one, the rights and responsibilities of each party. For
example, purchasing and the county would have an administrator that
would establish the accounts, establish the vendors, similar to what we
do now with the entire payment process. The Clerk's Office would be
responsible then for pushing that file.
So we -- it wasn't to police the relationship between the board
and the clerk. We know those. We've been doing those separations of
what purchasing does and what the clerk does for years. But we
thought that the third party, because we are pushing cash to them, they
are paying vendors of Collier County, that that relationship should be
articulated in the agreement with Commerce.
Page 41
April 10, 2012
They're unwilling to go any further, I think she's pointblank said.
We were negotiating. I was actually on a phone call waiting for
everyone to get on the phone call and found out it had been canceled
by Commerce Bank. So they're unwilling to continue the
negotiations.
We could have stopped this earlier. We're willing to come up
with a product and perhaps rebid this with a vendor that could come to
the contractual language that we would both agree on. But I don't
disagree that at this point they've refused to continue the negotiation,
and the clerk has no choice but not to agree to the terms that exist.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But why not just put it back out to
bid with the terms that are acceptable and bring someone in who can
do it?
MS. KINZEL: And the clerk's very willing to do that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I just make a motion that we
not move forward on this item and let the clerk put this back out to bid
with the terms that are legally acceptable to him.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman? This was a letter of interest issued
by the county staff, not the clerk's staff, so --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And maybe it should be issued by
the clerk's staff because this really -- you know, handling the payables
and paying is really a clerk's function. And, quite frankly, it puts a
question in my mind as to who should be getting the revenue from this
and, you know, should there be some sort of, you know -- I'm not sure
if the Clerk's Office shouldn't be getting the revenue.
MR. OCHS: Well, it would be general back to the board.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because they're the ones who
process the payables. I mean, they're the ones who are cutting the
checks and processing the payables. So, quite frankly, if you're
looking at revenue, that revenue probably should go to the Clerk's
Office. But I don't know. Maybe -- or some sort of sharing, I'm not
sure.
Page 42
April 10, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're next?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But I think they're -- I don't think
that -- I don't find this -- I just don't find your argument compelling.
MR. OCHS: Yeah. I just need to put on the record that the
county staff has been ready to go forward since January 24th of this
year, and we have no objection to moving forward with the contract as
it exists, but obviously we did not want to bring a contract onto the
agenda that either the Clerk or the County Attorney could not sign off
on, so --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, obviously --
MR. OCHS: We're a bit frustrated at this point as well. Even
though all the parties, I believe, have been working in good faith,
we've reached an impasse here with the vendor who I believe has tried
to act in good faith, but they're getting their advice from their attorney
as we take advise from the county attorney, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I would like to see this
thing come back -- not so much that we're trying to do something for
this particular vendor, to see if we can capture this and get it going
forward.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I made a motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What is your motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: My motion -- I made a motion that
we not bring this back and that we allow the clerk to go out and bid
this in accordance to what he finds legally acceptable, and then that
will be brought back for approval.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second the motion for
discussion, but I need to know the authority. I know that the clerk pays
the bills. I know that he's the one that negotiated the contract or the
RFQ, or the ranking of Fifth Third Bank that we do business with.
But I'm assuming that that is his authority.
Page 43
April 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would think.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just need some direction from
the county attorney.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, one, you can't compel the clerk to do
that if he doesn't want to do that, but --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. We can give him the option
to do it. In other words, Crystal was saying that he could -- the clerk
could prepare the RFP and put it out for bid. I mean, it's a function
under the Clerk's Office. It's not a function under our office. He's the
one who cuts all checks. He's the one who's responsible for payables.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, I understand what you're saying,
ma'am. I'm not entirely sure that -- I'm not entirely sure that, given the
context of this contract, the clerk can do that. I'd have to come back to
you. I don't know.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I'm going to pull my motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Your second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I'm going to pull my
second of the motion pending more information from the attorney's
office.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And is there a motion to bring this back
for consideration?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make that motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Coletta
to bring it back for consideration, and seconded by Commissioner
Fiala.
All in favor, please signify --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What are we bringing back; the
contract for approval, or discussion? I mean, that is absolutely an
unclear motion. I absolutely have no idea what's being proposed right
now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to bring this issue back for
O! ii
April 10, 2012
public hearing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So are we bringing the contract
back? I mean, do we even have --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The whole thing. We're
bringing back the contract that's here and also the idea of putting it out
for bid to be able to see what the county can capture.
MR. KLATZKOW: You only have a draft contract. You've got
nothing to approve at this point in time. I mean, you can bring it back
for discussion. We can show you what the draft contract looks like,
but you've got nothing to approve at this point in time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, bringing it back for
discussion.
MS. KINZEL: And, Commissioner Coyle?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MS. KINZEL: For the record, Crystal Kinzel. I do have to
clarify a couple of things that Ms. Puj of put on the record.
The estimate of revenues that have lost and somehow are the
fault of the clerk for not negotiating. I think she also did list the
numerous meetings and phone calls that we have had.
Part of the problem was that the original agreement we received
was not an agreement to the product they were selling. It, in fact, is
laid out very clearly as the P card contract. We worked through a
majority of those issues and I think very diligently tried to clarify the
issues.
We don't see at this point, because they have refused to come
back and negotiate on those points of segregating the items -- there are
a couple other ones, bank assignments. They've refused to provide
notice of assignment of the account to anyone. There are some issues,
but we were down to about 10 or 11 clarifying points that the bank did
not want to negotiate any further.
At this point the Clerk's Office, we've pretty much, you know,
come to the conclusion that if they're unwilling to make those
Page 45
April 10, 2012
determinations, that we need to do something different. We certainly
can work with the county staff, put out a three -party agreement similar
to what was proposed here with the terms and outline the
responsibilities of each entity and do what we do and come back to
this board.
But, you know, I did want to clear up some of those items that
she put on the record.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well, we can bring this back for
any reason we want to bring it back.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. Can I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, will you please
wait your turn.
What we can do is bring it back for any discussion we want to
have about this to clarify the issues and then provide direction to staff
as to what we do after that.
The problem that I continue to have is that these discussions of
this nature just go on forever and ever and ever and never get resolved.
And you solve one problem and then suddenly another one pops up at
the last minute. And then you solve that problem and another one
pops up, and you -- it discourages anybody from wanting to do
business with the county. And it is not productive.
And I think we need to hear all of the details about this issue, and
we'll have a public airing of them, and then hopefully out of that will
come some sort of a recommendation as to where we go from there.
So I think it's a good thing to do.
And we've got a motion and a second to bring it back for that
purpose. And I'll call the question.
All in favor --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Hiller --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I can call the question before --
MS. PUJOL: Chairman, I'm sorry. Do you mind if I just say one
U--0. e
April 10, 2012
last word, and it's --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely inappropriate.
MS. PUJOL: --very nice.
I just want to state the reason why we had to stop negotiating is
because every single time we would come to a final agreement and we
were ready to move forward, and we were pretty much told that if you
do this, this, and that we'll move forward, like two days later we
would get more contract changes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep.
MS. PUJOL: So it gets to the point where the CFO of our
company says, we just can't do it anymore. So I just -- that's
apparently -- obviously, it's something -- I have a feeling something's
going to happen where I don't even think we're going to be considered
because -- but I just want you to know that I came here to speak for
the first time out of all the government accounts that I have in Florida
because I felt that -- I felt very passionate and I feel that this is a very,
very positive program. It really is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
MS. KINZEL: And, Commissioner Coyle, I have to say
something on the record, please.
Part of the problem was the contract negotiation. And the
Commerce Bank may have come to the conclusion that the contract
was perfect from their perspective, but we did not communicate with
Commerce Bank that if you do this, it's all fine. We were in the
process of negotiating the contract language and could never come to
terms on the specific items.
Her perception is not the reality of the negotiation process. We
were going through an ongoing conversation until Commercial Bank
cut the conversations. And we were willing to work with staff. And I
would have to agree with you, this has gone on way too long. We
probably should have said, no, we're never going to get this square peg
to go in a round hole of Collier County operations based on the
Page 47
April 10, 2012
document they've provided.
But the Clerk's Office also went forward and worked and worked
and worked on language with our attorneys, with Mr. Brock, with my
participation in many, many meetings.
Had we just tried to cut it six or eight months ago, I agree, we
might have been far better off. But we attempted to work through this,
and we are where we are.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I still don't --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'll call on you in just a moment,
Commissioner Hiller.
Yeah. I would accept that, Crystal, if I didn't have personal
experience and know a dozen other companies and /or individuals who
have had similar circumstances as the bank's representative has had.
There is a constant back - and -forth about details that never seem to get
resolved, and it's something that plagues us all the time. So this is not
new material, new information for us.
So, Commissioner Hiller, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Crystal, I am -- I need some
clarification. You said that the original letter of interest or intent was
regarding P cards?
MS. KINZEL: No. They went out for some banking services,
the original contract that was submitted for consideration, after we
went through the process of reviewing the e- payables process. So the
selection committee reviewed the e- payables process and said, okay,
they like what Commerce Bank had said about that. Now we need to
sit down and go through contract negotiations for that product.
The contract that we received regarding what we thought was an
e- payables project was really completely laid out to a purchasing card,
which is what county staff does on the other hand, which we
successfully implemented with SunTrust. We worked through that
with county purchasing. But that's a totally different scheme of
payment --
April 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So essentially --
MS. KINZEL: -- and procurement than e- payables.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand. So what you're
telling me is they're applying the process which applies to P cards to
e- payables?
MS. KINZEL: They attempted to do that in the first round,
which is why there were so significant changes to the contract that
they were proposing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I see. So they basically didn't
have the right structure in place?
MS. KINZEL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But e- payables was what was put
out to bid?
MS. KINZEL: Yes. They requested a process. They had
understood a revenue - sharing mechanism to pay vendors.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Were there other vendors, other
banks that submitted that did provide the process that --
MS. KINZEL: We didn't get to a contract point with other
banks, so none of the other banks would have submitted a proposed
contract. They submitted proposals for the request on a payment
process.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I see.
MS. KINZEL: So there may well be other banks out there that
would be willing to move the process along according to --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why was this bank picked over the
other banks, and why did you -- why was the negotiation -- why did
negotiations start with this bank? What were their qualifications as
compared to say, for example, Fifth Third that does all our banking for
us?
MS. KINZEL: We'd have to go through the whole selection
process. There were some criteria. And there were some interesting
criteria issues that, I think, if we do go out for another request for
olm
April 10, 2012
proposal, I would suggest -- not a letter of interest -- I would request
that we rate it on the interest and the rebate structure comparatively
between all the banks. There are a lot of elements that perhaps we
have some very valuable lessons learned in trying to negotiate this
agreement.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we actually haven't done that?
We don't know what the other banks are going to pay us by
comparison to this bank?
MS. KINZEL: It wasn't laid out that way in the letter of interest
the way the costs were proposed. It was a structure based on your
rebate estimate on a volume of business, and that was what was
submitted with solicitations.
But we can go through all that with purchasing, if you'd like.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So if you could bring all that
information back if we bring this issue back, I'd like to have answers
to all my questions from today. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor of the motion, please signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The motion passes 3 -2 with
Commissioners Hiller and Henning dissenting.
Thank you very much.
MS. PUJOL: Thank you for your time.
Item #7
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
Page 50
April 10, 2012
Item #7A
PUBLIC COMMENTS - RICHARD RICE — RESIGNATION
LETTER FROM THE COUNTY ATTORNEY' S OFFICE
BECAUSE HE ALSO SERVES ON THE IMMOKALEE AIRPORT
ADVISORY BOARD — MOTION TO BRING BACK FOR PUBLIC
HEARING — FAILED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That brings us to Public Comments on
General Topics.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do we have a speaker on general topics?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we've several speakers. The first person
is Richard Rice.
MR. RICE: Good morning. My name is Richard Rice. I live in
Immokalee. I want to thank you for allowing me the opportunity to
come before you.
I received a letter from the county attorney. In it he stated that he
had been advised that I had been appointed to the commission of the
Immokalee Fire Control District, and he cited an ordinance that said
that I had to resign.
I have not resigned; that's the reason I'm coming before you. I
have a philosophy. Simply stated, Immokalee, Florida, was getting
along perfectly well before Dick Rice moved there. When I moved to
Immokalee, I disrupted someone's lifestyle. So it was not up to the
community or individuals to make me a part of it. It was up to me to
become a part of that community. And I've done that since 2004 in
February, when we moved there.
I feel like I have given back to the community in more ways than
one, never expecting anything in return. I feel I've proven that I want
nothing but the best for the communities that I live in. Immokalee is
Page 51
April 10, 2012
certainly no exception.
I've been actively involved, as I said, since February of 2004, be
it as a board member and secretary of the Immokalee Water and
Sewer, the David Lawrence Board of Directors, President -Elect of the
Rotary Club of Immokalee, Chairing the Board of Directors of Collier
Health Services providing Medical Services to the underserved, or
serving on the Airport Advisory Board.
My background has been in Organizational Management and
Economic Development.
There's great potential for the Immokalee Regional Airport, and I
feel that I have something that I can contribute to it if you allow me to
continue serving on the Advisory Board. Consequently, I'm requesting
that you make an exception to whatever rule that would require me to
resign and allow me to continue serving the citizens of Immokalee and
the citizens of Collier County.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. You're right, Mr. Rice,
and I would like to be able to see what can be done to amend the
ordinance to be able to accommodate somebody that's willing to give
of their time and maybe increase -- double your salary, too, while
we're at it.
MR. RICE: Thank you. I appreciate that because I'm not paid
anything for any of this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct, and we're going
to double that.
Mr. Klatzkow, would you help us with this. How do we go about
making Mr. Rice an exception to the rule?
MR. KLATZKOW: You amend the ordinance, and if you give
me a moment, I'll throw the relevant part on the monitor so you can
see it.
MR. RICE: The ordinance is 2010 -11, Section 3. That was what
Page 52
April 10, 2012
was in the letter.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, sir. Okay. The
ordinance can be amended?
MR. KLATZKOW: If that's the will of the board, yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And so at this time it would just
take a motion to bring this back?
MR. KLATZKOW: For a public hearing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: For a public hearing.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'd like to do that, because
we've had other people in some similar positions. But this is very
unique the one you're in. It's not an authority where you're making
final decisions. You're just making recommendations.
MR. RICE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And you've given of yourself a
considerable amount of time to that.
MR. RICE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So I make a motion to bring this
item back.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Coletta
to bring the item back for public discussion. Seconded by
Commissioner Fiala.
MR. RICE: Question. Does that allow me to continue serving in
the interim?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't know. County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. He's in violation of the ordinance.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And how long will it take to --
let me ask you this: We can hold off on appointing anyone until that
point in time that we make a decision, can't we, to fill the position?
MR. KLATZKOW: You can leave it vacant, yes.
Page 53
April 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Thank you.
MR. KLATZKOW: For clarification, do you want me to
advertise the change or simply come to you and ask if you want me to
make the change at the next meeting?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, whenever it's going to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, this is a fundamental change to an
ordinance that's been in effect for a long time.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I think if it's going to be changed
you have to have a public hearing for this.
MR. KLATZKOW: Because usually it's a two -step process.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. KLATZKOW: I could make this a one -step process if you
want, to expedite it. It's the pleasure of the board.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would have no --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What happens when the next person
comes up? Are we talking about a special exemption for one person
under one set of circumstances, or are we talking about changing the
ordinance so that any elected official at the state, county, or
municipality level can be a member of the advisory board?
MR. KLATZKOW: I would strike the language so that -- like
TDC, any elected official could be a member of the board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I wouldn't support that. I don't
know that that has any bearing on anything, but I certainly wouldn't
support it. It's there for a good reason, and just eliminating that
provision, I think, is irresponsible.
But, nevertheless, the motion here is to bring it back for
discussions, and we can have those discussions at that point in time.
Commissioner Hiller, and then Commissioner Henning, I think.
Okay. Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
Jeff, can you read the letter?
Page 54
April 10, 2012
MR. KLATZKOW: I'll put it on the monitor, if you want.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Enter it as an exhibit, too.
MR. RICE: I can read the letter. I have it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So, basically, you were recently
voted on the Board of Fire Commissioners of the Immokalee Fire
Control District.
MR. RICE: I was appointed to serve out a remaining term. I
have not been elected.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It doesn't matter. You're on the
Board of Fire Commissioners of the Immokalee Fire Control District.
And our ordinance clearly provides that you can't hold an elected
office -- whether you got it by election or appointment, again, doesn't
matter -- and also be a member of this advisory board.
And I think Commissioner Coyle's comments are correct. I think
it does create a problem if we eliminate that provision.
Now, as far as I can see, that certainly doesn't preclude you from
being involved in airport matters as, you know, a volunteer attending
those meetings and providing your input. So you're not barred in any
way from continuing to assist with respect to airport authority issues.
It merely means that you can't sit on that board.
So I would tend to agree. If we do bring this back, I would not
be able to vote for a change in that ordinance. And it is there for good
reason. And none of that is, you know, personal to you. I mean, I
think it's absolutely -- it's great that you've been appointed to the fire
commission and that you'll be serving in that capacity as well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to pass.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta, do you
want to say something else, or is it from before?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, that's from before, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Fiala.
Page 55
April 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Just one little question. So
you say you're just filling a vacancy on the fire board right now, that's
all, right?
MR. RICE: Yes, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How long is that term?
MR. RICE: Every -- there are four members of the commission
who have to run for re- election in November.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So this is till --
MR. RICE: There's only one carryover.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- November. Maybe you might
have the choice of which to serve.
MR. RICE: I have not made a decision to run for a full position.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh -huh. And if it came down --
push came to shove, you might have to just choose to let that
appointment go to somebody else so you can stay on the Airport
Authority Board, right?
MR. RICE: Yes, ma'am. If I were to run for a full position and
be elected, I would assume that that would be true, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I just want to point out
that our problem in Immokalee is finding people willing to serve, and
Dick has been the exception stepping forward every time.
I -- we absolutely need to have him on the fire board. There's
absolutely no question about it, but his contributions to the airport
authority have been numerous. So I don't want him to have to pick
between either one. I mean, he's giving of his time. And what's
unusual, I think Immokalee Fire is the only one in the county that
doesn't pay their commissioners.
MR. RICE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So, I mean, he's doing that as a
volunteer too. I mean, the man wants to serve. I can't see any kind of
impediment for him to be able to serve on a nonpaying board. Maybe
Page 56
April 10, 2012
that's the way we might look at the ordinance, to be able to address it
in some way. If -- and soil and water is another one that's non - paying.
If we recognize that as the exception to the rule, we'd be able to make
do with people that are willing to give of their services to their
community. It's just a thought that we could bring up under
discussion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor of the motion to
bring it back for a public hearing, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion fails, two for, three against.
The three against being Hiller, Coyle, and Henning. And we're going
to take a 10- minute break now. Thank you.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, I am back in
session now.
MR. MITCHELL: Your next speaker is --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do we have any public speakers who
want to speak to me? I can make some fast decisions. You know, if
you say the right things, you can get almost anything approved right
now.
Can we find two more commissioners somewhere.
MR. SHEFFIELD: I'll find them.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You look really good up there
alone. Hi.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I love it up here alone. Thank you. This
is -- this is the way the Board of County Commissioners should
operate. We'd have this thing over by noontime, and all the decisions
Page 57
April 10, 2012
would be good, perfect.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Hang on. I'm coming.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The girls are here for you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: There you go.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, great. Okay. We're going to
continue with public comments.
Item #7B
PUBLIC COMMENT — ROLAND RHEA — FDEP VARIANCE
REGARDING CASE #DOAH -12 -495
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, your next speaker is Rollin Rhea.
MR. RHEA: I would prefer not to speak until all commissioners
are seated. Is that a reasonable request?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You might be here all day. He just
walked out.
MR. RHEA: I'll pass out some documents in the meantime
before I go on the clock.
MR. KLATZKOW: Does this have to do with the litigation?
MR. RHEA: It has to do with the public request for information.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I join you?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Please, yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Rhea, could we have one to put on
record? Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Do you have an extra one?
MR. RHEA: Not at the moment I don't, Leo.
April 10, 2012
MR. OCHS: That's fine.
MR. RHEA: Is it okay to wait till Tom comes back?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm afraid we're going to have to get this
meeting underway.
MR. RHEA: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Rollin Rhea. I reside at the Beachmoore, a condominium adjacent to
the concession and bathroom facilities which you are attempting to
construct on Vanderbilt Beach.
I am presenting documents to Collier County and the commission
which I submit to be part of the record. I, along with other petitioners,
in the administrative hearing case -- which challenges the right of
Collier County to receive a variance from the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection which would permit the construction of the
facility on the frontal dunes of a critically eroded beach.
This case number is known as DOAH Case No. 12 -495. During
the course of proceedings in this case, our attorney has requested
certain public records. Please see the first and second notice to
produce, of which I have given you copies.
We will -- have been advised that the county attorney is unable to
produce all of these public records because they are in the hands of
certain consultants and that the staff has no money to pay the
consultants to produce these records. Please see a copy of our email
from our attorney.
The copy of the relevant portion of the public records law is
attached. Please comply with the law and produce requested records,
as delaying this controversy only serves to increase cost to all parties
including, ultimately, the taxpayer.
(Commissioner Henning entered the boardroom.)
MR. RHEA: I ask the rhetorical question, if the Collier County
Coastal Zone Manager is unable to fulfill a document search by
taxpayers because of lack of funds, how does the same Coastal Zone
Manager expect to provide the annual $350,000 worth of security for
Page 59
April 10, 2012
this proposed Vanderbilt Beach concession stand project?
Our group will continue to work to provide adequate public
bathrooms, facilities, and to preserve and protect Vanderbilt Beach.
Thank you.
MR. KLATZKOW: May I have a moment to respond to this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Attorney? Sure.
MR. KLATZKOW: Ms. Greene.
MS. GREENE: Good morning, Commissioners. Colleen Greene,
assistant county attorney.
For the record, this email is dated Wednesday, March 28th. We
did send a second response to the public records request that went out
FedEx on Thursday of last week, and we have fulfilled all of the
requests provided.
There is an additional -- there will be a second supplemental
response, which is going out in the mail today, but the documents
have been provided.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Who paid for them?
MS. GREENE: At no cost to the county. It was done by -- Gary
McAlpin got the documents together. There was no cost incurred.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
Commissioner Hiller, you wanted to speak on --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. I would like to talk about
this. I'm really concerned. You know, the statute provides, in
119.021(1)(a), that all public records shall be kept in the buildings in
which they are ordinarily used.
I want an answer as to why these documents were released to
these consultants. We can't do that. If you want to make copies and
give the consultants copies, that's fine, but you cannot release the
public records outside of the county buildings and, in fact, they should
be readily accessible for viewing by the public in your office, Gary,
where they ordinarily would be used at any time that the public wants
06-M
April 10, 2012
to see them.
I'm glad that you have retrieved those documents, and I would
like assurances that neither your department nor any other department
in the county has released public records off campus in violation of
this law.
Leo, I want that assurance.
And, quite frankly -- I'm going to read another section of the law,
which is Section 4B that provides, whoever's entitled to custody of
public records shall demand them from any person having illegal
possession of them, who must forthwith deliver the same to him or
her. Any person unlawfully possessing public records must, within 10
days, deliver such records to the lawful custodian of public records
unless just cause exists for failing to deliver such records.
Obviously, in this case there is no just cause. I'm glad that you've
complied with the request.
Mr. Rhea, have you heard that you received these documents?
Has your attorney acknowledged receipt of these documents?
MR. RHEA: Ms. Hiller, for the record, Rollin Rhea again. No,
ma'am, I have not.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Well, then, you know what
I'm going to do just as a safeguard -- because I don't want to see the
county have problems -- I will make a records request of the county
for all the documents requested in the request for production, the two
requests for productions that you have produced, the original and the
amended, and I want to get the same documents.
And you're welcome to make that request upon me. I want to see
what documents were in possession of the engineer. I want to see
what documents are in possession of Coastal Zone Management. And
so if you do not get those documents in full, you can make a request of
me, and my office will give you whatever I've got. It takes a little
time to accumulate all the documents, but we will, you know, do it in
-- you know, as soon as we -- as practically as we can.
Page 61
April 10, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Next speaker?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, the next speaker is Kathy Robbins.
MR. RHEA: Mrs. Robbins will not be speaking.
Item #7C
PUBLIC COMMENT — PAUL ARSENAULT — PLANS TO PAVE
OVER PONDS AND REMOVE THE BRIDGE AT THE NAPLES
ZOO TO ADD A SERVICE ROAD
MR. MITCHELL: Okay. The next speaker is Paul Arsenault.
MR. ARSENAULT: Good morning, everyone. I'm Paul
Arsenault. I'm out of Olde Naples. This is the first time in this room,
and I've got just the painting for that spot right there.
I'm here because I just learned last week that the ponds were
going to be bulldozed. And when I asked people that I know, and
friends, they said, that's a done -deal. That is -- just don't go there. It's
been going on for two years.
And I was shocked, taken aback. And, basically, I'm -- we've
had some good publicity, and I'm here on behalf of the people that had
responded.
But, fortunately, I had a meeting with John Sorey this morning,
and what was a done deal yesterday at noon is not a done deal
anymore. There have been some breakthroughs. And in speaking with
the Conservancy, Andrew, there -- what I'm here to do is to just
encourage the commission to basically work with the Conservancy,
work with the post office, the Department of Transportation, and the
school across the street, Lake Park. Whatever it takes, we need to
save those ponds.
People are shaking. They're so upset that they didn't know. And
the fact that -- the fact that I have hosted four greenway receptions --
and the plans have been there. They've been at these functions.
Page 62
April 10, 2012
We've all been at these functions where these plans have shown, if
you knew how to read them.
I didn't think I'd have to be worried about paying $40 million to
save the zoo and have to worry about these ponds being taken away. I
didn't think I had to look in that side of the plans.
I'm very encouraged from what I'm hearing from the
Conservancy, and I'm very -- wanting to support the commission to
find a way to do this. I know it's going to be a big cost. I know the
zoo's strapped, the Conservancy, everyone has a difficulty here.
We need to come together and make this -- fix this outrageous
consideration. And let's just do the right thing. And I'm very -- I'm
very much looking forward to helping however I can with meetings
with all concerned, if we can keep them brief.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, do you have a
question concerning this?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, a statement.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: County Manager agrees that
there is a stakeholders committee made up of several citizens that have
been working on this a long time. This has been brought to you by the
Naples Daily News. There's more information that was excluded from
that article.
So I requested that the county and the stakeholders group hold a
public meeting to explain what the plans are and consider alternatives.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Paul, first of all, thank you so
much for bringing it to our attention. I can't tell you how much I
personally appreciated that, because I really didn't know it either. I
saw those same things, and it never -- it never said, you know, cement
over the pond.
And if it doesn't say it plainly, I can't read between the lines. I'm
Page 63
April 10, 2012
so glad you brought that up. And I had numerous phone calls and lots
and lots of emails, people feeling the same way.
And then yesterday afternoon at maybe the 11th hour, wonderful
Andrew McElwaine from the Conservancy called me, and he said, I
have a proposal for you, and that was just wonderful.
MR. ARSENAULT: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And then I talked with John Sorey,
and I told him of the proposal. And John said he'll get to the people
there and see what we can do about putting together a new fresh idea.
It's going to take some work working together but, you know, we
all want to work together to get this done. And so I thank you so
much. Because of you, this pond is going to be there. Thank you.
And, John, thank you for all you've done on this as well as Rocky
Scofield. He's another one that's working along with us. And so --
anyway, thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Bob Krasowski.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry. Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you so much for bringing
this matter forward. You know, we all appreciate your concern.
As we were sitting talking over the break, you know, several
issues have come up that I think many people were not aware of, one
of which is that those ponds are not natural ponds. They're not spring
fed ponds. And given that the site for the zoo is changing, everything
will have to be brought up to code.
Whether or not those ponds can be maintained will be a legal
question, because I'm not sure if that can be done notwithstanding.
But I'm not an engineer, and I'm not with the South Florida Water
Management District and, really, those are questions that will have to
be looked at by both the South Florida Water Management District
and by the engineers to make that determination, because those ponds
as they exist, as I understand, were basically grandfathered in. I'm -- I
-1 m�
April 10, 2012
don't know whether they would be permittable -- because, again, they
are artificial ponds -- today.
MR. ARSENAULT: You know, so is the pond at the National
Mall. The thing of it is, we have the technology, and with 40 million
of taxpayers' money saving the zoo, those ponds can be easily
maintained. It's not a question of do we have the technology. It's do
we have the interest in saving a landmark and do we have an interest
in saving the garden. The garden is a major part. It was the whole
thing about this property.
The zoo's one thing. The garden is another. We need to protect
the garden as well as the zoo function.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure, I agree. The question, again,
is whether legally that pond can be permitted as it exists today, and
that's a question I cannot --
MR. ARSENAULT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- answer, but it is the question
that has to be asked. Because, again, given that everything is
changing. Whether or not we want the pond -- the question has to be
asked, if we do want the pond, can it be permitted under the
circumstances? Because, again, it's not a natural pond.
MR. ARSENAULT: Right. But we have many unnatural ponds
in all our facilities.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But, again -- this is not a debate;
this is just the question that --
MR. ARSENAULT: True.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- has to be raised, it has to be
asked, it has to be answered, and then, of course, the second question
is, at what cost.
MR. ARSENAULT: Well, because I'm at the podium right here,
for all these reasons of saving the ponds, we all have the ability right
here in this room to take this question of the ponds -- the legal -- the
legal end of it can be adjusted however we as a community want to
Page 65
April 10, 2012
adjust it.
And if we are motivated to maintain the charm factor of Collier
County, this is not a biggie. We -- I just have to impress upon the
group here that it's not a question of "if." It's a question of "how," and
we just have to do it. It's not -- that's just it.
And I hate to come to things like this. I want to just give a
painting and be done with my cause but, obviously, we have to step up
when we have to step up.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, absolutely. And what you've
done is certainly worthy, and now it just becomes a question of, you
know, can it be done legally and, if so, at what cost.
MR. ARSENAULT: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Next speaker?
MR. ARSENAULT: Thank you.
Item #7D
PUBLIC COMMENT — BOB KRASOWSKI — PROJECTS
REGARDING SOLID WASTE INCINERATION NEED TO BE
STUDIED CLOSELY AND EVALUATED THROUGH THE
PUBLIC PROCESS
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Bob Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Hello. For the record, my name is Bob
Krasowski.
You get one shot at public comments. I have something to talk
about, but I want to throw my support behind Mr. Arsenault, too. And
I think it's more a matter of adjusting what has been designed and
planned than actually coming up with something else.
If you leave things alone as they are and provide parking for the
new zoo and the Conservancy -- and the Conservancy was in on this
design all along, real deep involved, so they saw this road. And it's a
April 10, 2012
matter of putting a road going north from where the parking's going to
be over the pond area and then up, and then makes a right to the north
of the property so people can kayak back there so -- and the problem
was having an additional right -hand turn off of Goodlette into that
back property which made it so -- you know, difficult, having too
many right turns on Goodlette. But I'm sure that things will come out
well.
But I also appreciate Commissioner Hiller's analysis and -- of the
whole thing to keep everything -- all aspects of it considered.
At the last meeting, March 28th, I was here and spoke when there
was a bit of a discussion about processes and technologies we might
use for handling waste, and so -- since then I've got some information
about some goings on at the county solid waste department. And just
after I spoke last week, Dan Rodriguez came up and invited me out to
the landfill to look around. And I haven't seen it in years. I've been
out there in the '80s and 2000 and stuff, you know.
So they're doing a nice job. It's pretty clean, well organized, and
stuff. And our recycling has come on since the big debates of the '80s
and 2000.
So -- but I'll share my concern now, and that is that in regards to
Growth Design Corporation and other businesses -- there have been
some businesses that go to the staff and discuss options and stuff, but
it seems like there's a problem sort of like created, because the staff
and the people promoting these projects, they're good people. And
when they meet, they get to like each other and know each other a bit,
and they kind of get carried away a bit, and then wind up supporting
these projects not knowing specific technical details about what's
involved in turning plastic into oil or what's involved in pyrolysis,
which is the newest name for incineration. It's just two chambers they
use. One, they melt the material, turn it into gas, and then they burn
the gas.
And we need to know those details to determine whether or not a
Page 67
April 10, 2012
project is appropriate for the location.
So I would suggest, just real quickly -- I'm running out of time --
maybe a website, solid waste website where interested companies
could come and get all the information rather than having these
multiple meetings, including the CRA people -- Ms. Phillippi has been
to the Solid Waste Department with the Growth Design people. So it's
quite a bit of activity going -- I'll -- so that's what I suggest now, and I
will be following along as this thing develops, and I hope you can
continue to bring up more information, Ms. Hiller, and the rest of you,
as we go through this discussion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you, Bob.
Commissioner Hiller, you have another comment?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Bob, did you receive the report
that Dr. George put together showing who had visited and when? Do
you have that?
MR. KRASOWSKI: That's what I have here. That's what I was
referring to.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. I just wanted to make sure
you received a copy of that as well, because -- yeah, I did notice in
that report that Commissioner Coletta only had met with one company
and utilities, and that was the Growth Design.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Well, I wouldn't be surprised if in other
reports Commissioner Coletta meeting with people wouldn't be
revealed. But I don't know if that so much -- I think that's part of the
process now, but it should be more --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Transparent.
MR. KRASOWSKI: -- upfront and open so there's no suspicions
and stuff, you know, but --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay, sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Commissioner Coletta?
0--M,
April 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Bob, I can understand
your concerns. You've been leading this fight for many years. And
you've served some great purposes in bringing some things in that
were extremely dangerous.
The truth of the matter is, in the last two or three years -- might
even be longer than that -- there's been four different companies, none
of them were initiated by me, initial contact. The first one came
during the time the EDC was very much alive. They were looking at a
place to the north of the airport for a large facility. That never got
wings and went away, and there's been a couple of others.
People are blending these all together. Why do they come to me?
It's because of my long -time involvement with the Chamber, the
EDC, and the fact there is no EDC.
What I do is I take them around, I make introductions to whoever
can help them, be it the Chamber of Commerce or the CRA in
Immokalee.
And at that point in time, they're more or less on their own. I'm
not doing any particular lobbying for any particular business. But
there's other businesses, too. It's just not these businesses. There's
about four or five other businesses that I've met with.
And my calendar's available to anybody that wants to look at it;
however, these meetings that are taking place, there's a certain amount
of confidentiality that's going to exist till that point in time they want
to go public.
And so if I seem to be a little bit lacking on details, I don't have
all the details to begin with, but a lot of it's just due to the fact that
they want to be able to do their due discovery before they get ready to
go forward. But I appreciate what you're talking about.
I can't tell you that it's a plant that would be running with
pyrolysis or it would be digestor or it's going to be microwave, or
what it's going to be. I mean, there's many different factions out there
that are looking for different types of technology that are way beyond
April 10, 2012
my particular expertise.
Before they ever come to the point that anything's decided as far
as the county playing a role on it, you and everybody else will be able
to play in it a big time. At this point in time, they're doing nothing
more than doing discovery, and so far, out of the four that were
looking at it, there's only one that's still looking at it. The other three
didn't find this climate to be conducive to what they wanted to do as
far as business went.
MR. KRASOWSKI: I appreciate your comments and understand
where you're coming from. I just think we have to be very cautious
becoming too tight and friendly before we know everything. And a
person in your position, you know, to -- not to advocate publicly for
any one project or group prior to hearing all of the details.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Growth Design did say in their presentation
to Immokalee that they were interested in three or four different
processes, and three of them I'm very happy that some citizens that
became aware of this did jump up and start screaming about it because
they're dirty, polluting, toxic processes that don't belong out there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And we haven't got to that point
in time. But as far as being friendly, one of the things I will continue
to do is be business friendly to anyone that wants to talk to people in
Collier County, because my mission is to bring jobs here in Collier
County. And I will continue to work.
And I do this on my own time. I do it on Saturdays. I do it on
Sundays, to be able to reach out to these people when they show an
interest, and I'll continue to do that in the future.
But there's still a process we'll go through, and you will be a part
of it.
MR. KRASOWSKI: For such an old man, I'm amazed at the
energy you have to do this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Are you referring to me or
Page 70
April 10, 2012
yourself?
MR. KRASOWSKI: How many years have you been here now?
Yeah, no. You got me there, too.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Item #1 1 A
CONCEPTUAL PLANS FOR THE FY2013/14 BEACH
RENOURISHMENT OF BAREFOOT, VANDERBILT, CLAM
PASS, PARK SHORE AND NAPLES BEACHES ALONG WITH
FY2012/13 MARCO SOUTH BEACH
RENOURISHMENT /STRUCTURE REBUILD PLAN AND MAKE
A FINDING THAT THESE ITEMS PROMOTE TOURISM —
MOTION TO APPROVE W /STIPULATIONS — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, you have a time certain hearing at
11 a.m. this morning. May we proceed?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We never proceed with time certains till
at least an hour later. You want to change our procedure now; is that
what you're saying?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, I would like to set a new standard here, if
we might.
I IA is to be heard at 11 a.m. It's a recommendation to approve
the conceptual plans for the Fiscal Year 2013/'14 beach renourishment
of Barefoot, Vanderbilt, Clam Pass, Parkshore, and Naples Beaches
along with the FY2012/2013 Marco South Beach renourishment and
structure rebuild plan and to make a finding that these items promote
tourism.
Gary McAlpin, your director of Coastal Zone Management, will
present.
MR. McALPIN: Thank you, Leo.
Page 71
April 10, 2012
For the record, I'm Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management.
I'm going to have a short presentation, if we could pull it up. Here we
go. And then I'm going to be followed by Mayor John Sorey who's
going to discuss some of the concerns from the CAC.
We have two projects while we -- we have two projects that we're
going to consider today that we'd like to review with you. The first is
the main beach project that we will be executing in Fiscal Year
' 13/' 14, and the beaches that we've considered are Barefoot,
Vanderbilt, Clam Pass, Parkshore, and the Naples Beach project.
And, secondly, we have also developed a conceptual plan for the
Marco Island South Beach renourishment and structure rebuild, and
then we're looking to do that in Fiscal Year ' 13/' 14, Commissioners.
MR. OCHS: Twelve, thirteen.
MR. McALPIN: Twelve, thirteen, excuse me. Thank you.
So what we have done in developing this conceptual plan is that
we're asking for your approval of the conceptual plan, approval of the
conceptual approach, and also to make a finding that it promotes
tourism.
We're not asking you -- and I want to be clear with that -- to
select an option today. What we wanted to have you do is we want
you to ratify the plan that we would be looking at. So we don't want a
renourishment option, but we want you to look at our plan and ratify
that so that we can continue to develop those options.
We have -- for the conceptual plan, we developed that for the
Fiscal Year '13/'14, and we've actually set the time frame that we
could start that project, and that will be September 15th of '13 through
June 1 st of '14.
And we did this with recognition that -- of the direction that you
and the Naples City Council gave us, that you wanted to look to us to
maximize the interval between renourishments and also look to us to
see what we can do to minimize and simplify the permitting process.
We looked at all of our past monitoring reports that we take on a
Page 72
April 10, 2012
yearly basis, you approved those for physical beach modeling each
year, we modeled the beach, we modeled the tidal action, we looked at
for the last -- all the significant storm events, and we looked at -- for
the last 20 years we got wave and model data. We defined our hot
spots. We looked at how we could incrementally increase the scope
and cost so that we could maximize it, and that's really what we were
trying to achieve.
And the recommendations that we have to you is to allow us to
do this. We want to seek a permit modification. We would like for
you to endorse a permit modification which will allow us to maximize
the renourishment and construct it during September 15th to June 1 st.
This will give us the most flexibility.
We need a permit modification which will allow us to perform
the work. And the permit modification does not necessarily -- it
allows you to perform the work, but it doesn't necessarily require you
to do the work.
So if we get a permit modification for the maximum scope, it
gives us the flexibility as we continue to develop our costing, as we
continue to define our funding levels that we have, to maximize what
we can, in fact, do moving forward with the scope.
The permit modification that we would look for and look to
move forward would be for a true 10 year renourishment. The
renourishment that we did in 2005/2006 was a six year renourishment
that we stretched to eight years.
The reason it wasn't a longer renourishment at that point in time,
and it was only six years, was because DEP had concerns about the
near -shore hard bottom, and they would not allow us to move to widen
the beach any further than what we did. So we were constrained by
the permitting agencies.
So we wanted -- we need the permit modification which will
allow us to change the template, maximize the fill, and also do it
during turtle nesting season. We have worked with the Conservancy.
Page 73
April 10, 2012
We've defined a schedule. Turtle nesting season begins on 6/1 of --
excuse me. Turtle nesting season begins on 11/15 and goes to May
1 St.
And what we have done in working with the Conservancy, we've
been able to get -- instead of a six month turtle program, turtle
renourishment cycle, we've got an eight- and -a -half month cycle which
will begin on 9/15 and go to 6/1.
We have developed four options that we would -- that we have
that seem reasonable to us at this point in time. But those options are
only to inform you of what's potentially possible.
What we want to continue to do is develop those options, and as
we get -- as we define the cost and the schedule -- we call it scope
managing the project. Essentially what we would like to do is, for the
money that we have -- to build as much beach as we can for the
money that we would have.
To do that, that's going to allow us or going to require us to
aggressively partner with other communities.
We have met with Long Boat Key. We've met with Captiva
Erosion Control District. The largest cost on a renourishment is the
mobilization of a dredge. That dredge is going to cost us to mobilize
between three - and -a -half and four million dollars. If we could share
that cost and work the schedule out with similar communities on the
west coast that have a project on the same time frame that would use
the same equipment, it's to all of our advantage.
We could work with purchasing to structure an agreement, an
interlocal agreement, with these communities, and we believe we can
create a win -win situation.
We also want to -- we also believe that working with the dredgers
to award the contract early, allow them to have as much flexibility on
mobilizing their equipment here, allow them to -- with a bigger project
we have more interest in it, we have a better negotiating position so
that by mobilizing early, working with them on flexibility issues and
Page 74
April 10, 2012
having a larger project, we believe that there's definitely contract
savings that we could get that we could move forward with.
We also believe that we would work with DEP and FEMA in
terms of maximizing their funding as we move forward. This year we
submitted our funding request from FEMA -- excuse me -- from DEP.
There was 42 projects that were submitted. They believe that they're
going to get $22 million from the legislature. The governor has said
that he will veto anything past $10 million, but they have selected
seven projects that would -- that were eligible for funding.
This was not our critical year. Our critical year is next year. We
submitted this year so that we can get a sense for what the scenario
and what the scheme would look like. To give you a feeling that -- the
top project rated 42 points. We rated at 41 points. We were No. 20 on
the list, so we've got some work to do with them. We believe we
definitely can do that.
DEP funding is going to determine about what's available from
the governor and how we can -- how we can improve our point scores.
We also want to work with -- we have been working with the
FEMA organization. We have a request in to them to extend the
Tropical Storm Fay PWs. That's our work authorization.
We also believe that we're trying to work to resolve the Tropical
Storm Gabriel, which is ten years old, which would provide us
additional funding.
So all those things we need to do, and we need to do to come
back to you, and we would like to go through the bidding process,
which we believe is going to be January of '13, and then at that point
in time we feel like we should have the funding and the costing
available and have the scope that we could fund for that, and bring
those options back to you to make a decision.
We also want -- the other last recommendation is that we need to
move forward with the selection of a contractor. We went through an
RFP process. The staff has recommended -- there's a selection
Page 75
April 10, 2012
committee has recommended a consultant, and we need to move
forward with that. That is going to be presented right after this item
on 11 B.
So those are the items that we would like for you to move
forward with us on or approve with us so we could move forward. We
have looked at four options. And just to give you a sense of how we
see things breaking down, Commissioners, the first option would be
just to take what we have -- and this is all in your packet. Tropical
Storm Fay, that would be 175,000 cubic yards of material, over
eight- and -a -half miles of beach, so we would not get a lot of material
at any one section of the beach. We believe that would cost us about
$10 million. That would not extend the life of the renourishment
whatsoever and would not address any of our hot spots.
Our second option would be basically to duplicate what we did in
2005/2006 design. This year if we did that, in filling up the templates,
that would be 482,000 cubic yards of material. It would cost us $19
million. And if we -- if our savings projections are correct, we look to
do that for $16 million, working with, as we talked about, with the
contractors.
It would be for a six -year design, so we would not maximize the
life of the project. And it would not address any of -- it would not
address any of the additional beaches that we're recommending, which
is Clam Pass and Barefoot Beach that need renourishment, or address
any of the hot spots.
A third option would be to look at the 2005/2006 design and then
come back to you with some hot spot enhancements, and those
enhancements we would do would be the removal of the groins at
Parkshore, which is creating an erosion condition. We would look to
renourish Clam Pass Beach Park, which currently is not designated as
critically eroded. We are appealing that decision, but it is one of the
more severely eroded parks that we have in the county, beaches that
we have in the county, and it would also repair Barefoot Beach.
Page 76
April 10, 2012
And we could probably stretch the time from six years. We may
be able to stretch the life of that renourishment cycle a little bit more,
but we would not do anything to maximize the -- significantly
maximize the life.
And our last option we had would be for a true 10 -year
renourishment. That would be 787 (sic) cubic yards of material. We
believe that would cost about $31 million without savings. It would --
it would increase the width of the beaches, and it would increase the
height of the beaches by one foot, not uniformly throughout all the
beaches. There still would be some gaps, but certainly in the hot spot
locations; that's where we would do. We would make them higher and
wider.
It would increase -- and it does -- it increases the length of the
time by, you put more critical mass, you put more sand on the beaches
at that point in time.
We would do a jetty spur at Doctors Pass, we would do the Clam
Pass Beach Park, we would do the Barefoot Beach Park, and we
would remove the groins.
When we talk about what can we do right now with what we
expect to have, what we have in the bank right now, if we look at the
-- in '13/'14 we expect the reserves and carry forward to be at $16.5
million.
So we have enough money right now without any additional state
or federal funding, but -- and we have enough money that we're
projecting in ' 13/' 14 that we could duplicate the design that we had in
2005/2006.
We think if -- that we could renew the Tropical Storm Fay PW,
that would be between -- an additional five to six million dollars that
we could -- we would receive. We think there's three million dollars
in savings that would be mobilization and contracting.
And if we're lucky to get a DEP cost share contribution, that
would be additional, and I spoke earlier about resolving a Tropical
Page 77
April 10, 2012
Storm Gabriel claim.
We have been working very closely with the Conservancy on this
schedule. They had some concerns about what we were doing turtle --
when we were doing beach renourishment how would that affect the
turtles. We agreed on an eight- and -a -half month schedule beginning
on 9/15 and ending on 6/1, and of the permit -- the Conservancy,
along with the county, believe that that's the right time frame. It
would give us some of the flexibility that we were trying to achieve
with the contractor, and we would need a permit modification, and
that would be supported by the Conservancy.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Could you tell me what PW
means?
MR. McALPIN: PW is a project work. It's the federal
designation for the authorization for FEMA funds on a certain section
of beach.
So that is, in a nutshell, what we're looking for for the major
beach renourishment.
The other project that we'd like to move forward with and the
conceptual design that we have is for Marco South. That would
include the -- that would cover the last 4,000 lineal feet of beach to --
on the Marco beach, especially the last 2,000 lineal feet is very
eroded, and that's the area that we only have public access to. So we
have the most critically eroded area and the area where we have public
beach access.
So we have modeled this program. We've looked at it. We
looked at the modeling reports. And we would renourish the beach
with 104,000 cubic yards of material. That would maximize the fill
template and maximize the time between beach renourishments. We
would need to get a permit from DEP. We believe that would cost
$1.8 million.
There are five erosion control structures that are out there, three
segmented breakwaters and two groins that have been in for an
April 10, 2012
extended period of time. They need to be rebuilt. We believe the
rebuilding cost would be $1.2 million. We would do this work after
turtle nesting season in November of this year. We would -- we are
still looking at a consolidated schedule. And, again, we need to move
forward with the selection of an engineering contractor.
So that concludes my presentation, and Mayor Sorey would like
to say a couple words.
MR. SOREY: Thank you, Mr. McAlpin.
Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, John Sorey. I'm
chair of your Coastal Advisory Committee and want you to know how
much effort and time has been spent on this. After our joint meeting
at the Naples City Council, came back and challenged the Coastal
Advisory Committee and Mr. McAlpin as to how we could maximize
the cycle, minimize the cost, and be most effective. And both TDC
and CAC recommend approval of these two items.
I don't have to tell you how critical beaches are to our tourists
and to our community. One of the things that Mr. McAlpin and I
decided to do was to be very aggressive with the state and with other
communities as to how to maximize the cost effectiveness of this.
We went up and met with the new chair of the environmental
protection. We met with the governor. And we've made some
significant progress as far as this relationship is concerned. We've
also met with other communities and, fortunately, the governor, and
there were some politics involved with the particular bill about
permitting beach renourishment, but with my call and many others,
the governor signed a piece of legislation which is going to help us
move forward as far as this is concerned.
I do want to thank the Conservancy. Mr. McAlpin and I met with
them. They had some concerns about year round renourishment, and
we looked at the bell shaped curve of turtle nests and decided we
could extend the season of beach renourishment with little impact.
We will have a plan and a process to relocate any turtle nests that
Page 79
April 10, 2012
might occur during the shoulder season that we might be looking at.
So as Mr. McAlpin said, all we're looking at today -- and it's
essential from a time schedule to get moving on this. And I know
there's been some comments about a Cadillac beach renourishment. I
can assure you that we are doing what you instructed us to do, to look
at how we do this most effectively.
And what will be done, based on the various options, will be
scope managed, but we need to move forward with permitting for the
potential of a true 10 year renourishment, because we can always
reduce the scope, but if we don't have the permit, we cannot increase
the scope.
So I urge the BCC to move forward and approve this so that we
can move forward to make our '13/14 14 renourishment.
Also, Item 11 B, which is the second item, we need to approve an
engineering firm. I know there's some issues associated with this as
far as process is concerned, but CAC has been assured by the
purchasing department and staff that the procedure was correctly
followed, and I would recommend that we move forward with Coastal
Planning and Engineering to put this plan together, and then we'll
come back with you with a recommendation once we get this done
consistent with the resources we have, and you'll have an opportunity
to approve a particular plan at that point in time.
So what we need from you today is approval to proceed on the
permitting and to authorize the selection of the firm to make this
happen.
I'd be glad to answer any questions that you might have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why was this a time certain,
Leo? Why was this a time certain?
MR. OCHS: I had a request from the Mayor. He had some other
appointments, and he asked me to ask the chairman if we could
schedule a morning time for this.
O!M
April 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. My second question is
the TDC recommendations was just on the Marco Island South
renourishment structure rebuild plan?
MR. McALPIN: No. We had -- TDC recommended -- they also
recommended the approval of the conceptual plan for the major beach
renourishment, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So all you're asking for
is, you know, build the beach as renourishment funds exist?
MR. McALPIN: Renourishment funds exist for one level, and
what we're asking for is authorization to move forward with -- to
move forward with the -- a permit which would permit the maximum
option, if you would, the max -- permit the 10 -year plan, if you would,
to 787,000, and then what we would do is continue to refine -- work
our options and bring back those options to you for discussion and
approval and selection when we get them resolved, and that will
probably be around the first of the year of '13.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I'll make that motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning and second by Commissioner Coletta.
MR. KRASOWSKI: How about public comment?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's why they pay me the big bucks,
Bob, okay?
I have to recognize the motion and a second.
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. Yeah, Gary?
I'll tell you what, I was very, very impressed with this agenda, how it
was laid out. It was beautifully laid out, it was very easy to follow,
and I compliment you for that.
Obviously, you and your staff put a lot of time into it. But it
allows you the maximum schedule of flexibility so you'd be able to act
olml
a
April 10, 2012
accordingly to how dollars come in. The scope of the project will
match the funds. So, in other words, we're not committing future
dollars at this time, but we'll be able to bring them up as they come
forward, and I'm hoping that we'll be able to reach the full objective
here over a 10 year period.
Options for sand placement will change as time goes forward,
and we're keeping all those options open. Partnerships that cut costs;
good work for you on that. I'm telling you, that's a wonderful thing,
and bringing the Conservancy aboard and working closely with them,
it means a lot. It removes a lot of the friction that we've run into in the
past.
And it's my pleasure to be the second on this. I think you did a
wonderful job on it.
MR. McALPIN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, thank you.
Yeah, I think this project is overly broad. The fact that we're
asking for a permit for, you know, a maximum that we don't even
know we have the funding for, basically a project which is 100 percent
more than what has been adopted in the past, is just over the top.
The state has clearly identified the beaches that are critically
eroded, and those are the beaches we need to focus on within our
funding limits. To have a permit that has a scope that we may or may
not fulfill begs the question as to, you know, how do you close out this
permit when you don't do it? I think this is nothing more than an
attempt to commit us to this, you know, $30 million project over this
10 -year scope. So I can't support this at all. I really think that this is,
quite frankly, over the top.
In addition, the direction in which we would be renourishing,
according to the backup material, is from south to north.
We should be, as I said, only renourishing those beaches that are
critically eroded, and we should begin by renourishing those beaches
0 _- X
April 10, 2012
that serve the tourism industry since they are the number one
employer and the number one economic driver in this county. That is
not what this plan proposes.
So I absolutely cannot support it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Call the public speakers, Ian.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, your -- excuse me. Your first speaker is
Bob Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Hi. Bob Krasowski, for the record.
Boy, I hate to make this a political issue by siding with
Commissioner Hiller, here, you know --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You just doomed the entire project. Do
you understand that?
MR. KRASOWSKI: No, I just ruined my chances of influencing
you.
No, but I appreciate what she said.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, I voted with Commissioner --
MR. KRASOWSKI: Oh, you did earlier, okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Well, let me use up my three minutes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Actually, to tell you the truth, Bob,
if I may -- and you'll get extra time because we're interrupting you.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Oh, thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I actually voted with
Commissioner Coyle. So I just want you to know it was the other way
around.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay. Nice. I'm glad.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I gave him credit.
MR. KRASOWSKI: It's starting to perk up then, you know.
I'm somewhat, very little, familiar with this beach renourishment
issue, was involved six years ago or seven years ago when the first
thing happened, and -- but had the opportunity to sit down with Mr.
McAlpin and the guys that were actually doing the work and was
April 10, 2012
incredibly impressed. I thought they were very capable people, okay,
and -- from, you know, my little perspective.
And -- but, but I just don't like this proposal. And I think -- but
there are certain aspects of it -- I can well understand the number of
reasons why we'd want to renourish the beaches, okay, and -- for the
tourism and also to protect the value assets that Mr. Sorey in the City
of Naples has to consider. Also the governor lives on the beach, right,
so let's forget about that, you know.
But I have to focus in on one thing here that has me confused and
might support my position that -- it's identified here that from 9/15 to
6/1 is eight- and -a -half months. Now, you do the math. Now, isn't it
nine - and -a -half months? So that's nine - and -a -half months. So they're
asking for nine - and -a -half months. It they roll it back to
eight- and -a -half months, you take care of part of my problem, because
I say we should commit ourselves to doing -- not the same, but even
better -- but I'll settle for the same as far as protecting the turtles.
When this process goes on it's not only interfering with their
nesting on the beach, but you're mucking up the waters pulling sand
out of the gulf while they're out there mating, you know. And there's
no attention given or mention to the full life cycle of these turtles.
And they're important.
And if there's going to be a tourism -- ecotourism here in Collier
County, we better start walking the walk and not just talking the talk,
because if you're going to be killing baby turtles -- ha ha, that's a little
over dramatization, but it would work, you know, if somebody wanted
to pick up on that.
But if you're going to be promoting ecotourism and not
performing these renourishment duties within the scope of, at least
what you have now, nesting season -- and I think they are capable and
competent enough to bring you a plan back within the parameters of
the season, just work a little harder, think a little more.
I mean, what's going on in this country, we should be -- we
April 10, 2012
should be doing better than we have in the past, and we're really
slacking off across the board all the way around.
So let's put them back to work and ask them to come back with
something that would fit within the parameters of the nesting season.
And along with what Ms. Hiller said, we can stay within certain
parameters so we don't go too long, like I'm going right now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. I agree with you and, in fact,
I listened to many constituents who raised the same concerns that
you're raising right here right now when I sat as the chair of the TDC.
And I support what you say 100 percent.
There is absolutely no need to extend this dredging over so many
months. It is disruptive. It is unnecessary. And, essentially, what it
does is it gives these contractors the flexibility to cherrypick their
contract. So what they'll do is they'll work in Collier County for a
little bit, then they'll pop over here because some other county will not
tolerate what we're tolerating, and then pop back.
And we're going to constantly have disruption of this beach
renourishment project going on for, you know, the larger part of any
year. Now, that doesn't make sense at all, not at all.
So, number one, from an environmental standpoint, the plan
doesn't work and, number two, from just a practical standpoint of how
this project should be implemented, it doesn't make sense. And it's
clearly to the advantage of other counties and to our disadvantage
because, like I said, they'll be popping back and forth. So I thank you
for your comments.
I want to add one other issue which is always critical in any
beach renourishment, and that is we need to absolutely ensure that it is
like -kind sand. When sand is being replaced on the beach, it must be
identical sand to the sand that was there. And I haven't seen that
clearly factored in to this analysis.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning.
April 10, 2012
MR. MITCHELL: Sir?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just a moment.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What -- no, I don't have a --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. No questions. Okay. Then call
the next public speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Nicole Johnson.
MS. JOHNSON: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
Nicole Johnson here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest
Florida.
And I do want to start out by saying, absolutely, the best thing for
the sea turtles would be to avoid the sea turtle nesting season. In the
past that was required because federal law would not allow you to do
your renourishment during the season, May 1 st through October 31 st,
except in what are considered emergency cases.
But we have new federal guidelines, new federal laws that have
now been put in place that gives certain counties, Collier included, the
flexibility to go year round with the renourishment.
Now it still does recommend and warn against doing the
renourishment during the height of sea turtle nesting season, June,
July, August, and the first part of September. But it is the county's
choice of how to balance protection of resources with the economic
considerations of more flexibility for the dredge operators.
Initially, Coastal Zone Management had wanted to have the
flexibility for the year round renourishment, and that was something
that the Conservancy very much opposed. And through that, we sat
down with the mayor, with Gary, and said, is there a compromise that
can be reached?
The discussions that followed ended with what Gary has
presented to you today, that renourishment would be allowed to begin
September 15th, giving a month - and -a -half of flexibility at the tail end
of turtle season, and ending by June 1 st, which gives that additional
month out the front end of turtle season.
01-IM
April 10, 2012
So two - and -a -half additional months of flexibility -- so that the
dredging contractor can be secured at a cost savings, potentially -- was
what the Conservancy said we could live with.
And I do want to point out that this compromise isn't just
arbitrary. We didn't start at two ends of the spectrum and meet in the
middle simply because it was the middle. As the mayor indicated, this
was really a scientifically based determination. Our science staff
researched the issue. We obtained data from the county that showed
during an average year most nests had hatched by mid September on
the Naples Beach, which is where the renourishment would begin, and
nesting usually didn't start in earnest on the northern beaches until
June 1 st.
So we believe that that September 15th through June 1 st was an
acceptable compromise. It would keep the maximum number of nests
intact without having to relocate them.
And it's very important, because research has shown that nests
that have been relocated do have a lesser success rate of hatchling
emergents. And when you're talking about a species where about one
in one thousand survive to adulthood, we don't want to be adding
additional stress by relocating too many of the nests.
So to conclude, if the county does decide to pursue
renourishment during turtle season, we ask that you follow the
parameters that Gary has outlined. We believe it's scientifically and
technically based and a compromise that will avoid the height of sea
turtle nesting season.
And I also just wanted to point out, Gary had indicated on his
slide that we would be supporting the permit application. The
Conservancy doesn't support permit applications for development or
otherwise. We will not be opposing, which leads you to the same
conclusion, but I did want to clarify that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
Do any of the speakers -- or commissioners want to speak now,
April 10, 2012
or are you going to wait till after the public speakers?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd want to wait till after.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your final speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That was the final speaker. Okay. Then,
Commissioners, you can speak now. Let's start with Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
Mr. McAlpin, Commissioner Hiller has a concern of permitting it
to the maximum and we don't build it to the maximum. Is that going
to create a problem with closing out the permit?
MR. McALPIN: No. The permit will be a 15 year permit, and
the permit will expire on the anniversary date -- on the 15 year
anniversary date. So whether we do one renourishment or two
renourishments during that period of time, the permit will expire.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think her concern -- correct me
if I'm wrong, Commissioner Hiller -- is we build it out to the
maximum 10 year -- or we permit it for the 10 year but we don't build
it for the 10 year.
MR. McALPIN: Uh -huh.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Her opinion was that --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're noncompliant with your
permit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- yeah, you're noncompliance
with the permit.
MR. McALPIN: What happens is we get the permit, and then we
have to -- we have to submit a request to -- a notice to proceed request,
and at that point in time we tell the state exactly what we want to do in
terms of that renourishment cycle goes. And that's what happens.
So the permit is issued for the maximum, and then we come in
after the fact and we submit a request for a renourishment based on the
specifics that we need at that point in time, and that's -- and that's then
what we would perform to, Commissioner.
April 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That doesn't answer --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Has this been done before?
MR. McALPIN: It has been. We have -- we have -- the last
beach renourishment that we did, we have a -- we had a fill template
that we have done, and some of the work for the fill template was not
complete.
We typically make adjustments as we go down the beach in
terms of making sure that we fine tune how we put the sand on the
beach. It's not uncommon for permits to be at a level, and then we
come back and -- for a notice to proceed for something much less --
for something less than that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And has the state ever turned
down a community for a permit that wasn't built out?
MR. McALPIN: I can't comment for the whole state. I know
that that has not been our experience here in this county.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, is there any way
we can verify that the state will allow us to deviate from the permit,
the maximum permit? I know they won't let us go over. Would they
let us go under?
MR. McALPIN: Yes, they would let us go over (sic), and we can
get that documentation. We can go -- we can't go over in terms of
what we would do. But if we wanted to put less sand on the beach, we
would be allowed to do that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I think that's the
condition of the motion. We definitely don't want to spend all this
money for the engineering work when we know that the state won't
allow us to deviate from that.
My next question is: You're going to assure us that the work
being done won't harass the turtles while they're mating? Mr.
Krasowski has a concern about harassment.
MR. McALPIN: There will be approximately 15 turtle nests that
we'll have to relocate. And we looked at history for the last 10 years,
April 10, 2012
and that's an average of what we'd have to do.
We -- so we have to -- we would have to relocate approximately
15 turtle nests, and the staff is more competent to do this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's after mating, isn't it?
MR. McALPIN: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Isn't that post mating?
MR. McALPIN: It is post mating. And typically we are allowed
to work out in the water. There's no restrictions about operating out in
the water around the clock, okay. We have to -- we have to notice the
vessels. If the vessels see active turtles in the area, they have to stop.
But there has never been a restriction on being in the water in terms of
what we do.
Now, remember what -- how this operation would work. We
would go get our sand off of Captiva, up at Captiva, which is about 40
miles away.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do they mate out there?
MR. McALPIN: They mate all along the west coast of Florida,
Commissioner, as I'm aware of, okay.
So we would get the sand at Captiva, we would bring it back,
there would be an unloading pump, and there would be -- the ships
would unload. The unloading cycle is about a half an hour to offload
the sand, and then they would go back.
So we would -- and we would typically, during a day period, we
would get four cycles per vessel, and we would look to have two
vessels on the site.
So it's not a continuous operation out in the gulf that we have. It
would be as the vessels come back into -- off our coast.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So there's no restrictions on
removing sand from the -- underwater while turtles are mating?
MR. McALPIN: Well, that -- there was no -- the permit that we
would get, we would need to get a lease from water -- the federal
government for the location off of Captiva.
April 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: While they're mating?
MR. McALPIN: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: While they're mating?
MR. McALPIN: Commissioner, we don't -- you know, if we
have -- what we do is we have a trawler that goes out, continuous
trawling in the area where we are -- we are harvesting the sand, where
we're taking the sand from the borrow area.
So we have continuous trawling out at that location while we're
out there. So we deal with the turtles that are in the borrow area
location that way.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They really don't mate out there. They
mate down at Key West.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's true. It's true. I've seen it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thanks. Got my
support.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. Did you say the
permit to do Marco was $1.8 million?
MR. McALPIN: No, that's the construction for the Marco project
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. McALPIN: -- the sand renourishment, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't understand that correctly.
Thank you.
How much money do we save if we manage to get other sources
of income to build a better option? I know that our goal would be to
build the best option so it would last longer, and we probably can't do
that, and we all understand that. But to be -- to be at least wise with
the spending of our money, if we happen to get some grants or
something from the state, if some miracle happened to be, how much
Page 91
April 10, 2012
money do we save by building a better option or even a better option
in the long run?
MR. McALPIN: Your biggest cost in renourishment is
mobilization. So what you're trying to do is if you maximize the
sequence time, you're delaying those mobilization costs that would
come. So that would be the first option.
And then the other thing would be just wear and tear on the
community and what we were doing. The -- stretching the cycle time
out as long as we can is in everyone's best interest, and that's what we
are trying to do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you very much. And,
thirdly, really, I respect the diligent work on behalf of the
Conservancy and your scientific team. I mean, I could never even
begin to know what the scientists know about any of this stuff. I
really respect all the time and energy you put into it. I've had long
conversations with the Conservancy. And, Mayor, I respect all of the
work that you've put in and -- you and the other city councilors, along
with Gary.
I think everybody's worked hard, worked tirelessly to find a way
to do this that's the safest way for our nature and for our environment
and yet to save us money in the long run as well. So I just wanted to
compliment you on the outcome. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Save money? We're not saving
money at all. This is a project which is double of any project we've
ever done. You know, 16 million versus 30 million?
I've got a memo here from John Sorey where he clearly outlines
that we don't have the money to do this. He says, you know, we need
to be pulling money from other sources to make up for the shortfall.
Oh, we're going to pull it out of beach park facilities, $10 million, or
the catastrophe reserves, $5 million.
He thinks that we're actually going to get FEMA money? I'm not
Page 92
April 10, 2012
sure that we are. That's 5 to 7 million. The cost sharing program has
been cut. And, by the way, we had a meeting, Gary, with the Friends
of Wiggins Pass, the -- what was -- the -- I never can properly say,
what's -- conservation estuary group, whatever they call themselves --
very complicated name -- and it was clearly addressed there that their
project would possibly face shortages in funding in order to fund this.
I cannot, in these hard economic times, support a project which is
double in scope of what we have done in the past when there isn't a
need. I mean, this is a complete waste of money and completely
unacceptable. I can't believe, Commissioners, that you're supporting
this to any degree. I'm really, really disappointed.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. No more public speakers, right?
MR. MITCHELL: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor of the motion -- by the way,
let's restate the motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, can I add one more thing?
Just one more thing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I also heard that, you know,
members of the TDC like Mr. Sorey and Mr. Hendel -- and, of course,
Mr. Sorey, you can tell me if you don't support this -- are thinking that
they're going to make up the shortfall in the enormous cost of this
project by raising the TDC tax.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mayor Sorey?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Tell me that isn't true.
MR. SOREY: Well, I was trying to be patient and not make
comments, but I think that, obviously, I'm going to need to make a
couple.
Yes, this project is much bigger than what we've done in the past.
The direction -- and, Ms. Hiller, you were not on the commission at
that time, but the direction that we were given was to convert this from
a six -year project. And if you look at the cost and you look at the
Page 93
April 10, 2012
amount of sand, if you want a six -year project, you know what you
get. If you want a 10 year project, with what we were told, and spread
-- the comment earlier about the benefit of the mobilization, it's
$300,000 a year over 10 years. It's $500,000 a year over six years.
So what you asked us to provide -- and we made it very clear that
we're going to scope manage this. And my memo was to point out
some possible resources. I do support the extra penny, but that's not in
this discussion. And I just wanted the TDC, as we look at spending
money for marketing -- that there are other requirements, and I
reinforce that the number one element that we have when we look at
the surveys from the tourists is the beaches.
So we will scope manage this. We hope we can increase the life
of this renourishment from six years to more than six years. What the
scope ends up being -- and I think Commissioner Henning had a great
point, and I would assume you'd modify the motion to include a
confirmation from the state that we can do this project less than the
maximum, but we need the flexibility and the approval to move
forward and provide you the best project we can and the longest life
we can, both from a cost standpoint and from an impact on our
community by lengthening the renourishment.
Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Commissioner, Mr. Chairman, I've just been
handed another speaker slip by Marcia Cravens for this item. I don't
know whether you want --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, we can't accept it. The guidelines
clearly say that it has to be done before the presentation of the item,
and it wasn't.
Commissioner Henning, the motion is to approve with the
assurance that the state will allow us to do less than the maximum
defined project; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
April 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: With the existing -- well, it will
be existing at the time of contract -- funds available. I think that's the
most important part, where we're not going to build a beach that we
don't have the funds for, okay?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So the motion will state that the
request is approved contingent upon receiving assurance from the state
that we will not be held to the maximum requirements of the permit
and that we will perform the permit with funds that are available; is
that a fair statement?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The renourishment, yes, that's
close enough.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And a second by Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I oppose, and I oppose because I
feel we should limit the renourishment to what the state has identified
as critically eroded within the budget that we know we have available,
that it should be with like kind sand and that it should be north/south,
not south/north.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The motion s --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Also with full consideration of
turtle nesting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion passes 4 -1 with Commissioner
Hiller dissenting.
MR.00HS: Commissioners?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. What's next? We're -- lunch is
Page 95
April 10, 2012
next unless you can do that in -- this in two minutes.
MR. OCHS: I think we could, sir.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't think so.
MR. OCHS: You want to wait? It's your --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep. We'll be back at one o'clock. And
thank you, Mayor Sorey, for being here.
MR. SOREY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Appreciate it.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, Board of County
Commission meeting is back in session.
Where are we going to go now?
Item #1113
A SHORTLIST OF FIRMS FOR CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS
FOR RFP NO. 11 -5772 FOR BEACH RENOURISHMENT
ENGINEERING SERVICES — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 1113, Commissioners. Is a recommendation to
approve a short list of firms for contract negotiations for RFP No.
11 -5772, Beach Renourishment Engineering Services, Mr. McAlpin
will present.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second. Okay. I've got a motion on the
floor.
Now, Commissioner Hiller, do you have any questions?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have a number of concerns, and I
want to start with the suggestion to accept Coastal Engineering to do
�911
April 10, 2012
the Marco work. You know, I cannot believe what was proposed in
the concept which drives what we would be approving here today.
The Marco beach has gained more sand than it has lost, and the
sand is moving south to the very beach that is being proposed for
renourishment. In fact, the only loss since the last renourishment of
the South Marco Beach has been 14,000 cubic yards, and yet Gary is
proposing, through these engineers, that 104,000 cubic yards be
placed on that beach compromising the environmentally sensitive
Caxambas Pass and the shoals which provide bird habitat. How do
you explain that?
And let me also say this is the same firm that was responsible for
the problem with the rocks on the beach at the last renourishment that
cost the county a fortune.
I have a real concern. You know, there are other
environmentally and economically sense -- economic and
environmentally sensitive ways to solve these issues that don't involve
what you're proposing. And what you're proposing makes no sense.
And for us to hire Coastal Engineering to do something that
makes no sense at all is completely wrong. And what experience does
Coastal have in structures compared to the other individuals -- I'm
sorry -- the other companies on that list? That's my first question.
And then my next question goes to your other selection, and my
third question goes to what time you gave the other companies to be
responsive to this RFQ.
So if you'd like to answer that first, and then I'll go to my second
point.
MR. McALPIN: I would be happy to.
For the record, Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management.
Commissioners, this is an RFP for the selection of an engineering
consultant, and it was -- this is all we're talking about right now is an
RFP. That was -- a selection negotiation committee was identified. It
was a cross section of the county. I did not participate in that selection
Page 97
April 10, 2012
negotiation committee. They -- it was best qualified in terms of all of
the consultants that -- and they submit it to either -- requests for
proposal.
There was -- 1,055 firms were noticed; 960 vendors requested.
There was eight responses that were received.
And for the Marco project, Commissioner, the amount -- Coastal
Engineering Consultants was selected. The Coastal Engineering
Consultants have been a Coastal Engineering firm here in Naples for
over 30 years, 20 to 30 years. You are correct that they did have —
next to the last project they did a major renourishment for us. They
had an issue with the rocks on the beach at that point in time. That
was done in '97.
The situation is completely different for what we're doing here,
that we know that we have enough sand in Caxambas Pass to do this
beach renourishment.
FEMA looked at this project when we were -- when we were --
after Tropical Storm Gabriel and FEMA authorized, I believe it was,
70,000 cubic yards of material to replace the sand that was lost for
Tropical Storm Gabriel.
We looked -- so the federal government looked at -- looked at
this, and they said, yes, we have a deficit of sand. There has been
erosion relative to that.
We looked at the fill template that has been approved and was
approved by DEP for this beach. It was 104,000 cubic yards of
material. We modeled it. The last 2,000 feet of beach here -- or
excuse me. The last 4,400 feet of beach here is critically eroded. It's
designated by the state as critically eroded, especially the last 2,000
feet of beach, and that's where the bulk of the sand will be coming to
do the renourishment here, Commissioner.
In addition to that, there's five erosion control structures that need
to be rebuilt that will involve getting a permit and re- topping those
with rocks. We're not looking to change the location of the erosion
April 10, 2012
control structures, but we're looking to build them back to the original
design that was designed at that point in time.
So at this particular site we have a history going back to '97,
20051 2007. This -- and I believe there was one prior to that where
this beach has been continually renourished for erosion down on the
south end. That's where most of -- that's where the public beach
access is.
So there's a history on this. DEP has come in and said, yes, we
agree that there is a deficit of sand that was caused by Tropical Storm
Fay. We looked at what we can do to maximize this project, too.
And we modeled it and looked at -- and identified 104,000 cubic
yards of material that would go in there. In addition to that, we're
looking at the erosion control structures.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But Gary --
MR. McALPIN: So I think there's a history here that supports
the design criteria, but -- so --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: There isn't. In fact, you received a
monitoring report in February that doesn't support what you're saying
at all but supports what I'm saying. And that is very significant. And
we are about to select an engineering firm to do work on a project that
makes no sense.
So, again, I'm going to repeat what I said. The Marco beach has
gained more sand than it has lost, and the sand is moving south to the
area that needs renourishment. The erosion at the south beach since --
the South Marco Beach, since the last renourishment, has only been
14,000 cubic yards and yet you are proposing to put 104,000 cubic
yards there. You are compromising Caxambas Pass. It is an
environmentally sensitive bird habitat. There are issues.
Oh, and there's more, too. That sand is -- taking that sand from
that area is also going to adversely affect Morgan and Case Islands
and the erosion there.
So I really have a problem. I don't see how you can be moving
MORE
April 10, 2012
forward on this.
And, by the way, I am really disappointed, Mayor Sorey and Mr.
McAlpin, because you stood here at the last agenda item and you
represented to us that the TDC had approved what you recommended.
They had not. The TDC merely accepted that the four alternatives
would be considered, and they were -- they asked to bring it back for
approval of a specific one of your four options and that has not
happened.
So to bring any of this before this board at this time is premature
and unacceptable. And I don't know why you would have tried to
mislead us into believing that the TDC had, in fact, approved your
recommendation as Option 4. They have not recommended any single
one of the options you presented.
MR. McALPIN: That is correct, madam, and I didn't -- when it
was presented to the TDC, it was presented exactly like it was
presented to the Board of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And they have not voted on it.
MR. McALPIN: That they were not looking --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: They have not voted on an option.
MR. McALPIN: They were not looking at recommending -- not
approving any option. We were looking to recommend and approve a
plan, just like that was presented to the board earlier today. So I think
we're 100 percent consistent with that with what were presented to the
board today, what we presented to the TDC. So we're -- there's a
consistency moving forward with that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, there isn't, Gary. Because the
TDC has yet to select the plan that they find acceptable. And the
extent to which they believe the TDC funds will be used towards
beach renourishment there is a fundamental difference.
MR.00HS: Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: They did not take the same action
that we are taking today. This matter needs to go back to the TDC, it
Page 100
April 10, 2012
needs to be vetted by the TDC, the TDC needs to recommend to us
what option of the four options they believe is the right option, and
then it needs to come back to us. Our vote this morning was
premature, and our decision with respect to these engineers is
premature and incorrect.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, the first thing Mr. McAlpin said this
morning was that we were not asking the commission to select an
option. We were asking them to --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We did.
MR. OCHS: We were asking them to endorse the plan that
would allow us to move forward to provide additional information
going forward as we got more information on which of the four
options would ultimately be recommended to the TDC, to the CAC,
and ultimately to the board. We have not asked the board to select an
option.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We did. This morning that is what
we in effect, did. That's what we discussed in our vote.
MR. OCHS: No. I don't believe so, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, it is.
MR. OCHS: I think Commissioner Henning was --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And right now we can't hire
engineers based on, what, to implement the concept plan. The concept
plan is the totality.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let me share with you, when I read this
item, I asked the question of Mr. McAlpin in an email dated -- well,
sometime late Sunday evening. You have identified four options.
Which option are you recommending for approval? And Mr.
McAlpin responded, we're not asking the commissioners to decide on
an option at this time but rather agree to a plan as defined as the first
six months that would allow staff to continue to resolve and define
funding, cost, and scope options.
So it's very clear to me what the staff had in mind, and I find their
Page 101
April 10, 2012
presentation earlier today to be entirely consistent with that and --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I don't. I believe that you're
using terms that are semantically equivalent and, as a result, it's very
clear that what was approved this morning was the -- was Option 4. In
fact, that's what the discussion was about and what I said was
unacceptable.
So, you know, call it what you will. That is what was decided.
And, you know, to go forward like I said and to do anything further
without this going back to the TDC -- there didn't have to be any
discussion. If all we were saying was, oh, Gary, thanks for the four
options, and we'll just, you know, accept what you've presented for
future -- for a future vote is very, very different than what happened
this morning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And now the next issue is the
Coastal Planning and Engineering. You selected Coastal Planning and
Engineering as your top choice for the north beaches, yet Coastal
Planning and Engineering was the firm that was involved in Palm
Beach County in very significant litigation involving permitting for
renourishment which was denied. And, you know, there were material
problems with that.
Now, why would we be picking a firm that Palm Beach County
was involved in litigation with and where that firm did not prevail? I
mean, I just don't understand.
And, lastly, my last question is --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute. Answer that question.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, go ahead.
MR. McALPIN: Coastal Planning and Engineering has done
work for the county here for the last seven years since I've been with
the county.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Just focus on the renourishment
work for this particular issue.
Page 102
April 10, 2012
MR. McALPIN: I can't comment on why -- what happened in
Palm Beach County relative to Coastal Planning and Engineering. I
don't know what the circumstances of that are. I know that Coastal
Planning and Engineering does work throughout the state. And for us
they have been very successful.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The next issue is the concern that I
have with respect to the timing of this. Apparently, there were delays
and the concept plan did not go to the other companies until five days
before they were to submit.
Now, I'm not sure how that could have happened. And Mr.
Parnell -- or Carnell, I should say, spoke before the TDC and he said,
yeah, I know. I mean, it should have been longer, but no one
protested it and, therefore, that's okay. Well, that's not okay.
These notices are supposed to be publicly posted at least 21
calendar days preceding the last day established for the receipt of
proposals, and that's according to our purchasing policy. So I don't
see how you could have done this.
MR. JOHNSON: For the record, Scott Johnson from your
purchasing department. And to clarify, Commissioner Hiller, I
believe I was the one that appeared in front of the TDC and provided
the information.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't remember. I thought it was
Mr. Carnell. But you two look alike.
MR. JOHNSON: I think he has far more hair than me.
To specifically address your question, Commissioner Hiller, the
posting provision that is on Page 9 of the county's purchasing policies
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
MR. JOHNSON: -- specifically requires --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right here.
MR. JOHNSON: -- that -- yes -- that the notices be placed 21
days preceding the last day of the established receipt of the proposals.
Page 103
April 10, 2012
This RFP was issued on September the 14th of 2011, and we
closed the RFP process, the posting period, on November 15 of 2011,
which was 62 days.
The conceptual designs are referenced in the RFP; however, they
were not a grading criteria and, further, there is no requirement for the
design professional chosen -- short listed or chosen, for that matter, to
use the conceptual design. They were asked to document the
successes associated with what they saw.
Now --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But they didn't get to see it. And
the two firms that were selected -- or one of the firms at least, if my
understanding is correct, was the one that actually did the design, or
did both of them do the design with -- respectively for each area that
they got selected on?
MR. JOHNSON: I don't have that kind -- that detail off the top
of my head.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Gary might know.
Gary, did Coastal Planning -- who did the conceptual design for
the south project, and who did the conceptual design for the north
project?
MR. McALPIN: Coastal Engineering and Consultants did the
conceptual design for Marco South, and Coastal Planning and
Engineering did the conceptual design for the major beach
renourishment that we're talking about.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. And so basically what
happened was the two firms that did the conceptual designs had the
information, and the other firms didn't get that information till five
days before they were supposed to submit their bid.
MR. JOHNSON: No. The conceptual design that was issued is
-- I will agree it is large. It is historical data that dates back to 1995
associated with our beach renourishments. I've read every page of it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it's materially different. I
Page 104
April 10, 2012
mean, this project is 100 percent bigger than any coastal -- than any
renourishment project we've ever done.
MR. JOHNSON: However, Commissioner, as you well
understand the Consultants Competitive Negotiation Act in the State
of Florida prescribes the way that we select and further award
contracts to engineering consultants and architects. It specifically
requires us in the first round of competition, which is what we have
done here, that they are to be selected on the individual's qualifications
and the firm's qualifications.
The conceptual design was referenced in the RFP, I will agree
with that; however, there was no reference to it in the grading criterion
that was published with the RFP and, further, it was just an
informational issue that was given to them so that they would have all
the historical knowledge of what we have done in the beaches since
1995. So we selected these firms based on their qualifications.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm misunderstanding. Two firms
had more information for a longer period of time, because they
actually developed it, than the other firms that bid on this.
MR. JOHNSON: But at the end of the day, Commissioner, it
didn't make any difference because we selected engineers and
architects based on the law, which is based on their qualifications,
irrespective of whatever we hang off the back of the RFP. They're
selected on their qualifications only.
So we could write that we want you to do it this way. If they
don't agree with that, it doesn't matter in this round of competition
because they have to sign and seal the documents, that they're correct.
So the information that was issued five days prior to the closing
of the RFP was informational in nature.
I did receive some phone calls from folks asking if I intended to
extend the due date, and I said, I don't intend to at this point in time;
however, if you need more time, I'm open to doing that. No one of
anyone that contacted me said, I need more time; otherwise, we would
Page 105
April 10, 2012
have done it. And at 57 days into the process, I felt it was time to
move forward.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Gary, is Coastal Engineering a
preferred -- on the preferred engineering vendor list?
MR. McALPIN: They are on -- they have a contract with the
county. They're one of the vendors that is under contract with the
county. I don't know if the term is "preferred," but they're under
contract with the county, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So they did work under
the contract to the county, a conceptual design for South Beach -- or
Marco Island South Beach project?
MR. McALPIN: Yes. They did the conceptual design under the
existing contract with the county at that point.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And renourishment -- I'm
reading from the agenda packet and trying to understand what it
means. Renourishment is approximately 140 (sic) cubic yards of
beach compatible sand to restore approximately 440 feet of beach that
will be designed and permitted by Coastal Consultant and is not
included as a part of this package?
MR. McALPIN: We have -- they were engaged to do the -- we
were -- they were engaged to do the permitting. The RFP for this
particular -- for this was for them to do the design, the specifications,
the contract drawings, any construction engineering that we had, and
certify the project that it was built as per their design.
So we needed to move on with the permitting for that phase of
the project, and we authorized money for them to move forward with
the permitting, but we RFP'd the design and the specifications and the
engineering for that under this RFP.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But it's not going to include the
440 feet that you mentioned earlier?
MR. McALPIN: It is. It will -- the design and the specifications
1:
April 10, 2012
will include all the 440 feet that is critically eroded for the South
Marco project, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So they did the work,
and then they -- and then we had requests for proposals or --
MR. McALPIN: They completed the conceptual design for this
project. They were awarded the permitting for this, because we have
some tight permitting requirements to meet the turtle nesting season
this year, and then they were -- they submitted a proposal for the RFP
for this portion of the project for the design construction
specifications, construction engineering, and project certification.
And that's what -- that's the -- that's what the -- that scope for Marco
South included.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Are you finished, Commissioner
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala? Oh, I'm sorry.
You wanted to speak after the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: After the speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many public speakers do we have,
Ian?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we just have one public speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Could we call the public speaker?
MR. MITCHELL: Marcia Cravens.
MS. CRAVENS: Good afternoon, Collier County
Commissioners. Marcia Cravens. And I'm here to speak as a resident
of Collier County, someone who is very interested in what occurs with
expenditures of public dollars, and particularly when those
expenditures affect our coastal resources.
I am a certified Florida master naturalist for coastal systems, and
I always keep that in mind when I'm reviewing or monitoring
proposed projects.
Page 107
April 10, 2012
I would ask -- I'm a little confused, I think, about what I actually
heard in discussion today versus what was then reiterated that that
discussion was, because what I heard while I sat here as an attendee of
this meeting on the prior 11A item was an urging for the BCC to
approve moving forward with permitting for the maximal (sic) amount
of sand placement, which was Option 4, yet when I monitored what
the TDC board actually discussed and approved at their last meeting
where this was an item, they actually only approved all conceptual
plans, that they needed more information about the particulars of each
of those options and they did not have a preference -- did not
recommend that any going forward, as you will, should ensue for any
particular option. So I'm a little confused about exactly what occurred
earlier.
For this particular agenda item, I would just ask, aren't
qualifications inclusive of experience and knowledge, past experience,
and didn't CP &E engineering plans and modeling for beach
nourishment in Palm Beach County result in a lawsuit by the Surf
Riders Foundation that Judge Mealey presided over and that he found
to not be scientifically sound and, therefore, all the money that Palm
Beach County spent for that plan pretty much went to waste?
And CP &E actually admitted as much at a Coastal Advisory
Committee meeting, which I attended about a year ago. And didn't the
CEC firm engineering plans result in rocks on the beach in Collier
County, which was some other wasted public funds?
I would hope that in consideration of contract negotiations for a
very important expenditure of our public funds that it would be based
on experience and knowledge and demonstrated good works.
Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. First of all, we never did pick
out a plan, did we? We had four presented, but just like any PUD or
� -s � i
April 10, 2012
any DRI, when the PUD goes through the process or the DRI, they
seek as many dwelling units as would be legally permitted on the land
not knowing yet who they're going to sell it to and what that developer
wants to build on there. They request the most. They can always
scale back.
In fact, we've had on our books for years many ghost units is
what we call them, because they never did get fully built out, but they
were there just in case they needed them depending on who it went to.
So we talked about all of them and, yes, we wanted to get a
permit in place to encompass anything that we wanted to do so we
didn't have to go back to the troth and spend more money to do it all
over again. So, yes, we went for the biggest one. That doesn't mean
we're going there. We don't even know how the money is going to
come in yet, if we're going to get any grants, or anything.
But that's why we took precautions to make sure that in the end
the taxpayers are not paying through the nose because we didn't do it
right in the first place.
Secondly, it's -- this beach, south beach, the state tells us it's
critically eroded. Isn't that what they said? The state said. We didn't
say it, and the engineering didn't say it. The state said that beach is
critically eroded, and we better start cleaning it up, because the more
we turn our backs on these things, the more money it costs us in the
end. The more we delay, the less we can prepare.
And we're trying to, right now, align all of this equipment to
come into Collier County but share it with other counties, with other
beach projects, and that saves us money. If we continue to put it off
and delay it, we're going to pay the highest cost and, guess what, we're
going to be called -- we're going to be called, what do you say,
spending like drunken sailors when in the end we're trying to save us
this money right now and prepare for the future.
It's a very, very popular beach on Marco Island. It's open to the
public. They never have enough parking, so they park all over the
Page 109
April 10, 2012
streets. I'm sure you've read about it in the newspaper. But it needs to
be corrected, this beach.
And, lastly, the erosion control structures, which have proven to
be an asset to the beaches in delaying the erosion, have -- the
structures themselves need to be rebuilt somewhat. Rather than let
them go any further and not be able to do their job at all, they need to
rebuild them.
So with that, I'm going to say I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There's a motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think there's a motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, there is?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion and second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll third it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Call the question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I'm about to do that except
Commissioner Hiller's light is on.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. It was from before.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, from before, okay. Then all in favor
of the motion, which I believe was made by Commissioner Henning
and seconded by Commissioner Coletta -- is that the way it worked?
No?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I made the motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, it was you and you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You seconded. It's been a little
while.
that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I seconded it. Why would I have done
Okay. Motion made by Commissioner Coletta, seconded by me.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Page 110
April 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes 4 -1 with Commissioner
Hiller dissenting.
Okay. County Manager, where do we go from here?
Item #1 I H
RESOLUTION 2012 -63: A BOND RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$50100000 IN ORDER TO REFUND A PORTION OF COLLIER
COUNTY'S OUTSTANDING GAS TAX REFUNDING REVENUE
BONDS, SERIES 2003 — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that takes you to your next
time - certain item this afternoon. It's Item 11 H on your agenda to be
heard at 1:30, and I will note that it is 1:30, sir. That's 11H, a
recommendation to adopt a bond resolution authorizing the issuance
of bonds in an amount not to exceed $50 million in order to refund a
portion of Collier County's outstanding Gas Tax Refunding Revenue
Bonds, Series 2003.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Hiller, Second by Commissioner Fiala.
You just want to tell us very briefly why you're doing this?
MR. ISACKSON: Well, to save you about two and a half
million dollars over the remaining 11 year life of the bond, sir.
MR. OCHS: For the record, you are?
MR. ISACKSON: For the record, Mark Isackson with the
Page 111
April 10, 2012
County Manager's Office.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's very concise. Two and a half
million dollar savings to the taxpayers, right?
MR. ISACKSON: That's correct, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. All in favor -- do we have
speakers? Turn off my light.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have no speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
MR. ISACKSON: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion carries unanimously. Thank
you.
Item #I OA
RESOLUTION 2012 -64: REAPPOINTING THOMAS EASTMAN
(TERM EXPIRING OCTOBER 1, 2015) TO THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we're going back now to Item 10
on your agenda, Board of County Commissioners. IOA is an
appointment of member to the Collier County Planning Commission.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have Mr. Thomas Eastman
applying for reappointment to the Planning Commission. Does -- do
any of the commissioners have a motion?
Page 112
April 10, 2012
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, his position is a nonvoting position, and
he's a representative of the School Board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Make a motion to approve Thomas
Eastman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Fiala to
approve Mr. Thomas Eastman as the School Board's Representative,
seconded by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
Item #I OB
RESOLUTION 2012 -65: REAPPOINTING MARJORIE L. BLOOM
TO THE ANIMAL SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: IOB is appointment of member to the Animal
Services Advisory Board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion -- we have
committee recommendations for the reappointment of Marjorie Bloom
to serve a four year term on the Animal Services Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'll make a motion to accept
the committee's recommendation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Fiala to
Page 113
April 10, 2012
accept the committee's recommendation for the appointment of
Marjorie Bloom for reappointment.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Henning.
Commissioner Henning, your light is on.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You can turn it off.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion carries unanimously.
Item # 1 OC
ADVISORY BOARD VACANCIES PRESS RELEASE APRIL 5,
2012 WITH A DEADLINE OF APRIL 26, 2012
MR. OCHS: IOC is Advisory Board Vacancies press release
April 5, 2012, with a deadline of April 26, 2012.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Ian?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir. This is the press release that was
issued on April 5th.
Affordable Housing Advisory Committee currently has one
vacancy for a member as an alternate. The other proviso on this is that
the resident should live in Immokalee; the Airport Authority Advisory
Board currently has one vacancy; the Animal Services Advisory
Page 114
April 10, 2012
Board has a vacancy in a category of Veterinarian or Vet Technician;
the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory
Board has three vacancies; the Contractors Licensing Board has three
terms that are currently going to expire on the June 30th; the Golden
Gate Estates Land Trust Committee has one vacancy; the Hispanic
Affairs Advisory Committee has two vacancies; the Ochopee Fire
Control District Advisory Committee has one vacancy; and the Parks
and Recreation Advisory Board has two vacancies. And this press
release will end on April 26th.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
That takes us to 101), right, County Manager?
Item #1 OD
REQUEST BY THE 5 MEMBER GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY
CENTER ADVISORY BOARD TO HAVE THE TERMS OF
OFFICE ALTERED TO ALLOW BOARD MEMBER TERMS TO
BE STAGGERED FOR RENEWAL AT 2 MEMBERS, 2
MEMBERS, 1 MEMBER - COUNTY ATTORNEY TO BRING
BACK A RESOLUTION CHANGING TERM LIMITS AT THE
NEXT BCC MEETING — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. 10D is a request by the five member
Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Board to have the terms of
office altered to allow board member terms to be staggered for
renewal at two members, two members, and one member.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It says this would be accomplished
by changing the term of Bill Arthur to expire on December 31, 2013,
instead of December 31, 2014. I guess this is their suggestion to
change that.
Page 115
April 10, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep, it is.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I'll make a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve changing the
term of William E. Arthur to expire on December 31, 2013, instead of
December 31, 20145 by Commissioner Fiala.
Seconded by?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye -- whoops, hold on.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's not quite -- they're
staggering the terms not just for the one year but the other terms. So
they want a two year, a two year, and then a one year, and we have to
advertise the ordinance and bring it back.
And that's what you're saying, what the board is approving, right?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's my understanding, at least, that the
advisory board is saying you can accomplish the staggering by
changing the term of one person. Is that true? Is that correct?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes. The ordinance is -- did you want to
speak?
MR. KLATZKOW: The ordinance is not material. My
understanding, that is absolutely correct, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon me?
MR. KLATZKOW: My understanding is all they're asking us to
do is to change the term of one of the members which will actually
stagger everybody -- everybody else. We're not changing anything
else.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we don't need to change the
ordinance?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, great.
Page 116
April 10, 2012
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, the ordinance isn't specific that it's three
and two. It just says staggered terms. And the way the terms fell out
was three and two, so this puts --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Should we do a resolution or
something like that to clarify the ordinance?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, you don't need a resolution to clarify
the ordinance. You need a resolution changing the term of the one
member.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor please signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
MR. OCHS: So, Mr. Chairman, if I could, do we need Jeff to
bring a resolution back then or --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, I will be doing that.
MR. OCHS: -- can we process that for the chairman's signature
before the next meeting?
MR. KLATZKOW: I'll bring it back at the next meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
Item #1 I C
ACCEPT THE FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION FROM THE
CONSERVANCY OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA OF UP TO
Page 117
April 10, 2012
$90,000 DOLLARS TO ALLOW FOR A THIRD PARTY FIRM,
NOT ASSOCIATED WITH ANY INTEREST GROUP
CONCERNING THE RURAL LAND STEWARDSHIP AREA
(RLSA), TO PROVIDE FOR AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF
THE AMENDMENT PROCESS AND COMPLETE THE
ASSOCIATED STEPS OUTLINED IN THE SCOPE OF
SERVICES DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" TO THIS EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY AND APPROVE ALL NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENTS — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item I IC on the
agenda. It is a recommendation to accept the financial contribution
from the Conservancy of Southwest Florida of up to $90,000 to allow
for a third -party firm not associated with any interest group
concerning the Rural Land Stewardship Area to provide for an
independent review of the amendment -- excuse me -- amendment
process, and complete the associated steps outlined in the scope of
services described in Exhibit A to this executive summary, and
approve all necessary budget amendments.
Mr. Bosi?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve by me,
seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I really want to thank the
Conservancy for considering making this contribution towards the end
that Leo just described; however, I don't think that they can make an
earmark financial contribution to us. They can make a general
contribution. We can vote that it be used in this fashion.
Alternatively, what I think is the better way to handle this is that
we have a contract in effect which names the county and Conservancy
Page 118
April 10, 2012
as, you know, hiring this independent consultant with Conservancy
contributing the funds as opposed to Conservancy making a donation
to us and then us expending the funds.
So it's really how this is accomplished, not that there's anything,
you know, wrong with the intent of what's being proposed.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Attorney, what's your position?
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't have an issue with the proposal.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I do. It's the same -- like, for
example, when Paradise donated money for a specific project. I mean,
you're going back to that whole issue of a donation to us for a specific
purpose.
And, again, we have to collectively vote on that specific use. So
they can't earmark it. I mean, if we want to -- or you can basically
bifurcate the action and say, you know, they're making a general
donation to us and then we take -- and we accept that as one vote and
then we take a second vote that we will use that for, you know, that
specific end.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's the same thing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, it's not.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, it gets you the same place.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're taking a vote now, aren't we?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's very different.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, okay.
We have a motion on the floor. Who was second? Who
seconded the motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I did.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor of the motion please
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Page 119
April 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The motion passes 4 -1 with
Commissioner Hiller dissenting.
Item #1 I D
A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN AN AMOUNT UP TO $2500
FROM UNINCORPORATED AREA MSTD GENERAL FUND
(I 11) RESERVES TO RETAIN AN OUTSIDE FIRM TO
PROVIDE A COST - BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF THE AVE MARIA
SRA AND DETERMINE IF THE DEVELOPMENT HAS
DEMONSTRATED FISCAL NEUTRALITY, AS REQUIRED BY
THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Item 11D is a recommendation to approve a budget
amendment in an amount up to $25,000 from Unincorporated Area
MSTD General Fund reserves to retain an outside firm to provide a
cost benefit analysis of the Ave Maria SRA and to determine if the
development has demonstrated fiscal neutrality as required by the
Land Development Code.
Mr. Bosi will present.
MR. BOSI: Good afternoon, Commission. Mike Bosi,
comprehensive planning.
Back in February of this year we had the Clerk's Office present
the findings related to the FIAM. They were unable to make a
definitive determination as to whether they agreed with the financial
analysis provided at that five year anniversary.
The applicant submitted their FIAM for their SRA showing that
it was a cost neutral development. There was questions regarding the
Page 120
April 10, 2012
model and whether it was the same model. We asked the clerk to
make that evaluation.
The clerk spent many months analyzing it, came back, provided
the report, and they felt that they were unable to make that
determination definitively to the Board of County Commissioners.
Commissioner Henning suggested what if we just had a cost
benefit analysis provided related to the submitted FIAM to -- from an
outside party to provide a determination as to whether they've satisfied
the cost neutral requirements as required by the LDC.
And this -- this executive summary's asking to move the funds to
make that available to issue the RFI to seek that firm.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I could get Nick to come up
here. Nick?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You make an analysis --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who broke your arm, first of all?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'd really rather not say, sir. Playing
ball, sir, where two of us collided and --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're not supposed to have time to
play. We've got enough work here to keep everybody busy.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's the only time I get to clear my
head, sir. There's a lot going on.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But we just want it to be on the
record that nobody here broke your arm, right?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir, that's true.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You hesitated.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The person who broke my arm may be
in the audience. I don't want to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We understand that.
Nick, you did your own analysis.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
Page 121
April 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can you lay it out on the
visualizer and go over it with us?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I didn't bring that analysis with me,
sir. I can elaborate on it, if you'd like.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If you would, please.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We looked strictly at the cost to
benefit of the transportation impacts with respect to Oil Well Road,
recognizing that Ave Maria was not the sole beneficiary of that road
and in doing so, only a percentage of.
I think we've done that to try and focus on -- the bulk of the
FIAM was discussing the road costs. I think the person who does the
cost to benefit analysis will take what I've done, sir, and correct it or
clarify it just to make sure that it's clear and accurate. And I think it
would help to support the FIAM.
And I think the only thing in the FIAM that was really in
question was the road. The valuation of the property, I think we
agreed with the Clerk's Office that the appraisal adjustments made
sense. The valuation of the right of way, we talked about, had some
leeway. That was truly the costs of the road that were in question. So
I think that person will look at that, whoever that person is.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, my problem is the
$251000. I realize that's the high end of it. It might be considerably
less since you have already done the work and probably could get a
finding for considerably less.
But why are we doing this; just to be able to have another
exercise in spending money?
I feel confident. The clerk never said at any point in time that
they haven't paid their fair share. He said he had suspicions that they
haven't, and that's what he'd been going from day one.
I think that what you have done and what you've demonstrated
has covered that completely. And I was very satisfied with what I
heard when we had the item brought before us, Fishkind presented,
Page 122
April 10, 2012
and then we also heard the testimony on tape of the clerk's auditor.
And I'm just -- I don't think we need to go through this. This is
just a certain amount of redundancy that's not needed. I don't think
this money is justified being spent in this direction, and it will serve no
purpose.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner Coyle?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
MS. KINZEL: For the record, Crystal Kinzel.
I do have to take exception, Commissioner Coletta. The quote
that was made by the auditor was not a validation of a neutrality or a
positive. The conversation that was held surrounding that quote was
that the Clerk was not going to make a bottom line dollar
determination, that we had the issues that were presented to the board,
we outlined those issues that we felt made it questionable as to how
you could take the FIAM to its natural conclusion without the horizon
year element, without some of the other validated costs included in
that FIAM analysis.
So I wouldn't rely on an out of context quote that may have been
put on the visualizer, and I just wanted to put that on the record.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I don't know what all that means,
but that's all right.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nick, did you, in your analysis
-- transportation analysis, include the two extra lanes on Immokalee
Road that was -- change order that was done because of Ave Maria?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir, that was not included.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, we know what the
cost is. So when the model comes back, if it's not included, we could
just include it.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, I could easily -- I could do that.
Page 123
April 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: However, Nick and I's
conversation about this topic, the fiscal -- the FIAM model was
adopted by the board. I don't see any reason why the consultant can't
take a look at that and give us a -- give us some perspective if the -- all
of the inputs were in, and also was it arbitrarily changed like
suggested by the county's auditor.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If I could add. I mean, just -- I don't
want to give you false expectations. Everything we do is trying to
manage expectations to all the commissioners.
It's a model. It's really a forecasting tool. And I -- the discussion
I had with the clerk was, you were set up -- not set up in a bad way. I
mean, you were set out on a task to do an analysis as an auditor.
You're looking for a penny calculation. That's what you do. And
when you're doing a calculation on something that's a model -- you
know, a discussion I think I've had with you, Commissioner, several,
is are you going north or are you going south. You know, it's not
going to tell you by which degree and how much. It's just telling you
if you're heading in the right direction.
And now we're going down this, sort of, doing a third party cost
to benefit analysis, which is fine. Someone else will look at it and say,
do we generally think that this development is paying its fair share.
But there are so many variables I brought up in discussions with
all of you, and I want to make sure we're clear. Taxable values, the
amount of money you allocate to road maintenance, the cost of roads
in any given year, the cost of right of way in any given year, those all
fluctuate on a forecast model.
So you're going to look at a five year snapshot based on fixed
numbers that we know and see how that turned out, and then you're
going to say, okay -- you're supposed to look forward now, and all
you're going to find out is if -- I know. I'm saying is the FIAM --
going forward. But at that five year snapshot when you look at that,
you're still looking at things such as variables that were there at that
Page 124
April 10, 2012
time, and those changed even over the five year period that we did that
analysis.
So I don't want the expectations to be that this person's going to
come back and give you a penny number. They're going to give you
probably some general guidance that says, we don't see any anomalies
in here, we don't find that there are any outstanding dollars owed to
the county based on the numbers we reviewed at that time, so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Nick, thank you very much.
The reason why your analysis cannot be used is because it isn't
required by law; whereas, the FIAM is required by law. And,
specifically, it's required by the Land Development Code Section
4.08.07(L)(1). And I'm going to read what it says. Demonstration of
fiscal neutrality, each SRA must demonstrate that its development, as
a whole, will be fiscally neutral or positive to the Collier County tax
base at the end of each phase or every five years, whichever occurs
first, and -- not or -- and in the horizon year build out.
This demonstration will be made for each unit of government
responsible for the services listed below using one of the following
methodologies: A, Collier County Fiscal Impact Model, the fiscal
impact model officially adopted and maintained by Collier County.
It's the law, okay. There is no alternative that can be used that
isn't part of the Land Development Code, okay. That is the law. So
what you presented doesn't work to satisfy the requirement.
This is also what the Land Development Code says in Section
L.2. Monitoring requirement, to assure fiscal neutrality, the developer
of the SRA shall submit to Collier County a fiscal impact analysis
report every five years until the SRA is 90 percent built out. The
report will provide a fiscal impact analysis of the project in accord
with the methodology outlined above. Okay.
Then in Resolution No. 2005- 23(4)(a), the following was stated:
The demonstration of fiscal neutrality must show that the development
Page 125
April 10, 2012
will be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County tax base at the end
of each phase or each five year period, whichever comes first, and at
the horizon year build out.
A fiscal neutrality analysis will be provided pursuant to the Land
Development -- to LDC Section 4.08.07 at the end of the fifth year. If
that analysis shows a negative impact on the Collier County tax base,
a fiscal neutrality analysis will be performed annually thereafter until
the project build out. Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Bottom line is the fiscal impact
analysis must use the FIRM.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So it is what it is — No, you know
your approach is not an alternative to the FIAM.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Didn't say it was, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't -- we have to use the FIAM --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- because if we find that there is a
deficit there, that's the only legal way you can hold the developer
responsible for reimbursing the county and the taxpayers. So there is
no question that we have to use the FIAM.
But I don't find any conflict between what Commissioner
Henning has said and what you have said. The FIAM is there. The
developer used the FIAM. The only question is whether or not there
were clearly erroneous assumptions or incorrect costs used.
So when you suggest, as Commissioner Henning has, and you
have said, verify the data that was used to see if it reached a
reasonably correct conclusion, and then we'll have our answer, and we
will have used the FIAM, which is required by our rules.
So I don't see any conflict here. I think you're all talking about
the same thing. You're talking about a cost benefit analysis, which is
what the FIAM really attempts to do. But let's just be clear about it.
Page 126
April 10, 2012
We're talking about taking the FIAM and looking at it from a
standpoint of accuracy.
And with respect to forecasting out, I see that to be a waste of
money, because anybody can take exception with your forecasts.
How do you know your forecasts are accurate? You can't prove
they're accurate. You won't know until you've reached build out
whether or not your forecasts are accurate.
So I believe that the wording of our ordinance is confusing in that
respect as far as a forecast is concerned, and I think the clear intent
from my standpoint was that the ordinance says, you'll give us a five
year projection every five years out to the build out period, okay,
because a forecast of what's going to happen at build out five or 10 or
15 years from now is worth absolutely zero, and I wouldn't want to
pay money to have somebody tell me that.
But, nevertheless, I would support the motion -- or I would
support the agenda item, and let's get it done for less than the amount
of money, if we can.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We'll try, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's not to exceed. Would that be okay
with everybody?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the staff gets 10 percent of whatever
they save.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's not a motion.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Please put it in.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Does anybody want to make a
motion on this?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We already have a motion and a
second, but I want to clarify.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Hiller, the -- my
Page 127
April 10, 2012
intent -- during that discussion, it was stated several times that the
Fishkind model that we adopted by policy, not by ordinance, probably
is not the right tool. So if we have an independent consultant take a
look at it they might come up with something else that is more user
friendly for staff and any land use in the RLSA.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, but the Land Development
Code -- can I respond? I mean, can we have a --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let him finish his statement.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, hang on. Let me finish.
So we might find that we want to adopt a different model or a formula
in the future that is easier and understandable by everybody. That was
the whole intent. And then you're absolutely right, we did adopt the
Fishkind model not within the ordinance, the Land Development
Code; that was by a policy.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's in the Land Development
Code.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We adopted the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's the law.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- 9.05.06.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I believe we just referenced at that
time, which was the original submittal of the model without being
changed, so -- yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So what was the model
number that we adopted? It was nine something or --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Seven point --
MS. KINZEL: Seven point five.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Seven point --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But that wasn't -- that's not in
the Land Development Code, Commissioner Hiller. That's outside the
Land Development Code. And we might want to use something else.
Page 128
April 10, 2012
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That really helps staff, what he's
saying, because I think you're going to find when someone comes
back, the third person looking at this will say, we've done what you've
asked, and I would love -- I would love for this to say, and give us any
guidance on either what we should do going forward so we're not in
this conflict again.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That would be fantastic, because I
think a third party's going to look at this and may say, well, this
doesn't really work or this is problematic, which lead to the 14 month
review and back and forth. If we can come back with something
better, I want to avoid this again if at all possible.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think -- may I --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. The key is what is
extremely important is that we, through a FIAM or FIAM equivalent
model. As you know whatever is legally permitted, make a
determination whether or not Ave Maria is fiscally neutral and based
on the numbers that have been presented and the errors that have been
identified in the modeling and the analysis with respect to
assumptions. It appears that it is not and that is a big problem because
these projects do have to be fiscally neutral and that's what we need to
see.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, that simply is not
true.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, but it is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The figures that have been presented --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let me explain.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- are overwhelmingly -- they
overwhelmingly demonstrate it has been positive.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, no, and quite to the contrary,
Page 129
April 10, 2012
because this project was predicated on build outs, and we know, based
on the information presented, that at that point in time that that -- or
let's take it as of now. Six thousand homes should have been built.
We should have gotten impact fees from 6,000 homes towards the
infrastructure that we have constructed. Only 400 homes have been
built.
Notwithstanding, the county has expended the public funds to
build the infrastructure in advance of the impact fees that were
anticipated from the homes expected to be built.
So it's really simple. I mean, have we advanced funds where we
expected to get impact fees to offset those funds by this point in time?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, I said this --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, and the answer is, we're
short.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I said last time and I want to be very
clear that road is a public road, which means all those trips are not
solely for Ave Maria. I can't attribute the full cost of that road --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. We built that road
predicated on --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to hear the rest of his.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, let him answer.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Go ahead.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If I -- again, I went through this last
time. If you take a two lane road and it's got a capacity of a thousand
trips and I add six lane -- make it a six lane road, it jumps to 3,000.
My Delta is 2,000 new trips on that road. The public uses that road
also on the west side, especially by Orangetree.
You can imagine that the daily volume of trips along that road
will be just as much for Orangetree and those schools, if not more than
they will be for Ave Maria.
So the amount of benefit per trip assigned to each individual
Page 130
April 10, 2012
property owner, that's how we calculate proportionate share.
So we recently adopted the Orangetree amendment, added a
thousand more units to Orangetree. Orangetree is going to be using
Oil Well Road. It's only going to be a four lane road, so the capacity
will probably get chewed up between the schools, Orangetree, and
Ave Maria. So the total value of the road gets split up between them
and then the grocers that travel that road --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How about Arthrex?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Arthrex or any -- well, part of Ave
Maria. But anybody else that travels that road will also use that, the
public that goes on that road through. So it's based on a proportion.
It's never a flat allocation to that one development.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I understand. And what I'm
saying again is, we advanced those funds predicated on that
development. That development has not delivered as promised.
There is a shortfall.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor of the motion please
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed by like sign?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. I just think it's a waste of
money.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, did -- Commissioner Hiller, did you
oppose it, or did you support it?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I support it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So it passes 4 -1 with
Commissioner Coletta opposing it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: A little change of direction, huh.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I guess so.
Page 131
April 10, 2012
What's the next item, County Manager?
Item #1 I F
REVIEW AND PROVIDE DIRECTION REGARDING THE ABC
FINANCE, LLC' S PROTEST OF THE RECOMMENDED
AWARD OF RFP #11 -5785, MANAGEMENT OF PELICAN BAY
TENNIS CENTER - MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF'S
RECOMMENDATIONS — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Next item is I IF. It's a recommendation to review
and provide direction regarding the ABC Finance LLC's protest of the
recommended award of RFP No. 11 -5785, management of Pelican
Bay Tennis Center. Ms. Price will present.
MS. PRICE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Len Price, for the
record.
Today we've got before you a protest of a recommendation for
award. There are a few ways that we can proceed with that, and I'll let
you decide how you'd like to go.
I can provide you with some background information -- I'm sure
you've read some of it -- you can listen to the protesting party, or you
can ask me questions. Let me know what your pleasure is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many public speakers do we have,
Ian?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we've just got one public speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And is the one public speaker the person
who is protesting?
MR. MITCHELL: I think so, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I would be happy to listen to the
protester so we'd get some idea of what the reason for protest is, okay.
Could we call the public speaker?
MR. MITCHELL: The public speaker is Jan David, ABC
Page 132
April 10, 2012
Finance.
MR. DAVID: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Jan
David, and I really would like to thank you for having an opportunity
to speak to you today.
I'm not a very eloquent speaker, so I will help with my paper
notes a little bit. I don't -- I hope that I will not offend you.
I'm owner of ABC Finance, and this company has filed for
application to get the management of Pelican Bay Tennis Community
Park.
We have partnered in this project with Arthrex with the goal to
create a world -class tennis center in this very park at no cost for
Collier County.
Award was given to another party, not ours, and basically
because of the mistake, which we did basically, like, a procedure
error. What it is -- what it was specifically is we made -- in one part
of our proposal we made our commitments, investment commitments
very clearly, but we failed in the other part of the proposal to fully list
them there. Based on this, we didn't get the points which we think that
we should have, and we lost the bidding process.
We ask you kindly to reevaluate the bidding process. We also
ask you kindly to -- that what we have committed to one section
would be allowed to serve as a proof of our commitment in general.
We also ask you kindly to evaluate the substance of our offer and
not only just the form of our application.
In a partnership with Arthrex, we committed ourselves to create a
new tennis clubhouse and basically replacing the existing little house
which is there. We also -- in the partnership with Arthrex, we've
committed to build the new tennis courts. All this during the first year
of our operation, but most importantly, Arthrex has also stated that
this is just the beginning of their financial commitment to grow
Pelican Bay facility to the finest public facilities in Southwest Florida.
I'm here to seek relief not only for ourselves, but also for all the
Page 133
April 10, 2012
residents of Collier County, and I would like especially to draw your
attention to the tremendous benefit for Collier County if the facilities
which we envision will be given right to become real.
I also prepared a little visualization of what we are ready to do.
And if -- with your permit (sic), I will go -- then I'll show you after my
little speech.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We can do even better than that. We can
show the audience and everyone else. If you'll put it on that board over
there, we can pick it up by photograph with the camera and display it
on the screens throughout the room.
MR. DAVID: Our whole idea is to convert the soccer field to
another tennis court.
MR. OCHS: She's bringing it up.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. There you go.
MR. DAVID: Yeah. So basically, as you probably will
recognize on the left side there are existing courts which are eight
courts south to it is a little house, which is called clubhouse right now.
But we offer a development of the premises to the right, basically to
the east by adding the new clubhouse situated right between the center
stadium court and existing eight courts and adding more courts for the
adults, but also adding courts for under 10 and under eight tennis,
which is highly supported by the government and also by USDA here
in the U.S.
This is our plan, and Arthrex -- with a partnership with Arthrex,
we would like to do it. Obviously, we made a mistake in our
application process, and we just kindly ask you to or request you to --
that you would ask your staff to maybe do a second evaluation while
taking into account all our investments which we mentioned in one
part but which we forgot to mention in the other part. This is a very
simple request and -- but it could have a very profound meaning for all
Collier citizens.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
Page 134
April 10, 2012
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, you know, I had requested
to see everything on this, and I didn't get it. I wanted to see the RFP, I
wanted to see your proposal, I wanted to see the other company's
proposal so I could fairly compare and determine for myself, you
know, what had happened.
I'm, obviously, very concerned because, you know, your proposal
is very materially different from the other proposal.
Did -- and I -- did the RFP provide that a facility would be built,
or is it just something that you offered in addition as part of your
proposal?
MR. DAVID: Right. What we -- what you were searching for
were, like, investments and basically --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The infrastructure. What I was
concerned about was that infrastructure in, you know, the plants, the
buildings, the courts.
MR. DAVID: Right. It was not asked or required by you, but as
RFP was returned, basically, were looking for some infrastructure
investments, and this is how we understood it.
I think that this will be for the benefit for all Collier residents,
you know, because adding more courts and using the field, which is
currently not very much used.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do you mind, I want to ask staff a
question. The qualifications of the other company seem to be very
limited. I mean I looked at the backgrounds, I mean the -- you know,
I know this is a two part discussion but you know, one being the
facilities if you will the other being the staffing. It didn't seem to me
that they had a great deal of experience.
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Joanne Markiewicz, Interim Purchasing
Director.
Commissioner Hiller, we forwarded the RFP and the two
proposals to your staff on Friday afternoon.
Page 135
April 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. I asked her again -- because
she just told me she didn't get it. She might have made a mistake,
because just before we started -- because I still haven't seen it, and she
said she had not received it.
MS. MARKIEWICZ: We asked in the request for proposal for
infrastructure commitments from both proposers -- from all proposers.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And, again, help me out. What
was the deficiency you found with this group's proposal? Because, I
mean obviously from a commitment and investment standpoint, it's
materially different and I will say that you know if Arthrex is making
these contributions they need to be joint proposers. Because, you
know, if they don't have a contract that we see, if they renege, this
company, you know, is not going to be able to produce what they're
presenting here.
So quite frankly, we need to have you, you know, Peli -- what,
ABC and Arthrex jointly being the petitioners on this.
MS. MARKIEWICZ: The proposal that we received came from
ABC Finance. It did not come from -- it was not a joint proposal
between ABC Finance and Arthrex, although there was an offering by
ABC Finance from Arthrex of an amount of an -- a single amount of
operating funds for the facility, and that's what Mr. David has
presented to you.
That was not an annual commitment, and the parks and recs
department was looking for an annual commitment.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, you're not getting an annual
financial commitment. You're getting an annual service commitment
from the other company.
MS. MARKIEWICZ: From the other company, actually, we're
receiving a $2,000 monthly guarantee for operations, 12,000 annual
investment in the tennis facility for the term of the contract, which is
five years with five one -year renewals, and $3,500 annual investment
in marketing.
Page 136
April 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So that's basically $50,000. Can
you give me the total value of what their contribution is for the life of
the contract, first before their renewals and then with the renewals?
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Well, 12 times -- 12,000 times five,
$60,000 for the first five years, and that's the annual investment in the
tennis facility; $2,000 monthly guarantee; and $3,500 annual
investment in marketing of the program.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thirty thousand?
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Three thousand, five hundred.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, 31500.
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So basically what they're
proposing to invest in the program annually is twenty -seven five,
right, and their capital investment is 60,000?
MS. MARKIEWICZ: For -- I'm calculating based on five years.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. And that's, of course, what
we're going to base it on because we don't know that we're going to
extend it, and that would have to come back for a -- sir, can you tell
me what your proposal is so we can have, you know, a true
comparison?
MR. DAVID: And that's where we made a mistake because in
the Part 1, we said that we are going to bring the new tennis
clubhouse, you know, and then in the part which was speaking about
annual investments, we put it only as the first year basically with a
sum of 110,000, but the clubhouse itself would be another 96,000 for
four years, you know.
And the whole idea here is -- and why did I -- I messed up, I have
to admit, because, like, this is the cooperation with Arthrex. And
Arthrex, initially, they wanted to say only, like, we would like to go
for the first year and then we'll see. But as the things are going, we are
gaining more and more support from Arthrex and that's why basically
Page 137
April 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What is Arthrex's contribution?
MR. DAVID: The first year was 80,000 and ours was basically
30,000.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So that's why you came up with
110?
MR. DAVID: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So then the issue would be that
you would then contribute 30,000. If Arthrex never contributed again,
you would be contributing 30,000 for each successive year of the
contract which, in essence, matches their contributions, with a
difference being that your investment in the property would be
400,000 and their investment in the property would be 600,000? You
said 96,000 for -- you said for the building, you said 96 --
MR. DAVID: It was 96,000 for four years.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. So I'm just rounding it to
100 -. So that's basically 400,000 in capital investments versus 60,000
in capital investments by the current bidder that was recommended
and with the operating essentially being the same under both
circumstances with you having the option of actually contributing
80,000 more per year if Arthrex is willing to make annual
contributions.
MR. DAVID: Yeah, that was -- the whole idea which I kind of
like -- we really had a great discussion with your people, with your
staff, but the way how the request for proposal was returned was like,
in the Part B, basically -- I'm sorry for these details, just maybe for
you to understand a little deeper -- the plan was supposed to detail to
-- was supposed to describe in a detailed way how the investment will
happen, whereas there was also another part which would not be
considered as an investment and one of those parts, which were
supposed to be an annual maintenance, was resurfacing of the courts.
And that's exactly what the other party mentioned in their
proposal, which I really didn't want to talk about this part, but it's kind
Page 138
April 10, 2012
of -- we really went with our heart on the table and we really wanted
to give our best bid. I mean, we are investing in the property which is
not ours, you know and we really -- and especially with the Arthrex on
our side, they really want to get back -- give back something to the
community, you know.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But even if you leave Arthrex out
of the equation -- I just want to go back. Annually the two companies
are proposing the same amount and the difference between your
proposal and their proposal is you're putting 400,000 into capital
improvements and they're proposing 60,000 in capital improvements
over the five years.
MR. DAVID: How did you get that amount of 400,000?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You said 96 times four in terms of
capital improvements.
MR. DAVID: The 96,000 was for four years for the tennis
clubhouse, which means it --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It would be divided.
MR. DAVID: Yeah, divided by four, exactly.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, so 96 divided by four, okay.
MR. DAVID: Divided by four.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
MR. DAVID: Which -- I mean, just for clarification --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So the difference, then is 36,000 in
terms of capital improvements?
MR. DAVID: Right. But the only thing is that, really, I wasn't
very detailed, because once we bring the building into the Pelican
Bay, there are more costs than 30,000 initially, you know. So
because, like, we have to clear the land and everything, you know. So
it was -- yeah, I made a couple of mistakes in the financial part, but I
never did it before, so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. This is a little
Page 139
April 10, 2012
troublesome, you know, having staff come up with a recommendation,
then their -- the supervisor coming up with the same recommendation,
the county manager not wanting to refer to a magistrate but bringing it
right to the commission.
We're obviously looking at a deal that you are offering that
appears, by all appearances, to be a better one. And, you know, we
have to come up with the best possible mix for the people that we
represent.
We want to make sure that what we're going to have is a facility
that's going to meet the needs of the residents of Collier County. And
the cash amount that's going to be put into it and everything is a very
important element; however, some of these things are not quite crystal
clear. My suggestion is -- and I know this is probably not going to go
over well with anyone, is that we just put this back out again where we
get some clarity in the bids from the two. Maybe there will be even a
third person who will come forward this time. That would be my
suggestion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let me make an observation. Mr. David,
you keep talking about your partnership with Arthrex. To the best of
my knowledge, Arthrex never signed this bid.
MR. OCHS: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There was no legal document tying you
with Arthrex in any way. There was no document that obligated
Arthrex to pay for anything. So you're asking us to make a decision
based upon assurances that you're making that are not substantiated by
your bid and that's a problem for us.
As much as, you know, we like to be supportive of Arthrex and
we understand, you know, their generosity to our community, we
make these decisions based upon the bids that are submitted, not upon
loose affiliations with other people where there are no signed contracts
or guarantees.
And if you had intended for them to be a partner, they should
Page 140
April 10, 2012
have had a signature on this and Arthrex's name should have appeared
right beside yours and I can assure you that would have attracted a lot
of attention.
But having left that off, it really is unfair to ask us to open up the
bids again now so that you can bring in this other partner after the bids
have been opened and everybody knows what the figures are.
If you were on the other end of this process, you would not like
that very much. And if we did all of our awards in that way, we
would be -- we wouldn't have anybody bidding for the work that we
have here.
So the -- you said you made some mistakes and you made some
very serious mistakes in submitting a bid --
MR. DAVID: But even if I -- may I?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, go ahead.
MR. DAVID: Two things, if I may, I mean obviously there is a
term like a gentleman agreement shaking hands, right? And that's
exactly what is the agreement between Arthrex and us, I mean you can
verify with the owner of Arthrex.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, no, no, no, no, no, no. When we
have legal solicitations of bids on things, there's no such thing as a
shake hands deal with somebody who isn't even identified in the bid.
You have to identify --
MR. DAVID: What I --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- who is going to provide the financing
and how much.
MR. DAVID: And that's what we did. We basically referred to
our agreement with Arthrex that they are going to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Where was your agreement with
Arthrex?
MR. DAVID: It's a verbal one and it can be confirmed by
Arthrex people in person, if that would be the next step of verification.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that would have been the step of
Page 141
April 10, 2012
verification that should have been pursued when you submitted the
bid.
MR. DAVID: We quoted them. And I'm not that kind of person
that I would quote somebody without having agreement with him.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. David, we can't read your mind
when we're looking at two bids that have been sealed. We take what
is in those bids and we make the best decision we can make.
MR. DAVID: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And if you failed to put the information
in the bids, I'm sorry to tell you, but that's not our fault.
MR. DAVID: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. DAVID: But that was not the problem which we -- that was
not the mistake which we did, you know, because even if we did the
application the way that it was supposed to, there would still not be
participation of Arthrex with -- in a written form. The problem which
we did, just to explain to you, is in the business description we said we
are going to put the tennis clubhouse into the facilities for the whole
time of the time -- of our operation there, which means that it's like
30,000 times five, or 30,000 and plus 4,000 times 24.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a solution.
MR. DAVID: Yep -- basically meaning that all our -- all our
investment for the first year with Arthrex and for including our
contribution with the new tennis facility clubhouse was 206,000.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, All right.
Commissioner Henning, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve staffs
recommendations.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner
Henning --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- to approve staff s recommendation,
Page 142
April 10, 2012
second by Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But I just have one comment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you.
Mr. David, I think we all wanted to really help you. I mean, you
seem like such an earnest, honest guy and we really would want to
support you, but then we would set a precedent also and that would be
kind of tough for us.
But I was going to ask staff if maybe there are some -- he said
this is the first time he's ever done a bid. Maybe there's somebody on
staff that could coach him or maybe even direct him in the right
direction to learn how to do this, because I'm hoping he'll come back
again and again. His work is very, very nice.
MS. MARKIEWICZ: We will do that, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you so much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta, do you
have anything to say?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, just a little concerned
over the best possible deal we can get. And I hate to come out on the
short end of it because of the fact that we may have neglected to put
some details in that should have been included early on.
I'd still like to have seen it rebid.
County Attorney, is that something that could be done, or is that
something that would be so far out of the norm that you wouldn't
recommend it?
MR. KLATZKOW: After what I've heard, I would not
recommend it at this point. I felt differently yesterday when I talked
to you. But after what I've heard from the applicant here, I wouldn't
recommend that now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I appreciate your advice
on that. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
Page 143
April 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What did you hear differently?
MR. KLATZKOW: He kept saying how many mistakes he
made. He didn't do this, he didn't do that, he didn't do this, he didn't
do that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What -- how many mistakes did he
make?
MR. KLATZKOW: Quite frankly, I'm getting to the point where
I'm wondering whether or not it should have been rejected for
nonresponsive.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's what I want to know. What
mistakes did he make?
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Commissioner, the -- he was not clear on
the relationship with Arthrex and, secondly, it was difficult for the
selection committee to potentially extrapolate capital dollars over
years. There was a commitment for Year 1. That was it. That was all
the selection committee could base their decision on.
And the second issue was Mr. David failed to submit any
references at all. So he was scored lower on his financial contribution
as well as his references.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let me go back to the financial
contributions. Thirty thousand is what he committed to. He said
Arthrex would contribute more but, you know, you can disregard that.
But if you're looking at annual contribution, you're looking apples to
apples, 30,000 to 30,000. In terms of the capital improvements, he
listed 96,000.
MS. PRICE: He didn't list that in the proposal. That was an
attachment at the back and he didn't put the dollars in. The area where
we asked for dollars, we asked for two things. We asked for a
monthly dollar amount --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Which, like I said --
MS. PRICE: -- ABC put in zero.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- forget about -- forget about
Page 144
April 10, 2012
Arthrex -- is exactly the same as ABC. So ABC and this guy -- I'm
sorry. ABC and the other company are both proposing $30,000 a
year, okay.
MS. PRICE: Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So let's -- next part.
MS. PRICE: -- he didn't commit to $30,000 a year. We had a
box and we asked two questions: What is your monthly commitment?
ABC said zero; the other firm said $2,000 per month.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, they actually said zero in the
MS. PRICE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
MS. PRICE: We asked, what is your annual investment? The
tennis academy said $12,000 a year; ABC changed that question and
submitted to us that they would provide $110,000 in the first year.
They did not commit to 30,000 every year after nor did they include in
that portion that we asked for any dollar value for the clubhouse, so
we had nothing to base that on.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
MS. PRICE: He tells us afterwards that in the back the
attachment that showed the dollars for the rental was to be used for the
clubhouse.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
MS. PRICE: But he didn't include that. So we were comparing
2,000 per month plus 12,000 per year --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I completely understand.
MS. PRICE: -- to zero and 110 the first year with potentially
nothing the next years.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I see exactly what you're dealing
with, and again, I unfortunately did not have the benefit of those
details.
By the way, I asked my aide again, she searched again -- for
Page 145
April 10, 2012
whatever reason, I don't know if you used the wrong email address.
But could you do me a favor? Just resubmit what you sent showing
the original date so she can search the files again. Because, for
whatever reason, we didn't get it --
MS. PRICE: Will do.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- which puts me at a -- I have to
say, I agree with Commissioner Coyle, for a second time today, okay,
like in — completely, and so you know, whatever he votes I'm going to
vote and I don't want you to think this is the beginning of a new block,
you know, for political reasons. But, yeah, he's right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Once again, make those in bold letters,
underlined.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Emphasis added.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, he's right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I agree with Jeff Klatzkow
also because, you know, based on what I'm hearing now as you're
describing it, yeah, there's an issue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: He wanted to make a comment.
MR. DAVID: May I make a comment?
Obviously, this is where I really didn't want to go today and I
really feel bad about it. But the truth is that our proposal had, like,
nearly 90 pages. It was quite a bit of reading and everything was
described in the reading and I don't know, maybe people have read it,
maybe don't and I'm not blaming them because it was not very short
reading.
But, basically, we explain -- we put it very clearly that we are
going to bring the new clubhouse into -- into the premises, you know
and then we put on the other side that we commit ourselves only for
the first year because Arthrex was at that time, committing only for
Page 146
April 10, 2012
the first year and that was our mistake that we left out all those 96,000
of the clubhouse, which we mention in the other part of the proposal.
That's one of the parts which -- it's very difficult for you to
understand because, like, this is so much reading, you know and I
understand that you have staff and I really don't want to go against
your staff, but I really, honestly, was expecting, when I am working
on something for such a long time, that maybe I would get -- maybe
an invitation to talk and explain, like, okay, "how did you mean this,"
"there are maybe some mistakes here," or "I don't understand this
part." We never got that chance to do.
And regarding the references, I was straight honest, because I
don't believe on references on the paper and I can say that right away
here. What was wrong with us not saying anything compared to the
other company who was getting references and the company was not
even existing, they got the references and if you see the -- your paper,
reference should be in the name of the company and key employer,
employees. Now, that company didn't even exist and there go the
references.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to call the motion.
Can we get on with the motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Wait. The company didn't exist?
MR. DAVID: No. It existed -- it was created as a d/b /a a couple
of days before their line of the whole thing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we don't have references on
this company?
MR. DAVID: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: This is a brand new company with
no history?
MR. DAVID: Exactly. And as a matter of fact, today another
company is going to take over the contract if you let them to take it
over, because there is a third entity already.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Who's the third entity?
Page 147
April 10, 2012
MR. DAVID: Well, now it is Naples Tennis Academy, LLC.
The proposal was offered or basically presented by d/b /a, forward
slash, The Naples Tennis Academy, which was basically some d/b /a
consisted of four coaches who got together and wanted to present
something. And they were not even so sure that they would win that
they didn't even create any LLC company at that time.
And these people presented, with a big fame to all of you, their
references for the last life (sic), but there was no reference for the
company. And they still would get 10 points. And I said, I am not
going to play this game, because references -- we are having business
here in Collier County for seven years.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And can you tell me about the
assignment?
MR. DAVID: Assignment of?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The assignment of the contract to a
third company.
MR. DAVID: That's what I saw yesterday that basically is
Naples Tennis Academy, LLC, right now and before the award was
firstly given to d/b /a The Naples Tennis Academy. And there is
another Naples Tennis Academy, Incorporated and another Naples
Tennis Academy d/b /a. So there are four Naples Tennis --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor of the motion, please
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The motion passes unanimously.
(No response.)
I
April 10, 2012
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item 11G is a recommendation --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But I'd like to qualify that, if I
may. I want to make sure that this contract is not assigned to anybody
and that it's only in the name of the entity that bid on this.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, you'll have an opportunity right
now. You're going to hear that item. It's a recommendation to award
RFP 11 -5785, Management of Pelican Bay Tennis Center and
authorize the Chairman to sign a contract --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Manager, we have to provide a
break for our court reporter. It's been an hour and a half --
MR. OCHS: I'm sorry. Very well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- plus one minute and we'll be back here
at 2:41.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, the Board of
County Commissioners is back in session.
Okay. What's the next item, County Manager?
Item #1 1 G
AWARD RFP #11 -5785, MANAGEMENT OF PELICAN BAY
TENNIS CENTER AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO
SIGN A CONTRACT WITH NAPLES TENNIS ACADEMY, LLC
— APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 11 H -- excuse me, sir -- 11 G. It's a recommendation
to award RFP No. 11 -5785, Management of Pelican Bay Tennis
Center and authorize the Chairman to sign a contract with the Naples
Tennis Academy, LLC.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Carnell can present or respond to questions at
Page 149
April 10, 2012
the pleasure of the board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's respond to questions.
Anybody have a question?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning. Second by?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller. All in favor,
please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, It passes unanimously, excellent
presentation Steve.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I make -- Commissioner
Coyle?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want to make one comment.
You know, Arthrex indicating that they wanted to promote tennis and
donate, you know, $80,000 to a program is for the benefit of the
people. And to the extent that Arthrex would like to make that
donation to help the people, you know, the board has selected who
they believe is the best candidate and their donation, you know, to the
-- you know, to that group and to that cause, however they want to
donate it, is something they still can do notwithstanding that we turned
down the initial bidder or the -- one of the bidders on this project.
Page 150
April 10, 2012
So they're not precluded from doing what they want to do just
because this board has selected a different vendor for the purpose if
their intent is to benefit the public. And that is really nothing to do
with us as a board. It's just something that remains open to them
individually.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And I think it deserves repeating
that we were in a position where there's nothing we could do, legally.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. No and the decision that
was made was absolutely correct given all the facts.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And given how we're limited
legally with respect to what we can do. But like I said, you know, our
decision should not in any way impede their personal decision to
choose to help the public --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: --independently.
All right.
Item #1 1 J
A WORK ORDER WITH ATKINS NORTH AMERICA, INC. FOR
CLAM PASS JOINT COASTAL PERMIT UNDER CONTRACT
#09- 5262 -CZ FOR A NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF $7,672 —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners that takes you to Item I U on your
agenda, which was previously 16D 1. It's a recommendation to
approve a work order with Atkins North America, Incorporated, for
Clam Pass joint coastal permit under Contract 09- 5262 -CZ for a
not -to- exceed amount of $7,672.
This item was moved from the consent agenda at Commissioner
Hiller's request.
Page 151
April 10, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. It was moved at my request
because there were a lot of concerns about this agenda item among
constituents and I wanted staff to provide clarification on the record so
people would understand what this $7,000 was actually for.
I actually received staff clarification but I wanted the public to
have the same information that I received and also to give the
opportunity to any constituent that wanted to talk to this matter
specifically and engage with staff to have the opportunity to do so.
So Gary, if you want to go ahead and present and explain. And I
don't know if we have any public speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do we have public speakers?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir, we have one public -- we have two
public speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. McALPIN: Thank you Commissioner, for the record Gary
McAlpin.
Commissioners, this is an item that will complete, we believe, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' permit conditions. We had received a
request for additional information.
The notice to proceed for Atkins North America expired on the
previous work order that they were dealing with on 11 / 15 of '10.
The FDEP permit is complete. We received a request for
additional information from the Corps on -- to address approximately
30 citizens' comments on 8/23/11.
So the original item/work order had expired. We received this
additional request to address these items on 8/23/11. This item is
$7,600, which will allow us to address those items. And I'll be happy
to answer any questions that you have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You want to hear from the public
speakers?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Why don't we hear from
Page 152
April 10, 2012
them first.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Call the first public speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker is Ted Raia.
MR. RAIA: My name is Ted Raia from Pelican Bay. I am
president of the Mangrove Action Group. I've been involved in Clam
Bay since I retired from the army in 1997, which is a long time ago
now.
I'm using -- I have two graphs that were pre- tabbed by
consultants that my good friend Gary McAlpin has been using and I
want to point out how problems arise between people involved in
Pelican Bay and the County.
We look at the dredging to do the minimum necessary to
preserve the mangrove ecosystem and it appears the county approach
is to do the maximum you can do before getting a negative impact.
So on this graph -- the county wants to dredge 400 square feet, an
area across -- an area of 400 square feet, 5 by 80 foot with a channel
when, in actuality, at just 100 square feet, a 20 foot wide channel puts
you in the stable area.
And by experience, we know that the tidal flow is stable at a very
narrow channel. So are we dredging to preserve the natural ecosystem
there to keep its aesthetically pleasing appearance by dredging the
minimum necessary, or are we actually dredging for sand when we go
to an 80 foot width?
The second graph is a bar graph and it's based on this -- that the
staff wants to say they want to dredge every five years and they
extrapolate with this slope line by saying, well, if you start here -- and
when it comes to this point here, which happens to take five years, it's
time to dredge.
This line really is not the slope of the top of these bars. You
should not start at the beginning when you first dredge. You should
start your evaluation when stability is reached. And what would
happen if you do that, this line becomes horizontal. And as that line
Page 153
April 10, 2012
becomes horizontal, the need to dredge is spaced further and further
apart. It's not at five years. It may be 10 years, or it may be one year.
I'm not saying -- if certain conditions arise, you may have to dredge
right away.
But the fact is, you cannot just take graphs like this and say,
every five years we have to dredge, unless that's the time cycle you
want to get sand for some other reason.
But let's be honest with everybody. Are we dredging to preserve
the mangrove ecosystem, or are we dredging for sand? This bar graph
really shows that you don't have to dredge every five years.
Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, your next speaker is Marcia Cravens.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I respond to that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Ted, can you move -- I'm sorry,
can you introduce your two exhibits as part of the record, okay.
Ted, can you stay up -- Ted, you're not hearing voices. It's me.
MR. RAIA: Yeah. Sorry, yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The point you raise is a very
important one. And the intent had always been to flush to the extent
necessary to preserve the mangroves. But it is my understanding now
that the way the permit has been submitted it is to dredge for sand. So
-- and, in fact, I'd like Gary to come up and explain whether or not that
has been included in the wording of the permit, that that permit is now
being pulled to dredge for sand.
It was my understanding that DEP did not support, you know,
expanded dredging of ebb shoals. It was also my understanding that
DEP, you know, didn't feel that dredging to 80 feet was a good thing
because, ultimately, it would just fill back in to where it naturally
positions itself, which is, my understanding, to be around 20 feet.
So I would like Gary to address what you have raised. So could
you stay there so that, you know, that you can, you know, address his
Page 154
April 10, 2012
comments with your graphs?
MR. McALPIN: Thank you Commissioner, for the record Gary
McAlpin.
We are only dredging for tidal flushing. We're not dredging for
sand to renourish the beaches. We're not trying to mine the pass.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But I thought that was actually in
the permit.
MR. McALPIN: It is. The permit request is for us to dredge for
tidal flushing. And tidal flushing -- we're very clear in the permit
request on how a dredging event would be determined. And the first
thing that we would do was when the cross - sectional area of the pass
started to decrease in size, that would trigger a level of concern and
that would be -- I believe we had identified -- and don't hold me to this
exact number -- it was 300 square foot.
At that point in time we would then monitor the amount of
flushing in the pass and we would measure how quickly the saltwater
gets back into the tidal regions and we would measure the height the
saltwater gets back into the tidal regions and we can compare that to
historical data. And that would be -- and then we would sit down with
a working group and decide whether the pass should be dredged, when
it would be dredged, but it would be done with -- only for tidal
flushing.
We do not have a set time frame when the pass would be
dredged. It would be dredged when it was needed for tidal flushing,
whether it was two years, five years, seven years, or 10 years.
We have in the past dredged this -- this Clam Pass at 80 feet. We
did that in 2007; we did that in 2007 for a variety of reasons. And
there was no detrimental effect whatsoever to the property to the north
or to Clam Pass to the south.
We have been monitoring this pass. We have over -- we have
three dredging events. There have been no detrimental effects
associated with the dredging activities we've done. We've been
Page 155
April 10, 2012
monitoring it for 10 -- over 10 years now. So we have a lot of history
on what we have done.
Our permit request is for 80 feet at a minus 5 nav, I believe that's
correct. That doesn't mean that we're going to dredge it to 80 feet
width and minus 5. That means that's what the permit will require us
to do. We could come -- that's the maximum the permit will allow us.
We will come back and we have to justify what we're doing on a
notice to proceed at any -- at any dredging event.
So at that point in time we would determine with a working
group what that cross sectional area is, how much should we dredge
and then we would proceed with a notice to proceed.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Again, the permit provides that
you're dredging for sand. Didn't you prepare the permit?
MR. McALPIN: Ma'am --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you -- can I ask the engineer?
Let me ask the engineer, please.
MR. McALPIN: Ma'am, the permit does not provide that we're
dredging for sand. The sand is -- we're dredging for tidal flushing.
The sand is a result of the tidal flushing dredging, will be placed on
the near shore -- on the down drift beaches as per DEP's requirement.
So we're not dredging for sand. Sand is the bypass. We're dredging
for tidal flushing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I speak to the engineer? Can I
speak to you, sir?
MR. TABOR: Sure. Good afternoon. Jeff Tabor, project
director for Atkins.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And you're the engineer that
prepared the permit, right?
MR. TABOR: That is correct. We're the firm.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the permit says that you're
dredging for sand.
Page 156
April 10, 2012
MR. TABOR: We are dredging for tidal flushing and as a
requirement of that permit application, any beach compatible material
that is dredged during those dredging events has to stay within the
beach system wherever it's placed.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But I read that it -- I read in there
that it says you're dredging for sand.
MR. TABOR: It is -- the primary objective purpose --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes or no?
MR. TABOR: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are you -- you're not dredging for
sand?
MR. TABOR: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But can you delete all references
in the permit application then for dredging for sand?
MR. TABOR: The agencies, both the Corps and the state, would
want to know where the sediment is going.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. There -- if my memory serves
me correctly -- and I'm, you know, going back in time -- your current
permit provides that you're dredging -- the permit application that's
pending provides that you're dredging for sand. And, quite frankly, I
only bring that up and -- I didn't make the connection and I didn't
understand the implication till Dr. Raia presented the graphs and
exactly what was going on.
I mean, I have a real problem with this and I'm sure that one of
the 30 questions that are going to be answered will be addressing this.
I'm sure that one of the questions raised was this. Now, either the
permit does provide you're dredging for sand or it doesn't. And if it
does, then it needs to be deleted because we never approved this
permit to dredge for sand. We only approved this permit for flushing
to preserve the health of the mangroves.
MR. TABOR: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But the permit provides that you're
Page 157
April 10, 2012
dredging for sand.
MR. TABOR: I guess I'm confused. If you're dredging, there's a
purpose behind the dredging and then the dredging event itself is the
removal of material that's choking the throat.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh I understand, I -- completely.
MR. TABOR: Where does the sediment have to -- you are
dredging for sediment?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. If you're dredging 20 feet
versus 80 feet, there's going to be a considerable difference in the
amount of material that you're going to pull out. If there's no need to
dredge up to 80 feet, then I can't imagine that DEP is going to approve
it. The justification you're giving for dredging up to 80 feet is for
sand, because you certainly can't --
MR. TABOR: That's not correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, you're not dredging 80 feet
to keep the health of the mangroves.
MR. TABOR: The request --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. Just yes or no is sufficient.
MR. TABOR: Yes or no for what?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are you dredging 80 feet --
MR. TABOR: We're dredging --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- to preserve the health of the
mangroves to flush?
MR. TABOR: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Eighty feet to flush for the health
of the mangroves.
MR. TABOR: Up to 80 feet, absolutely. We want the -- we
want the permission to dredge up to 80 feet. That has been done in the
past for --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: For the health of the mangroves.
MR. TABOR: -- for the health of the mangroves. There will be,
as Mr. McAlpin indicated, triggers in place that will allow us to justify
Page 158
April 10, 2012
the need for flushing and the health of the estuary for the dredging
event.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Dr. Raia, would you like to
comment on this? And you know what, I'd like to see the copy of the
current permit application with any references to dredging for sand
highlighted, please.
MR. RAIA: Well, the fact is that pass can close completely and
reopen by itself and it will have no impact on the health of the
mangroves. We really only touch the surface on what the mangroves
need and they really need minimal interference from the public. And
that is -- there's a good reason to keep the pass as narrow as it can be
kept, because with offshore drilling, if there is an oil spill into the gulf,
it would be very easy to close off that pass and save the mangroves
rather than have oil come in through the beach and into the pass.
The other thing is, it just costs more money to dredge. And why
are we -- why do we want to spend more money for something that is
not effective?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely.
MR. RAIA: All you need is the minimum amount to keep those
mangroves healthy. And it's too bad we have this little bit of
controversy about this, but there really is no need. We all want to
keep the mangroves healthy. Do we want to do it one way or the other
way? Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, thank you.
The last time I was up there -- and it wasn't too long ago, by
kayak, it appears to me that the channel actually out of the pass has
hooked south and you can -- actually, I can probably get my boat up in
there. Have you noticed that?
MR. McALPIN: The channel has traditionally veered more to
the north than to the south, Commissioner. And so typically what
happens it -- and there was that -- was the concern that it get too close
Page 159
April 10, 2012
to the Pelican Bay facilities there. So right now the channel is to the
north as opposed to the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The channel is to the north
now?
MR. McALPIN: Yes, sir, it is. And --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there a motion?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, Marcia Cravens to speak.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, okay.
MS. CRAVENS: Good afternoon, Commissioners, again.
Marcia Cravens and I've given you a packet of materials as
background to my comments, including 20 pages of comments from
the online petition "Save Clam Bay wetlands, keep it natural,"
including a summary page from the Army Corps of Engineers with 60
letters of comment and I've printed just a couple of the more salient
letters of comment that are in the -- in the regulatory agency files.
And if you just -- I would like to read my statement into the
record and I would answer any questions you might have.
In the 1970s, environmental conservation, nongovernment
organizations or NGOs and the general public advocacy to preserve
and protect Clam Bay and Clam Pass natural resources resulted in the
Corps' -- resulted in the Corps requirement for the Coral Ridge Collier
Property Owner /Developers at Pelican Bay to agree to permit special
conditions.
The Department of Army authorization to fill 78 acres of coastal
mangrove wetlands was predicated upon special conditions and
primarily required the remaining 570 acres of undeveloped coastal
barrier natural resources within the Pelican Bay planned unit
development, development of regional impact boundaries, to be set
aside in a manner that restricted it to be retained as a
conservation/preservation area in perpetuity for the benefit of the
public.
Page 160
April 10, 2012
The Corps Permit 79KO282 issued on November 18, 1981,
required that the permit with its special conditions be recorded in the
county's official records of the conveyance of the remaining 570 plus
undeveloped acres of Clam Pass /Clam Bay.
Concerns are that degradation of resources by construction and
excavation is inconsistent with prior state and federal permit
authorizations and inconsistent with the 1981 Corps permit special
conditions because of direct loss of benthic substrate from dredging
and secondary erosional impacts from combined enlargement of
construction and excavation projects in this conservation NRPA
preserve.
Repetitive and expanded dredging events alter its natural
characteristics and affect its function of aquatic nursery wetlands
habitat and natural beach dune areas resulting in disturbances to
wildlife uses and human passive recreation that constitutes
unacceptable taking of established wildlife and human uses.
The 2009 application to dredge Clam Pass and later modification
to infill existing tidal channel does not conform to Corps and county
requirements to retain the natural conditions of the waters, creek and
lagoon shorelines, beach and dune.
Conformance to prior authorization should limit any dredging
reauthorization to the minimal amount necessary to keep the Clam
Bays and Creeks open to the Gulf of Mexico and never done to
remove the maximal amount of sand possible from the Clam Pass
system.
All prior permits authorize placement of sand on adjacent
beaches as incidental benefit but not as the main purpose of dredging.
And I know I'm out of time. I did include a summary of the
environmental conservation organization's concerns and the
conclusion that the permit application failed to do a number of items
with the recommendation to address the nongovernment organization
and public concerns to achieve the best environmental resource
Page 161
April 10, 2012
permitting outcome.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ms. Cravens, you're way past the time,
okay.
MS. CRAVENS: Okay. And, actually, I must say that I actually
support that the county and their consultants address the very
significant concerns that the environmental conservation organizations
have raised.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ms. Cravens, your time is up.
MS. CRAVENS: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir that was your last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, All right.
Commissioner Fiala, you haven't had the time to speak.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No and I was first, so thank you
very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I wanted to ask, Gary, I
remember when they were building Pelican Bay and when, of course,
the mangroves then died, that huge, huge area of dead mangroves.
And, you know, they -- everybody, without exception, was working to
try and bring back life to that mangrove section.
They're doing the same thing on Marco Island right now with the
whole dead area right there. And what they found was there was no
flushing going on and it killed off the mangroves. And so you have to
keep the area clear, otherwise the mangroves die. And so -- and I do
remember that clearly and I know that that's what you're continuing to
try and do is keep those mangroves growing and healthy and
producing.
Now, you said you dredged for a tidal flush 10 years ago, did you
say and it was 80 feet?
MR. McALPIN: The permit that was issued 10 years ago was a
10 year permit and on that permit there were three dredging events
that occurred. The first dredging event, I believe, was for 40 feet; the
Page 162
April 10, 2012
second dredging event did not dredge the mouth of the pass, but it
dredged the interior; and a third dredging event was for 80 feet dredge
at a minus 5.5. All of those were in compliance with the permit that
had been issued by the Corps, okay.
We -- this permit application that you have before you has been
in front of this board at least two, probably three times in the past,
okay. We have discussed this. And it is on the exact same basis in
terms of the size of the dredge cut; that's potential. Again, that doesn't
mean that it's going to have to be that way, but it's -- that's the
potential there.
We have history with that same size of cut. It has no detrimental
effect. It was exactly the same as what we did in 2007. Has no
detrimental effect.
This time we're even having stronger criteria in there. It's going
to be -- we're going to trigger the dredging event by the cross - sectional
area of the mouth and then the exchange of the flushing and the
interior of the channel.
So, it's only going to be dredged for tidal flushing and it will be
dredged when it is -- when it needs to be dredged Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, My next question is, how
long does it take to fill back in once it's dredged?
MR. McALPIN: That really depends. We had -- we had a
dredging event; I believe it was right at 2000, the next one was at 2003
and then the next one was at 2007. This may go -- we expect it's been
-- so it's been 2007 and there has been no need for dredging at this
point in time.
And so we're here at '12. It's been five years. There's no
indication that we would need to dredge this in the immediate future.
We have no indication that there's not a good tidal exchange and we'll
continue to monitor that. And when it needs to be -- when the tidal
exchange starts to diminish, then we'll start looking into when and
only with a cross section group with the Pelican Bay Foundation and
Page 163
April 10, 2012
Collier County, then we would decide how that dredging event
happens and involve the public in that. We'll have public meetings to
involve the public in that.
But this item before you is only for $7,600 to answer 30
questions from the -- from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which
would allow us to button up the permit application for the Corps.
We've already buttoned it up from DEP. That will finalize this and so
we will finalize this with the understanding that then it would be
possible for the agencies to issue a permit at that point in time.
Whether there's an administrative challenge or not is yet to be
seen. But, it would give the agencies the ability for us to manage this
to do this.
We wanted to try to -- obviously, we're in jeopardy. If the pass
closes and there's no tidal flushing, we have a potential problem, okay
and we wouldn't open it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Certainly.
MR. McALPIN: And that's what we're trying to do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And, of course, the end result is
what we're trying to do is keep that tidal flushing going so that we
keep the health of the mangroves, which is -- of course, what
everybody's talking about is the health of the mangroves.
So if you dredged it a shorter amount of space or, you know,
length, say, 20 feet instead -- because somebody said something about,
you know, making it the minimal; that means you'd have to go in and
dredge quite often, which would mean extra money; is that correct?
MR. McALPIN: Commissioner, we would dredge based on what
the need would be at that time. If it says that 20 feet is the right -- the
right amount to dredge, then that's fine. We would get back to what --
what we'd look to do is get back to the proper tidal exchange. The risk
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So all you're wanting to do now
then -- and this is just about allocating $7,600 so you can answer the
Page 164
April 10, 2012
questions to submit them to begin a process for some time when you
do need to do this, because it is not required now. You'll at least have
the paperwork in place; is that correct?
MR. McALPIN: That's one thing --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I do understand that?
MR. McALPIN: Yes, ma'am, that's correct. And the other thing
is we want the permit in place so that if there is a hurricane event or an
event this season and it closes the pass, we have no ability to open it
so then the mangroves are all in jeopardy.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I can't understand why
anybody would not want to do that. So has a motion been made yet?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Not yet.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll make that motion to approve it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Fiala, second by Commissioner Coletta.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. First of all Marcia; just for
a quick minute, I mean, you gave us a packet and the audience doesn't
have the benefit to know what's in here. Could you just quickly tell
me what this is, because I looked through it and I'm -- I just -- I'm not
a 100 percent sure what I should be looking for.
MS. CRAVENS: Yes. The reason for this packet is to
demonstrate that it's not just a few individuals. It is the conservation
organizations of Sierra Club, Conservancy of Collier County,
Mangrove Action Group and Collier Audubon, who are all unified in
the concerns that we have on this dredging permit. And, believe me,
there is a great deal of institutional knowledge contained within these
conservation organizations.
Additionally, there are over 500 kayakers who regularly enjoy
kayaking through the preserve. Many of the comments on the 20
pages of "Save Clam Bay Wetlands, keep it natural" that is an online
Page 165
April 10, 2012
petition, were from kayakers and visitors to Clam Pass Park.
It's unfortunate that the institutional knowledge of the
conservation organizations has not been used in a collaborative
fashion. We very much would like that to occur and it is clear to the
conservation organizations that a smaller dredge cut results in a
greater stability of Clam Pass to remain open.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you just answer one quick
question. I saw you nodding when Commissioner Fiala made the
remark, oh, we should really dredge to 80 feet because then we are not
going to have to go in and dredge more often to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I didn't really say that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- preserve the health of the
mangroves.
MS. CRAVENS: The opposite is true.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, go ahead and just explain.
Regardless, you know, I don't -- I'm paraphrasing. But the record will
show what Commissioner Fiala said.
MS. CRAVENS: And I appreciate that that's --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Just -- can you just clarify for the
record what the facts are, how it really works.
MS. CRAVENS: The facts are that the original engineer David
Tackney, had done thousands of what are called nodal measurements
and calculations of just what would be the best dimensions to obtain
what's called equilibrium and to establish self - scouring of Clam Pass
so that your dredge cut design would enable Clam Pass to flush itself
and remain as stable as possible.
His modeling that he did concluded that the smaller dredge cut a
design of between 30 and 40 feet wide by 4 feet deep, was the most
stable design possible and would actually avoid the need to do
repeated dredging. It would be self - scouring. And that's one of the
things that we're advocating, among others.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I see that in your letter. And thank
Page 166
April 10, 2012
you for the clarification.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, All in favor of the motion please
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like, again, a copy of the
permit with all sections addressing dredging for sand highlighted. I
also would like the list of questions that have been submitted, the 30
questions that are being -- or however many questions that you're
responding to and the responses that you're providing to the state.
MR. McALPIN: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. County Manager, we have a
time - certain item.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, you do.
Item# 14A2
RESPONSE TO THE COLLIER COUNTY CLERK OF CIRCUIT
COURT INTERNAL AUDIT OF THE MARCO ISLAND
EXECUTIVE AIRPORT PARALLEL TAXIWAY AND APRON
EXPANSION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT AND REQUEST
APPROVAL OF STAFF CLARIFICATION ISSUED BY THE
ZONING MANAGER AND PLANNING MANAGER FINDING
THE AIRPORT IN COMPLIANCE - MOTION TO ACCEPT
STAFF'S INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING, THE LAND
Page 167
April 10, 2012
USE CODE AND TO AFFIRM THE MOU AND GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PLAN, HAVE MET ALL REQUIREMENTS —
APPROVED; MOTION TO DIRECT THE AIRPORT DIRECTOR
TO START WITH THE ST PROCESS — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Item 14A2. It's a response to the Collier County
Clerk of Circuit Court Internal Audit of the Marco Island Executive
Airport Parallel Taxiway and Apron Expansion Construction Project
and request approval of staff clarification issued by the Zoning
Manager and Planning Manager finding the airport in compliance.
And I think Mr. Curry will begin the presentation, sir.
MR. CURRY: Thank you. Good afternoon, Commissioners.
Chris Curry, Executive Director of the Airport Authority.
I'd like to give you a slight chronology of events that has led us
to the point we're at today.
March 10th of 2010 the airport applied for a Site Development
Plan to construct a taxiway at the Marco Island Executive Airport that
was consistent with the Airport Master Plan.
September 20, 2010, the airport received and approved Site
Development Plan. May 2011 the taxiway and apron expansion
started. February of 2012 the project was substantially completed.
March 20 -- in February of 2012 also the Florida Department of
Transportation inspected the completed project and no issues were
noted.
March 2012 Pay Requests 9, 10 and 11 were submitted and
payment was rejected by the Clerk of Courts. March 2012 the Federal
Aviation Administration inspected the completed project. No issues
were noted.
March 30, 2012, was the project closeout date. We have 30 days
from that date to close out the grant with the Federal Aviation
Administration.
The contractor, DeAngelis Diamond, completed the project
Page 168
April 10, 2012
ahead of schedule and on budget. As mentioned, there were no issues
noted with the FAA inspection who funds 95 percent of the grant and
FDOT, who funds two and a half percent of the grant.
The issue pertaining to the rejection of payment is an issue
associated with the Site Development Plan approval.
In a recent communication with the FAA, they advised me to
contact them by April 30th if we're not able to close out the grant.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where's the Clerk's Attorney
that -- his opinion we don't have the proper zoning?
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner, we've worked it out with Nick. I
think Nick has a presentation and -- to start with.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't know if we quite worked it out,
but I think we've come to --
MS. KINZEL: Well, we are where we are.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We are where we are.
MS. KINZEL: Yes.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Very good. Commissioners, bear with
me. I'm going to put some slides on the viewer.
First slide is just the definition in the ST. I'm going to start with it
and finish with it, because I think it's important. And the highlighted
area reads, the purpose of the ST district is to assure the preservation
and maintenance of these environmental and cultural resources and to
encourage the preservation of the intricate ecological relationships
within the systems and, at the same time, permit those types of
development which would hold changes to levels determined
acceptable by the BCC after public hearing -- and that's important,
changes to levels determined acceptable by the BCC after public
hearing.
Mike, if you want to put the next map on.
I'm going to go through some of the zoning maps. This goes
back to 1976.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Nick, can I interrupt you for one
Page 169
April 10, 2012
minute. In every instance that you put something up, can you please
state the source the document comes from, like the excerpt that you
just read comes from?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The Land Development Code, Section
2.03.07(d) regarding STs.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Just state that in every case
so we know the source so it can be referred back to.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. Okay. This is the 1976 Zoning
Map that shows the Marco Island Airport Property and this is the 1982
zoning map. Now, they're harder to read and when you zoom in real
close and you compare side by side, it's a little different than the 1976
one.
Put on the 19 -- 2001, Michael, I believe -- or 1991. Again,
tough to read, but much different than the two prior zoning maps that
we saw just a little while ago.
Now I'm going to go to the current zoning map, zoom in. Where
we go, the zoning is P and Con ST. That line where the yellow is to
the bottom of the screen is Con ST and to the top, where the airport is,
is P.
Now, this is kind of a zoom out of that same map. Now, if you
notice, it's a straight line. All the other zoning maps had little bump
outs in the zoning districts. This one has a straight line between the
Con and the ST and I think the clerk made a clarification that there
should be a bump out in his review. I think that was clear in the
audit's updated memorandum.
What that goes to show is that since 1976, the determination of
where Con is, ST and P has been variating (sic) a little bit between all
of these maps.
What's in front of you right now -- Mike, if you'll put on that next
map -- is the Airport Master Plan 1996. And this is important because
it shows a highlighted yellow area where the taxiway is.
And in 1997, the board adopted into -- let me find my documents
Page 170
April 10, 2012
-- into the GMP the airport master plan in 1996, by Ordinance No.
97 -62. So I've got a bunch of conflicting zoning maps going back
several years and then a 1997 and in '96 we have an airport master
plan, we adopt in the airport master plan by reference.
Now, it's very important, it's very detailed. It shows the taxiways
in that highlighted yellow area of what they expect to do.
Going from there, we get into the memorandum of
understanding. It happened in 2001, unfortunate day, September 11th,
but that was the date that it was brought on.
When I go through that and I read that -- and it's very clear -- it
says in the highlighted area, the MOU and the attached resolution
remove obstacles to the following: A, construction of a taxiway on
the west side of the existing runway. And then, in addition,
highlighted, the MOU specifies that the Board of County
Commissioners shall, by resolution, forever delimit the development
of the airport consistent with the airport's 20 year master plan. Back
in '97 it was adopted by reference into the GMP.
MR. OCHS: This source document is what; executive summary?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: This is -- this is the executive
summary to the resolution that was adopted on September 11, 2001.
The next page -- and this is also very important -- is the
signatories to this agreement. It's not very common that you get this
many people sign off on an airport master plan and its development
spectrum. The board of trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust
Fund of the State of Florida, the Conservancy of Southwest Florida,
the National Audubon Society and the Florida Audubon Society, the
Environmental Defense Fund, I don't know who the ISAKK Walton
League Florida Division is, DEP, the Water Management Districts,
DCA and Deltona Corporation.
So this MOU was broadly reviewed and approved by everybody.
It basically says, this is going to be the development of the airport.
And, again, it's in our Comp Plan by adoption.
Page 171
April 10, 2012
In the resolution it also states, whereas, the long range master
plan exists for the development of the Marco Island Executive Airport
-- this is the resolution that's attached -- and, whereas, the airport
layout plan that depicts the ultimate build out -- development of the
Marco Island Executive Airport is part of that master plan.
So when you look at those you say, okay, going back quite a
ways, 1996, you knew that this land was to be developed and we're
still not sure where your Con ST and P zoning line would be. And so
that's a little bit of -- up in the air.
So the Clerk does the audit, reviews a bunch of documents,
similar documents to what we've reviewed, has concern that part of
the work is done outside of the zoning district. Whenever we have a
conflict, the section of the code that we have allows staff to bring
something to the board for a clarification, 1.03.01(d) and (e).
And again, when you read those in their whole, they reference
one being more restrictive and the other one says you'll go to the
GMP, which is the higher document. Staff did that. They looked at
what was in the GMP. By reference of the transmittal or the adoption
of the airport master plan in 1997, it shows that that area of
development was within that footprint.
So they said, okay, in the Con ST you're not allowed to use or put
taxiways in, but where there's a conflict you're going to go to the GMP
and it says, this plan's been around a long time, it's been adopted as
part of our memorandum of agreement by all parties, so we think that
that land use issue can be put aside.
Now, what's coming up at the next level is, if you say that it's an
allowable use, because there's a conflict and we're doing a staff
clarification, the first thing I need the board to do -- and this will be,
hopefully, one of the recommendations we put forward is that you
agree with staffs clarification that this is an allowable use in the Con
ST district.
Now, the second part that goes into this. If you're in the ST area,
Page 172
April 10, 2012
you're required to go through the ST process. Well, I'm going to put
that original slide back on, Mike, if I could. And I'll find mine. I'll
have to dig it up.
So if you say these folks should have gone through the ST
process, what's the purpose of the ST? Well, in the memorandum of
agreement you've already defined all the mitigation parameters that
are in here. And I want to tell you what some of those are.
The MOU specifies that the Board of County Commissioners
shall delimit the master plan. The authority shall develop a vegetation
management program with the Audubon Society prior to removing
vegetation obstruction on aircraft approaches. The authority shall
urge the DEP to reduce the size of the airport lands minimally needed
to accommodate the master plan. The authority shall forward all
future mitigation packages to the signatories to Deltona. And it goes
on to talk about, specifically, how they go through and develop that
taxiway.
Well, what staff is opining on the second portion we're going to
be asking is, it makes no sense for them to go through the ST process
if the board's already approved a plan that defines how they're going
to develop that airport and all of the signatories on that plan are the
environmental groups and the regulatory agencies. Why would I send
them through an ST process to bring it to the Planning Commission
that's -- to say only by agreement I've already defined what you're
going to do.
So if you opine on the first with us that we agree with the staff
clarification and it makes no sense to go through the ST process, the
clerk has asked that would they be willing to go through that process
anyway. And I said, talking to Chris, I don't think that's a big deal.
We can do it in 45 days and get you through the ST process. I don't
know what benefit it will have other than to maybe clear up any
ambiguity. It might give them a little more comfort level to approve
the payment.
Page 173
April 10, 2012
We'll be going to the Planning Commission and the EAC and
back to this board to say what's in the MOU is the ST requirements.
So I think that might clean it up. He has stated that he's going to
take these into consideration. He will not commit to making the
payment, but this goes a long way to, kind of, cleaning up what we've
done.
So what I would be asking the board to do is approve the staff
clarification, agree with staff that they're not required to go through
the ST process because you've already done it with the MOU, but
allow Chris Curry and staff to do the ST process so that we can kind
of dot the I's and cross the T's after the fact.
And other than that, I'll take questions of staff or Chris Curry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Didn't the clerk just issue a
press release saying he's going to release the payment?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Nope.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, just now, or today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's -- the Clerk Auditor
Department has released the report that the Collier County Airport
Authority, Marco Executive Airport limit scope, partial --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It says final payments are being held
until the zoning and legal concerns are resolved. Land needs to be
properly zoned with the appropriate zoning district.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the 45 days does not --
that's beyond the grant.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think what we've asked the clerk to
do is make the payment but have the commitment on the record from
Mr. Curry that he'll go through the ST process to kind of dot the I's
and cross the T's.
Page 174
April 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think the airport
authority needs to give that direction, because it's the Airport
Authority that owns the MOU. It is not the director that owns the
MOU.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's a good point.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Crystal, how are we going to
resolve this?
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner, with what Nick has put forward,
the Clerk's Office is going to review that -- documents and the process
and see if we can come to a conclusion. As the clerk asked this
morning, we needed a little more time to do it. We've been working on
it out of the room, as you know, trying to put together the information.
We just spoke with the clerk before we came back into the room.
We think that what Nick is doing -- we understand it and then we'll
take it and review for payment --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But there's no solution?
MS. KINZEL: -- or possible payment.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's no resolution?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't know that. I think if you take
these two actions it brings it a little closer, I think. And if you take the
third action and say, go through the ST process --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to make a motion that
we direct the airport director to start the ST process, submittal --
submit that to Collier County staff.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nothing about the payment or
anything?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we can't -- we can't direct
the clerk to pay, if that's what you're referring to.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, no. We can't do that.
He's a separate constitutional officer. We can ask any of the
constitutional officers, but we can't demand or direct.
Page 175
April 10, 2012
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I also need concurrence on the staff
clarifications with regard to the zoning matter, sir and with regard to
ST, you know, staff s opinions on those two matters, the concurrence
on that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Well, if you want me to
include the staff s recommendations here that it does have a proper
zoning --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- that will be included in the
motion.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think that's an important statement.
And let -- are you finished, Commissioner Henning? Can I just --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, please.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- make a supportive comment
concerning that? Can you show me the airport master plan? Now, did
you construct the taxiway within the area that is shown on the Airport
Master Plan?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir, that's been constructed.
MR. CURRY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, let me ask you another
question. Do you have a Growth Management Plan that shows that
the airport master plan is incorporated in the Growth Management
Plan?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have that?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's incorporated by reference.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And there's a statement in the
Growth Management Plan that if there is any discrepancy between
what the GMP says and what some other document going back to
1970s might have said, that the GMP takes precedence; is that true?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Your Land Development Code says
Page 176
April 10, 2012
that, sir, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So the statement that the zoning
is correct is the proper statement. There is nothing wrong with this
zoning, end of story.
Now, if the clerk won't make the payment unless we say
something else about it, I'm willing to say something else about it.
But I'll tell you, we don't have to legally say anything else. It is a
legally executed contract that should be paid without any further
question.
But if Commissioner Henning's motion is that the board affirms
the fact that the proper zoning is in place here and the process was
properly done but that we will reiterate our support for staff s
interpretation and direction in order to give the clerk a reason to
approve the payment, I'm willing to go there, okay.
But the statement that this is properly zoned right now is an
absolutely clear and truthful statement and I think we need to make
that very clear.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I want to be clear, sir, so we don't put
you on the spot and put ourselves on the spot. There's a conflict
between the maps and what's there. And by the incorporation of that
master plan in 1997 of the 1996 airport master plan, that conflict can
be resolved by an opinion of the GMP or the LDC section referring to
the GMP as the higher document.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And we can make that clarification.
We need you to affirm the clarification.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I don't have any problem affirming
that clarification.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Very good, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay? And if that's the motion, I'll
second it, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It is the motion.
Page 177
April 10, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But that's part of the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the other one is going
through the second step, the final step to make payment. That is the
application of the ST -- an ST --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well and to be clear, sir, if you made
the motion to include staff clarification --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That solves the problem.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, that solves the first part. The
second part I would say that the MOU, okay, does not need to be done
-- go through the ST process. It's redundant. It's already defined that
-- the Board affirm that, but that the board, acting as the Airport
Authority Board, direct us to go through the ST process as a -- kind of
like, I guess as the clerk or the clerk's attorney put an after the fact
permit to get that done.
I think it's perfunctory.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. You know what, we're
acting as the airport authority and we need to act as the board on some
of this.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: First.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I'm going to pull my motion
and make a motion, as the Board of Commissioners, as staffs
interpretation of the -- our land use codes are correct in this particular
application.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So you're going to bifurcate the process,
a decision to be made by the Board of County Commissioners
concerning the validity of the zoning --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and then another --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: RFP.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- motion to be made by the airport
Page 178
April 10, 2012
board to do what?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: To go through the ST process.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the motion is to accept staffs
interpretation of our land use code and also the MOU --
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: --is --
MR. OCHS: Satisfies the ST.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Satisfied the ST.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Satisfy the ST process.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Satisfied the ST process.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's already satisfied by the MOU.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's our point.
MR. OCHS: Well, that's our point. We're asking the board to
confirm that, sir.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: So if you make those two
confirmations, then --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So we're going to confirm the
staff s interpretation that the Growth Management Plan takes
precedence and solves the zoning problem --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sir, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- which is already written in the Growth
Management Plan and we're also going to say -- affirm the fact that
the MOU solves the ST problem.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the MOU was written when; 2001?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: 2001, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, okay. We're dealing with
something 11 years ago that's been solved. So if that makes the clerk
feel happy and he'll make payment on this bill, then I would be happy
to do that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Very good, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Page 179
April 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who's the second?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'll be the second.
Okay. So motion by Commissioner Henning, second by me, that
confirms the fact that the zoning is, in fact, in place and is consistent
with the Growth Management Plan and Airport Master Plan.
Okay. All in favor, please --
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we do have two public speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Who are the two public speakers?
MR. MITCHELL: The first one is Rene' Collins and the second
one is Norman Gentry.
MS. COLLINS: Hi. I'm Rene' Collins. I'm the Accounts
Receivable Manager for C.W. Roberts Contracting. We are a
subcontractor to DeAngelis Diamond.
We started our work on the project in May of '11. We completed
it in January of '12. We were paid all of our pay applications No. 1
through No. 8; No. 9 got rejected. Number 9's for $849,000 to us.
The total that I have due right now is $1,077,250 and I finished
the work in January. My material's been paid, my labor has all been
paid and I'm asking you to expedite the payment to DeAngelis
Diamond who's done everything right for us, but we're hanging out on
the end. And we need your approval to get this off of the "talking
about it" stage into the "writing the check about it" stage.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Who's the next public speaker?
MR. GENTRY: Good afternoon. My name's Norman Gentry
with DeAngelis Diamond Construction. And as our subcontractor,
C.W. Robert, has also explained, you know, there's -- considerable
amount of effort and time and resources were expended to complete
this project ahead of schedule.
In our view, the whole zoning issue and everything that's come
up since -- you know, after Payment Application No. 8 -- we were
April 10, 2012
paid eight applications for payment and then this issue reared its head
-- is completely outside the purview of our expertise, our contractual
obligations.
We have fulfilled and exceeded our contractual obligations. We
have a contract that was signed in April of 2011, signed by all parties
of government. I believe the clerk as well has signed that contract, the
Clerk's Office.
That contract has been fulfilled. We've fulfilled all of our
obligations. And now to be stuck in the middle between all of these
circumstances is troubling. It's troubling and it has a very real
economic effect on our subcontractors that perform the work. There's
a definite trickle -down effect.
You know, I'm here with confidence and faith and hope that all
parties of government will work together to get this rectified, because
I'm sure, we can all agree, that basic fairness dictates that when work
is completed on time and on schedule, that the payment needs to
follow unhindered.
So I appreciate your efforts in that regard.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
That was the last speaker?
MR. BROCK: Commissioner, may I speak?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was the last public speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead, Mr. Brock.
MR. BROCK: Commissioners, I wish it was really as simple as
you like to make it out. But, you know, when you signed the
provision of the Land Development Code which says that in all
circumstances of these provisions and regulations shall be interpreted
and construed to be consistent with the GMP, you fail to recognize the
paragraph right above it.
The paragraph right above it says, in the interpretation and
application of any provision of these regulations, it shall be held to be
the minimum requirement adopted for the promotion of the public
Page 181
April 10, 2012
health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare.
Where any provision of these regulations -- the GMP or any
other law or regulation in effect in Collier County, Florida -- imposes
greater restrictions upon the subject matter than any other provision of
these regulations -- the GMP or any other law or regulations in effect
in Collier County, Florida -- the provision imposing the greater
restriction or regulation shall be deemed to be controlling.
Okay. If you have this zoned -- and this is the issue that we are
struggling with. If you have this Zoned Conservation ST, that's more
restrictive.
You know, you made reference to an agreement that took place
in 2001 and which you said solved all of the problems. I can show
you a document out of your Community Development Environmental
Services Department to the Collier County Planning Commission
which recognizes that this is Zoned Conservation ST. Now they're
telling us that it didn't or it wasn't zoned Conservation ST.
If you look at some of the documents and you go to the legend
that determines the width of what that area in those documents
reflected, it appears to reflect about 35 to 50 feet. This area in which
you developed is over 160 feet.
Listen, you and I both have -- when I say "you," The Board of
County Commissioners and the clerk of the Circuit Court both have a
responsibility, Statutes.
MS. KINZEL: That's '08. That's not '09. Hold on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Brock, we'd like to move along with
this. We don't need a lecture on what the responsibilities are.
MR. BROCK: I'm going to read to you the statute. I'm not going
to lecture you, Commissioner. I'm going to read to you the statute.
The statute --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I can read.
MR. BROCK: -- says that each member of the Board of County
Commissioners who knowingly and willfully vote to incur an
Page 182
April 10, 2012
indebtedness against the county in excess of the expenditure allowed
by law or county ordinance or to pay an illegal charge against the
county or to pay any claim against the county not authorized by law or
county ordinance shall be guilty of malfeasance in office and subject
to suspension and removal from office, as now provided by law and
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be -- upon a conviction, be
punished by a fine of not less than $100 or more than $500 or by
imprisonment in the county j all for not more than six months for each
offense.
I'm not suggesting to you there's not a resolution to this. As the
original audit report said, the only thing that we're asking is that you
clearly zone it appropriately. You actually had in your grant
application about $50,000 for purposes of rezoning and then you didn't
rezone anything.
We are dealing with a very complicated issue. I have a similar
statute to yours that says that, you know, if I make the payment, I can
be personally liable for it if it's illegal.
You have certified to both of these granting agencies that, in fact,
the proper zoning is in place. I have been unable to make that
determination yet. I'm willing to work with county staff to accomplish
that. I don't sense a lot of cooperation from you in trying to
accomplish that.
But if that's the case, you know, hopefully we can work
something out with everybody with what you're doing here today. I
think this is a step in the right direction in terms of looking at what we
can do.
But, Commissioners, let me assure you, let me assure the general
public, unless or until I am confident that the expenditure is legal, it
won't be made. That's my responsibility to the taxpayers of this
community. That is exactly what we spent seven years litigating.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I -- Commissioner, I think
we're in the process to make it legal or -- so the Clerk can pay it.
Page 183
April 10, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's what I thought we were doing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, that's the one step
process and the next step process was to direct the county -- or the
Airport Director to make application.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right, okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I don't know why we're
talking about issues that have nothing to do with things on the agenda
and I'm sure we're going to have more of that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If we could stay to the motion,
we might be able to move this process along and get staff back to
work.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, it has a -- we have a motion and a
second.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to comment, please.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well, Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have a comment, too.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Who -- which was first?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let Commissioner Fiala go first.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What I worry about most is the
companies, the companies that aren't getting paid and they've become
victims through no fault of their own. They've only done everything
that they've been asked to do and better than they've been asked to do
and faster than they've been asked to do. We all voted for this. All
five of us sitting here voted for this because we could see it was
legally right according to everything that we could discover.
I understand that the clerk doesn't agree with that because he
doesn't feel -- he feels there's a legality, but can't we work this out
outside of here and still pay them? I just don't see why. As long as
April 10, 2012
we all know what needs to be worked out now, should we make them
wait any longer to get paid when we're going to -- we're going to make
sure it's done anyway. We're going to make sure it's worked out. The
motion is in place. We're all in agreement that whatever makes it
work will make it, you know, fine with us.
We all thought we were right. You thought you were right; we
certainly thought we were right. But let's pay these people so that they
don't have to wait while we dicker around with getting the paperwork
done, which might drag out for weeks and weeks and weeks and even
months.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: At the end of the day, the problem
is, is that once again, the county, not the clerk, hasn't done the right
thing and these poor vendors are suffering not because of the clerk but
because of the county's failure to properly zone the property to allow
for the type of improvements that you, the contractor, made.
Now, I am really concerned by the presentation here today. I
can't believe that staff is saying what they're saying because what you
heard Mr. Casalanguida repeatedly say was that the airport master
plan was incorporated by reference in the Growth Management Plan.
What he fails to say is that it was only incorporated in the
Transportation Element. What he also fails to say, that it didn't go
through the required procedures that I discussed this morning, the
procedural due process, the notice and the hearings to incorporate the
amendments in the Land Use Element.
So I'm going to go back to what I said earlier. I want to see proof
with respect to land use. I want to see where there was the procedural
due process where -- because let me just clarify a point at the start of
this.
The airport authority back then, which was not this board, could
not -- legally could not approve any changes in land use, could not
approve any zoning decisions, because it was not vested with the legal
Page 185
April 10, 2012
authority to do so. That had to come to the board and that had to be
done through a quasi-judicial hearing and in the case of a land use
adoption, would have to go up to the state and come back down.
This MOU is meaningless, has nothing to do with anything. The
vote where this master plan was adopted doesn't satisfy this and this
action by the board to interpret the zoning as correct is absolutely
meaningless.
The whole presentation today here has been completely
disingenuous and completely incorrect and I find it unbelievable that
we can be asked to approve based on the discussion that we've had.
Here's the ordinance okay, Incorporated by reference into the
Transportation Element when they consolidated the various
components of the transportation discussion into one group in the
Growth Management Plan. Here's the Executive Summary and the
Minutes. No, not at all what's being described here today.
And I'm very, very sorry, but the reason that the vendors are
consistently having problems with Collier County is because Collier
County is not doing the right thing. It is not following the law.
And, by the way, one thing that concerns me tremendously, on
top of everything else, is that I just recently found out that in this
conservation area there were mangroves. And do you know what the
county did? Cut the mangroves down so this construction could go
forward.
Where is the permit to eliminate the mangroves on this property?
Can someone answer that? I'd like to see that permit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's not on the agenda today.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, but it's part and parcel of it,
because we have another illegal act related to this improvement.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, for goodness sake.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't know. This is -- this is
getting worse by the moment.
April 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It is, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, it seems that -- if
you dig back far enough you're always going to find exceptions that
weren't quite covered. Somebody had to do a lot of work to find this
particular exception.
And I'll make a bet with you there's exceptions in every single
county out there. The county we have and we represent and the
people that work here are the most efficient people I've ever met in my
life. They've been recognized for their performance over and over
again. All of a sudden we're running against obstacles.
Now, I'm not saying the clerk's wrong and I'm not saying we're
right, but what I'm saying is the fact that there's got to be ways to
resolve this without getting to the point where we come up to a
confrontational situation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Or name calling.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Name calling. You know, I've
got to be honest with you, sir, when you came in here, you came in
like a charging bull in a China shop, ready to take on the world. Your
news release kind of framed the attitude that you were coming in with.
Put all that aside. We've got to be able to resolve this thing in a way
that's going to work.
Now, I've got a couple questions and I want to know how this
works, nine hundred forty three thousand dollars that are out there that
we're trying to resolve to get paid. Money that's already sitting there
that consists of 95 percent of money that came in through the Federal
Aviation Authority, two and a half percent from us, two and a half
percent from the state.
At what point in time do we have to reconcile this or somebody's
going to call us at the other end of the spectrum and say, you know,
we want back that nearly million dollars?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: May 30th.
MR. CURRY: Chris Curry, Executive Director, Airport
Page 187
April 10, 2012
Authority.
What happens is generally the county pays and then they're
reimbursed by the FAA. But we have until April 30th to close the
grant or report back to them that it has not been satisfied.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Well, let's talk turkey
here, because the whole thing is, is all personalities aside we've got to
make sure that we're not stuck with a $943,000 bill down the line.
First thing I'd like to see is this extension given us right now. We
ask for it tomorrow to be able to give us more time to be able to work
through this situation so we don't find ourselves up against the wall.
The other thing is, is that if — somehow, we have to pay these
vendors out there and I've got to tell you right now -- and this is going
to be something I'm not going to get probably any accolades from my
fellow commissioners on.
If we have to reach into our reserves, as small as they are, to pay
these people, we have to do that -- we can't leave them stranded out
there -- and try to work the issue out later. But somehow this thing
has got to be brought back to dead center and we've got to be able to
resolve the problem.
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Remember, he has to approve
expenditures from reserves, too, so it doesn't solve the problem.
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner, I didn't -- can I clarify
something?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, we're --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're way off task here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
Commissioner Henning, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If we can stay on the task and
that is the staff s interpretation about the zoning. Some of us need to
N.:- 96
April 10, 2012
understand that we had land uses prior to the Comprehensive Plan
which is now called the Growth Management Plan -- ladies. We had
land uses here prior to zoning, okay.
And, in fact, there has been land uses in Immokalee, Everglades
City, the City of Naples; there has been zoning prior to all zoning
codes that we're referring to today. That's the bottom line. So if you
don't mind, I'm going to call the motion and let's vote on this and
move onto the next.
days.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's sixty days, by the way. Sixty
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor of the motion --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Chris Curry's --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- comment was -- it was 60 days.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes 4 -1 with Commissioner
Hiller dissenting. And I will merely make one general comment.
There is no doubt in my mind that I can find a discrepancy in state
statutes or local government laws or zoning which would prohibit
doing just about anything that we do here.
If I -- my mindset was to keep things from happening, I can
throw up all sorts of roadblocks, as can any good lawyer and that's
what's happening here. We have lost sight of common sense here.
I'm not at all worried that somebody's going to hold me
personally responsible for making this decision. I don't have that kind
of paranoia. And I think that if we started thinking with a little bit of
common sense here, we'd solve a lot of problems.
April 10, 2012
Okay. What do we -- where do we go to now?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we've got to -- I'm going
to -- acting as the Airport Authority --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- I'm going to make a motion
that we Direct the Airport Director to make application of ST process
to Growth Management Plan Department.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Motion by Commissioner
Henning to proceed with the ST -- ST /C, seconded by Commissioner
Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't understand what that's
going to solve. How are we -- what are we doing?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then vote against it,
Commissioner Hiller, okay?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Did you vote for it or against it?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll vote against it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then it passes 4 -1 with
Commissioner Hiller dissenting.
Okay. Where does that take us now, County Manager?
MR. OCHS: Sir, that takes you to Item 14A1 on your agenda.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And can I just say one thing for
the record before we continue?
Page 190
April 10, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's 60 days out, not to the end of
this month, contrary to what Mr. Curry said. And Crystal just clarified
that.
MR. CURRY: Well, you can say what you believe, but I spoke
with the FAA. They say unless you're in litigation, it's 30 days, so --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Crystal?
MS. KINZEL: I spoke with Krystal Ritchey of the FAA and it is
60 days past the completion, which she is considering March 31 st. So
that would give you to May, not April. If you have to notify her how
this proceeding goes, she's aware of the issue. And that was her
indication to me in a phone call that was documented.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What about these people who are
waiting for their money? Can they wait all that time?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That doesn't make any difference.
MS. KINZEL: And, Commissioner Fiala, let me just give you an
example. For the payment request from December 26th through
February, the Clerk's Office didn't even receive request for a payment
until mid March, okay. So we have been working diligently on this
issue since the discovery of both the zoning issue and we received the
request for the final payment. And we have been working to pay the
vendor.
MR. OCHS: The zoning's been in place from the beginning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MS. KINZEL: Leo, it has not.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, it has.
MS. KINZEL: Go to the 35 feet and the 165 feet and look at the
maps.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, okay.
Item #14A1
Page 191
April 10, 2012
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, ACTING IN ITS
CAPACITY AS THE COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT
AUTHORITY, APPROVED THE ATTACHED SUB -LEASE
AGREEMENT WITH THREE MAYHOODS LLC. — MOTION TO
CONTINUE WITH STAFF DIRECTION FOR THE AIRPORT
DIRECTOR TO WORK WITH THE TENANT ON THE
HISTORICAL USES, ACCESS, USAGE OF THE SUB -LEASE
AGREEMENT AND TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE NEXT
BCC MEETING — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 14A1 is a recommendation that the Board of
County Commissioners, acting in its capacity as the Collier County
Airport Authority, approve the attached sublease agreement with
Three Mayhoods, LLC. Mr. Curry?
MR. CURRY: Chris Curry, Executive Director, Airport
Authority. I'm here today to ask the board to approve the lease
agreement with the Three Mayhoods.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's upside down.
MR. CURRY: I have Mike Thompson with me, who works with
the URS and he was responsible for doing a lot of the Airport Master
Plans.
I have been negotiating this lease with the Three Mayhoods for
approximately one year. There's been at least four meetings that
we've had face to face and several emails that have gone back and
forth in order to try and negotiate this contract.
At the last meeting we had on December 28, 2011, an agreement
was made to have the signed lease to me by January 12th. On January
105 2012, Ms. Mayhood requested another month and that was
granted.
This hangar was built in 1981 and the Mayhoods assumed the
lease in 1996 from a company that had the ability to sell fuel, lease tie
down and hangar space.
Page 192
April 10, 2012
In 1996 the Collier County Airport Authority removed the right
to sell fuel, lease tie down or hangar space in competition with the
airport.
The lease with the Mayhoods expired March 2011 with no
options to renew.
On May -- May 1, 2011, their rent was adjusted to an
aeronautical rate and they paid promptly, two of the meetings that we
had with the Mayhoods involved the inspection of his hangar facility.
During the first hangar inspection, we saw at least five aircraft, three
Jeeps, some commercial washers and dryers and airplane parts and we
informed Mr. Mayhood to remove the aeronautical items and they
complied with that.
The two issues that we've had in the negotiation of this lease has
to deal with the length of the lease term and the use of the premises.
The airport has given, with this agreement, a 10 year lease term.
The building is about 30 years old. The useful life of most hangar
facilities is generally about 30 to 40 years.
The airport is concerned with the use of the facility because of
where it's located on the airport. There's no proper access to the
facility except by taxiways or crossing the runway and that's a concern
for the airport, because the air traffic at Immokalee has doubled over
the past two years from about 18,000 to 36,000 operations, which
increases the chance of runway incursions.
So I'll take any questions that you have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Fletchers Flying uses part of
that hangar?
MR. CURRY: I understand that at times he parks as many as
two aircraft over in that hangar.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Does this lease prevent that
from happening?
MR. CURRY: This lease would, however, at the Advisory
Page 193
April 10, 2012
Board meeting yesterday, when I was told that he would be using that
on a regular basis, I mentioned that I would not have a problem with
that because the airport does not have the facilities to store an aircraft
of his wingspan. So that's an exception that I have no problem making
to the lease.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is it a part of the lease?
MR. CURRY: Not at this time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So we need to correct
that before approving that?
MR. CURRY: That's correct, if that's a condition that the board
feels should be met.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, is It -- it's also recognized
along with Fletcher's Flying, since he's using to park his vehicle -- I'm
sorry, aircraft -- Commissioner Coyle, I apologize.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorrv. What?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He said vehicles.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I said vehicles.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, they're aerial vehicles.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That would be considered an
appropriate place for him to maintain those aircraft?
MR. CURRY: Well, I don't see any reason why he could not
utilize that facility in the area that Mayhood pays for the apron space.
And what I didn't mention earlier is that this lease is part of the
standardized lease process that the airport has been working towards
with the County Attorney's Office. So it's almost identical in nature to
a lease that you approved for Mr. Sheppard a few months ago.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: On a side note, I think that the
Airport Authority needs to adopt standardized forms.
I received a correspondence from Ms. Mayhood asking for a
continuance, also we have an advisory board that advises on these
issues and there's nothing in the Executive Summary giving their
recommendations.
Page 194
April 10, 2012
MR. CURRY: The Advisory Board's decision yesterday was
really no decision and they decided to leave it up to the Board of
County Commissioners. Am I correct, Mr. Murray?
MR. MURRAY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have how many public
speakers, Ian?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have three public speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's call the first public speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: The first public speaker is Marvin Courtright.
MR. COURTRIGHT: For the record, Marvin Courtright,
resident of Naples and at one time business operator in Immokalee.
I'm presently non - persona.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You said you live in Naples?
MR. COURTRIGHT: I live in -- who asked that question?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I did. Where do you live in Naples?
MR. COURTRIGHT: I live in a senior citizen community called
Coastland — Southwind, I'm sorry, been there 11 years.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Where is that?
MR. COURTRIGHT: It's on 41, three miles east of 951 on the
left -hand side.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Southwind or Westwind?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's still in Naples.
MR. COURTRIGHT: I'm sorry, Westwind.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Westwind.
MR. COURTRIGHT: Yes, Westwind.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've forgotten where you live?
MR. COURTRIGHT: Well, I don't have any trouble finding
home.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead.
MR. COURTRIGHT: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sorry.
Page 195
April 10, 2012
MR. COURTRIGHT: And I'm sure you're curious about why
I'm so interested in Immokalee if I live in Naples. It's because I've
worked at every airport in Collier County and Lee County over the
years, at least the last 30 years or more.
And, anyway, in regard to Mr. Mayhood's situation, I just wanted
to ask one question and that is, has the actual contract been presented
to your Airport Advisory Board? Yes or No? That's all.
Well, I believe Mr. Curry should be able to answer that question.
I can find nothing in any of the minutes that addresses that subject.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead and make your comments. Go
ahead and finish your presentation.
MR. COURTRIGHT: That's it. I just had one question in regard
to -- I also was escorted and challenged before Mr. Curry got involved
in all of this. I went over to work and help Steve Fletcher work on his
big airplane by request of him. And when I drove across -- and I met
all the policies and procedures to get there -- his Airport Director
advised me that I had no right to go over there and told me, don't go
back.
Well, that's okay with me. I mean, he ran me off of another job,
too and he lies. Well, I'm sorry. I shouldn't have said that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why not, if it's true?
MR. COURTRIGHT: Point being, I just wanted to know
whether or not our Advisory Board was provided an opportunity to
review the contract when it was proposed to Mr. Mayhood.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. COURTRIGHT: Maybe it's not important.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Who's the next speaker?
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Sue Mayhood.
MS. MAYHOOD: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Sue
Mayhood, Three Mayhoods, LLC.
The reason there's nothing in the agenda packet from the
Page 196
April 10, 2012
advisory board is because it was -- the meeting was changed from last
week until yesterday. So I -- when I met with Mr. Curry in the
Advisory Board yesterday, this lease was discussed.
And my biggest problem with this lease and why I'm asking for a
continuance is the use that Mr. Curry has given us. We had to sign
this lease under threat of eviction, so we signed it, but the lease that he
has provided to us says anything associated with aircraft and
maintenance, storage and operation of aircraft for personal use or
aircraft lease by the sub lessee.
And as Mr. Curry mentioned earlier, Mr. Fletcher's planes do
stay in our hangar at times because there are no hangars available on
the Immokalee Airport other than ours that are big enough to store his
plane.
So I was told yesterday by Mr. Curry that having Mr. Fletcher's
airplane in our hangar would be in a direct violation of our lease. So
that's why I would ask you to change that.
The other issue with this use is the fact that I'm a commercial
building and have been paying the annual commercial operating
privilege fee for the whole time that we've been there. So I'm paying
to be commercial. So I would not -- I'd like the personal use taken out
of my use so that I can have the opportunity to be a maintenance and
repair shop if desired. I have probably a -- for 10 out of the 16 plus
years of my lease we have provided maintenance and repair services.
So it was brought to my attention that the commercial use of the
building would pose a safety issue because of people crossing the
runways. But as -- this ground vehicle access plan, nobody would be
able to cross without being escorted by either Fletcher or myself, or
somebody that is approved to cross the runways. So I don't really see
that safety issue.
So I would ask that we can continue this topic so that we can
continue to negotiate with Airport Authority and come up with a use
that would not put us in violation of our lease.
Page 197
April 10, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ms. Mayhood, what kind of uses do you
want to have there?
MS. MAYHOOD: The only thing in addition to this, I would
like to be able to store Fletcher's airplane because nobody else can and
his airplanes are a great asset to our community; they're used for
firefighting, the crop spraying. He has the only two available east of
the Mississippi.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You want to have the hangar
there.
MS. MAYHOOD: So I would have that ability and I would also
have -- like to have the ability to have commercial services such as a
maintenance and repair shop, which we have done, like I said, for 10
out of probably the 16 years that we've been there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And do you charge Mr. Fletcher
for use of the hangar?
MS. MAYHOOD: No, sir. His airplanes are stored there at no
cost to him. Just as a favor.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. MAYHOOD: Nor do we want to charge. It is not my goal
to lease hangar space. I do not want to be in competition with the
airport.
You know, I suggested basically this same definition except
saying, you know, storage and -- operation of aircraft that is not in
competition with the airport, because that is not our goal. I don't know
what -- over the next 10 years what our business plan might change,
but I do not want to be in competition with the airport. We've never
charged Fletcher rent nor do we have any -- we never will.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And would you do any kind of
commercial business there that would require ground customers,
customers driving their personal vehicles --
MS. MAYHOOD: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- to your facility?
April 10, 2012
MS. MAYHOOD: They would not be allowed to. We would
have to escort them in one of our vehicles, because our vehicles have
been approved and have the stickers to be able to safely cross the
runway knowing all the rules. So, no, no customers would ever cross
the runway in their personal vehicles.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So that leaves out Commissioner Hiller.
MS. MAYHOOD: I assume that commissioners are part of the
exception.
COMMISSIONER HILLER:
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER:
Absolutely.
That's a private joke here.
Absolutely, that was a brilliant
response and you're absolutely right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'm sorry. Who was first now, as
far as commissioners are concerned?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have another public speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right, one more public speaker. Let's
have the other one.
MR. MITCHELL: That's Bob Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Excuse me. My name is Bob Krasowski,
for the record.
I was curious about this. I heard several things out in the woods
and it doesn't identify very much, specific uses of this facility's
hangar, but Ms. Mayhood clarified quite a bit -- Mayhoods, clarified
quite a bit.
But I did notice in the detailed information that under use of
premises that it was, as she said, anything associated with aircraft,
maintenance, storage and operation of aircraft for personal use or
aircraft lease by the sub lessee. She seems to have modified that a bit.
But it goes on to say -- there's that, but it's which use the Board
of County Commissioners, acting in its capacities as the county --
Collier County Airport Authority, has found to be in the public's
interest.
Page 199
April 10, 2012
So if somebody wants to put something in there that's going to
make a lot of noise and pollute the air by inefficient operation, just as
an extreme -- which she didn't say anything about that, right -- that
would be against public interest.
So I was mainly concerned that this was some kind of deal that
was not revealing the substance, sort of like this energy thing that's
kind of out in the ether, that this would be another one of those.
But I suppose when you readdress this, you can get more details
as far as what you will allow to happen there or will not allow to
happen being that you're the reining authority.
So thanks for the time.
MR. CURRY: Commissioner, I have just one question of Ms.
Mayhood. Yesterday she also mentioned aircraft sales. Have you
changed your mind on that particular topic?
MS. MAYHOOD: Mr. Curry, I have not changed my mind. We
do have a current aircraft dealer license. I cannot tell you the last time
that we have bought or sold an airplane. It's just a license that we
keep up. That's not really our business interest. It is, you know, an
option to us.
MR. CURRY: Okay. Well, the reason I ask that is because the
airport has minimum standards that apply to commercial business
activities and there are certain requirements that you must meet by the
minimum standards to do different type business on the airport. That's
why I was really working hard with you trying to determine your
specific use because I had to figure out whether or not the minimum
standards apply to your type of operation.
And I thought that you were being very general and I was trying
to be more specific.
MS. MAYHOOD: Well, I assume I would already meet those
minimum standards because I have always been commercial. Our
lease was commercial. We have been paying the annual operating fee,
that commercial annual operating fee. So I assume -- if I am not
Page 200
April 10, 2012
meeting those minimum requirements, I'm not aware of it.
MR. CURRY: Yeah. There's -- for different type facilities, you
have to have office space you have to have parking spots. There's --
different minimum standards depend on your business entity. So that's
why I was really trying to get you to be specific to make sure that you
met the minimum standards of the airport.
MS. MAYHOOD: Well, then I assume we need to further
discuss those minimum standards, because they have never been
brought to my attention.
MR. CURRY: That's what we've been trying to do over the past
year.
MS. MAYHOOD: This is the first time I've even heard of
commercial minimum standards.
MR. CURRY: This is the first time that you've mentioned
commercial business.
MS. MAYHOOD: I've mentioned --
MR. CURRY: There's no time in our consideration -- and Mr.
Vergo's here. He's been part of the meetings. There's no time that you
mentioned anything commercial. It's always been about the personal
use of the three Mayhoods.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to continue this item.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Geez.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to continue --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Boys and Girls.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- by Commissioner Henning and second
by Commissioner Hiller.
MR. CURRY: We're cordial.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We don't need this conversation
up here. It's not professional.
MR. CURRY: Well, this is the only way that I could get the
conversation. I couldn't get it through individual meetings.
Page 201
April 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I'm not going to have the
same exchange with you as you had over here.
MR. CURRY: I wouldn't expect you to.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're policy makers. There's a
motion to continue. The direction is work with the tenant for the
historical uses within their building and access, historical uses, access,
storage, yada, yada, yada.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I -- okay.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: At some point in time -- how
long have you been working on this lease?
MR. CURRY: Approximately a year.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And it just seems to be
dragging out and out and out. So we're -- a couple questions. Now,
the advisory board -- and I'm glad we're going to have that meeting. I
believe it's on the 16th they'll be able to have a joint meeting with the
commission and the Advisory Board.
MR. CURRY: Well, I think now it's been moved to May 4th.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May 4th. But that's going to be
a great meeting because we're going to be able to come to a better
understanding what the role of the Advisory Board is and the actual
Airport Authority, looking forward to that.
Now -- but that aside, is the -- is the Airport Authority --
Advisory Board, are they supposed to critique leases?
MR. CURRY: They are. They review leases. The first time that
this lease was before them was in January, early January in a draft
form without the uses being specified in the lease and then it was
discussed again yesterday where the Advisory Board did not take any
action whatsoever.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'm a little bit confused,
Page 202
April 10, 2012
because didn't I hear something about they wanted it brought back to
the Advisory Board?
MR. CURRY: No, they did not. They just decided that it wasn't
an issue that they wanted to deal with and they would rely on the
Board of County Commissioners to make the decision.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And the whole thing is is
trying to get to a point where we've actually got a lease in place that
not only offers fair and equitable use of the airport, but that doesn't
give people an advantage one over the other. In other words, if repairs
are going to take place in this building, is that going to take it away
from another place that's possibly got more area for it?
Maybe you might be able to explain some of that, why there's
some limitations and maybe there isn't limitations, just go ahead and
give everybody the same thing. Could you elaborate on that for me,
sir.
MR. CURRY: Well, the important thing is that all tenants are
treated fair and equal, and that's what we've been working towards
with these standardized agreements and when you get away from
standardized agreements, that's when you start to run afoul of FAA
grant assurances and those type things.
So Ms. Mayhood and Mr. Sheppard are in similar situations.
Similar positions on the airport. They both own their own structures
and doing land lease with the airport.
Ms. Mayhood's location is much worse because of access. It's
not their fault. It's just that we're dealing with a problem now that's
been there for 30 years and there's no way to provide reasonable
economical access to that facility.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Going back over it, some
of the issues that were brought up, one was the storing of Steve
Fletcher's plane. Is that an issue?
MR. CURRY: It's not an issue for me at this time because, again,
the airport itself does not have a facility to accommodate an aircraft
Page 203
April 10, 2012
with that wing span. If we did, it would be an issue.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Now -- and this is a
question that I just need to be built in. And I can't understand why
somebody wouldn't charge. Because if you're going to pay rent -- but
if they did -- they said they're not charging. But if they did charge,
would that be some sort of violation of the lease?
MR. CURRY: That would be in conflict with the airport.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Why is that?
MR. CURRY: It would be in conflict with the airport because
the airport rents space.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But if you have no space to rent
MR. CURRY: And we're the fixed base operator.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. But if you have no space
to rent, it wouldn't be much of a -- I'm just trying to reason and
rationalize this out. Okay.
Going back to it. I'd like to see if we could wrap this up today, if
we could go ahead and recognize the lease as it is with some minor
modifications and just go ahead and vote on it and just move it
forward. I don't think we have to drag it out.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's already a motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There's no reason why
everybody has to -- I've got the floor, Commissioner Henning. I don't
think there's any reason why we have to drag this thing to another
meeting two weeks from now over and over again the same thing. So
let's go down through it piece by piece.
You're going to agree in the lease to be able to include the
storage of the airplane. They can put an airplane --
MR. CURRY: I will amend it to include the two aircraft that Mr.
Fletcher has and I will ask for the tail numbers of both.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Now, let's go through the
rest of it there. What about the repairs? Are repairs something that
Page 204
April 10, 2012
would be permissible in this particular building or no? And why not?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We have a motion on the floor.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I understand, but this is discussion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This is discussion. So if your
motion fails I can make a second motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let's vote on the motion
and see if it fails.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I've still got the floor, sir.
MR. CURRY: There are minimum standards associated with
aircraft, air frame, engine and accessory, maintenance and repair.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. If a lease incorporated
what is allowed, the minimum standards, would that be a problem?
I'm sorry, am I phrasing the question wrong or --
MR. CURRY: Well, the minimum standards is its own
standalone document applies to anything you do on the airport,
whether by lease or not.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Which means you could or
couldn't include it as part of the lease?
MR. CURRY: It's automatically included.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So that is --
MR. CURRY: It's just like airport rules and regulations.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Forgive me, sir. So that
question wasn't necessary. It already can do the repairs. I'm just
trying to think what some of the other issues were.
We already cleared up about the access. They know that they
have to escort people. You don't have to do anything to change
anything in the lease for that. What other issue did I miss?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The sale of aircraft if they ever do
that, but they don't.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But -- no, okay, let's -- it's still a
good thing. Why do you want to have a license to do something and
find out that at the other end of the spectrum you can't? And if there's
Page 205
April 10, 2012
a reason why it can't be done, if you've got somebody that's already
doing that and it's part of their lease that they have some sort of
exclusive rights, I can understand that.
MR. CURRY: No, you can't -- you can't have exclusive rights at
all. And if they decide that they want to do something like that, I
mean, we can sit down and take a look at their facility and tell them
exactly what they need to come into compliance with the minimum
standards to do it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But there is a minimum
standards that's different than repairs?
MR. CURRY: There's a minimum standard that applies
specifically to maintenance and repair. There's a minimum standard
that applies to aerial sprayer applications. There are minimum
standards that apply to a flight school. It's all different and it's listed
individually.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. What I would suggest is
that if I do get the opportunity to make the motion, that I'll make the
motion that we'll leave that open ended, that they can bring that back
for consideration later as an addendum to the lease.
MR. CURRY: Yes, I think it comes back as an amendment to
the lease.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But I don't have any problem
with some of these things. I mean, unless there's a specific rule that
says you can't. What else?
MS. MAYHOOD: Well, my only concern is I've never seen
these minimum standards.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. Speak right in the
mike, please.
MS. MAYHOOD: My only concern is I've never seen these
minimum standards that he's referring to, so I can't tell you if I'm in
compliance with them or not.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that's something we're
Page 206
April 10, 2012
going to deal with after the fact as far as the sales go. But I mean,
minimum standards, I guess, would be a roof over your head.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, it's got to be more than that.
MS. MAYHOOD: I have no clue what is involved in minimum
standards.
MR. CURRY: They were put in place in 2005.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I see Commissioner
Henning is getting extremely impatient with me and I don't want him
to suffer any more trauma. So let's go ahead and call the question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor of the motion to
continue, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All opposed, by like sign.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We've got -- did we have three
ayes --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- for approval? Okay. Then it passes
for a continuance, Commissioner Hiller, Fiala and Henning voting for
the continuance. Coletta and Coyle opposed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I ask that it just be one
meeting, though, so that you don't have to continue on and on like
you've been doing for the past year?
MR. CURRY: Okay. That's fine, because as of now, you know,
the tenant is not under a lease at all.
MS. MAYHOOD: I don't know when the next meeting is
scheduled, but could we have it scheduled after the workshop on May
4th? Could we put it on the agenda after the workshop that's
scheduled for May 4th?
Page 207
April 10, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We just want to keep delaying and
delaying and delaying, don't we?
MS. MAYHOOD: No, I do not want to delay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What's a workshop going to do with
respect to your lease?
MS. MAYHOOD: Well, from my understanding of the
workshop, it's where the Airport Advisory Board meets with the
County Commissioner board and the public regarding the airports.
Am I incorrect?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. CURRY: But it's not going to discuss your individual lease
at all.
MS. MAYHOOD: Okay. So who am I going to negotiate these
items with; the Airport Advisory Board?
MR. CURRY: No, I think me, you and the county attorney, or
someone representing the county's attorney's staff.
MS. MAYHOOD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So it will be at the next meeting,
all right.
MR. CURRY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And between now and then you work
that out, okay.
MS. MAYHOOD: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I just ask for -- can I have --
can I just ask my question?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Chris, can I please have these
minimum commercial standards that you're referring to?
MR. CURRY: I'll send you a copy.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't think she's authorized to receive
them.
NUMM
April 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's a secret.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Make sure the security --
MR. CURRY: I will send you a copy.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're being particularly generous
today.
MR. CURRY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
MR. COURTRIGHT: If he doesn't have them, I'll send you a
copy.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why don't you.
MR. CURRY: Oh, there you go.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Okay. Does that finish
everything now?
MR. OCHS: No, sir, it doesn't, I'm afraid. We have two more
items on your County Manager's Agenda. Next one is 11 --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute, no no. We're having a
break.
MR. OCHS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Already?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's been an hour and 45 minutes, if I
remember correctly; hasn't it, Terri?
THE COURT REPORTER: Yes.
1
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, that's right. So we'll be back here at
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What? 8:30, yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, it will be 4:40.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Leo, what two items do we have
open?
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's go to the next item.
Page 209
April 10, 2012
Item #1 1 K
THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE A "DELEGATION OF
AUTHORITY TO ACT AS CERTIFYING OFFICER" FORM
DESIGNATING THE COLLIER COUNTY MANAGER AS THE
CERTIFYING OFFICER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS
REQUIRED FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED GRANT PROJECTS —
MOTION TO APPROVE THE COLLIER COUNTY MANAGER
FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVENINISTERIAL FUNCTIONS FOR
FEDERALLY FUNDED GRANTS — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: The next item is Item 11K. It was 16D6 from your
consent agenda. It's a recommendation for the chairman to execute a
delegation of authority to act as certifying officer form designating the
Collier County Manager as the certifying officer for Environmental
Reviews required for Federally Funded Grant Projects.
This item was moved at Commissioner Henning's request. And
Ms. Grant can present the item or --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think the majority of us know
that we cannot delegate our authorities. So if there's some other way to
get around this -- it's actually management of an existing grant, but the
big federal government wants to call it delegation.
MR. OCHS: Two years ago, I think in 2009, we came to the
Board to get this authority on behalf of the then Housing, Human and
Veteran Services Director. Now we're going to -- we're trying to
update it now to my signature.
But however the board wants to do it, it's certainly your pleasure.
If you would like to see them all and approve them on consent, or you
want to find some other way to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is this a delegation? That's the
issue.
Page 210
April 10, 2012
MR. KLATZKOW: I think it's ministerial in nature. But, you
know, if the board's more comfortable to see this on consent, we can
do it that way, too.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's an existing grant; is that
correct?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
MR. KLATZKOW: But this is continuing.
MR. OCHS: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: It is a continuing process that we have here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Environmental reviews required.
MR. OCHS: Would you like Ms. Grant just to give you a size
and the scope of this certification process?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
MR. OCHS: Sure.
MS. GRANT: That is correct that this is an ongoing process.
Each time there is a new grant given or Subrecipient arrangement
created, which you all approve all of those, we are required to perform
an environmental review. The vast majority of times there's not
environmental effect; occasionally there is.
So there's on the average of -- depends on the particular year but,
anywhere between 20 to 40 in a given year, calendar year.
MR. OCHS: And, again, most of these don't require
environmental review, but there's still a certification to that effect that
has to be executed and sent with the grant --
MS. GRANT: That's correct.
MR. OCHS: -- report.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And if it's not delegated to you, who
does it?
MR. OCHS: Well, we would bring it to the board every time and
get the board to certify.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That should be fun.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, I'm not trying to -- I don't care. I'll
Page 211
April 10, 2012
bring it to the board every time if that's your preference. We had not
been doing that and, like I said, the housing director had been doing it
since 2009. We were just updating the process because the former
director obviously is no longer here and instead of the interim director,
I said, well just -- let's just suggest that it be executed by me instead
of the director.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the county attorney doesn't have
any problems with that?
MR. KLATZKOW: I'd just as soon Leo be on the hook for these
certifications than an individual board member because, quite frankly,
it's our staff making the determination.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, that's right.
MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, to be blunt, as far as liability goes.
But, you know, if the board wants to issue these certifications, it's fine
by me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm happy to do it for the County
Manager, to tell you the truth.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Me, too.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead, Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just need to be reassured it's
not a delegation.
MR. KLATZKOW: I think it's ministerial, I mean, because what
will happen is, your staff will tell you, we've done the environmental
review and this is what it is and you'll just say, fine.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How about if we give some
parameters about the environmental review what to do in an
environmental review and as long as it meets those parameters that the
County Manager can sign off on them. I mean -- unless we change the
Executive Summary to say that we allow -- we direct the County
Manager to manage this part of the grants.
MR. KLATZKOW: That'd be fine.
Page 212
April 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let's do that and it's not a
delegation. It's a management. It's a ministerial.
So I'm going to make a motion to approve to say that we -- let me
get at the item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could I suggest something?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, go ahead.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just, a motion to have the Collier County
Manager perform the Ministerial Functions of Certifying
Environmental reviews for Federally Funded Grant Projects.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You know, there's another item on
consent which raises the similar concern and that's 16A14,
recommendation to appoint a designee to submit board approved
Federal Transit Administration grant applications to accept and
execute grants and cooperative agreements and to execute annual
electronic certification insurances on behalf of the county.
That particular item has to be limited in the same way only to the
extent that it's ministerial, that there is no discretionary decision
making with respect to this designation, because it's exactly the same
thing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, but that item has already been
approved through the approval this morning of the consent agenda. So
if --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, then I'm going to bring it
back for reconsideration.
MR. KLATZKOW: You can reconsider it right now, if you
want.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. TEACH: Scott Teach, Deputy County Attorney.
I just wanted to mention on that item, all the grants come to the
board initially for the board's approval and, really, what that has more
Page 213
April 10, 2012
to do with is annually each year both the designee who in the past has
been Norm Feder and myself, as a representative for the county's legal
department, have to pin certs and assurances. What we have to do is
we have to go into the team website, the federal website and we have
to acknowledge these various grants just by pushing a button, clicking
the mouse that these are all the grants that we've received in the last
year and we acknowledge the certs and assurances and that's what it's
done.
Once a year we do it probably in February of every year or so.
You usually have to get a new password every year. It is truly
ministerial because you've already approved the grants that we're
acknowledging that we have -- you know, have been addressing with
the county.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, when I read the backup to
this, it didn't read that way. So I think, you know, we should state that
-- you know, bring this forth on the record, make that clear that that is
all you are doing, because it certainly doesn't read that way in the
backup.
MR. TEACH: I have no objection. I mean, it is a ministerial
thing. And if you want to phrase it in the same manner, that's --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, but who is the designee? Is it --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Nick.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- the County Attorney's Office or Nick
or --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It was -- in the Executive
Summary they were recommending Nick to do that, but maybe it
really ought to be you.
MR. TEACH: No. Nick is the transportation designee who does
that. I also --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You can't hold lawyers responsible for
anything.
MR. TEACH: But I also have to go in -- and as the legal
Page 214
April 10, 2012
representative, I have to -- I have to confirm these certs --
certifications and assurances.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's take care of the first one
first. There's a motion by Commissioner -- by me and seconded by
Commissioner Henning for approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes 5 -0. So it is unanimous.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, let's -- is there a motion to
reconsider Item 16C or A14?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: A14, yeah, motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Hiller
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- to reconsider 16A14, seconded by
Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
Page 215
April 10, 2012
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Now, do we have a motion on A14 to --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Jeff, can you phrase the motion so
we word it correctly so it's appropriately limited?
MR. KLATZKOW: That you're not delegating any authority to
staff. You're simply authorizing staff to perform the ministerial
function of advising the granting agencies of the various grants we've
been awarded.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is it going to be restricted to the Federal
Transit Administration Grants, or to all grants?
MR. TEACH: Commissioner, primarily, the certs and assurances
are the Federal Grants. That's what we have to do. So it can be
limited to that. And if for some reason there's a state requirement, we
can come back on something like that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, this says Federal Transit
Administration --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- grant.
MR. TEACH: And that's correct, Commissioner. That's what
we're talking about.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So this is -- so basically the motion
would be to only delegate the ministerial functions related to the
certifications related to Federal Transit Administration Grant
Applications?
MR. TEACH: I think that's fine. That --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that's it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Hiller,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
Page 216
April 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion carries unanimously.
Okay. Now, where do we go next?
Item #1 I L
AN EXTENSION FOR COMPLETION OF SUBDIVISION
IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ESPERANZA
PLACE SUBDIVISION PURSUANT TO SECTION 10.02.05 B.I I
OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: We go to Item IOL, sir -- I'm sorry, I IL. It was
previously 16A7. This item requires ex parte disclosure be provided
by commission members.
It's a recommendation to approve an extension for completion of
subdivision improvements associated with the Esperanza Place
subdivision pursuant to Section 10.02.05(b).11 of the Collier County
Land Development Code.
Also, if anyone is going to give testimony, sir, all participants are
required to be sworn in.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Will anyone who's going to be
giving testimony to this item please stand and be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: See, he can raise his hand. His arm can't
be hurt that badly.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's just a sympathy cast; that's all.
Page 217
April 10, 2012
Didn't work so good so I tried something else.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It will probably be on the other arm
tomorrow, right?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, I'll come in with crutches next
week, so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We'll start with ex parte
disclosure for the commissioners with Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Communications with staff and
email to staff.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: None.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't have any and Commissioner
Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have none.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I spoke to the Growth
Management Plan Administrator.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right Nick, it's all yours.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's really just an extension --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Or do you have questions? Who pulled
it?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I did.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner Hiller.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And my concern with it, first of
all, there's some confusion because Esperanza, as staff explained to
me, is a PUD and there is an existing development within it. And this
development, as I understand, has not come out of the ground yet.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not vertical. They've done site
Development Improvements of Roads, Infrastructure, things of that
nature.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And there have been all sorts of
Page 218
April 10, 2012
grants provided to one project and grants provided to this separate
project.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. This application you have in
front of you has nothing to do grants per se, it's just -- what happens is
their plat is expiring or expired. They came in for an extension after
the time period. Without board approval, they would have to pay us
something towards -- around $18,000 and hire an engineer to do
everything we've done already.
So the item in front of you is just to accept their extension request
after the fact, let them move forward --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Without the payment?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, the payment is for review fees.
We've already reviewed it. So they'd be paying their extension fee.
And as I've spoken with the county engineer --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's the extension fee?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's 150, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. And are we doing the same
thing for other developments --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- that are similarly situated?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I would bring all of these forward to
the board, in fairness to the developers or anybody that's out there --
and, Commissioners, we have multiple of these plats. And as they turn
back on, if staff has nothing to do but look at the plans again real
quick or just pick up where we left off, I hate to charge them brand
new review fees which can run in the 18s or 20 --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, can we adopt that as a policy
that, you know, in the event that we have renewals -- because a lot of
developers are not developing and are looking for extensions of time.
And I'm sure this is not the only situation that we're facing. But it
would seem a waste if every single time a development is -- expires
like this and wants to come back, that you would have to bring it
Page 219
April 10, 2012
forward.
I mean, Jeff, is that something we could adopt as a policy so that
we don't have to waive the fees each and every time?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, Jeff, before you go there.
They're one -page consent items. And the reason, ma'am, I like to
do them one at a time, because each one has separate cases. In other
words, one may be part of a PUD where they have other compliance
issues. So we review them on a case by case basis as they request
them from us and they're one page on the consent. That way if there's
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But I guess the concern I have is
that all these other people don't necessarily know that that option
exists to them. Are you telling every single one that comes forward, if
we don't have to do anything to review, we'll bring it forward on
consent to get the fee waived?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am. Not the fee waived. It's
just -- what we're saying is that --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Or, not the fee waived but
basically not go through a review that would cost.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am. Anyone that comes
forward and works with engineering services, Jack and John
Houldsworth, if they feel comfortable that they reviewed the plat for
that level and they don't have to review it again or any major
engineering redo, that we will tell them the same thing, let's just take it
to the board and we'll -- but I want to review them on a case -by -case
basis because everybody has their own story how much is done.
Doing one that is broad -based might be a, you know --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have a concern, though, because,
you know, if you don't tell one and you do tell another, I mean, I just
-- I think there should be some sort of a uniform policy so that
everybody knows if you don't change anything you're not going to
have to pay anything.
Page 220
April 10, 2012
You know, because I'm sure some people think that they would
have to pay for a re review and they let it lapse because of that,
because they want to avoid a fee and don't know that the option exists
for them to go forward without paying.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If it's -- if I get nods from the board to
make sure that staff makes sure they tell everybody appropriately as
they comes in, we'll do that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why can't we do that as a policy
and why not have it -- why not just adopt it, you know, as a policy and
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- then put it on your fee schedule
so people know if they're looking for an extension of time because
they haven't developed and their you know, site plan has expired or
whatever has expired, if there's no review, no changes, then there
won't be a charge to extend.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But there might be a need for a charge
once you get the petition.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But not if there's no change.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, you don't know if there's not going
to be any change until they sit down and talk with them.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no. You're -- Commissioner
Coyle, the intent is not to tell these people that they're going to get an
automatic extension. They have to apply just like this group applied,
pay the $150, but then our chief engineer makes a determination that
since nothing is changing, the rollover is not going to be at any, you
know, professional cost.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. But you're saying he's going to
make a determination when it comes to him.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
Page 221
April 10, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You can't pass a rule that says you're not
going to be charged if he's going to make a determination that a charge
is appropriate.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, no. What we're saying is if
he makes a determination that there is no change and no review is
needed as a consequence, there will be no charge. Because what's
happening is people think that they're going to have to go through an
entire re- review and it's going to cost them what it cost them initially
or some portion thereof when, in fact, it's not going to cost them
anything and people are letting their, you know, plans lapse.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't know how to say it any more
plainly.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. They're not letting their plans
lapse because they're not -- they're afraid of the cost, because they're --
the development community is very much in touch with Jack and Bill
and let us know.
My concern is, for instance, if a plat has been sitting a very long
time and the infrastructure is starting to deteriorate, then we may want
a certain re- review before we continue forward.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's exactly right.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And -- but we're very proactive when
they come to sit with us, whether it's a new owner and -- you know,
whatever -- we tell them, what status are you in. What would you like
to do? Your -- for instance, in this case they missed the date by a
month. Rather than me say, I'm going to have you pay $18,000, let
me take this to the board. I think everything is good with this plat.
That's the process we kind of follow to set up a --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How often are you seeing this?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How often are you seeing this?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Three to six months, depending on
different projects coming online every now and then. And as the
Page 222
April 10, 2012
economy's getting better now, there's more tire kicking going on with
plats. And so -- I don't know. It's not that often, you know. I think
there's one more coming up next board meeting that we talked with
that's a project that's turning back on.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The other thing I was concerned
about with respect to this project is -- and what I'll do is I'll just talk to
the county attorney and you afterwards --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- and see if we need to do
something. I want to look at it, you know, more closely. Again, I just
want to make sure people don't let their plats or whatever they've got
in the system lapse merely for fear that they're going to have to, you
know, pay now where they might not have the money and then they're
going to, you know, come back to us and we're going to be on
overload, hopefully, one day when the market picks up, you know,
when it could be sitting in the pipeline waiting to, you know, launch,
if you will, when demand reestablishes itself.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The other concern I had is I just
wanted to make sure that there aren't any grants that we've given to the
developer of this project that is time sensitive and that somehow this
extension will impede, you know, whatever grants they have --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It would only help --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- being promised.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And I wouldn't answer that. I would
think that would be for housing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, it's a housing issue.
MS. GRANT: Kim Grant, for the record. No, there's no adverse
impact. In fact, we need this to be approved so that we can complete
the homes in the project.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, okay. Can you give me a full
schedule of all the grants that have been approved for this
Page 223
April 10, 2012
development, both what has been completed as well as, you know,
what is forthcoming and where we are with respect to all those grants?
I want to get a full understanding of this project.
MS. GRANT: Sure. I'd be happy to give you what our
department or our -- the BCC is involved in. My understand is there
may be state or other grants for other components of it, but I'll
certainly give you what --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But that has nothing to do with the
county, right?
MS. GRANT: Has nothing to do with us.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We don't know about that.
MS. GRANT: So I'll give you what we've been involved with.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure.
MS. GRANT: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
MS. GRANT: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. How many public speakers?
MR. MITCHELL: We'd one, but I don't see her in the audience.
It's Dottie.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: She's waving her hand.
MR. MITCHELL: Oh. I don't think she stood up -- you didn't
stand up to be sworn in, though.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have to stand up and be sworn in if
you're going to speak.
MR. MITCHELL: Dottie Cook.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you going to stand up?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: She doesn't want to speak.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, you don't want to speak?
MS. COOK: Not unless there's questions for the Developer.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's swear her in anyway.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I do have one question.
Page 224
April 10, 2012
May I? Sorry. Let me ask a question. I --
MR. OCHS: She has to swear her in now?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, just swear her in.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Swear her in.
(The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thanks for being here today.
I just had a question and I don't know if this is true or not, but at
one of the meetings I had heard that you were having a problem
selling your units to the target market that had been the qualifying
market of individuals based on some of the grants that you had
received. Is that true and are you looking to change who your target
market is and will that be the case with this next development that
you're considering building? And how would you -- if it's true -- if it's
true, my next question would be, how does that affect all the grant
funds that you have received? Because those were grant funds
designated to serve a specific group of the community.
MS. COOK: We haven't built any units yet at that site because
of the economy. With the foreclosures in the market, we can't build a
house and sell it for, you know, a comparable rate for what someone
can go and buy a foreclosed home. And so that's been the delay.
We're hoping that things will start to pick up. Our goal -- our portion
of the PUD is single family for sale units and that's still our intent.
If we get to a point down the road where we still just are not able
to go forward, then we might look at something else. But our goal is
still to stay with the single family for sale units.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you're developing the portion
that is not developed yet?
MS. COOK: Right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And is there another company
that's developing -- or that has developed the other project?
MS. COOK: Uh -huh.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So even though you're under the
Page 225
April 10, 2012
same umbrella with the same name, you're actually two different
developers?
MS. COOK: Yes. There's another nonprofit that has the other
portion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I got it. Thank you so much for
the clarification. I appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
Is that everything now, County Manager?
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. OCHS: You're on Item 15, sir, Staff and Commission
General Communication.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We'll start with you.
MR. OCHS: I only have one item and it's just a quick
clarification. I know the board was kind enough to firm up the board
meeting schedule for November and December, but I'm not sure we
ever talked about maintaining the historical practice of one board
meeting in July. And I just wanted to make sure that everybody's still
Page 226
April 10, 2012
onboard with that. That's what we had --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why not? Why would we change?
MR. OCHS: There's no good reason --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good.
MR. OCHS: -- but I just don't take anything for granted.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we have the meeting earlier
in the month?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Depends on how much earlier. But I
think we should just cut back to one meeting every month anyway all
through the year, but nevertheless.
MR. OCHS: So I'll assume we have one meeting in July and that
will be July 24th.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that what it is?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's do it.
MR. OCHS: You'll set your tentative millage rate at that
meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is that all?
MR. OCHS: That's it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: A couple of things. The first thing
is is that -- and I've been talking to Jeff about this. A company by the
name of Turbo Services was approved out at the airport and I have
serious concerns about the lease. It appears that the sound levels that
have been approved within the lease exceed our noise ordinance and
there is no exemption that allows Turbo Services to do its business at
the noise level that we have approved.
So, obviously, that's a problem for Turbo Services. It's a problem
for all the neighbors and we certainly don't want to do something that
impedes the development of business around where Turbo Services is,
Page 227
April 10, 2012
you know, just because their noise volume is too high.
Another issue -- and this came about as a result of the fire review
of this particular project -- is that it appears also that what will be
happening is that when they do the testing of their engines, they will
be burning fuel which apparently is going to result in pollutants and
gases. And I guess that it's a problem.
So on two counts there are issues. I have a booklet here on Turbo
Services, which has, you know, all the information, which I'm happy
to share with everybody and can include on the record. But it does
seem that there is a problem with that project out at the Immokalee
airport that needs to be revisited, because it's certainly -- there's a
problem with the contract, so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Next item?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I think we need to bring this
back. And we can do one of two things. I can review it with Jeff and
then we can put it on the agenda, or I can just simply put it on the
agenda and ask for a re- review of this contract. What's your
preference, Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I think they're exempt from the noise
ordinance, but that's fine. I also agree that, perhaps, the noise
ordinance can be amended to make it more clear, which would be my
preference, I suppose, if we're going to have to go that way.
I mean, I may be wrong in my memory, but didn't they build a
building there pursuant to that lease?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know how you unscramble this egg,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: They're not done yet.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You don't know what the noise level is.
You have no idea what the noise level is.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's going to be a turbine engine at an
airport.
Page 228
April 10, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. So if you landed a jet there --
MR. KLATZKOW: It'd be the same thing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You would be burning fuel. It would be
producing fumes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: This is --
MR. KLATZKOW: But, I mean, if there's a concern we could
amend the noise ordinance to make it more clear if there's that
concern.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just another attempt to stop any
Economic Development.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no. It's the opposite.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's what it is.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The concern -- a lot of this was
brought out by the -- I guess the fire inspection or the fire chief. I
mean, you're welcome to look at it. I didn't know anything about it. It
was just brought to my attention.
So, no, it's quite the opposite, because the concern is, is that the
way this business would be doing it's business would impede other
businesses from developing in that area, so it's very much the
opposite. The intent is --
MR. KLATZKOW: We have a full -- Commissioner, I know
this is before your time, but we had a full presentation from Turbo
Services at to the nature of their business.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep.
MR. KLATZKOW: And this board approved that business.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, that may well be, but the
problem is, is if you know, there are issues with respect to that and if,
you know, fire is bringing up concerns about it and if there are issues
that are in conflict with an ordinance, then, while I accept that it may
have been approved before my time, this has been brought to my
attention and there's a problem.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Since when has the fire official been
Page 229
April 10, 2012
responsible for enforcement of our noise ordinances? Do they have
that responsibility?
MR. OCHS: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I don't know that they brought
the issue of the noise forward. I don't know exactly -- I mean, like I
said, I've got a whole book here, you're all welcome to see it, but there
are issues related to -- Nick, were you involved in this in any way?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sorry, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Were you involved in this in any
way with Turbo Services?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Just the normal permitting process.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do you know what fire's concern
is, office of the fire code official, what the problem is?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Jet fuel, storage of fuel materials was
one of their issues, sprinkler, but they've been working with Turbo
Services to resolve that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Any issues with gases or anything
like that?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. County engineer, if he's still here
-- we talked about it. We talked about the speed of the outflow of the
wind coming out of the -- the air coming out of one of the pipes and
we talked about that. So we're keeping an eye on the development in
terms of the project. I think we're trying to do a good job to work with
the owner and make sure that it's okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Marvin, did you want to say
something about that?
MR. COURTRIGHT: Please.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're not in Public Comment. This is
commissioners'.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's my comment. He wanted to
Page 230
April 10, 2012
say something.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, it's not your comment.
MR. COURTRIGHT: Pardon me. I have nothing to say then,
Mr. Coyle.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
MR. COURTRIGHT: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: All right. Well, we'll just -- then
I'll just bring this forward. I'll review it with Jeff and I'll bring it
forward on the next agenda. But, you know, it was brought to my
attention. It seems to be an issue. I'll let you know after I talk to Jeff
further.
The other thing that I wanted to address was the issue of the
approval of these airport master plans. There was an article written by
Brent Batten where he wrongly stated that the board never had to
approve the airport master plan and it was sort of a courtesy, if you
will, when it showed up on the consent agenda. That, in fact, is not
true.
What -- and let me begin. The airport authority, as I said earlier,
never had the jurisdiction legally to make any legally binding
decisions with respect to zoning or uses on the airport property;
therefore, the approval by the board was necessary.
In fact, it really had to go through the Planning Commission, the
board and with respect to the land use changes, the state. That really
did not happen. In fact, I shouldn't say "really." It didn't happen. And
the attempt to adopt the Airport Master Alan merely by placing it on
the summary consent -- I'm sorry, on the consent agenda in of itself
does not have the effect of making the land use provisions in those
plans a reality. It doesn't make them legally binding.
So, in effect, they don't exist until they go through the formal
notice and hearing requirements to be adopted.
So I just wanted to clarify that because obviously that's a material
issue and I think the community, as well as this board, is working
Page 231
April 10, 2012
under an incorrect assumption.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you.
Luckily I have one that I'm not even going to talk about anymore.
That's the zoo. We're already bringing it back to talk about.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So that's good. Okay. The next
three are --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Three?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I have three and you have to be
patient about it, too. Do you understand that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's too late for me to be patient.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Well, go get a piece of cake
while I talk to everybody else.
The PARAB recently discussed an issue that has come before us
here and there -- I'm sorry, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
recently discussed beach parking stickers. And what has come before
us here and there -- we've gotten emails all of us here and there about
people who own mobile homes and are here part of the year or even
all year and yet they're not allowed to get a beach parking sticker
because they lease the land underneath them but own their home.
But if you don't have -- if you don't own the land underneath,
you're not allowed to get a beach parking sticker. Same with people
who own winter residence here; they own the property, they pay their
taxes and yet they still can't get a beach parking sticker.
So I was going to just ask if we couldn't have staff come back
and just make a presentation, because I think we need to address that
again. I don't think we realized how far reaching this issue is. So
that's my first thing. Would you commissioners consider that?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can we -- I'm sorry.
Commissioner Fiala, may I offer another thing that I've had an inquiry
on?
Page 232
April 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There's some people that have
an interest in purchasing the passes for the Sun -N -Fun Lagoon.
They're not residents; they don't mind paying a higher price, but they
use it on a continuous basis. They thought it would be advantageous
for them to have it. And they can bring back that presentation. If we
could include that in it, I would appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure, we could include that, too, as
long as we're listening to parks. Two separate subjects, but on the
same agenda item.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure, sure. Would you agree, then,
to let me -- or to bring it back?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've got three nods.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I ask you a favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: When you do -- when we bring
that back, I also want to address how the parking garages are used,
who can actually use them for what purposes. Because staff, at one
meeting, had said that the parking facilities -- like, for example, the
one at Vanderbilt -- can only be used if you're going to the beach.
Well, how are they controlling that? How are they monitoring that?
And can we legally say it can only be used to go to the beach if
general funds are used to pay for it? I mean, maybe you can. I don't
know, but I just --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, that's a good idea. I
know we discussed that briefly. I think we should bring it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's all part and parcel.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We could incorporate that all under
parks and rec and parking stickers and so forth.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Just parking and parking stickers.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good.
Page 233
April 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And what?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sun -N -Fun.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh and Sun -N -Fun.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Passes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And passes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. That's the first thing.
That was easy, so I'll go into another one. This isn't so easy, but
this is extremely important, rather critical.
Recently we talked about the DeVoe property and we were
talking about would it be a great place for our bus transfer station.
The decision was made, no it has to stay where it is. And so we
walked away from even considering the DeVoe property. But I'm
asking you now if we -- I don't think we should -- I don't think we can
afford to lose that property.
You know, we have a lot of financial conditions, but maybe we
can ask our staff to go and talk to the DeVoe people and see if they
couldn't arrange for some type of a lease with an option to buy
requirement. Maybe they could work out some kind of -- they can
explore what analysis -- resource analysis, what we can use it for. I
know that Jennifer Edwards will be the first in line, because she really
needs to move. Our road and bridge is probably going to have to move
off of Davis Boulevard because right now it's under state control, but
they're not going to keep us there forever; in fact, not for very long.
And so that's another place. And I understand purchasing even needs
a place to go, so here's three things that are lining up already.
And with the road and bridge, they would need a place for all
their trucks and to work. Well, there's mechanic bay's right over there
at the DeVoe property. And it's actually extremely important to -- if I
can get your agreement, Commissioners, to ask our staff to go work
with the DeVoe people and see if an arrangement can be worked out
and if they could do that rather quickly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
Page 234
April 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I was at a meeting last night that
the topic of the discussion is we need to stop spending more and now
we're talking about spending more.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But you have to spend wisely and,
guaranteed, this one is extremely important to us.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You have no idea.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, so is paying debt. So if
you're -- I would, you know, if you're going to task the staff to do
something, you ought to say, okay, what is our available space in the
whole network of government. Commissioner Coletta says we've got
empty offices all over and we -- he actually thought we should rent
them out. So you ought to ask staff to give inventory and --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, it might be too late.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- without growing -- without
growing government, what would use that building for?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. We don't have too much time
now to make that study before. We need to get staff over to talk with
them rather quickly to see if it can -- if we can even salvage it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Here's -- Commissioner Fiala,
you forwarded the email to all of us, okay, your concern that St.
Matthew's House is going to purchase that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It is going to purchase it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And it's going to be --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So that's the real issue and I
think it ought to be exposed for what it is. You don't want the St.
Matthew's House moving there. You want the county to lock it up.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's more than that, Commissioner
Henning, because St. Matthew's in itself is a fine place. They're trying
Page 235
April 10, 2012
to -- you know, they rescue some people. They can't rescue
everybody, but they rescue the ones that want to be rescued and that
can work with them, but it's the soup kitchen that they want to expand
and the detox center that they want to build and this way they can
include all five counties and bring all of the homeless down here and
that is what I'm worried about. It is going to devastate this end of the
county, just devastate us.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Is there correspondence
from St. Matthew's House that you can substantiate what you're
saying?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me tell you that I've spoken with
the person of top authority and they don't even know if it can be
rescued now. That's why I'm telling you this is important.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, wouldn't they have to go
through a zoning approval? I mean, you know, the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. But how many people, once
they own the building -- we've got a few here that will say, well, let
them have it, you know, they already own the building. And they
don't live here, so they wouldn't care.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, they can't use the building
for what you're describing. That's not a permitted use. They would
have to get a --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: As I say, they have to go get some
conditional use.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: They would have to get a
conditional use. And so at that time the board would have the ability
to say no to the approval of the conditional use. I mean, you know,
the surrounding neighborhood has to be considered. I mean, a
conditional use is not a matter of right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. But surrounding
neighborhood is what, us, right? I mean, we haven't drawn any new
businesses here. You can't draw any businesses to this area, as you
Page 236
April 10, 2012
well know and nobody's going to build a house here because it's not --
I'm trying to be careful of what I'm saying -- it's not the place you
want to build your house.
And so the area already has a tough time. You know, we can't
grow, but at least if we can rescue it and that's my purpose. And I
think it's very important to us as a county government. We look at the
Bail Bondsman out front. That used to be a Texaco gas station and
they offered to sell it to the county first because they felt it was right
on the county property. And they said, we can't afford things like that
and they let it go. Now we've got a bail bondsman sitting in front of
us for ever after.
And we could have rescued that and pretty darn easy and I just
hate to see us be so penny wise and pound foolish that we don't -- we
don't take the opportunity when we have it. It's only one chance and if
we don't get it --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I do -- one thing I will say,
you know, St. Matthew's does do great work, and I know --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- you know some of their
leadership and I've actually toured the facility.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: One thing I would agree with and
that is, they do need to establish facilities in the various counties they
serve and not, you know, take the position that somehow Collier is,
you know, going to be, you know, the central, I guess, facility to -- or
to be a multi county facility.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: By building --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's actually a disservice to the
other communities. It's really not fair to the other communities.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, maybe they like it that way,
because they haven't built any in their communities. It's so much
easier to send them down. Once you have a detox center -- just like
Page 237
April 10, 2012
Pastor Mallory was going to build. Once you've got a detox center,
now you've got a conduit, because anybody that's walking the streets
that's drunk or on drugs, they just take them to the detox and that's a
legal way to take care of them and then we'll all have them here.
Last year the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, we have a --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- sheriff told me we had 63
homeless camps right here in East Naples. How would you guys like
that in your neighborhood? It's no fun. And -- well, I won't go -- but if
you check the crime rates, they soar at this end of town. I don't want
to foster that even more.
So, yes, Commissioner Henning, I am calling it what it is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Have you --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. I ask you if you can direct staff
to go at least take a look at the -- at some kind of lease or purchasing
agreement and if they -- if they can still rescue it. And I don't know
that that can be done. And if they can, then work up an analysis of our
needs and wants and our future. We can't only guess what today is,
because we've scaled back so much that, you know -- but now, you
know, hopefully as we're recovering here, we're going to again need to
expand to some different areas as well. We have to think about road
and bridge we have to think about the Supervisor of Elections. There
are other things to think about as well and I would hope that we would
task the manager and his team to at least investigate this.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How much vacancy do we have? I
mean, how vacant is our -- how much vacant space do we have in the
county?
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, I don't know offhand and I don't
want to hazard a guess. I'd be happy to grab the inventory.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not too much for road and bridge,
you know.
Page 238
April 10, 2012
MR. OCHS: No. I mean, I don't know exactly how much vacant
or available currently owned space we have, but I could get that for
you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, the only thing that I can say
for -- from the standpoint of what Commissioner Fiala is saying, it
depends on what the -- you know, what our vacancies are and what
our projections are, you know, based on future growth as to, you
know, how much we need.
But one thing is for sure; if there was ever a time to buy property
and avoid building, the time to buy is now because property values
have never been lower.
So, from that standpoint if we do see that we are going to have a
need it certainly is the right time to buy, because we do know that
inflation is coming. We, you know, hopefully anticipate, you know,
renewed growth.
I would hate for us to be in a squeeze down the road and then not
have the money to buy. So -- but, again, I don't know, because I don't
know what our future demands are on our government buildings. And
we should look at the AUIR over, you know, the next --
MR. OCHS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- years to make that
determination, look at our current levels of vacancy and how we think
that's going to be absorbed and then we should look at whatever the
price is. I think the price that they were asking was quite high. But I
will say the price that we're paying for that transfer station to be built
on our campus is absolutely ludicrous. I mean, absolutely ludicrous.
And I analyzed the numbers.
You know, I don't remember the number off the top of my head,
but it was over a thousand bucks a square foot, whereas this building,
again, came to something like, you know, 200 a square foot or
something along those lines.
And this has really nothing to do with St. Matthews. I mean, this
Page 239
April 10, 2012
does have to do with the fact that we should be looking at this and
other buildings if there is a need. But I think that analysis should be
done. And if it turns out the analysis proves that there's no need, then
we don't move forward and not just this building. I mean, we should
consider if there is a need to make acquisitions for the future --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- based on --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So does that mean we're going to
recommend that staff do this? I mean, I think it's a worthwhile
exercise, not just for this property, but for any properties because of
the -- you know, the bargains that we potentially could buy at this
time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And when Jim Mudd was still alive,
what he was going to do is build us a new building, remember, at the
north end of town. But I think this would be much cheaper if we just
bought this right on this property and just expanded right here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I -- I am fully supportive of
Commissioner Fiala's concerns about this issue, but I'm not convinced
that buying the building will solve it, you know. So if we bought the
building, would St. Matthew's House buy another building in East
Naples? We wouldn't keep buying up buildings in front of them to
keep them from getting --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But at least --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it shouldn't be for that reason.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right. It should not be for that
reason.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It has nothing to do with that. I
mean, this is --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It won't solve -- I don't think it will solve
the problem; the problem will merely move to another block. And I
think that -- and I'll tell this story again. I've told it here before.
Page 240
April 10, 2012
My wife and I were driving back from Chicago one October and
we got south of Atlanta and we decided we'd stay overnight. And we
got up the next morning and had breakfast and we saw some people
rummaging through the garbage cans there at the restaurant. And a
little later, after we finished eating, we got in our car and we started
driving to get on the interstate and there are these same two people
with plastic bags and packs on their back and a sign that they were
holding up that said "Naples."
They were -- they knew where they were going because they
knew they'd have a place to sleep and have a place to get food and
people were going to take care of them. And that happens to a great
degree. People migrate from one part of the country to the other
because that's their lifestyle and they're also going to be like -- most of
them are always going to be like that.
We had a guy in the City of Naples who would come down and
spend the entire winter here sleeping in his camper truck and the
public parking lots in Downtown Naples. He would shower at the
beach ends.
And it -- you know, when you create a situation that attracts
people here, that means you're going to have more people like that
here and -- I have no problem with our community taking care of the
homeless or disadvantaged residents of Collier County. What I object
to is creating a vacation spot for those people to come from other
states here, because it's a place they can get all these things for free.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We have to help our own first.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, that's right. We have to do that
here. And -- but what I'm leading up to is that zoning is, in my
estimation, the best way of dealing with that and we just have to take a
pretty firm stand about compatibility standards in our communities
and we should not permit any of these facilities, be it to be established
within residential areas or even in some cases commercial areas.
There should be places where they would be required to go in
Page 241
April 10, 2012
order to set up these kinds of facilities.
So we have to be united and firm about how we deal with that;
otherwise, it's going to be bad.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may comment.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- one thing is --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just a minute.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm sorry. Did you want to talk?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, he does.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Somewheres along the line I just
-- I think one of the things we should do, instead of just prophesizing
on this situation and trying to guess which direction it's going to go, at
some point in time, why don't we invite St. Matthew's House in here
to explain exactly what their plans are, what their thoughts are?
Now, Commissioner Coyle brought up a very good point. In
order for them to modify that building, it's going to require zoning
changes, most likely. Zoning changes require four commissioners. So
it would behoove them, if they had some plans for that property,
before they ever closed on it, to come in here to talk to us.
We may find it's something that's not intrusive. And you're right
about the fact we don't want to become a destination for people from
all over the United States to be able to come.
San Francisco, have you been there?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I mean, it's unbelievable. I
mean, you can't walk down the street. It's not just people that are in
need. I mean, it seems like just about every mental case in America
ends up there in San Francisco. They challenge you every time you
went across the street. It's pretty interesting, to say the least. I don't
want us to turn into that.
But we do have the responsibilities of the people that live here.
Page 242
April 10, 2012
And St. Matthew's House does do a lot of good things.
So why don't we do this: Why don't we direct the county
manager to send an invitation to them to come and make a
presentation at the beginning of one of our meetings what their plans
are?
Of course, they're not obligated to do that. They're free agents,
they can do whatever they want to do until the time they have to come
to us. But who knows, there might be something in their proposal that
we may actually like.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They're very, very close to the end.
They're already rounded third. They're on their way home.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. Who's on their way
home?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: St. Matt's in buying this building.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, what are they going to do
with it, that's the whole question. So why not invite them in here?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They tug at your heartstrings and
they never tell you about what we have to deal with.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's just a suggestion because, I
mean, we can worry to death about it and never get anyplace, or else
we can invite them in here and try to face the problem head on.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And then when we need to expand
where do we expand our building, by the way because we're going to
need to do that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, I've got a place for you at
Ave Maria, right next to Arthrex, you're going to love it and there's a
number of restaurants that will be there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's move on, folks.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: My fourth topic, so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You said you only had three.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I took care of three and I said the
first one you didn't have to listen to because it was the zoo. So did we
Page 243
April 10, 2012
give the Manager any direction at all? None?
MR. OCHS: Not yet.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there anything you can do? I mean, do
you need space?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's what I think he needs to
evaluate.
MR. OCHS: I need to -- I need some time -- a little bit of time to
evaluate that, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, can you evaluate that and get back
to us?
MR. OCHS: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And will you --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've got three nods.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- please evaluate it in terms of the
horizon and what the costs would be today versus, you know, waiting.
You know, do an analysis that factors future inflation at some
reasonable level to, you know, make -- to give us the ability to make a
decision of whether or not we should be buying anything now or not --
MR. OCHS: Understood.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- to the extent that we have
reserves that would allow us to do that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's get to Commissioner Fiala's
last one.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The fourth one is tow truck rates. A
long time ago we discussed how high the tow trucks were charging,
especially on the rotation basis from the Sheriffs Office. Sheriffs
Office has so many people on a rotation and then they don't have any
control over anything after that, but we set some rates.
Well, at the time we set the rates rather high. We've found that
they've had to -- people have had to lose their cars because the tow
truck rates are so high and the storage rates are so high they can't
Page 244
April 10, 2012
afford to get their cars back.
And so -- and I've gotten calls myself where a son was in an
accident and the father -- by the time the father could get there to get
his car back -- because they were first tending to him in a hospital that
was out of this zone -- they couldn't afford to get the car back. I know
another person who also lost their car.
So I've had some people coming in to talk to me from the tow
truck companies and they said that rates can certainly be lower and
even the people that are making lots of money know that the rates
could be lower.
So I'm suggesting to you that maybe we have staff work with the
tow truck companies. Scott Teach has been working with them as it
is, he's given me rates from other places who were extremely high
compared to other counties.
Right, Scott?
MR. TEACH: (Nods head.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And so I'm going to -- I would ask
you, Commissioners, if you could -- if we could task Scott to work
with some of the tow truck companies to see if we couldn't come back
with a rate that's more reasonable.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do we decide those rates?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, we did.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We decided those rates?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. At the time Jim Mudd told us
that -- how much did he say? We might be charging $5 a gallon of
gas or something, so I think they make $6.25 a mile just for mileage.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So why don't we --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That doesn't even count all of the
other rates.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why don't we just bring that back
as an agenda item --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We can do that.
Page 245
April 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- and just re- review what the rates
are compared to what other counties are charging so we're not being --
that we're not overcharging.
MR. TEACH: Scott Teach again, deputy county attorney. That's
-- yeah, I provided Commissioner Fiala with, like, a mini survey of 15
other comparable jurisdictions and I met with the Sheriffs Office and
their legal people a couple of times too and part of it is other
jurisdictions have less strenuous requirements of their tow -- their
rotational tow truck operators as far as equipment and whatnot. And
at the time we set these rates, gas was around four dollars a gallon,
which is what it is now.
But I've received a little bit of feedback from the sheriff in the
last couple weeks and they said that they, too, believe that they could
be reduced a little at this point.
So I have been working with some of the tow truck people,
having conversations with them and I know some of them are looking
at other surveys and whatnot, so --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So why don't you just put it back
on the -- you know, bring it back as an agenda item with a survey and
we can, you know, look at whatever rates we've set and determine the
reasonableness by comparison and adjust them.
MR. TEACH: I agree with you, Commissioner, but I think there
might be even some coordination with the County Manager's Office.
Last time we did this, like three and a half years ago -- the tow truck
operators are a volatile bunch. And just as we have public meetings to
try to flesh out things of this sort, I think we would need to at least
invite some members of the industry to have conversation --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, sure.
MR. TEACH: -- because it would give us the feedback
necessary to bring what we believe are reasonable rates or proposals
back to you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And why not -- well, you should
Page 246
April 10, 2012
certainly do that, but also put a provision, you know, in our fee
schedule that it's -- or whatever -- I don't know how we adopted this.
MR. TEACH: By resolution.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Then have a provision in
the resolution that we review the rates every two years or every three
years and that way it doesn't get away from us and we can
appropriately adjust for, you know, inflation or deflation or gas or
whatever it is, then we -- because, otherwise, if Commissioner Fiala
had never brought this to our attention, we wouldn't know that people
were, you know, suffering out there. I mean, there should be reviews
of all these fees.
MR. TEACH: No, I agree with you. And the last couple years --
and I don't want to go astray here. I know the board is finishing up
here.
Every once in a while when we get feedback from either the
public or the industry on towing issues, we try to modify and make
modifications of -- at some point we're probably going to go back with
an ordinance, proposal to change things as well just based on, you
know, anecdotal experience with the operation of the ordinance.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You've got three nods to bring it
back.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do you?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep, you do. You've got three nods. I
nodded twice.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I nodded four times.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We've got plenty of votes. It's
already been passed. Cut it in half.
Okay. Commissioner Fiala, anything more?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I just have one brief thing. Bob
Tober sent me an email asking to -- for us to invite -- or he would like
to invite Jim Fogarty -- he's the deputy chief of EMS in King County,
Page 247
April 10, 2012
Washington, who will join us via presentation from -- by computer
during our workshop with the various people associated with EMS on
April the 26th.
So does anybody object to Mr. Fogarty joining us by computer?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, I believe Mr. Billington --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. OCHS: -- on behalf of the Committee Alliance has asked
for that same presentation, so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, he has. That's right, that's right.
MR. OCHS: -- we've had it from a couple different avenues.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So we just want to get it official and
acceptable to the commissioners and we'll --
MR. OCHS: That will become Item 4 on your agenda for that
workshop.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And what's his title again?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He's the Deputy Chief of EMS in King
County; King County, Washington.
I don't have anything else.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I -- three things, all on the
light side.
On the 2nd, last -- week ago on Monday I went to Immokalee
Foundation Career Development Reception, had about 25 of their
recipients there from Immokalee High School. I got to talk to about
15. They were people in a reception and I can tell you, it was really
amazing. All 15 that I talked to were going on to either the University
or Edison College.
It was very amazing. These were very, very sharp young
individuals and very, very thankful for the Immokalee Foundation and
April 10, 2012
what it does. I never quite experienced it quite like that before.
Now, next Friday, this coming Friday, rather, we've got a unique
experience coming, you know and our MPO meeting's going to be in
Immokalee.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: On Friday.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: On Friday. And I'm very
excited about having you there. I imagine probably the majority of
you haven't seen I -tech yet. It's quite an impressive building the
school system built and I'm hoping that we'll get a number of people
from Immokalee participating in the meeting, but I can't tell you that
for a fact.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are you going to show us how to fly
balloons?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'm glad you said that,
because that was the next thing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But, wait, wait, wait. They're also
going to be serving us lunch.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They are.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And these are students that are
studying cooking, culinary skills at the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They have a full cafeteria.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. And so they're actually
going to be cooking, so we hope everyone stays for lunch.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Very much so.
And, of course, I assume that just about anybody that goes can go
through the lunch line and just pay if they're a part of the process.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We were hoping you were going
to pick up the tab.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. But it would be nice to
have a nice crowd show up.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yep, absolutely. I think everyone
should stay and have lunch there.
Page 249
April 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And don't eat too much because
you've got to save some appetite for the 14th, which is a very big day
in Immokalee. Starts off with the Hot Air Balloons lift off at 6 o'clock
in the morning, yep and I expect you'll be there, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah, right, right. In my dreams.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: She's going to be parachuting from one
of them.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's true.
Then later in the day the harvest festival kicks in with the parade
at 11:30. Of course, everybody's invited to attend that and get
personally involved.
But the best part of the day is going to take place at 5 o'clock in
the evening at the Airport Park Amphitheater. There's going to be a
Mr. Legs Contest.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: A Mr. what?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Legs Contest.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They're going to set up some
sort of screening so the only thing you can see is the legs of the men
and the audience is going to vote on who's got the best looking legs all
sorts of different classifications.
And I want you to know --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You'll never see (sic) me in a skirt.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I want you to know that I am
going to be one of the entries.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, no.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are you really?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, just a little heads up in
case you show up and you want to throw a vote my way, it would be
very much appreciated.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You just cut the attendance by half.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I know, I was like -- I started
Page 250
April 10, 2012
choking when you said that I felt like oh, my God.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. But that pretty much
covers it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner --
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, Nick just volunteered to go as well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What happened to our timer that
we used to have and we used to keep time and give out awards to
commissioners who --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Actually, I --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You have it. You have the
timer. You're the timekeeper. Can you bring it back and --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The one I had I wore out keeping time
on Commissioner Hiller. It just gave up and quit.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He used to wear it out on you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, not me.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's one thing.
The next thing, Commissioner Fiala, I want to wish the best
birthday.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, thanks. That's nice.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I hope you spend a lot of
time with your family for your birthday. And we were talking last
night that I went to school with Commissioner Fiala's daughter and it
was really neat.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you believe that? See, he could
be my son.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you know, I'm too old to
be your son.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, right. I was very young when
I had you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the last thing, County
Page 251
April 10, 2012
Attorney, what are we doing to stop the State of Florida from
implementing Representative Hudson's unfunded mandate on medical
-- Medicaid?
MR. KLATZKOW: The board of directors of the Florida
Association of County Attorneys has voted to bring the matter to the
Florida Association of Counties to see if the Florida Association of
Counties will authorize the filing of a lawsuit. That should be coming
fairly soon.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Fairly soon.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. When I mean fairly, I mean within a
week or so.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, that's good
because this gentleman has to do his budgeting process and he has to
take this under consideration during that.
By the way, the county staff has put together a graph of historical
spending of the State of Florida and it has -- I mean, it's almost like --
well, it's not like the federal government, since we have a change of
authority up there, but it has stayed the same and where Collier
County's -- there's a clear indication, a drawing distinction, of
spending has gone down dramatically but the state has kept its level of
spending up there higher and higher and higher. And now we know
how they do it; they do it by unfunded mandates.
Anyways, I'll make a motion to adjourn.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, well, just a minute,
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Wait, wait.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, you guys had your turn.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The medicaid thing --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Isn't it Ian's birthday?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- you were asking --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No? Whose birthday is it?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mine.
Page 252
April 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: There was someone else. I saw
someone else's card.
MR. MITCHELL: It's mine.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It is Ian's birthday. It's Ian's
birthday.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, Happy Birthday.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Happy Birthday, Ian.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Make a motion to adjourn.
MS. KINZEL: No, Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Henning, please let
me say that the -- you asked what we're doing on the Medicaid, well,
FAC, I'm on the board of FAC and we're having a conference call
tomorrow at 4 o'clock with all of the people that are on the board of
directors to see how we're going to tackle it next. And so maybe I can
give you a report at the MPO meeting on Friday, okay?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good.
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner Coyle?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We are -- what?
MS. KINZEL: For the record, could I make a correction from an
earlier presentation, just a quick date change. I need to apologize and
put this on the record.
So you might enjoy this one. I actually made an error.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What?
MS. KINZEL: When I provided the date --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would you say that again, please.
MS. KINZEL: Yes, I know. That's why I would like to correct it
for the record, because I do not like, on the record, to have made a
mistake. And so I would like to correct that.
On the DeAngelis Diamond draw request, I was provided the
date of December 26th, so we have already apologized to DeAngelis
Diamond. That was incorrect. They actually submitted their February
draw on March 20th and that's when this all came to light.
Page 253
April 10, 2012
So I apologize for the date in December. That was an error that I
was -- put forward and I want to make sure it's clear on the record.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Good, thank you. We are
adjourned, ladies and gentlemen.
* ** *Commissioner Coletta moved, seconded by Commissioner Fiala
and carried unanimously that the following items under the Consent
and Summary Agendas be approved and /or adopted * * * *
Item # 16A 1
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER UTILITY FACILITY
FOR TALL OAKS, PHASE 4 AND TO AUTHORIZE THE
COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE ANY
UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY TO THE PROJECT
ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED AGENT —
AND THE UNCONDITIONAL AND FINAL CONVEYANCE OF
THE WATER FACILITY WITH THE MASTER METER OWNED
AND MAINTAINED BY THE OWNER
Item #I 6A2
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITY FOR REFLECTION LAKES, UNIT 2, PHASE 2 AND 3
AND TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS
DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE
SECURITY TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE
DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED AGENT — AND THE
UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE OF THE WATER SEWER
FACILITIES
Page 254
April 10, 2012
Item # 16A3
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER UTILITY FACILITY
FOR COLLECTIONS AT VANDERBILT, PHASE 1 AND TO
AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE,
TO RELEASE ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY TO
THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER'S
DESIGNATED AGENT — AND THE UNCONDITIONAL
CONVEYANCE OF THE WATER FACILITY WITH THE
MASTER METER OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE
OWNER
Item #I 6A4
AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE
TO RELEASE THE UTILITY PERFORMANCE SECURITY
BOND TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER'S
DESIGNATED AGENT FOR COLLECTIONS AT VANDERBILT,
PHASE TWO — THE COUNTY HAS NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR
MAINTENANCE AS THIS PROJECT IS PRIVATE
Item # 16A5
RIGHT -OF -ENTRY AGREEMENT WITH THE COLLIER
COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR CONNECTION
OF A PROPOSED SIDEWALK ON. BAYSIDE STREET WITH
THE EXISTING SIDEWALK ON THE SHADOWLAWN
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROPERTY (FISCAL IMPACT: $27,
PROJECT: #69081) — PROVIDING CONNECTIVITY OF THE
SIDEWALK SYSTEM SURROUNDING THE SCHOOL
Page 255
April 10, 2012
Item # 16A6
THE RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF LIPARI -
PONZIANE REPLAT. THIS IS A REPLAT OF TRACT "FD -1" OF
THE LIPARI — PONZIANE" — LOCATED IN SECTION 31,
TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, IN COLLIER
COUNTY
Item # 16A7 — Moved to Item # 11 L (During Agenda Changes)
Item # 16A8
RECOGNIZING THE COMMITMENT OF THE PREPAYMENT
OF ROAD IMPACT FEES IN THE CITY GATE DEVELOPER
AGREEMENT (AGREEMENT) RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 4517,
PAGE 640 AND TO CONVERT A TEMPORARY FIVE YEAR
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC FACILITY ADEQUACY (COA)
INTO A COA IN PERPETUITY — DUE TO THE AMENDING OF
THE CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE THE
DEVELOPER HAS SURPASSED 100% OF THE CURRENT
IMPACT FEES; THIS ELIMINATES TWO ADDITIONAL
PAYMENTS BUT DOES NOT RELIEVE THE DEVELOPER
FROM OBLIGATIONS TO PAY ADDITIONAL ROAD IMPACT
FEES THAT MAY BE DUE AT THE TIME A BUILDING
PERMIT IS ISSUED
Item #I 6A9
RESOLUTION 2012 -58: ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF
FIDDLER'S CREEK PHASE 3, UNIT FOUR WITH THE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS BEING
Page 256
April 10, 2012
PRIVATELY MAINTAINED AND AUTHORIZING THE
RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY AND
ACCEPTANCE OF THE PLAT DEDICATIONS
Item #16A10
RESOLUTION 2012 -59: ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF
STERLING OAKS - PHASE 2A WITH THE ROADWAY AND
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS BEING PRIVATELY
MAINTAINED AND AUTHORIZING THE RELEASE OF THE
MAINTENANCE SECURITY AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE
PLAT DEDICATIONS
Item # 16A 11
AWARDING CONTRACT #11 -5724 TO HOLE MONTES, INC.
FOR CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING INSPECTION,
LANDSCAPE INSPECTION AND SITE RESTORATION
SERVICES FOR THE "VANDERBILT BEACH MSTU: FPL
UNDERGROUND CONVERSION PROJECT — PHASE 1, 2, 3"
PURSUANT TO RFP #11 -57249 IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT
OF $165,544 — PROVIDING HURRICANE PROTECTION AND
AESTHETIC IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH THE BURIAL OF
THE EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER LINES
Item #16Al2
AWARDING RFP #11 -5753, ELECTRONIC FAREBOXES FOR
THE COLLIER AREA TRANSIT (CAT) INTELLIGENT
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS (ITS) PROGRAM TO FARE
LOGISTICS CORPORATION FOR AN ESTIMATED $564,228 IN
Page 257
April 10, 2012
FY 2012/2013 AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO
EXECUTE A CONTRACT FUNDED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
5307 FORMULA GRANT AND THE AMERICAN RECOVERY
AND REINVESTMENT ACT (ARRA) WITH 100% CAPITAL
GRANT DOLLARS — WITH THE COMPLETION OF THE
PROJECT EXPECTED BY FEBRUARY 28, 2013
Item #16A13
PARTIAL RELEASE OF LIEN IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT
ACTIONS ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
VS. FRANCISCA ALAS, CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CASE
NO. 2007 -49, RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4100
31ST PLACE SW, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA — THIS LIEN
ENCUMBERED ALL REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY
OWNED BY THE RESPONDENT, BUT THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 4100 31 ST PLACE SW HAS NO CODE
VIOLATIONS AND IS BEING PARTIALLY RELEASED IN
EXCHANGE FOR A PAYMENT OF $745 AND A WAIVER OF
$170,000 IN ACCRUED FINES
Item #16A14
RESOLUTION 2012 -60: APPOINTING A DESIGNEE TO
SUBMIT BOARD APPROVED FEDERAL TRANSIT
ADMINISTRATION GRANT APPLICATIONS, TO ACCEPT
AND EXECUTE GRANTS AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
AND TO EXECUTE THE ANNUAL ELECTRONIC
CERTIFICATION AND ASSURANCES ON BEHALF OF THE
COUNTY — DESIGNATING NICK CASALANGUIDA
Page 258
April 10, 2012
Item #16A15
ADDENDUM NUMBER TWO TO SOFTWARE LICENSE AND
SERVICES AGREEMENT AND THE CUSTOMER SUPPORT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN ROUTEMATCH SOFTWARE, INC.
AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR THE RMGATE SOFTWARE
INTERFACE LICENSE, A COMPONENT OF THE COLLIER
AREA TRANSIT INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
— UPGRADING TO THE LATEST VERSION AND MOVE THE
PROGRAM TO A VENUE THAT IS REMOTELY HOSTED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH CONTRACT #11 -5650 W /AVAIL
TECHNOLOGIES
Item # 16B 1
THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) TO
APPROVE AND EXECUTE A SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT
AGREEMENT THAT IS FINANCIALLY ASSISTED BY A FIFTH
THIRD BANK GRANT AWARD BETWEEN THE CRA AND A
GRANT APPLICANT WITHIN THE BAYSHORE GATEWAY
TRIANGLE AREA. (2718 GULFVIEW DRIVE — CRA FISCAL
IMPACT: NONE) — IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH FIFTH
THIRD BANK'S GRANT AGREEMENT REQUIREMENTS THE
GRANT FUNDS WILL BE EXTENDED THROUGH NOVEMBER
29, 2012
Item #16C1
AGREEMENT NO. 4600002607 WITH THE SOUTH FLORIDA
WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FOR THE CONTINUED
COLLECTION OF SURFACE WATER QUALITY SAMPLES IN
COLLIER COUNTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $21000 — FOR
Page 259
April 10, 2012
ANOTHER THREE YEARS BEGINNING IN FISCAL YEAR 2013
Item # 16D 1 — Moved to Item # 11 J (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item # 16D2
BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $219880 (PER AGENDA
CHANGE SHEET), FOR THE VANDERBILT BEACH ACCESS
SIGNAGE INSTALLATION AND ACCESS AMENITIES
PURSUANT TO A BOARD APPROVED SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT DATED AUGUST 29, 2011 AND MAKE A
FINDING THAT THIS ITEM PROMOTES TOURISM — FOR
BEACH ACCESS SIGNAGE, ENGINEERING, PERMITTING
AND THE INSTALLATION OF BIKE RACKS PER THE
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Item # 16D3
AN UPDATED STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP
PROGRAM (SHIP) SUBORDINATION POLICY FOR MINOR
ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES — AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item # 16D4
ONE (1) RELEASE OF LIEN IN THE AMOUNT OF $19,300.01
FOR A SATISFIED IMPACT FEE DEFERRAL — FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED ON 420 CARVER STREET, IMMOKALEE
Item #16D5
A "GRANTEE APPLICATION FOR ADVANCE FUNDING" TO
Page 260
April 10, 2012
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
(DCF) AND THE CORRESPONDING BUDGET AMENDMENT
TO RECOGNIZE REVENUES IN THE AMOUNT OF $1825830 —
THE REINVESTMENT GRANT WILL ALLOW
UNINTERRUPTED PROGRAM SERVICES FOR DCF
(DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES) FOR
CRIMINAL JUSTICE, MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE
ABUSE
Item # 16D6 — Moved to Item # 11 K (During Agenda Changes)
Item #16D7
AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN A FLORIDA FISH
AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION (FWC)
DIVISION OF MARINE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT,
ARTIFICIAL REEF CONSTRUCTION GRANT APPLICATION
FOR THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT IN
THE AMOUNT OF $6000 — FOR A 945 TON CLEAN
CONCRETE MATERIAL AND CULVERS FOR THE PROJECT
TO BE KNOWN AS THE NORTH SANTA LUCIA REEF
Item #16D8
AN AMENDMENT TO AN EXISTING COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT SUBRECIPIENT
AGREEMENT WITH DAVID LAWRENCE MENTAL HEALTH
CENTER, INC. (DLC) ALLOWING FOR A TIME EXTENSION
DUE TO A NEED TO RE- PROCURE A CONTRACTOR UNDER
THIS AGREEMENT AND FOR ADDITIONAL
ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES — EXTENDING THE CDBG
AGREEMENT TO JANUARY 1, 2013, ALLOWING FOR TIME
Page 261
April 10, 2012
TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT
Item #16D9
RECOGNIZING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT FUNDS (CBDG) IN THE AMOUNT OF $775,016 FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF THE IMMOKALEE SOUTH PARK
PROJECT AND TRANSFER $775,016 OF FUND (346) FUNDS
TO THE EAGLE LAKES COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT
Item #16D10
A MODIFICATION TO DISASTER RECOVERY INITIATIVE
GRANT AGREEMENT # 10- DB- D4- 09- 21- 01 -K09 BETWEEN
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
(DEO) AND COLLIER COUNTY AND AMEND THE
ASSOCIATED SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENTS TO REFLECT A
REALLOCATION OF FUNDS TO PROVIDE FOR
RESURFACING WORK WITHIN THE IMMOKALEE
STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, INCLUDING A
BATHROOM EXPANSION IN THE IMMOKALEE SHELTER
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND UPDATE PROJECT WORK
PLANS; ALL WITH NO FISCAL IMPACT — FOR THE
FOLLOWING ASSOCIATED RECIPIENTS: GOODLETTE
ARMS, LLC — PROJECT WORK PLAN; IMMOKALEE CRA —
PROJECT SCOPE, BUDGET AND PROJECT WORK PLAN;
BAYSHORE CRA — PROJECT WORK PLAN AND PUBLIC
SCHOOLS OF COLLIER COUNTY — PROJECT SCOPE AND
PROJECT WORK PLAN
Item #16D 11
Page 262
April 10, 2012
THE ELECTRONIC SUBMITTAL OF SENIOR CORPS RETIRED
AND SENIOR VOLUNTEER PROGRAM (RSVP) APPLICATION
TO THE CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY
SERVICE, FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY SPONSORED RSVP PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF
$78,170 FOR THE FIRST OF A THREE YEAR GRANT CYCLE —
FOR CONTINUATION OF THE COUNTY SPONSORED RSVP
PROGRAM IN FY 12/139 IF AWARDED IT WILL ALLOW THE
OPPORTUNITY FOR GRANT RENEWAL IN FY 13/14
Item #16D12
A NON - EXCLUSIVE LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE
GOODLAND CIVIC ASSOCIATION, INC. APPROVING THE
USE OF COUNTY OWNED PROPERTY, THE GOODLAND
BOAT PARK, FOR CONDUCTING THREE ANNUAL EVENTS —
ALLOWING FOR ENHANCED RECREATIONAL AND
CULTURAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR BOTH RESIDENTS AND
VISITORS
Item #16E1
AWARDING REQUEST FOR QUOTE #12 -5831 FOR
UNEMPLOYMENT COST MANAGEMENT SERVICES TO
TALX CORPORATION IN AN ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF
$3,160 ANNUALLY AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO
SIGN THE AGREEMENT AND POWER OF ATTORNEY TO
APPOINT TALX UCM SERVICES, INC. BBA UCEXPRESS AS
THE COUNTY' S UNEMPLOYMENT TAX AGENT — THIS FOUR
YEAR AGREEMENT THAT STARTS ON MAY 15 2012 WILL
ALLOW TALX CORP. TO RECEIVE AND PROCESS
Page 263
April 10, 2012
DOCUMENTS FROM THE STATE UNEMPLOYMENT OFFICE
AND RESPOND TO CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY
Item #I 6E2
ACCEPT REPORTS AND RATIFY STAFF APPROVED CHANGE
ORDERS AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS — FOR THE
PERIOD BETWEEN FEBRUARY 24, 2012 THROUGH MARCH
21, 2012
Item #16E3
AUTHORIZING ADDITIONAL FACILITIES AND SERVICES TO
CONTRACT #09 -5203 FOR PEST CONTROL SERVICES, TO
CONFIRM APPROVAL THAT STAFF IS AUTHORIZED PER
CONTRACT #09 -5203 TO IDENTIFY ADDITIONAL SERVICED
AND RATES AND DIRECT FINANCE TO RELEASE PAYMENT
ON PAST INVOICES (APPROXIMATELY $1,090) AND FUTURE
INVOICES. THE ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL ANNUAL
EXPENSE IS $9000 — AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16F1
A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY AND EMMANUEL LUTHERAN CHURCH
IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
RELATED TO NATURAL AND MANMADE HAZARDS
EMERGENCY RESPONSE — FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF
FOOD, WATER, SUPPLIES AND /OR OTHER ITEMS FOR
TEMPORARY RELIEF ACTIVITIES
Page 264
April 10, 2012
Item #16172
A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY AND SALVATION ARMY IN SUPPORT OF
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES RELATED TO
NATURAL AND MANMADE HAZARDS EMERGENCY
RESPONSE — FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF FOOD, WATER,
SUPPLIES AND /OR OTHER ITEMS FOR TEMPORARY RELIEF
ACTIVITIES
Item #16173
A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY AND THE HARRY CHAPIN FOOD BANK
OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC., IN SUPPORT OF
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES RELATED TO
NATURAL AND MANMADE HAZARDS EMERGENCY
RESPONSE — FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF FOOD, WATER,
SUPPLIES AND /OR OTHER ITEMS FOR TEMPORARY RELIEF
ACTIVITIES
Item #16174
A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY AND GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC., IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES RELATED TO NATURAL AND
MANMADE HAZARDS EMERGENCY RESPONSE — FOR THE
DISTRIBUTION OF FOOD, WATER, SUPPLIES AND /OR
OTHER ITEMS FOR TEMPORARY RELIEF ACTIVITIES
Item #16F5
Page 265
April 10, 2012
A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY AND CATHOLIC CHARITIES IN SUPPORT
OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES RELATED TO
NATURAL AND MANMADE HAZARDS EMERGENCY
RESPONSE — FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF FOOD, WATER,
SUPPLIES AND /OR OTHER ITEMS FOR TEMPORARY RELIEF
ACTIVITIES
Item #16F6
A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY AND MAYFLOWER CONGREGATIONAL
UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES RELATED TO NATURAL AND
MANMADE HAZARDS EMERGENCY RESPONSE — FOR THE
DISTRIBUTION OF FOOD, WATER, SUPPLIES AND /OR
OTHER ITEMS FOR TEMPORARY RELIEF ACTIVITIES
Item # 16F7
A DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT
AGREEMENT 12DS- 9Z- 09 -21 -01 BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND THE FLORIDA DIVISION OF EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $191,000 FOR
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PLANNING AND EXERCISES
AND APPROVE ALL NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS —
ENHANCING MULTIAGENCY RESPONSE CAPABILITIES FOR
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INCIDENTS AND MASS
CASUALTIES THROUGH EMERGENCY PROGRAM
ACTIVITIES
Page 266
April 10, 2012
Item #16178
A DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT
AGREEMENT 12DS- 9Z- 09 -21 -01 BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND THE FLORIDA DIVISION OF EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $209000 FOR STATE
HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM TO CONDUCT
TRAINING AND EXERCISES AND APPROVE ALL
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS — FACILITATING
TRAINING AND EXERCISE DEVELOPMENT FOR
REUNIFICATION OF PARENTS AND STUDENTS AFTER AN
ACTIVE SHOOTER INCIDENT AT A LOCAL SCHOOL; THE
TRAINING AND EXERCISES MUST BE COMPLETED BY JULY
31, 2012
Item #16179
RESOLUTION 2012 -61: A RESOLUTION APPROVING
AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS,
CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE
FISCAL YEAR 2011 -12 ADOPTED BUDGET
Item # 16H 1
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT REQUEST FOR
ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE; SHE ATTENDED THE EAST NAPLES CIVIC
ASSOCIATION LUNCHEON ON FEBRUARY 16, 2012. THE
SUM AMOUNT OF $18 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
FIALA' S TRAVEL BUDGET — THAT IS LOCATED AT 7065
HAMILTON AVE., NAPLES
Page 267
April 10, 2012
Item #161-12
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT REQUEST FOR
ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE; SHE ATTENDED THE EAST NAPLES CIVIC
ASSOCIATION LUNCHEON ON MARCH 15, 2012. THE SUM
AMOUNT OF $18 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET — THAT IS LOCATED AT 7065
HAMILTON AVE.. NAPLES
Item #16H3
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT REQUEST FOR
ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE; SHE ATTENDED THE NAPLES PRESS CLUB
LUNCHEON ON MARCH 22, 2012. THE SUM AMOUNT OF $20
TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL
BUDGET — THAT IS LOCATED AT 5111 TAMIAMI TRAIL
NORTH, NAPLES
Item #16H4
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT REQUEST
FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE; HE ATTENDED THE IMMOKALEE CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE BREAKFAST AT ROMA HAVANA
RESTAURANT, IMMOKALEE, FL ON MARCH 7, 2012. THE
SUM AMOUNT OF $10 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
COLETTA' S TRAVEL BUDGET — THAT IS LOCATED AT 1025
W. MAIN ST., IMMOKALEE
Item #16H5
0-1 • :
April 10, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA REIMBURSEMENT REQUEST
FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE; HE ATTENDED THE MARJORY STONEMAN
DOUGLAS LUNCHEON AT THE SEAFOOD DEPOT IN
EVERGLADES CITY, FL ON FEBRUARY 21, 2012. THE SUM
AMOUNT OF $20 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
COLETTA' S TRAVEL BUDGET — THAT IS LOCATED AT 102
COLLIER AVE., EVERGLADES CITY
Item #1611 & #1612
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH
ACTION AS DIRECTED
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 269
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
April 10, 2012
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Miscellaneous Correspondence:
1) Ave Maria Stewardship Community District:
Annual Public Facilities Report August 2010
2) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Neighborhood Information
Meeting:
Legal Display Notice published 1/11/12
3) Collier County Housing Authority:
Report on Audit of Basic Financial Statements, Supplemental
Information and Single Audit for 2011 Fiscal Year
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES
April 10, 2012
2. ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS
DIRECTED:
A. Minutes:
1) Collier County Planning, Commission:
Minutes of 1.5.12; 1.19.12
2) Contractors Licensing Board:
Minutes of 1. 18.12
3) Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council:
Minutes of 1.20.12
4) Floodplain Management Planning Committee:
Minutes of 5.2.11; 1. 19.12
5) Historical /Archaeological Preservation Board:
Minutes of 1. 18.12
6) Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Committee:
Minutes of 12.12.11; 1.9.12
7) Pelican Bay Services Division Board:
Agenda of2.13.12 (Budget Subcommittee); 2.21.12 (Clam Bay
Subcommittee)
Minutes of 1. 17.12 (Budget Subcommittee)
8) Tourist Development Council:
Minutes of 2.28.11; 3.2811; 4.25.11; 5.27.11; 6/27/11; 7.21.11
9) Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee:
Agenda of 2.2.12
Minutes of 1.5.12
April 10, 2012
Item #16J1
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF MARCH 10, 2012
THROUGH MARCH 16, 2012 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #I 6J2
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF MARCH 17, 2012
THROUGH MARCH 23, 2012 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item # 16K 1
AN AGREED ORDER AWARDING EXPERT FEES IN
CONNECTION WITH PARCELS 110FEE AND 110TCE IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. A L SUBS, INC., ET
AL., CASE NO. 09- 3691 -CA, COLLIER BOULEVARD PROJECT
NO. 60092 (FISCAL IMPACT: $9,953.75) — FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A DRIVEWAY TO BECK BLVD. ON THE
ADJACENT CIRCLE K PROPERTY THAT WILL HAVE A NON-
CONFORMING ONE -FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG
BECK BL
Item #I 6K2
A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$29898.05 IN SETTLEMENT OF PARCEL 111 AS TO
EASEMENT HOLDER, PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC., IN
THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. NB HOLDINGS
CORPORATION, ET AL., CASE NO. 06- 0658 -CA, SANTA
BARBARA BOULEVARD PROJECT NO. 62081 (FISCAL
Page 270
April 10, 2012
IMPACT: $2,898.05) — FOR THE PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY'S
FEES AND COSTS
Item #I 6K3
RESOLUTION 2012 -62: A RESOLUTION REVISING THE
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE FISCAL YEAR PAY AND
CLASSIFICATION PLAN EFFECTIVE APRIL 10, 2012 AND TO
REINSTATE THE JOB DESCRIPTION OF MANAGING
ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
Item #I 6K4
A SETTLEMENT PRIOR TO TRIAL IN THE LAWSUIT
ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. OLIVER SCOTT VANOY AND
MAX STANKEVEH, FILED IN THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CASE
NO. 11- 1242 -CC TO SETTLE A PROPERTY DAMAGE CLAIM
FOR THE SUM OF $12,281.22 AND AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
AND RELEASE — FOR A VEHICLE ACCIDENT THAT
OCCURRED AT THE INTERSECTION OF GOLDEN GATE
PARKWAY AND SUNSHINE BLVD.
Page 271
April 10, 2012
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:50 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
FRED COYLE, C
These minutes ap oved by th e
as presented
Board on 2 ,0t z- ,
or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT
REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.
Page 272