BCC Minutes 04/24/2012 R BCC
REGULAR
MEETING
MINUTES
APRIL 24, 2012
Apri124, 2012
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, April 24, 2012
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as
the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such
special districts as have been created according to law and having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Fred Coyle
Jim Coletta
Donna Fiala
Georgia Hiller
Tom Henning
ALSO PRESENT:
Leo Ochs, County Manager
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney
Crystal Kinzel, Office of the Clerk of Courts
Ian Mitchell, BCC Executive Manager
Mike Sheffield, Business Operations Manager - CMO
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB)
Airport Authority
AGENDA
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor
Naples FL 34112
April 24, 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.
Page 1
April 24, 2012
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. Pastor Michael Smith - New Hope Ministries
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 27, 2012 - BCC /Regular Meeting
3. SERVICE AWARDS
4. PROCLAMATIONS
Page 2
April 24, 2012
A. Proclamation recognizing members of the 856th Quartermaster Support
Company, 260th Military Intelligence Battalion (L), 50th Regional Support
Group of the Florida Army National Guard deploying to Afghanistan. To be
accepted by Captain Garcia, Commander and First Sergeant Caballo.
Sponsored by Commissioner Coletta.
B. Proclamation recognizing the Greater Naples Branch of the American
Association of University Women (AAUW) Charitable Foundation, Inc.
2012 Women of Achievement: Pat Carroll, Sharon Hood, Franny Kain,
Rebecca Newell, Vi Steffan, Cloe Waterfield, Christine Wheeler and Irene
Williams. To be accepted by Vi Steffan, honoree and AAUW Board
Member. Sponsored by Commissioner Hiller.
C. Proclamation designating April 2012 as Drowning Prevention Month in
Collier County. To be accepted by Paula DiGrigoli, Executive Director, Safe
& Healthy Children's Coalition of Collier County. Sponsored by
Commissioner Coyle.
D. Proclamation designating April 22 -28, 2012 as Crime Victim's Rights Week
in Collier County. To be accepted by the Collier County Sheriffs Office, the
State Attorney's Office, Project Help, Inc., and representatives from the
Shelter for Abused Women and Children. Sponsored by the Board of
County Commissioners.
E. Proclamation recognizing and congratulating NCH North Naples Hospital
on receiving the WRAP award for its continued efforts to promote waste
reduction, reuse, recycling and environmental awareness. To be accepted by
Michele Thoman, Chief Operating Officer; Hill Madere, EVS Manager; and
Brian P. Doyle, LEED GA, Engineering Mechanic. Sponsored by
Commissioner Hiller.
F. Proclamation recognizing the mission of the American Cancer Society's
Immokalee Relay for Life and designating April 27th and 28th as Relay for
Life Days in Immokalee. To be accepted by Melissa Kahn, American Cancer
Society. Sponsored by Commissioner Coletta.
G. Proclamation recognizing the "Courage to Remember" exhibit at the North
Collier Regional Park. To be accepted by Barry Williams, Director, Collier
County Parks & Recreation; Nancy Olson, Regional Manager, Collier
Page 3
April 24, 2012
County Park & Recreation; Amy Snyder, Executive Director, Holocaust
Museum of Southwest Florida; and Ron Kaplan, Board Member, Holocaust
Museum of Southwest Florida. Sponsored by Commissioner Hiller.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. This item to be heard at 1:00 p.m. Immokalee Airport update by the
Florida Army National Guard
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
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
A. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are
required to be sworn in. VA- PL2011 -1410, Wahl Variance — A Resolution
of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, relating to
Petition Number VA- PL20110001410, for a variance from Land
Development Code Section 5.03.06.E.5 to permit a reduced side yard
(riparian) setback from 15 feet to 9.3 feet on the eastern boundary of the
property located at 8 Pelican Street West, Isles of Capri in Section 5,
Township 52 South, Range 26 East in Collier County, Florida.
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Recommendation to approve a Proposed Small -Scale Amendment to the
Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89 -05, as Amended,
related to the Orange Blossom/Airport Crossroads Commercial Subdistrict,
for transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO).
[Adoption Hearing]
B. Recommendation to approve Proposed Evaluation and Appraisal Report -
Based Amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan,
Ordinance 89 -05, as Amended, for transmittal to the Florida Department of
Economic Opportunity (DEO) for review and Objections, Recommendations
Page 4
April 24, 2012
and Comments (ORC) response. [Transmittal Hearing]
10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of members to the Tourist Development Council.
B. Advisory Board Vacancies press release April 5, 2012 with a deadline of
April 26, 2012.
11. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. This item to be heard at 10:00 a.m. This item continued from the April
10, 2012 BCC Meeting. Recommendation to provide direction to resolve
the outstanding Quincy Square Homeowners Association discussion topics
from the March 27, 2012 meeting, Agenda Item #1 I F. (George Yilmaz,
Public Utilities Administrator)
B. Recommendation to approve Neighborhood Stabilization Program
Developer Agreements with Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc.
thereby transferring ownership in real property and providing access to
$3,495,749 in federal grant funding. (Kim Grant, Housing, Human and
Veteran Services Interim Director)
C. Recommendation to approve the Parks and Recreation Department to be a
sponsor and operate the 2012 Summer Food Service Program at designated
recreation camps. (Steve Carnell, Interim Public Services Administrator)
D. Recommendation to approve the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Paratransit Fare
Study and a Fare increase of $1 per one -way trip for the Transportation
Disadvantaged (TD) and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) programs.
(Michelle Arnold, Alternative Transportation Modes Director)
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND /OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
Page 5
April 24, 2012
A. AIRPORT
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the sewer utility
facility for Liebig Auto Sales, 3301 Westview Drive, and to authorize
the County Manager, or his designee, to release the Utility
Performance Security to the Project Engineer or the Developer's
designated agent.
2) 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 Brightling at Talis Park,
approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security.
3) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the final plat of Fairgrove at Talis Park,
approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security.
4) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Sanctuary Pointe at
Sterling Oaks with the roadway and drainage improvements being
privately maintained and authorizing the release of the maintenance
Page 6
April 24, 2012
security and acceptance of the plat dedications.
5) Recommendation to approve the release of a $46,200 lien for payment
of $15,881.15, in the Code Enforcement Action entitled Board of
County Commissioners vs. Maria D. and Sergio Gomez, Code
Enforcement Board Case Number CESD20100003695, relating to
property located at 4983 17th Avenue SW, Collier County, Florida.
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 an extension for completion of subdivision improvements
associated with the Isla Del Sol at Fiddler's Creek subdivision
pursuant to Section 10.02.05 B.11 of the Collier County Land
Development Code.
7) Recommendation to award Bid #12 -5872, "Purchase and Delivery of
Metal and Polyethylene Pipe" to Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. for an
estimated annual expenditure of $60,000.
8) Recommendation to approve the release of a $91,000 lien for payment
of $562.56, in the Code Enforcement Action entitled Board of County
Commissioners vs. Federal National Mortgage Association, Code
Enforcement Special Magistrate Case Number CEPM20110003647,
relating to property located at 4973 21 st Place SW, Collier County,
Florida.
9) Recommendation to approve and accept the assessment of liquidated
damages to Tectrans/Keolis Transit America in the amount of $5,500
for noncompliance of the Drug and Alcohol program as required by
Collier County and the United States Department of Transportation
(US DOT) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) regulations, as
defined in Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Parts 40 and
655.
10) Recommendation to approve the partial release of six liens in the
Code Enforcement actions entitled Board of County Commissioners
vs. Jean Cohen (as Trustee), relating to property known as Parcel No.
Page 7
April 24, 2012
39440160005, Golden Gate Estates, Collier County, Florida.
11) Recommendation to approve Change Order #3 and to realize a net
cost savings of $129,057.75 on Contract No. 10 -5342, Project
#60073/60092 for "SR84 (Davis Boulevard) Radio Road to Collier
Boulevard; SR/CR 951 Intersection Improvements; Collier Boulevard
(SR/CR 95 1) North to Magnolia Pond Drive; and Collier Boulevard
(CR 95 1) North to the Golden Gate Canal ".
12) Recommendation to authorize staff to advertise an amendment to
Collier County Ordinance No. 2009 -44, The Radio Road, East of
Santa Barbara Boulevard to the Intersection of Radio Road and Davis
Boulevard Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) Ordinance, to
remove the six -year sunset provision and provide for dissolution of
the MSTU upon recommendation by the MSTU Advisory Committee
and approval by the Board of County Commissioners.
13) Recommendation to reject ITB No. 12 -5820 to replace White
Boulevard Bridge #034021 — "Accelerated Bridge Construction
Projects: White Boulevard and 23rd Street SW and 23rd St. SW
Safety Improvements" and authorize the re- advertisement of the
project.
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation to provide "after- the - fact" approval of the
submission of the attached Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Application to Collier County Housing and Human Service
Department seeking grant funding in the amount of $360,000 to
support further implementation of the services provided by the
Immokalee Business Development Center (IBDC).
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve a work order in the amount of
$648,324.35 to Haskins, Inc., for construction tasks set forth in
Request for Quotation (RFQ) #08- 5011 -60, Davis Boulevard from
Santa Barbara Boulevard to Radio Road.
Page 8
April 24, 2012
2) Recommendation to waive competition and authorize sole source
contract renewals with GE Intelligent Solutions for an estimated
$100,000 and GrayMatter Systems for an estimated $195,000 for
existing software licensing for the Public Utilities Division's
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition systems, SCADA Software
and Support Renewal Projects #71056 and #72541.
3) Recommendation to approve the Satisfaction and Release of
Resolution 09 -52, also known as the Payment Plan Agreement and
Lien Agreement between Tamiami Square of Naples, LLC and the
Collier County Water -Sewer District.
4) Recommendation to authorize a Budget Amendment of $500,000 to
move funds from Project No. 70050, Master Pump Station Technical
Support Project, to Project No. 73969, South County Water
Reclamation Facility Technical Support Project.
5) Recommendation to approve a Donation Agreement with Jean Cohen,
Trustee, and accept the donation, by Warranty Deed, of a 5.3 -acre
parcel of land on Shady Hollow Boulevard to be used as a future
public water supply well site and for associated Public Utilities
purposes at a cost not to exceed $1,200.
6) Recommendation to approve a Change Order under the fixed term
engineering Contract Number 09 -5262 to Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., in the
amount of $291,746 for support services for the South Reverse
Osmosis Wellfield Raw Water Transmission Main Repair, Project
#70030, and in the ongoing litigation related to the project, Collier
County v. John Reynolds & Sons, Inc., et al., Case No. 10- 6658 -CA.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve reprogramming of Community
Development Block (CDBG) Grant funds in the amount of $208,223,
and to sign two subrecipient agreements providing for a $77,845
CDBG grant to the Housing Development Corporation of SW Florida,
Inc. (HDC) for Homebuyer Education and Counseling and a $91,122
CDBG grant to The Shelter for Abused Women & Children, Inc. for
their Legal Services Program. The balance of $39,256 of the
Page 9
April 24, 2012
reprogrammed funding will be held until allocated to another project,
at that time the item will be brought before the BCC.
2) Recommendation to approve an amendment to the subrecipient
agreement with David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc. (DLC)
with no change in funding level and allowing for additional costs of
design, permits, insurance, as well as minor administrative changes.
3) Recommendation to award Request for Proposal (RFP) #12 -5835
Museum Exhibit Design, Fabrication and Installation to Creative Arts
Unlimited, Inc. and authorize the Chairman to sign the contract in the
estimated amount of $75,957.44 in FY2012.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve and ratify the modification of a
classification specification in the 2012 Fiscal Year Pay and
Classification Plan made from January 1, 2012 through March 31,
2012.
2) Recommendation to accept the report concerning the sale and
donation of items associated with the County surplus auction held on
March 24, 2012, resulting in gross revenues of $361,505.
3) Recommendation to award Bid #12 -5870 Purchase and Delivery of
Fertilizer to multiple vendors (projected annual expenditures:
$150,000).
4) Recommendation to approve the award of ITB No. 12 -5823,
"Maintenance Minor Repairs," to BQ Concrete LLC, as primary; FA
Remodeling and Repairs, Inc., as secondary; and WM. J. Varian
Contruction Company, Inc., as tertiary. The annual estimated amount
associated with the contract is approximately $70,000.
F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS
1) Recommendation to approve the Memorandum of Understanding
between Collier County and Immokalee Helping Our People in
Emergencies, Inc (d/b /a I HOPE, Inc.) in support of Emergency
Page 10
April 24, 2012
Management activities related to natural and manmade hazards
emergency response.
2) Recommendation to approve the submittal and authorize the
Chairman to sign a Volunteer Fire Assistance Grant Application to the
Florida Division of Forestry for equipment to combat brush fires.
3) Recommendation to waive formal competition under Purchasing
Policy Section V.A.4 and approve Sarasota County's Hosted
Application Service and License Agreement Amendment No. 1 to
GovMax v5 under Contract #11 -5617 for an amount up to $50,000
annually for maintenance, support and enhancements to the GovMax
budget software.
4) 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) Proclamation recognizing May 3, 2012 as the National Day of Prayer.
To be presented by Commissioner Coletta on May 3, 2012 in
Everglades City at the National Day of Prayer event. Sponsored by
Commissioner Coletta.
2) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose. She
attended the Rotary Club of Marco Island Sunrise Breakfast on April
2, 2012. The sum of $12 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel
budget.
3) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the Marco Police Foundation Luncheon on April 18, 2012,
The sum of $20 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
Page 11
April 24, 2012
4) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Will attended the Local Chapters of Business Women Luncheon on
April 25, 2012. The sum of $20 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's
travel budget.
5) A resolution of the Board of County Commissioners amending
Resolution No. 2011 -235 as it relates to the reappointment of William
E. Arthur. This will stagger the terms of the members of the Golden
Gate Community Center Advisory Committee as approved at the BCC
Board meeting dated April 10, 2012, Item IOD.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) Recommendation to provide after - the -fact approval of the Sheriffs
Office submittal to the U.S. Department of Justice for the FY2012
COPS Hiring Program grant.
2) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of March
24, 2012 through March 30, 2012 and for submission into the official
records of the Board.
3) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of March
31, 2012 through April 6, 2012 and for submission into the official
records of the Board.
4) Pursuant to Florida Statute 318.18(13)(b) the Clerk of the Circuit
Court is required to report the amount of traffic infraction surcharges
collected under Florida Statute 318.18(13)(a)(1) to the Board of
County Commissioners.
5) Recommendation that the Board accept the investment status update
report for the quarter ending March 31, 2012.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
Page 12
April 24, 2012
1) Recommendation pursuant to Collier County Resolution No. 95 -632,
that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the Office of the
County Attorney to represent Airport Authority Executive Director
Thomas C. Curry, and Airport Manager Thomas Vergo, who are all
being sued by Stephen J. Fletcher and Fletcher Flying Service, Inc., a
tenant at the Immokalee Airport, in the case styled Stephen J. Fletcher
and Fletcher Flying Service, Inc. v. Thomas C. Curry and Thomas
Vergo, Case No. 12- 1124 -CA, Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for
Collier County, Florida.
2) Request for authorization to join the Florida Association of Counties
as a plaintiff in litigation challenging the constitutionality of Chapter
2012 -33, Laws of Florida (HB 5301).
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS WHICH ARE QUASI -
JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
A. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are
required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve Petition VAC -
PL20120000308, to disclaim, renounce and vacate the County and the
Public interest in part of the 30 -foot wide Public Road right -of -way
Easement as originally recorded in the Public Records of Collier County,
Florida, located in Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County Florida being more specifically shown in Exhibit "A ".
B. This item beinm continued to the May 8, 2012 BCC Meeting: This item
requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members.
Page 13
April 24, 2012
Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be
sworn rn in. Recommendation to approve Petition VAC- PL20120000308, to
disclaim, renounce and vacate the County and the Public interest in two
Conservation Easements and replaced with two alternate Conservation
Easements located in the same parcel of land on an interim basis, originally
recorded in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, located in Section
26, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County Florida being more
specifically shown in Exhibit "A ".
C. 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 VA- PL2010 -2285, Lot 80, Plantation Island, a
Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida
relating to Petition Number VA- PL2010 -2285, granting a variance from
subsection 4.02.14.C.4 of the Land Development Code (mangrove trees), on
property hereinafter described in Section 24, Township 53 South, Range 29
East, Collier County, Florida.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252 -8383.
Page 14
April 24, 2012
April 24, 2012
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, the Board of
County Commission meeting is now in session.
Item # 1 A
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — GIVEN BY
PASTOR MICHAEL SMITH OF NEW HOPE MINISTRIES
Would you please stand for the invocation by Pastor Michael
Smith of New Hope Ministries.
PASTOR SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let's bow our
heads in prayer.
Dear God in heaven, we come to you this morning, and we thank
you for the many blessings that you have bestowed upon us. We
realize, as mankind, often we have been poor stewards of that, but we
have never denied and we have always valued the freedoms that we
have because of you.
And from the very beginning, it was you who inspired men and
women to become great leaders, and that continues today.
So today, Father, we thank you for every one of these
commissioners, we ask for divine health, and then, Lord, we ask for
godly wisdom for the decisions that will be made today.
We bring all these things to you in Jesus' name. Amen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Please join us in the Pledge of Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. County manager, would you go
through the changes to the agenda this morning, please.
Item #2A
Page 2
April 24, 2012
APPROVAL OF TODAY'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND
SUMMARY AGENDA AS AMENDED — APPROVED AND /OR
ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members
of the board.
These are the proposed agenda changes for the Board of County
Commissioners' meeting of April 24, 2012.
The first proposed change is to move Item 16B 1 to become Item
14B 1 on your regular agenda under your Community Redevelopment
Agency section of the agenda.
The next proposed change is to -- excuse me. And that change is
at Commissioner Henning's request.
The next proposed change is to move Item 16C 1 from the
consent agenda to become Item 11 E on the regular agenda. That
move is made at Commissioner Coyle's request.
The next change proposed is to move Item 16J5 from the
constitutional officer consent agenda to become Item 13A on your
regular agenda. That move is made at Commissioner Fiala's request.
The next proposed change comes from the Sheriff s Department.
It's an add -on item that you received yesterday. It's 16J6. It's a grant
application through the Criminal Justice Department, and that change
is -- as I mentioned, is at the sheriffs request due to an impending
grant deadline and the need to get the chair to authorize a certificate of
participation.
The next proposed change is to move Item 16K1 from the county
attorney consent agenda to become Item 12A on the regular agenda.
That move is made at Commissioner Hiller's request.
And, finally, the final proposed change is to move Item 16K2
from the county attorney's consent agenda to become Item 12B. That
change is made at the request of both Commissioners Fiala and
Commissioner Henning, separately.
Page 3
April 24, 2012
We have two time - certain items this morning, Commissioners, or
today. Item 1 I will be heard at 10 a.m., and Item 5A will be heard
at 1 p.m., and that will be immediately followed by Item 4A, which is
a proclamation to the National Guard, and it is also the National Guard
who is making the presentation under Item 5A at 1 p.m. So it would
be appropriate to present their proclamation when they're all here at 1
p.m., sir.
Those are the changes that I have this morning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
County Attorney, do you have any changes this morning?
MR. KLATZKOW: No changes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We'll start with the Board of
County Commissioners with respect to ex parte disclosure and other
changes to the agenda; ex parte disclosure being limited to disclosure
for the consent and summary agendas.
We'll start with Commissioner Henning this morning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good morning. My ex parte
communication is on the summary agenda, 17C, and that is the
Planning Commission meeting packet.
I do have a question. The last meeting we directed to work on
the Mayhood, LLC, lease at the Immokalee airport and bring it back at
the next meeting, and it's not on the agenda.
Jeff, you were --
MR. KLATZKOW: She got to me -- I got her a proposal right
after the meeting. It took her time to review the proposal. She got it
to me late. Too late to get it really worked on. I forwarded it to Mr.
Curry. It will be on the next agenda.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So everybody signed off
on it except for the chairman?
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know that Mr. Curry signed off on it.
Again, it came in very late in the week. I haven't had a chance to go
over it with Mr. Curry yet.
April 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir. I have no changes to
the agenda, and the only ex parte I have is for, under the summary
agenda, 17C; I reviewed the staff report.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And I have no further changes to
the agenda. And with respect to the consent or summary agenda, the
only ex parte disclosure I have is on 17B of the summary agenda --
I'm sorry -- 17C of the summary agenda, and it consists of reviewing a
staff report.
Commissioner Hiller -- Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have nothing to report on 16.
On 17, I only have Item C, as the rest of you do, which is the
Plantation Island appeal, zoning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No changes to the agenda, and no
ex parte communications.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, very well.
Is there a motion to approve the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- agenda today as amended?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Coletta to
approve the agenda today, as amended, seconded by Commissioner
Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 5
April 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
April 24, 2012
Move Item 16BI to Item 14131: Recommendation to provide "after- the - fact" approval of the submission of
the attached Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Application to Collier County Housing and
Human Service Department seeking grant funding in the amount of $360,000 to support further
implementation of the services provided by the Immokalee Business Development Center (IBDC).
(Commissioner Henning's request)
Move Item 16C1 to Item 11E: Recommendation to approve a work order in the amount of
$648,324.35 to Haskins, Inc., for construction tasks set forth in Request for Quotation 08- 5011 -60,
Davis Boulevard from Santa Barbara Boulevard to Radio Road. (Commissioner Coyle's request)
Move Item 16J5 to Item 13A: Recommendation that the Board accept the investment status update report
for the quarter ending March 31, 2012. (Commissioner Fiala's request)
Add Item 16J6: Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners serve as the local coordinating unit of
government for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement's Federal Fiscal Year 2012 Edward Byrne
Memorial, Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Countywide Program and authorize the Chairman to execute the
Certification of Participation, designate the Sheriff as the official applicant, Sheriffs office staff as grant
financial and program managers, approve the grant application when completed, and authorize acceptance
of awards and associated budget amendments. (Sheriffs Department requires Board approval in order to
continue in the capacity of local coordinating agency receiving the Edward Byrne Memorial JAG grant
funding.)
Move Item 16K1 to Item 12A: Recommendation pursuant to Collier County Resolution No. 95 -632, that
the Board of County Commissioners authorize the Office of the County Attorney to represent Airport
Authority Executive Director Thomas C. Curry, and Airport Manager Thomas Vergo, who are all being sued
by Stephen J. Fletcher and Fletcher Flying Service, Inc., a tenant at the Immokalee Airport, in the case styled
Stephen J. Fletcher and Fletcher Flying Service, Inc. v. Thomas C. Curry and Thomas Vergo, Case No. 12-
1124-CA, Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida. (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Move Item 16K2 to Item 12B: Request for authorization to join the Florida Association of Counties as a
plaintiff in litigation challenging the constitutionality of Chapter 2012 -33, Laws of Florida (HB 5301).
(Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner Henning's separate requests)
Time Certain Items:
Item 11A to be heard at 10:00 a.m.
Item 5A to be heard at 1:00 p.m., immediately followed by Item 4A
4/24/2012 8:37 AM
April 24, 2012
Item #2B
MINUTES OF THE MARCH 27, 2012, BCC /REGULAR MEETING
— APPROVED AS PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: With respect to March 27, 20125 BCC
regular meeting minutes, are there any changes to the minutes for that
meeting?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Hearing none, is there a motion to
approve?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, motion to approve the March
27th BCC regular meeting minutes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to -- by Commissioner Fiala to
approve. Seconded by?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 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.
That brings us to proclamations, County Manager.
Item #4
PROCLAMATIONS — ONE MOTION WAS TAKEN TO ADOPT
ITEMS #413 THRU #4G
Page 7
April 24, 2012
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE GREATER NAPLES
BRANCH OF AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY
WOMEN (AAUW) CHARITABLE FOUNDATION, INC. 2012
WOMEN OF ACHIEVEMENT: PAT CARROLL, SHARON
HOOD, FRANNY KAIN, REBECCA NEWELL, VI STEFFAN,
CLOE WATERFIELD, CHRISTINE WHEELER AND IRENE
WILLIAMS. ACCEPTED BY VI STEFFAN, HONOREE AND
AAUW BOARD MEMBER — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. The first proclamation is Item 4B on your
agenda this morning. It's a proclamation recognizing the Greater
Naples Branch of the American Association of University Women
Charitable Foundation, Incorporated, 2012 Women of Achievement:
Pat Carroll, Sharon Hood, Franny Kain, Rebecca Newell, Vi Steffan,
Cloe Waterfield, Christine Wheeler, and Irene Williams. To be
accepted by Vi Steffan, honoree and AAUW board member. This
item sponsored by Commissioner Hiller. If you'd please come
forward.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Hi. Good to see you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Congratulations, again. So glad
you could be here today.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I just make a quick comment?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: These are really wonderful
April 24, 2012
women; they're exceptional leaders in our community that were
recognized by the University of Women. Not all of them could be
here. I believe Sharon Hood couldn't make it this morning, so we
would like to recognize her also, and I want to thank you so much for
your contribution.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING APRIL, 2012 AS DROWNING
PREVENTION MONTH IN COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY
PAULA DIGRIGOLI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SAFE &
HEALTHY CHILDREN'S COALITION OF COLLIER COUNTY —
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 4C, Commissioners, is a proclamation designating
April 2012 as Drowning Prevention Month in Collier County. To be
accepted by Paula DiGrigoli, executive director, Safety (sic) and
Healthy Children's Coalition of Collier County. This item is
sponsored by Commissioner Coyle.
Please come forward.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you for what you're
doing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Hi. Hey, Harold, how are you
doing?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Jamie, thanks for being there
yesterday.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You know what, you can put that
April 24, 2012
banner in front here.
MS. DiGRIGOLI: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do we have any clips up here?
Ian, do we have any clips up here?
MR. MITCHELL: No, but we can put it up on a break.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Hammer and some nails?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Come on, Ian, don't you have your
hammer and nails this morning?
MR. MITCHELL: I'll put it up at the break.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That would be really nice.
MS. DiGRIGOLI: Thank you so much.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
MR. METZGER: Good morning, Commissioners.
For the record, I'm Robert Metzger. I'm the fire chief with the
Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District and one of the
partnering agencies with the Safe and Healthy Children's Coalition.
It's my pleasure to speak on their behalf today, and I would like
to recognize the chair of the Safe and Healthy Children's Coalition
board of directors, who is Dr. Todd Vetter, who, unfortunately,
couldn't be with us today. But Dr. Vetter is truly the heart and soul of
this coalition, and he is ably assisted by the extremely capable
director, Paula DiGrig- -- I'm not going to say it right. He did a better
job than I -- DiGrigoli.
Florida has a dubious distinction of being number one in the
entire country for child drowning. In the last 10 years, drowning has
been the leading external cause of death in children ages one through
four here in Collier County.
Nationally, for every fatal drowning, another 10 kids are treated
for near - drowning - related injuries. The emotional impact on the
affected families is, obviously, overwhelming, but the economic
impact to the community is staggering.
These deaths and injuries occur most frequently in families
Page 10
April 24, 2012
where the parents do not know how to swim and often to the
economically disadvantaged. Non - swimming parents generally raise
non - swimming children, placing them at great risk. This cycle must
be broken.
The Safe and Healthy Children's Coalition recognizes that
multiple layers of protection are necessary to prevent drowning,
including various types of barriers, alarm features, adult supervision,
water - safety education, and community CPR instruction.
To that end, the coalition was conceived to address those needs.
In only two years, it has partnered with over 40 community and public
safety agencies to coordinate efforts in each of these areas and to
promote healthy children. To name just a few of the 40, that number
includes all 11 public - safety agencies here in Collier County, both of
the local healthcare systems, with NCH as being one of the founders
and a principal leader, the Collier County Government -- various
different Collier County Government agencies, the health department,
Kiwanis International, the Children's Advocacy Center, 21 st Century
Oncology, and the Boys and Girls Club of Collier County, to name
just a few.
The purpose of the coalition is to maximize the individual efforts
of each of these partners by bringing them together in ways not
previously possible. While still in its infancy, the coalition is
expanding its capability and its community support. Further effective
programs aimed at improving the safety and health of children in our
community are forthcoming.
So on behalf of the coalition, we would like to thank you for
shining a light on their efforts and emphasizing the need as it exists
within Collier County today.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Page 11
April 24, 2012
Item #4D
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING APRIL 22 -28, 2012 AS
CRIME VICTIM'S RIGHTS WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY.
ACCEPTED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE,
STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, PROJECT HELP, INC., AND
REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE SHELTER FOR ABUSED
WOMEN AND CHILDREN — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4D is a proclamation designating April 22nd
through April 28, 2012, as Crime Victims Rights Week in Collier
County. To be accepted by the Collier County Sheriffs Office, the
State Attorney's Office, Project Help Incorporated, and representatives
from the Shelter for Abused Women and Children, and this item is
sponsored by the entire Board of County Commissioners.
Please come forward.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who gets this? Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for all you're doing.
That's not an easy job.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: NCH?
MS. WESLEY: Project Help. Thank you so much. We
appreciate your support.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thanks for being here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Spread it out, ladies.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Somebody gets to speak, if you'd like.
(Applause.)
MS. WESLEY: Good morning. My name is Eileen Wesley. I'm
the victim service coordinator for Project Help, the local crisis center,
and I'm here to thank you on behalf of Collier County Sheriff s Office,
the State Attorney's Office, and Project Help for recognizing this
Page 12
April 24, 2012
week. It's such an important week.
Crime Victims Week is national today, this week, and the impact
of crime in every community is large. Collier County has three
organizations that work diligently day and night to make sure that all
victims of violent crime are taken care of in all capacities, from the
legal, the law, and the crisis portion of their crimes.
And I want to thank you very much. And the fact is, every 53
seconds a person is becoming a victim of a violent crime, and we're
here to help stop that.
So I want to thank you very much for taking the time to recognize
us, and we appreciate you more than you know. Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4E
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING AND CONGRATULATING
NCH NORTH NAPLES HOSPITAL ON RECEIVING THE WRAP
AWARD FOR ITS CONTINUED EFFORTS TO PROMOTE
WASTE REDUCTION, REUSE, RECYCLING AND
ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS. ACCEPTED BY MICHELE
THOMAN, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER; HILL MADERE, EVS
MANAGER; AND BRIAN P. DOYLE, LEED GA, ENGINEERING
MECHANIC — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 4E is a proclamation recognizing and
congratulating NCH North Naples Hospital on receiving the WRAP
award for its continued efforts to promote waste reduction, reuse,
recycling, and environmental awareness. To be accepted by Michelle
Thomas, chief operating officer; Phil Dutcher, chief operating officer;
and Brian Doyle, lead GA, engineering mechanic.
This item is sponsored by Commissioner Hiller.
(Applause.)
Page 13
April 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Hi, how are you?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Congratulations. Thank you so
much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is somebody going to speak?
MR. DOYLE: I'll say a few words.
(Applause.)
MR. DOYLE: I'd like to thank the county for recognizing our
efforts to reduce, reuse, and recycle. The county has been very
helpful in educating and guiding us. With the help of Linda and Janet,
we've been able to get over the hump.
Recently we've incorporated a third party to help us reduce, reuse,
and recycle as we develop our waste - reduction program throughout the
NCH healthcare system.
North Collier is being recognized because we are in the county.
The city hospital itself downtown has made tremendous efforts as well
in all of our sustainable goals reducing energy use, water use, as well
as reducing our waste.
We've recently created a green team. And with the green team
we've proclaimed that we are now a green hospital. And on behalf of
the 4,000 -plus employees that actually make this happen, I'd like to
say thank you to the county and especially Janet and Linda for helping
us along to meet these goals.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4F
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE MISSION OF THE
AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY'S IMMOKALEE RELAY FOR
LIFE AND DESIGNATING APRIL 27TH AND 28TH AS RELAY
FOR LIFE DAYS IN IMMOKALEE — ADOPTED
Page 14
April 24, 2012
MR. OCHS : Item 4F is a proclamation recognizing the mission
of the American Cancer Society Immokalee's Relay for Life and
designating April 27th and 28th as Relay for Life Days in Immokalee.
To be accepted by Melissa Kahn, American Cancer Society. This
item sponsored by Commissioner Coletta.
Would you please come forward.
(No response.)
Item #4G
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE "COURAGE TO
REMEMBER" EXHIBIT AT THE NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL
PARK. ACCEPTED BY BARRY WILLIAMS, DIRECTOR,
COLLIER COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION; NANCY OLSON,
REGIONAL MANAGER, COLLIER COUNTY PARKS &
RECREATION; AMY SNYDER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
HOLOCAUST MUSEUM OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA; AND
RON KAPLAN, BOARD MEMBER, HOLOCAUST MUSEUM OF
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Okay. That takes us to Item 4G on the agenda,
Commissioners. That's a proclamation recognizing the Courage to
Remember Exhibit at the North Collier Regional Park. To be
accepted by Barry Williams, director, Collier County Parks and
Recreation; Nancy Olson, regional manager, Collier County Parks and
Recreation; Amy Snyder, executive director, Holocaust Museum of
Southwest Florida; and Ron Kaplan, board member of Holocaust
Museum of Southwest Florida. This item is sponsored by
Commissioner Hiller.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Somebody gets that.
Page 15
April 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are you Ron?
MS. SNYDER: I'm Ron for today.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is anybody going to speak?
MS. SNYDER: Hi. Good morning. My name is Amy Snyder,
and I'm the executive director of the Holocaust Museum and
Education Center of Southwest Florida. And we certainly would like
to thank the commissioners for your support of our institution over the
last 10 years, as we're celebrating our 10th anniversary this year. And
we certainly want to recognize the opportunity that we had just last
month to partner with North Collier Regional Park.
The North American arm of the French Railroad called us in -- at
the end of February and said, we'd like to bring this exhibit, and all
you have to do is find a space. And it was a big exhibit. And I called
Nancy and said, we've been trying to figure out how to do this, and
she said, bring it on in.
So it was easy; it was quick. And the organization that brought it
in put it up and took it down. We didn't have to do anything. So you
probably should be recognizing them because that would be really
nice.
But it was a wonderful partnership for us, and we're excited for
the new avenues it's opened up with North Collier Regional Park.
So thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to take a 10- minute break.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'm going to move to
approve all the proclamations except for Proclamation A, which will
be heard after one.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A motion to approve the
proclamations by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner
Page 16
April 24, 2012
Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion is approved unanimously.
Where does that take us now, County Manager?
MR. OCHS: That takes you to public comments on general
topics, Item 7 on your agenda.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have -- no one's signed up for any
comments.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Bob, what's wrong?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. We're all waiting. Must
mean we're perfect.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're going to have a good day
today.
Item #9A
ORDINANCE 2012 -16: RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A
PROPOSED SMALL -SCALE AMENDMENT TO COLLIER
COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN ORDINANCE 89 -05
AS AMENDED, RELATED TO THE ORANGE BLOSSOM
AIRPORT CROSSROADS COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT FOR
TRANSMITTAL TO FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC
OPPORTUNITY (DEO)— ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that -- that would take us to 9A on
Page 17
April 24, 2012
your agenda this morning. It's a recommendation to approve a
proposed small -scale amendment to the Collier County Growth
Management Plan, Ordinance 89 -05, as amended, relating to the
Orange Blossom and Airport Crossroads commercial subdistrict for
transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. This
is an adoption hearing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve by
Commissioner Fiala. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Henning, and
Commissioner Henning has the floor.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I'm sorry. That's for the
next one. I apologize.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. All in favor -- or is there any
discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 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: The motion passes unanimously.
Item #9B
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE EVALUATION AND
APPRAISAL REPORT -BASED AMENDMENTS TO THE
9. -' •
April 24, 2012
COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN,
ORDINANCE 89 -05, AS AMENDED, FOR TRANSMITTAL TO
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
(DEO) FOR REVIEW AND OBJECTIONS,
RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS (ORC) RESPONSE —
PRESENTED AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WAS
REQUESTED FROM STAFF — TABLED TO LATER IN THE
MEETING — CONSENSUS
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners.
Next item is 9B on your agenda this morning. Recommendation
to approve the proposed Evaluation and Appraisal Report -based
amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan,
Ordinance 89 -05, as amended, for transmittal to the Florida
Department of Economic Opportunity for review and Objections,
Recommendations, and Comments response.
This is a transmittal hearing, and Mr. Bosi will present.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Mr. Bosi, go ahead.
MR. BOSI: Good morning, Commissioner. Mike Bosi,
comprehensive planning.
I have a short PowerPoint presentation that will familiarize you
with the process and where we're at. Just one second let me pull it up.
We're here to discuss the Evaluation and Appraisal Report, and if
this kicks up some distant memories within the commissioners, it's
because this is a pretty long -- elongated, drawn -out process to modify
the Growth Management Plan. It's required by Florida Statute
163.3191, and it requires every jurisdiction, every city, every county
in the State of Florida to evaluate their long -range Growth
Management Plan on a seven -year basis.
It basically evaluates the performance of the individual elements
of the GMP. It measures its successes and short comes --
shortcomings, and provides an opportunity for the local plan to
Page 19
April 24, 2012
respond to changes in federal, state, or regional planning requirements,
and it's a two -part process.
We -- where we're at in the process. We -- we're at the Stage 2.
We've completed the first part of the EAR process with the adoption of
the EAR report on January 31 st of 2011. We're now at the portion
where we've designated the changes within the -- within that EAR
report, and now this is the actual -- the due. We've said this was the
policies, the objectives that were going to change. This is the process of
drafting specific policies, amendments and objectives to each
individual element and taking them through the extensive
public- review process and giving specificity of what those changes are.
And just to give you the quick timeline, this -- the EAR process
started back in August of 2009. We had an intergovernmental
meeting with all the entities involved in September. In December of
109, we entered into a letter of understanding with the now replaced
Department of Community Affairs, which is now the Department of
Economic Opportunity.
We had a series of three individual public meetings. We had -- at
various geographic areas throughout the county; one at the regional
park, one at IFAS center, and one in this very room back in the
beginning of 2010.
From April to July of 2010 we went through the process and
made the evaluations of the individual elements, had a workshop with
the EAC in August of 2011, a two -day workshop with the Planning
Commission, drafted a tentative EAR -based report, sent it to the
Department of Community Affairs -- they provided some comments
and modifications on October of 2010 -- went through the adoption
process with EAC in November, December 2010 the CCPC, and then
ultimately last year --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mike, you might tell the public what
those mean, EAC and CCPC.
MR. BOSI: I'm sorry. The EAC is the Environmental Advisory
Page 20
April 24, 2012
Council, and the CCPC is the Collier County Planning Commission.
I'm sorry. I forget the world of planning is laden with acronyms that
most people are not familiar with.
And on January 31 st of 2011 the Board of County
Commissioners adopted the EAR report, and that was the report that
says, here's all the changes we intend to make.
In April of last year, the Department of Community Affairs
accepted the EAR report. Staff started drafting the proposed
amendments in the summer of last year, had a workshop with the
Planning Commission to bring them up to speed on all the changes we
had adopted -- or said that we were going to make, and then they
provided the direction upon some of the -- that draft language so when
we would get to the transmittal hearings, that these issues would be
well vetted and have an opportunity to make sure that staff was on the
correct path as the Planning Commission and as the Board of County
Commissioners in the adopted EAR had indicated we were going to
follow.
On December 7th of 2011, the EAC, the Environmental Advisory
Council, adopted or made recommendations upon the transmittal
amendments for the EAR -based process, and on January 26th of this
year, February 16th, and March 6th, three individual meetings with
the Planning Commission for the transmittal hearings to make a
recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. And,
obviously, today we're here for the transmittal hearings of the
proposed EAR -based amendments.
A reminder, the transmittal process -- or the adoption of the
Growth Management Plan amendments are a two -part process, the
transmittal hearing and then, finally, an adoption hearing. So this will
be before you one final time, and I will get to that in a second.
The anticipation is with a successful conclusion of today's
hearings, the recommendation to transmit the proposed EAR -based
amendments to the DEO, we would expect an ORC report sometime
Page 21
April 24, 2012
in midsummer, and then we would start our adoption hearings with the
Environmental Advisory Council. September 5, 2012, is the tentative
date for that, October 30th and 31 st are our tentative dates for the
EAR -based adoption hearings with the Planning Commission, and
then December 11 th of this year, we are expecting the -- we have
tentatively the EAR -based amendments -- adoption hearings with the
Board of County Commissioners. And I will remind you that it will
not complete the EAR process. There's still one little -- one little detail
that's out there, and those are the Rural Land Stewardship amendments
-- proposed amendments that were generated from the five -year
review that the Board of County Commissioners has directed us to
process on a trailing hearing schedule that -- we are now working out
that schedule. But the tentative plan is the -- December 1 Ith of this
year to adopt the majority of the EAR -based amendments with the
expectation of January of -- or 2013 the Department of Economic
Opportunity to find the EAR reports in compliance and the
amendments in compliance.
Just to give you an overall guide, the EAR -based amendments --
the overall guiding principle applied to the drafting process was to
enhance the existing growth management regulatory environment with
the greatest degree of flexibility while achieving the goals of the
individual elements. The way that the GMP is set up, each objective
-- or each individual element has specific goals. Objectives and
policies are crafted to attain those goals. And what we tried to do was
to review the objectives and policies and make sure that they were in
compliance with the current state and regulatory -- and federal
regulatory guidelines but also to make sure that the flexibility, the
most inherent flexibility that we could provide within the Growth
Management Plan was contained within the policies that are being
suggested.
As you know, any time that you've got real rigidity within -- to
your GMP, it can create issues at the zoning stage. So we tried to
Page 22
April 24, 2012
make sure that greatest degree of flexibility could be inherent to these
amendments while still enhancing and attaining the goals associated
with the individual elements. The majority of the proposed changes to
the plans are -- they're modifications to existing objectives and
policies. There's not a tremendous amount of new initiatives that have
been included within this EAR process.
As you'll review, there's basically two new objectives and 27 new
policies. Just to highlight those, on the Transportation Element, your
one new objective and one new policy directs the counties to explore
and develop a stand -alone Transit Element, and that was an idea that
came from your Planning Commission trying to gain ulterior modes of
transportation, make the evaluation as to whether that -- that
component should have its own stand -alone element within the GMP,
or should it continue to share space with the current Transportation
Element.
From solid waste, your sub - element for your public utilities,
there's seven new policies which seek to improve the efficiencies and
techniques for waste reduction.
Within the Housing Element, you have one new objective and
five new policies focus on encouraging energy efficiency within
housing construction, and "encouraging" is the key word. There's no
mandates involved. But it's to encourage the recognition of the best
management practices.
And there's six new policies to better identify the need for
affordable housing through indexing. And this is a key component.
This is replacing the previous requirement for a set number of new or
rehabilitated units. The current -- the policy has a fixed number that
currently exists within our GMP, and there was always discomfort at
the dais because there was never -- it was never directly tied to a
tangible and quantifiable need. And so working with the housing --
working with the housing section of the county, we feel that we're able
to -- we're going to be able to develop an index that's going to be a
Page 23
April 24, 2012
much better barometer of the true need of affordable housing within
the county, which I know has always been a source of angst within the
dais for what is the true need that's expressed within that individual
component.
On the Conservation and Coastal Management Element or the
COME, one new policy relating to the development of a saltwater
monitoring program and a new policy to protect working waterfronts.
And on the Future Land Use Element map series, a revise -- a
coastal high hazard area map which coincides with the new slosh
maps that have been developed by the region and the state, and a new
coastal high hazard comparison map; in addition, a revised Camp
Keais flow -way map to reflect updated environmental data.
And the last element is an economic element, which is more of
an aspirational type of an element; two new policies to reflect the
coordinated economic development activities of the various agencies
involved.
Those are really the highlights of the new policies that are being
proposed. And as I said, the majority of the work was to evaluate our
existing policies and objectives, make sure they're in line with the
state and federal guidance, but also make sure that they're the most
effective and the most reflecting of the desires of the advisory boards,
the general public as well, and the Board of County Commissioners.
There's a couple elements -- or a couple instances that have --
that transpired over the past month and a half that have led to
additions to the -- to the proposed EAR -based amendments that
weren't in your individual packets, and this is related to -- the City of
Marco Island has decided to opt out, out of the interlocal agreement
with the county and -- in terms of sharing the provision for affordable
housing.
So based upon that recognition and based upon the recognition
that the Everglades City has opted out as well, we've revised a new
policy only to -- or revised the existing policy only to reflect the
Page 24
April 24, 2012
current interlocal agreement that we have with the City of Naples.
The City of Naples and the county partnership within the provision of
affordable housing.
And the implications of what this means is, it means Everglades
City and Marco Island has decided that they're going to satisfy the
state's requirement for the provision of affordable housing on their
own. What was happening in the past with these interlocal
agreements is it was a sharing with the county based upon the
specifics of the interlocal agreements. Not sure what the thinking was
within the city, but they've decided to kind of chart their own
navigation course.
So we are -- we will -- we currently reflect the interlocal
agreement that we have with the City of Naples. And I would say this
will never -- this would not preclude if the City of Marco is interested
in partnering with the county again within that provision. We can --
this doesn't mean that we can't enter into that agreement again. This
just simply reflects the fact that they've decided to opt out of their
existing interlocal agreement for the provision of affordable housing.
Another -- and this is a potential change. This relates to House
Bill 503. House Bill 503 prohibits local governments from requiring
an applicant to obtain a state or federal permit for a local development
order. This has not been signed by the governor. If it's signed by the
governor, this change to the current Conservation and Coastal
Management Element, Objective 2.1.F -- which we require, you know,
verification for the state and federal permitting from an individual
local development order -- we will make this change contingent if the
governor does sign that individual house bill.
They have -- the governor has till May 5th to take action, or the
bill will die because of a lack of signature. So we will continue
through the efforts of Debbie White and the County Manager's Office
to monitor the progress within Tallahassee to see if this will be a
required modification to the EAR -based amendments.
Page 25
April 24, 2012
And there's the last -- the last area that we need direction -- we
need direction from the Board of County Commissioners. As I
mentioned, this is an elongated series of tremendous amounts of
conversation and discussion with the Planning Commission, and
through all those discussions, through all the policies, through all the
give and take, staff and the Planning Commission were able to find
agreement on every individual objective and policy except for two
individual policies contained within your Conservation and Coastal
Management Element, and those are Policies 10. 1.5 and Policy 10.1.6,
and they relate to the sitting (sic) of marinas and water - dependent uses
and additional requirements when those proposed developments
would destroy marine wetlands.
The CC -- the Planning Commission is recommending that the
policies, with some slight modifications, are to be retained, and the
thinking is that -- for the Planning Commission as they've expressed it
was that they provide the county an extra degree of regulatory
authority aside from what is deferred to the state on the marina siting
(sic) issues.
From a staffs perspective, staff recommended deleting the
policies in that over the past the staff has found that they are difficult
to implement as there's no specific criteria within the CCME or the
Land Development Code and certain terms such as "destruction of
mangroves" and "providing for the general public use" are not defined
within the LDC or the Growth Management Plan and, as written, the
policies would apply to all water - dependent and all water - related uses
that propose to destroy marine wetlands, including waterfront for
residential development and their potential legal implications to
requiring public use on private facilities. A number of issues that have
cropped -- that have cropped up on some current petitions that have
been before the Board of County Commissioners.
And I also believe the Conservancy on Friday had provided an
email to the Board of County Commissioners related to their
Page 26
April 24, 2012
perspective within the -- within these two individual policies.
What is contained within your book is the recommendations as
provided by the Planning Commission. So as -- the Exhibit A, which
contains all the amendments to the Growth Management Plan -- or
Growth Management Plan contain Policy 10.1.5 and 10.1.6 within
them as recommended by the Planning Commission. Staff still feels
that there's difficulty in implementing them and is asking the Board of
County Commissioners to provide that final arbitration with the
understanding that if the Planning Commission's recommendation is
suggested or is directed by the Board of County Commissioners, staff
will have to take some additional actions at the LDC level to provide
clarification towards what these terms mean and then how they -- so
how this policy could be implemented within the reviewing practices
of individual staff.
And this is -- this is where 10.1.6 would be and the 10.1.7. And
basically the change that was requested from the Planning
Commission, instead of a fiscal analysis as to -- in an individual
development moving forward, they wanted to see a needs analysis,
and this is basically a needs analysis that new -- that additional dock
space, whatever -- additional -- whatever that water - related use is is
going to be able to be quantified through a study that shows that there
is a specific need within that geographic area.
And, finally, staff is seeking a motion to approve from the BCC
and direct the chair to sign a resolution -- it's Tab 7 within your
individual books that were provided -- to transmit the EAR -based
amendments to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and
other state reviewing agencies.
With that, that concludes my overview of the EAR process and
would open myself up to any questions that the board may have
related.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning was first. Do
you want to hold your questions till after the public speakers, or do
Page 27
April 24, 2012
you want to ask questions now, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think it's maybe a
two -part. But Mike Bosi is asking his question upon the marine
policies. And I do have questions that can wait.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's up to you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I want to address the
issue of the marinas and the needs for more docks. It's a property
right, okay. Simple. It's plain and simple. It's a property right. If
somebody wants a dock, they should be able to seek to their
government for a permit to do so. It's not an issue of needs.
The other issue, I have to ask, where are we going to site a
marina?
MR. BOSI: That is one of the -- I mean, that's -- it's a very good
question, because the opportunity, the geographic opportunity, is
limited. I guess there -- I mean, there potentially could be
redevelopment opportunities, but the opportunity for new marinas to
be developed within the county are -- I agree, are strained.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let me ask you, the --
would it take very long to do an assessment on potential marinas and
find out if there -- if there's a real need to create more language on
criteria for marinas, or would that take a while to assess?
MR. BOSI: I've -- it would -- I would say it would at least take a
little bit of time to get up to speed with what the geographic
constraints for a new marina would be, and then the -- the individual
assessment of the miles of coastline, it would take -- it would take
some effort and it would take some time. If the -- if the BCC direct us
to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't want to overburden staff.
That's the reason for my question is -- you know, just your assessment.
MR. BOSI: I think it would -- it would take some staff time and
some assessment. I'm not -- I have never dealt with that type of an
issue, so I I'm hard - pressed to try to quantify the amount of time that it
�•,_- ;1
April 24, 2012
could take.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, we're dealing with
the Manatee Protection Plan, and this is outside the Manatee
Protection Plan.
MR. BOSI: This is outside of the Manatee Protection Plan,
correct. This will have no -- this will not have an effect upon the
Manatee Protection Plan that we have.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But correct me if I'm wrong, the
Manatee Protection Plan provides marine sitings, correct?
MR. BOSI: I believe -- and I'm not an expert with --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Steve Lenberger.
MR. BOSI: But -- Steve may be able to expand a little more, but
I'm sure it has criterion towards -- in which the marinas must follow
related to the regulations contained within that Manatee Protection
Plan.
These are -- these policies that are being discussed, the 10. 1.5
and 10.1.6, are outside of -- outside of the Manatee Protection Plan
and outside of the traditional state review, and that's why I think the
Planning Commission wanted to maintain them. Staff just has never --
has had a true difficulty of implementing these individual policies, and
that's why staff is recommending that these policies be deleted.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What -- to give us some
flexibility on the transmittal, can we hold off on it and then consider
deleting it later on once we find out more about what the -- where the
Planning Commission is coming from?
MR. BOSI: The suggestion would be more would be better. So
you would want to leave -- if you want the evaluation to take place
between now and the adoption in December, you would leave the --
leave these policies as they're presented within your Exhibit A as
policies that are being modified and not being deleted, and then at the
adoption stage, that would be -- to delete that would be more, I think,
of an acceptable manner to the DEO than to have two new policies
Page 29
April 24, 2012
showing up that weren't a part of the transmittal hearing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, Mr. Chairman, I'd
rather error (sic) on cautious and try to find some more information
about what the intent of the Planning Commission was; however, a
needs assessment for docks I just cannot accept.
MR. BOSI: And one of the things that -- if we were directed to
leave these policies in, one of the topics that would be evaluated and
would be brought before the Planning Commission -- the EAC, the
Planning Commission, ultimately the board, would be, you know, that
needs analysis, are we only -- I mean, I understand the needs analysis
related to a marina, but the needs analysis related to an individual
residential or residential dock facility, I think, hits those issues that
you're concerned about, property rights.
So that would be -- those -- both sides of the issue would be put
forward for discussion as we were trying to implement or trying to
devise the correct language and the correct application of where these
policies should be applied to.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think property right is
not distinct by an individual or individuals. I think it's shared whether
you have a business or whether you have a single- family lot on the
waterfront. That's my opinion.
Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: My preference on these things has always
been not to attempt to regulate these at the local level. Let the state
and federal governments regulate these issues, because riparian rights
are very ancient rights. I mean, they go back to Roman times and
beyond that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there any distinction of
property rights between commercial and noncommercial?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, there are some, I mean, only because
of the impact that commercial's going to have compared to an
individual residential lot. But, again, my preference is going to be, on
Page 30
April 24, 2012
an issue like this -- because I'm also very concerned about the property
rights -- is just to defer to the states and feds on these issues.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I agree.
MR. KLATZKOW: You're just asking for local disputes if you
start regulating these issues.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think you're right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have other commissioners
who want to speak. Do you want to listen to the two public speakers
first?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I need to speak.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. You're next anyway.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're next.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, can I?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, you're next.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, okay, thanks. Let me just ask
a few questions because that way the public speakers may or may not
want to address these because they're more informational than
anything else.
First of all, I notice that you did the extension on the TDR
program, which is good. And we had committed that to the public, so
that's very positive. The early -entry program for TDRs has been
extended to 2015.
1 have some concerns about the change in the coastal high hazard
map, and I'd like you to put the changes in the boundaries up on the
overhead, and then I'd like you to explain the changes in the densities
being proposed where you're suggesting downgrading of densities and
explain to me how that will not constitute a takings. And I know there
was some discussion about that with the Planning Commission, and I'd
like you to address how you've satisfied that.
MR. BOSI: And I'm going to defer to Mr. David Weeks, the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure.
Page 31
April 24, 2012
MR. BOSI: -- the GMP, actual manager, related to -- he made
the modifications related to the Future Land Use Element in the map
series.
And David will describe some of the steps that we've taken to
address those individual taking concerns.
MR. WEEKS: Let me start with the map.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Mike, while you guys are getting
organized on that, I could ask another question of you while David is
getting the information together, if you'd like.
MR. BOSI: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The other thing I'd like you to
disclose is what exactly you mean by indexing as a standard for
affordable housing and how that's going to be applied.
MR. BOSI: And within -- that's a strategy that was early -- or
identified by the affordable housing subcommittee. They've had some
ideas of how that -- they feel that they could accomplish that indexing.
I'm going to -- I'll defer to Ms. Kimberly Grant to address some
of the early discussions that we've had.
MS. GRANT: Hi. Kim Grant, for the record.
Just -- I'm not going to be able to give you a lot of detail, because
we're at the beginning of the evaluation of how we might be able to
put this model together. But the conceptual idea is that we're looking
for nationally recognized indexes or indices that we could use as a
basis for evaluating when it may be appropriate to either ramp up or
ramp down incentives or other programs associated with affordable
housing, and we've been absent that data in the past.
In our research so far -- and we've been working very closely, as
Mike said, with the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee. And
this is really their project. We're staffed to their project. We've
discovered that there are some models out there. They're very
sophisticated. People are doing PhD work on them, but we are looking
at what's out there, and our goal -- AHAC's goal -- the Affordable
Page 32
April 24, 2012
Housing Advisory Committee's goal is to bring back for board's
consideration a semblance or, you know, a rational model that would
be simple enough but effective enough to help guide major decisions
on the level of affordable housing required in our community.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that's my concern. I mean,
we're proposing these amendments based on something that actually
doesn't exist. So isn't it premature to be suggesting that we use
indexing if we don't even know what kind of indexing we're going to
use? I mean, maybe I'm missing the -- you know, an understanding of
how the process works.
But, I mean, it's kind of like the issue with the boat docks. I
mean, we don't have the data. We don't have, you know, an
understanding of what approach we're going to use, and yet we're
proposing that that's what we're going to do.
MR. BOSI: In --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, we don't even know that
indexing is the right thing because a study hasn't been completed.
MR. BOSI: Well -- and there has been past -- there are various
communities that have been identified that have developed index to be
-- indexies (sic) to identify the need for individual -- for affordable
housing within their individual location.
You've got the Shimberg Report that does it on a statewide basis.
So the templates and the models are out there.
This is a process that we feel is appropriate for us to develop at
the local level, guiding off of the examples that have been provided in
other communities to replace an arbitrary set number.
The indexies (sic) are to better reflect the true conditions of the
marketplace. And there have been a number of communities that have
been identified that have developed these indexies, and the policy for
us to develop a local one I don't think places us in an untenable
situation. It's just a matter of the Affordable Housing Advisory
Committee working with staff to be able to develop one at the local
Page 33
April 24, 2012
level.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I have some concerns about
that, again, because nothing has been developed, and just because
something is done somewhere else -- I mean, you can always find, you
know, something being done somewhere on some issue. I mean, that's,
you know, the beauty of having so much information available to us
through the various mediums today.
So, again, I mean, I just -- I don't think this has been developed.
I don't see the basis for recommending that this is the approach till we
hear, you know, what the options are.
I think it's all very premature. And maybe at the end of the day
your suggestion is, you know, excellent and it is what we should do.
And, yes, we do have a problem with what exists, but I'm not sure that
indexing is necessarily the right alternative solution.
So I think we have to hear more about it, so I have some
concerns. But I don't want to dwell on that. I just wanted to make that
point.
Can we go back to coastal densities and the change in the map?
MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks of the
comprehensive planning section.
Commissioners, if you'll look at the exhibit on the visualizer,
which is also in your binder behind the Future Land Use Element, the
blue dashed line that's running from the Lee County line that runs
down Airport Road -- that's correct -- that's the existing Traffic
Congestion Area boundary, and that is proposed to be deleted for
properties that are lying with -- seaward of that boundary under our
density rating system, how we calculate eligible density for proposed
rezonings, properties are subject to a one - dwelling- unit - per -acre
reduction.
The proposal is eliminate the Traffic Congestion Area and
replace it with the Coastal High Hazard Area boundary, which is
generally represented on the map by the bold red line. And that
Page 34
April 24, 2012
density reduction, rather than being the Traffic Congestion Area,
would be for properties lying seaward of the Coastal High Hazard
Area.
The additional changes that were proposed in the EAR itself that
the board approved and then staff drafted the amendments to reflect
that would provide that, in addition to the one - unit - per -acre reduction
applying to properties in the Coastal High Hazard Area, the density
would be capped at a maximum of four units per acre or, stated
differently, no density bonuses would be applicable to the Coastal
High Hazard Area.
And, Commissioner, to go into your point, what that means is
that a property owner that has lands that stays zoned agriculture that
might want to come in and rezone that property to residential today
would be able to achieve a higher density than they would be able to
achieve if the EAR -based amendments that staff drafted, based upon
the EAR itself, as I was just explaining, were to come into effect.
The Planning Commission did raise the very concerns you have,
Commissioner, about property rights. Now, let me make sure I'm
clear. We're not changing anyone's zoning. We're not taking away
anyone's zoning. But what we would be doing is limiting the density
eligible to be requested.
Planning Commission had the same concern about property
rights' impact, so their recommendation to you is not to change any of
the density bonuses from their applicability, that is, if a property is
lying in the Coastal High Hazard Area and today it's eligible for a
density bonus, then after these amendments are adopted, that property
owner would still be eligible for the same density bonuses.
The Planning Commission did endorse the reduction of one unit
per acre falling within the Coastal High Hazard Area and eliminating
the Traffic Congestion Area. The result of that is actually a potential
increase in the number of dwelling units that could be approved
through the rezoning process.
Page 35
April 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well -- so what's the conclusion?
MR. WEEKS: The conclusion is Planning Commission
disagrees with staff. They share your concern about property rights'
impacts, and their recommendation is to leave those density bonuses
within the Coastal High Hazard Area to be applicable.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because these include density
bonuses as a matter of right as well, don't they?
MR. WEEKS: No density bonuses are a matter of right. They're
all discretionary.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Every single one?
MR. WEEKS: Every single one.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. I thought there were some
that were bonuses that if you built, you know, affordable housing, if
we required -- I mean, we don't require it now, but if we required
affordable housing to be built that, you know, they would
automatically get, you know, so many units additionally because
affordable housing was included in their project.
MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, that is a discretionary bonus.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. It's still considered.
MR. WEEKS: Yeah, you still -- there could be any other reasons
for any of the density bonuses, compatibility -- your typical zoning
considerations.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. No, I understand your
point. I understand your clarification.
Jeff, what's your position on this?
MR. KLATZKOW: Look I'm very conservative, again, on these
things, and I sort of agree with Planning Commission on this issue.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. All right. So we have an
issue there as well with respect to property rights.
And it all goes back to investment expectations that, you know,
these property owners have, and now you're taking those away, and I
have a concern about that as well.
Page 36
April 24, 2012
The next question I have is about your economic development
policies. If you could go ahead and highlight that so the public knows
what you're proposing there.
MR. BOSI: Was there a specific economic development --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The two that you're adding, you
know, the changes. And let me explain why I'm bringing these issues
out. I think these are issues that, you know, the public should have a
concern about, should be interested in, because of the impact, and the
backup material that we all as commissioners received was not
included as part of the backup to this agenda.
And I have a concern that, you know, there are citizens out there,
taxpayers out there that, you know, did not know where to go to look
to find this information. Even though it was disclosed, it's tricky, you
know, navigating through our websites or going to -- or finding the
time to go to the location.
So I just wanted to highlight a few issues that I thought would be
of either concern or of interest to our taxpayers, which is why I'm
asking you to bring this information out.
MR. BOSI: Thank you, Commissioner.
The economic policies -- the two new economic policies that you
were speaking of, the first one is Policy 3.1.5, and it's Collier County
will obtain and monitor the county's unemployment rate from the U.S.
Department of Labor.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And why is that important? I
mean, what's the point?
MR. BOSI: At the time that we were drafting the proposed
EAR -based amendments, the unemployment rate, I believe, was 10.8
percent, and the Planning Commission had a desire for the county
government to always be in tune with the economic opportunities that
are presented to its residents and felt that monitoring the
unemployment rate was something that would be beneficial.
In the other additional policy -- it's Policy 4.1 -- Collier County
Page 37
April 24, 2012
will support, where appropriate, the economic development initiatives
of regional nonprofit organizations, goals and efforts of countywide
organizations, and effort of the local organizations.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And can you explain that?
MR. BOSI: Basically, where appropriate, the Planning
Commission believed that general purpose county government should
support any type of initiatives that would lead to job creation. And it's
written in a manner that we're not obligated. It's where we deem that
they are appropriate to support.
So the flexibility that I had talked about as the guiding principle
that was applied and scrutinized to every one of these proposed
amendments, I think, was inherent to this proposed new policy as
well.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just feel that policy -- I mean, I
don't see the point of the first change. I mean, it kind of is, in my
mind -- you know, why? I mean, we get it. We all watch it. We
understand.
You know, monitoring local unemployment and driving, you
know, our policies, accordingly, is certainly something to be
considered.
And Policy 4.1 doesn't explain, as written, what you said. What
you read it, the wording is so overly broad and ambiguous that, you
know, as a policy, you know, that's going to mean so many different
things to so many different people that I find that, you know, if it were
better written to more closely reflect your explanation and the
discussion of the Planning Commission, I think it would better serve
our objective.
My last statement is with respect to the marina policy. I had the
same concerns that Commissioner Henning had, and I completely
agree with County Attorney Klatzkow on his position with respect to
deferring to the state and federal government and not being -- not
putting local government in a position of facing, you know, potential
April 24, 2012
Bert Harris actions as a result of these kind of policies or the
implementation of, potentially, you know, regulations pursuant to
these kind of policies that would effectuate takings.
But thank you for all your work. I really appreciate it.
MR. BOSI: Thank you, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's call the public speakers.
MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker is Jeremy Frantz.
MR. FRANTZ: Good morning. Jeremy Frantz, for the record,
representing the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
There are a number of policies in the GMP that are aimed at
protecting coastal resources and public access to waterways, and we
hope that, if retained, Policy 10.1.5 would serve as an incentive to
back up those policies and reduce impacts to marine wetlands.
We don't see it as kind of a draconian measure to force public use
on private property but more as a way to negotiate with applicants
about the appropriate siting or layout or site plan.
As stated in our letter to the board, the Conservancy disagrees
with the interpretation of the policy duplicate state processes, as did
the CCPC, and also that the threshold of wetland destruction would
never be met, as the staff report stated. State mitigation requirements
focus on the wetland function that's lost due to impacts and may or
may not correspond to the acreage of impacts and, as a result,
providing mitigation for those functional impacts won't -- it's not
going to erase any wetland destruction that happened. And we think
that assessing those wetland impacts, those marine wetland impacts,
could be as simple as just looking at those state permits.
The staff also expressed concerns -- I guess everybody has
expressed concerns about the insufficient criteria or the applicability
of the policy. And the CCPC did attempt to address some of those
issues, and we think that any further criteria that may be needed could
be addressed with some minor modifications.
That being said, while we're okay with any modifications to those
Page 39
April 24, 2012
ends, we do feel that the policy, as written, provides the county with
the ability to negotiate, as I said, with applicants over the most
appropriate site design and any possible decreases, minimization
avoidance, of impacts to marine wetlands.
The county benefits from the natural environment, and those
benefits contribute to a quality of life which the public values very
highly. At the same time, state agencies in recent years have limited
or refocused their review processes to their core roles and, as a result,
we feel that some of those review processes, some of those permitting
processes don't always speak to Collier - County - specific issues.
And with that in mind, we believe that we would be remiss to
pass up an opportunity to supplement those state permitting processes
with policies like 10.1.5 that will allow the county to address those
county - specific issues. I just have a --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wrap it up.
MR. FRANTZ: -- concluding statement. The Conservancy
agrees with the CCPC that we should retain 10.1.5 on the grounds that
it provides the county with a more thorough review of development in
marine wetlands and augments state permitting processes in a way that
is currently missing from county permitting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
MR. FRANTZ: Thanks.
MR. MITCHELL: Commissioners, as a matter of record, the
next two speakers both filed to speak after the item had started, but the
chair has agreed to recognize them.
Jim Flanagan.
MR. FLANAGAN: Jim Flanagan, Golden Gate Estates. I'm
also a board member of Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association.
Moses came down the mountain with 10 commandments, okay,
and a lot of people can't follow those.
We've got 15 elements, 39 goals, 155 objectives, and 764 policies
within our Growth Management Plan, and this is the amendment
Page 40
April 24, 2012
package.
Now, I appreciate the staffs efforts in consolidating all the level
of services into the capital improvements element, but I'm concerned
going forward that we're adding more policies and we're focusing
more directives that this becomes an onerous document, and the
considerations to get through this document are challenging at best.
I tried to go through all of this. Most of this is just the edits.
There's more policies and information required to be followed in this
process. What I'm looking for is to try and simplify the process.
That's what I brought to the EAR process in attending all these
meetings, as well I was looking for a basis of measure and assessment
within the process that I still think is missing. And I was hoping that
in the amendment process we would see some effort or beginning of
an effort to sum -- to place an assessment and an evaluation in a
summary format so that we can identify the successes and we can
identify the deficiencies in the plan to be able to go forward, correct
the deficiencies, and promote the successes.
Now, the agenda packet that I went online to look for didn't have
the attachments to the back of the BCC agenda item, and I took this
off the website. I'm hoping that the website is the same document that
we see in the BCC packet. And I don't know how to evaluate that.
I -- you know, again, this is off the website, and this is -- here today
wasn't part of the packet for the public to look at.
So if I could get a copy of today's packet, unless it's different
(sic), you know -- that's all. I just want to make sure that I'm looking
at the same thing. Okay.
MR. BOSI: It is. The information that was on the website is
exactly what was provided to the Board of County Commissioners.
MR. FLANAGAN: Okay. But what I really would like to try
and do is for the general public to go through this and understand all
the adds and deducts and the double strikethroughs and the single
strikethroughs and the double underlines and the single underlines. Is
Page 41
April 24, 2012
there a way for us to take the EAR process, summarize what we're
actually changing rather than the -- there's a lot of wordsmithing here,
changing of references from things that have been changed over the
past five years, seven years, and come with one concinct (sic)
document that allows us to focus, as the public, on what the issues are
with the Growth Management Plan. That's my question.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Marjorie Student - Stirling.
MS. STUDENT - STIRLING: Good morning, Commissioners.
Marjorie Student - Stirling, volunteer attorney for Habitat for Humanity
of Collier County.
I'm just here to just advise the board we have an issue with Policy
1. 10, as it now stands, of the housing element, and it tracks provisions
of the growth management. A little concerning, the concentration of
affordable housing units in specific areas of the county.
Just to advise the board, that since this is tracking state law and
the enabling legislation for the DEO, former DCA, we are going to be
pursuing a petition for declaratory statement with the DEO as to what
this revision of the law means, and I think that will help staff and us to
understand its full impact.
The other thing I wanted to point out is we just share your
concerns about the Coastal High Hazard Area and any density
reductions or increases in native vegetation preservation. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I ask Marjorie -- could you
please explain your position and what you're objecting to? I mean, I
understand you're going to object, but why don't you state what the
policy is and what you're objecting to in the policy for people who --
MS. STUDENT - STIRLING: On Policy 1.10?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, because people don't have
copies of it, so that no one has any idea of their -- what you're talking
about.
MS. STUDENT - STIRLING: I don't know -- staff may wish to
put it up on the screen, but it tracks the growth management law,
Page 42
April 24, 2012
housing provisions which state the creation or preservation of
affordable housing to minimize the need for additional local services
and avoid the concentration of affordable housing units only in
specific areas of the jurisdiction.
And so our concern is, what is the concentration? How many
units per acre, or what does that really amount to? And our other
concern is, what is the specific area of the jurisdiction? Is that a
commission district? Is it a neighborhood? Is it a block? Is it a
subdivision? What does that mean? So that's how we will be looking
for guidance. I can't tell you any more what it means than I think
anybody else could, and that's why we're seeking the expertise of the
DEO.
Thank you so much.
MR. MITCHELL: Commissioner, that was your last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- you're next.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So back to -- we were talking about
-- gee, I've already forgotten a lot of this stuff.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's all right. We're having fun
here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Needs assessment -- and, again,
we're going into -- I'm going to the Affordable Housing Element here.
And one of the things the Planning Commission has -- actually,
three of the members on the Planning Commission have talked to me
at separate times, and it's interesting they all had the same message,
and that is where it talks about affordable housing and then work --
and it says, affordable /workforce housing, for some reason
"workforce" has been struck out. So they put it back in, and the next
time they see it, it's struck out again. And they didn't understand why
they decide, you know, to add that and why -- and then how it gets
struck out after they voted to approve it as -is.
Page 43
April 24, 2012
MR. BOSI: And Michele Mosca is the coordinator for the
Housing Element. She may be able to address that for you.
MS. MOSCA: For the record, Michele Mosca, comprehensive
planning staff.
What we ended up doing is striking out "workforce" only
because affordable /workforce is a category that the county has to
address. The other three categories are very low, low, and moderate,
and the final one is the affordable /workforce.
So what we did is we struck out "affordable /workforce" and
added that to a definition, and "affordable" means all of those
categories, and that's why it was done.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And even though they vote into -- to
add it back, you guys struck it out anyway?
MS. MOSCA: No. The -- when you see the term "affordable"
throughout the Housing Element, that means all of the four categories.
That would be the 50 percent of median income, 80 percent, 120
percent, and up to 140 percent, as required by the statute. So
"affordable" means all those categories.
"Affordable /workforce" means those units up to 140 percent, and
that follows the definition in Chapter 380.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I still have a problem with
after the Planning Commission votes it to be one way, staff changes it
to be another. I mean, we should at least be privy to the information
that they voted on before it gets to us.
MS. MOSCA: And that was the recommendation from the
Planning Commission, that we would categorize all four categories as
"affordable" and include the new definition of "affordable /workforce"
within the Housing Element. So they did agree to that.
What we did is we went through the remainder of the document
and wherever there was the term "affordable /workforce," we applied
the "affordable" category, or if it was meant to mean 140 percent of
the median income, we categorized it as affordable /workforce.
April 24, 2012
So it's just a matter of looking at the definitions that are required
by Chapter 163 Florida Statutes, and it has those four definitions we
need to address as a community.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I think then either I need
or you need to go back to the Planning Commission with this, because
they feel very uncomfortable about eliminating the verbiage that they
have included, and they said this happened twice. It came back to
them with it eliminated or lined through, and they said, no, put that
back in. And the next time they saw it, it was taken back out again,
and they felt very uncomfortable about that.
And, as I say, I think it ought to go back to them again, because
maybe your understanding and their understanding is different, but --
anyway, I was approached by that -- about that.
Okay. Also a needs assessment should focus on all of the
categories whenever a needs assessment is done, because what I
observe -- and, of course, we're the recipient of most of it, as you well
know, in the East Naples area, and there's many more coming. And
we're struggling to try and accommodate all the low income that is
being forced upon us, really, and trying to do something about giving
a better balance to our community as well as the schools.
And so my suggestion would be, with the needs assessment, we
focus on all three because it seems that in building we have been
encouraging very low income, extremely low income, but we haven't
encouraged anything in the middle categories there, you know, 120,
140, and there are a lot of people that are going without because they
can't -- you know, they don't have any building for them.
They're not able to purchase the really low because they make
too much money, yet they're not able to afford regular housing
because they don't make enough money. And -- but we don't seem to
be building any housing for them, and that's a concern of mine too
and, I'm sure, of yours.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I agree.
Page 45
April 24, 2012
MS. MOSCA: I was going to say we do have -- within our
planned unit development listing and our affordable housing inventory
but not yet built, we do have some of those projects that are or were
scheduled to build 80 percent or 120 percent. I can think of one off
the top of my head, which is Summit Lakes, and I think they're
coming in to remove that requirement. So that's one that you're going
to be losing that 80 percent and, I believe, also the 120 percent, which
they had a commitment to do.
So potentially we do see more and more of these developments,
the PUD amendments coming in removing that requirement.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because?
MS. MOSCA: Because I think the general consensus has been
we may not need those units in the community at this time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, we certainly have a plethora
of extremely low income, and as long as we have that, there's going to
be a lot of people that go without. And we've got a lot of inventory
sitting there on the marketplace in the very low but nothing for these
people, for our young professionals with children. And, I don't know,
I think a needs assessment would reveal that, and I think it's important
to do that.
MS. MOSCA: And, as county staff, we'll continue to provide
that affordable housing inventory on an annual basis. We did that last
year -- or the year prior, I'm sorry, which provided for the various
ranges from the property appraiser for the market values.
The only problem with that study is we didn't have the demand
side. We had a supply, but the demand side was not available.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, boy, isn't that an important
part of the equation?
MS. MOSCA: Definitely is, I agree.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, absolutely. I'll have more on
that at another time.
Anyway, economic opportunities, I just think that -- and I think
Page 46
April 24, 2012
Commissioner Hiller was saying somewhat the same thing. We
should do everything possible in our economy right now, with the
situation as it is, to do everything we can to encourage economic
development.
I know Nick Casalanguida over there is doing everything he can
through his department to streamline our permitting process, our
zoning process. He's eliminated a lot of the bugs already, and we
appreciate that, and I think we should -- we should do all we can to
support that effort, and we should encourage fire departments to also
work cooperatively to move things along rather than tie them up.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir. Thank you very much.
Question. Regarding the Everglades City and Marco Island
opting out of our affordable housing -- if I may, sir, would you step up
there.
What exactly did they contribute before, and what do they have
to do now under federal rules on their own to be able to comply?
MR. BOSI: Well, I'm not aware of what they would have to do
at the federal level. I think there are state requirements that they have
to make an attempt to provide for affordable housing within their
jurisdiction.
The prior agreement -- and, specifically -- I may ask the housing
folks to give the specifics, but it was either provided percentage of
share or a percent of the permitting fees; a small percentage of the
permitting fees would be directed to the Collier County Housing
Authority for their utilization of the provision of that component.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And was that ever done?
MR. BOSI: Buddy Ramsey is --
MR. RAMSEY: Good morning, Commissioner. Buddy Ramsey,
operations analyst.
The agreement, before terminated, provided that the city would
pay the county 10 percent was building fees collected or $50,000,
Page 47
April 24, 2012
whichever was greater.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And they were doing
that for a number of years?
MR. RAMSEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And that was used in our
affordable housing program?
MR. RAMSEY: Correct. The funds can be used at any
discretion of the Board of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. And now the -- now that
they're opting out, what is going to be the requirements on the federal
end where they have to take care of it themselves, or the state end. Or
you don't know?
MR. RAMSEY: My understanding, in speaking with the city, is
that they're now going to be responsible, as Mike said, for their own,
providing their own affordable housing on the island.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So they're assuming full
responsibility for affordable housing for people that are going to be
working in Marco Island; is that what you're saying?
MR. RAMSEY: That's my understanding.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that's a wonderful gesture.
I'd kind of like to see them memorialize that in some sort of
proclamation or something. That would be a wonderful thing to do.
You know, even though affordable housing is questionable now
-- and Commissioner Fiala's right, the market out there has changed
tremendously -- the truth of the matter is as real estate values start to
increase and the job markets start to open up, people are always going
to want to hire people at the lowest possible wage they possibly can
get them for, and those people are going to be looking for housing,
and we're going to be back in the same situation some day. And we're
going to have to deal with it when that time comes.
Now, the other part -- the other question I have is regarding the
needs assessment for waterfront improvements, docks, whatever, there
April 24, 2012
was a -- there was something I seen in your slide presentation that
gave me a little concern, and you went through it fairly quick, and I
may have misread it, but it had to do with financial stability that was
going to be judged on. Did I read that right?
MR. BOSI: No, that was the requirement that is being modified.
The current policy requires that new marinas and water - dependent
related uses perform a fiscal analysis in order to demonstrate public
benefit and financial feasibility of the proposed development.
And the -- that fiscal analysis was what is being proposed to be
changed by the Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MR. BOSI: That was a needs --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that would be lessened or
removed?
MR. BOSI: It's removed in exchange. A fiscal needs -- a fiscal
analysis is replaced with a needs analysis. What is the amount of
docks, for instance, in the general vicinity to justify the need for new
docks? That's basically what the modification would lead to.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. In order for all these
different measures to pass, it requires a vote of three?
MR. BOSI: At transmittal it only --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: At transmittal. But --
MR. BOSI: -- requires a majority. At adoption it requires a
supermaj ority.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- at adoption it's going to be
four.
Okay. Well, I have to side with Commissioner Henning and
Commissioner Hiller with my concerns over interference in this. And
I do believe that we're probably overstepping our bounds again. I
mean, there's the federal laws and state laws that reach down to this
level to be able to meet the needs that are out there, and trying to
micromanage the small inventory that's left, it doesn't appeal to me at
April 24, 2012
this point in time. I mean, somebody would have to offer me a very
convincing argument to do something differently.
I think we overstepped our bounds in a lot of different things
with rules and regulations and overlays we've put on top of state and
federal regulations where we had no real business in going.
MR. BOSI: Well -- and then that's where staff was -- staff is
seeking to eliminate these two individual policies that we're
discussing. The CCPC is seeking to retain them with slight
modifications, and we're asking the Board of County Commissioners
to be the arbitrator.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Let me -- I just have a
couple questions, and I think I can make a motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. We need to take a break here in a
minute. How does that sound to you?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you want to take a break
now?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Actually --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- as far as the Camp
Keais/Lake Trafford in the FLUM, what -- are we removing it from
the RLSA and putting it in the Immokalee Area Master Plan?
MR. BOSI: No, that's not what this amendment is doing. It's
simply -- it's simply updating identification of where that flow -way is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. You're just saying here's
the Camp Keais Strand?
MR. BOSI: Yeah, based upon the new environmental data that
we got.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I'm going to make a
motion to transmit. Here's my -- I'm going to try to move forward,
Page 50
April 24, 2012
and I appreciate and ask the assistance of my colleagues. Under the
Economic Element Policy 1.4, Collier County will support, where
appropriate, the economic development incentives of regional
not - for - profit organization goals, efforts, countywide organizations,
efforts of localized -- localized organizations.
Instead of having the word "will," so that word is not confused, is
to replace it, "may." We want to support ideas that we see a benefit.
That's one thing that I would like, and it's part of my motion.
I'm sorry. I have another question.
MR. BOSI: And, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
MR. BOSI: I was -- there was that -- that proposed change that
you have, if I put it on the visualizer, I put the county "may" support
the economic development.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. You had the same idea I
did. In the FLUE, on Page -- and this is on the exhibit. Page 14,
you're talking about activity centers, and your -- your -- in No. 1,
marked paragraph, the applicant shall be unified, control the majority,
but the quadrant is designed -- a majority of the quadrant shall be
defined as at least 51 percent, and that's who can do the amendment.
So if we have an activity center that's owned 50150, are we
saying that they can't do any modifications to the activity center?
What are we saying there?
MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, you're exactly right. If a property
owner does not own 50 percent -- excuse me -- 51 percent or more of
a quadrant of an activity center then -- of the five that are eligible for a
master plan, then that property owner cannot, through the rezoning
process, modify the boundaries of the activity center.
In order for anyone to do that, a landowner that does have 51
percent or more of the activity center quadrant in their ownership, they
would also have to own land -- adjacent land outside of the activity
center in order --
Page 51
April 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. This is just expansion or
a reduction?
MR. WEEKS: It's a reconfiguration only. So if today you have
40 acres in that quadrant after the zoning action is approved, you
know, if it is, to reconfigure the boundaries, you're still only going to
have 40 acres in the activity center.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, that does make
sense. Anyways, I'm going to continue my motion.
Eliminate the policy on the marines, marinas, 10.1.7.
MR. BOSI: It would be proposed 10. 1.6 and 10.1.7.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. The FLUE map,
Commissioner Hiller, that retain the property rights -- is that correct?
Most of that's in your district.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I have a real problem with
that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. Well, help me out
then.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. I can't support it at all.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, then tell me what we need
to do.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What we need to do is we need to
send staff back to the drawing board and ask them to bring back a
revised program that in no way involves takings. With respect both to
the coastal densities, with respect to this marina policy, it needs to be
brought back. I mean, there are so many issues in here that --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The marina policy we're
removing. That's part of my motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. But, I mean, there's -- I
mean, even the requirement -- are you removing the policy that was
just up there, the modification to eliminating fiscal and putting in just
MR.00HS: Yes.
Page 52
April 24, 2012
MR. BOSI: That entire policy --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. And, quite frankly, that
whole policy is going to be eliminated altogether, so it's going to be
struck completely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's part of my motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Yeah, as far as the coastal
high hazard, I don't think you can do anything to reduce what has been
afforded all the property owners in that Coastal High Hazard Area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's part of my motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. And what about that
indexing? What about the housing? I mean, that -- I mean, we've got
a program there that doesn't -- I mean, that's -- no one even knows
what they're talking about.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think that we need more
information prior to adoption on that. That was part of the Affordable
Housing --
MR. OCHS: Advisory.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- Advisory Committee -- thank
you -- their recommendations, and I would like to know more about
that prior to adoption so we're all on the same page.
It probably makes sense. I know some of the members on there,
and they're in sync and have the same concerns as members of the
Board of Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, just to clarify so there is no
ambiguity in terms of what we're transmitting, I think every policy
that we're eliminating, every modification that we're not approving
needs to be put on the overhead and needs to be included as an exhibit
to the transcript so we understand exactly what we are approving.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, in the resolution in your
backup material, it has exhibits for each of the elements, and it has the
strikethrough and underline version.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well -- but, again, in your motion
Page 53
April 24, 2012
for where you're saying we're not going to approve certain things and
we're going to approve the rest, I want exactly what you are proposing
to be changed to be highlighted here for everyone to see. The fact that
stuff is in the backup that, you know, no one out here in the audience
has, you know, doesn't do anyone any good.
I want it on the overhead. I want everyone to know exactly what
we are objecting to and what we are transmitting.
MR. BOSI: And I believe that would be contained within your
motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But I want to see the specific
sections, okay, of the packet that we are refusing, on the overhead, so
everybody knows this is -- we all agree this is not going to be
transmitted.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Klatzkow?
MR. KLATZKOW: We could take a break now, and you could
just come back with that information, give staff a chance to come
back.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think that's a great idea.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We could --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I want there to be no ambiguity in
this, because I am very, very concerned about all the takings issues
that are embodied in here. And, Jeff, I think you've done a great job in
analyzing and explaining it to us in simple terms.
And, by the way, one last comment. You did a fantastic job in
including the low - impact development standard as a future
requirement. I'm so glad you're doing that. Thank you.
MR.00HS: Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. How long will it take? We can
schedule it later in the morning. We don't have to come back
immediately after this break.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. I just wanted to make sure that
Commissioner Henning's motion was complete or not so we know
Page 54
April 24, 2012
exactly what it is you want to see.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think he reached -- he covered all of
them. There were, I believe, four points; specifically, the activity
center issue, the development initiatives, and the change to "may"
rather than "shall," and removing 10. 1.6 and 10.1.7, and then the
coastal density issues.
MR. OCHS: My understanding, there was no change in the
activity center, correct?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, there wasn't. It was just a
question as far as understanding.
And, you know, my motion is still open, because I think we need
to hear from everybody on the dais here as a representative of
government.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I -- is there a second for the motion?
Let's get that resolved right now. There's a motion by Commissioner
Henning to do these things. We can wait to see if Commissioner
Henning agrees with what you put on a piece of paper to show us a
little later this morning before we can vote on this or even to second it.
So whatever your preference is.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second it for discussion
purposes just to take it forward.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So we've got the motion. Let's
table this issue until the staff can come back, hopefully this morning,
with concise statements of what the changes will be and show
everyone on the overhead, and then we can debate it further, if
necessary, or vote on it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I ask Commissioner Henning
to add one more thing to his motion, and that is a modification of the
affordable housing policy to provide for, you know, consideration for
workforce housing and gap housing, if you will, as Commissioner
Fiala pointed out. Because that was essentially eliminated in the
policy.
Page 55
April 24, 2012
MR. OCHS: Yeah. When we come back with all of the changes
on the visualizer, might I suggest that we show that -- the current
definitions in the proposed language, and you tell us whether you
think we've missed any of the housing ranges that Commissioner Fiala
and yourself are concerned about.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, that's fine. I just -- I just
want to make sure that's like one more --
MR. OCHS: I understand your intent, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- issue that we need to modify.
MR. OCHS: I understand.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you so much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're taking a break for 10
minutes. We'll be back at 10:50. We'll hear the next item.
MR. OCHS: Your time - certain, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This item is tabled till later today.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic. Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, ladies and gentlemen, the Board
of County Commission meeting is back in session.
Where are we going to go now?
Item #1 1 A
RECOMMENDATION TO PROVIDE DIRECTION TO RESOLVE
THE OUTSTANDING QUINCY SQUARE HOMEOWNER'S
ASSOCIATION DISCUSSION TOPICS FROM THE MARCH 27,
2012 MEETING AGENDA ITEM #1 I F — MOTION TO APPROVE
OPTION 43 — FAILED; MOTION TO APPROVE OPTION 41 —
APPROVED
Page 56
April 24, 2012
MR. OCHS : We're going to Item 11 A, sir. This item was
continued from the April 10, 2012 meeting. It's a recommendation to
provide direction to resolve outstanding Quincy Square Homeowner's
Association discussion topics from the March 27, 2012 meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And this is time - certain for 10 o'clock.
We're right on time.
MR.00HS: Yep.
MR. VARNADOE: Dr. Yilmaz will present.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Mr. Yilmaz?
MR. YILMAZ: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
George Yilmaz, public utilities.
Commissioners, as you recall, we were requested to come back
with facts and findings, and responsive to the board's intent, inquiry,
and direction, executive summary includes the following: Means and
methods pursuant to ordinances listed on first page of the executive
summary; secondly, hydraulic modeling to address site - specific
conditions that deal with questions and inquiries in terms of pipe sizes,
meter sizes, what is before and after the meter; lastly, financial
alternatives for board consideration and direction, and that was also
requested by the board for us to come back with alternatives with
financial analysis, and we have those ready to be presented.
I have three slides following introductory slides to briefly explain
to the board facts and findings and results of the model, and that will
be presented by our director of planning and project management.
Following Mr. Chmelik, we'll have -- Joe Ballone, our utility customer
service manager in charge, will briefly go over three slides that talks
to those three alternatives that we're bringing before you for your
review and consideration and direction.
With that, I'm going to request Mr. Chmelik to come back and
provide you with facts and findings of the model.
Mr. Chmelik.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Page 57
April 24, 2012
MR. CHMELIK: Okay. Thank you.
For the record, Tom Chmelik, public utilities.
From a previous board meeting we were tasked to address two
items. For the first, staff worked with Quincy Square to gain access to
private property and was able to physically verify that 21 buildings
have inch - and -a -half pipes after the meters and one building has a
two -inch pipe after the meter.
Given data collected, a hydraulic model was created to answer
the second question; namely, how much was the two - inch -meter
benefit diminished by the developer's installation of inch - and -a -half
pipes as compared to two -inch pipes.
Before we get to the modeling results, there are three facts to
know about the meters. First, the available capacity of a two -inch
meter is between zero and 160 gallons per minute; second, available
capacity of an inch - and -a -half meter is between zero and a hundred
gallons per minute and, therefore, any ability to receive anything over
a hundred gallons per minute with a two -inch meter is a benefit over
an inch - and -a -half meter.
After running worst -case scenarios with the hydraulic model and
after having these results reviewed by an independent engineer, we
concluded that Quincy Square received substantial benefit of having
two -inch meters even though inch - and -a -half piping was used
downstream of the meter. Specifically, 90 to 100 % of the two -inch
meter capacity was available with no perceptible loss of pressure.
Commissioners, now our utility billing and customer service
manager will present options to you. Thank you.
MR. BALLONE: Thank you, Tom.
Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Joe Ballone,
utility billing and customer service.
As Dr. Yilmaz mentioned, there are three financial alternatives
that we have in front of you today in the executive summary for your
consideration, and I'll briefly go through each one so you understand
April 24, 2012
what each one includes.
Alternative No. 1 asks you to consider waiving any of the meter
and backflow installation charges as a result of replacing the two -inch
with a one - and -a- half -inch meter and backflows, and that, for your
information, is included in all three alternatives.
Number 2, at the last board meeting you asked staff to visit the
site and verify the pipe sizes, as Mr. Chmelik mentioned. While staff
was on site, representatives of Quincy Square did ask staff to -- in
addition to looking at the 20 buildings that were involved, to also look
at the meter and the service line that was associated with the pool and
the pool building.
Staff did do that and identified that there was a
one - and -a- half -inch meter servicing the pool and recreation building
with a one -inch service line delivering the water from the
one - and -a- half -inch meter to the pool building.
Therefore, we're including in this alternative a credit for the
difference between the billing charges for a one - and -a- half -inch meter
to one -inch meter, and we're asking you to consider that credit for the
homeowners' association today.
Based on the results of the hydraulic analysis that was performed
and the conclusion that customers did receive the substantial benefit of
having a two -inch meter even though the pipes behind them were
smaller, in this alternative we're asking you to consider granting no
credits to the homeowners' association as they had requested.
And, finally, we're asking you to uphold the sewer back charges
for two of the buildings out of the 20 that were going back four years,
per the statute of limitations, per the signed pay plan. And just for
note, they have been paying on that and have made four payments.
Alternative No. 2, I'll repeat, includes the waiver of installation
charges for your consideration; consider granting a credit of $101,273
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could we see the slide for Alternative 2?
Page 59
April 24, 2012
MR. BALLONE: Yes, I'm sorry, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There we go.
MR. BALLONE: -- a credit of $101,273.46, that represents the
billing difference between a two -inch meter and a one - and -a- half -inch
meter going back four years -- that's per the statute of limitations -- for
buildings that had an inch - and -a -half service line installed by the
developer between the meter and the buildings themselves.
That $101,000 does include the credit for the pool meter as well,
as mentioned in Alternative 1. And, again, also, to repeat, upholds the
sewer back charges for the two buildings per the agreements that we
had signed previously.
And finally for your consideration, Alternative No. 3, to repeat,
includes a waiver of the installation charges; consider granting a credit
of $117,707.91, and that number represents the billing difference
between a two -inch meter and an inch - and -a -half inch meter going
back to the service date, or the date of installation of those meters, not
in accordance with the statute of limitations, for any buildings that had
an inch - and -a -half service line between the meter and the building.
And, again, that does include the credit for the pool meter as well.
If we were to consider that credit going all the way back to the
service date installation, we would ask you to also consider additional
sewer back charges of $3,232.58 in addition to the sewer back charges
for the two buildings. That would represent the addition going back
beyond 48 -- four years to the date of installation.
And for this alternative, there would be a net credit to the
homeowners' association of $99,537.21.
We have one more slide that we'd like Dr. Yilmaz to address, and
that is for you to understand the consequences and the considerations
of any of the alternatives that you're considering today.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is this new information that's
not in our backup material?
April 24, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. I think it's all there, isn't it?
MR. YILMAZ: Yes, it's all here. And for the record, George
Yilmaz, public utilities. It's just to wrap up and summarize the facts
and findings for the board, if I might, sir.
For board's considerations, Alternative 1 is consistent with
previous staff recommendation. Secondly, the board's selection of
either Alternative 2 or 3 would potentially shift developer
responsibilities and liabilities to the Collier County Water /Sewer
District that do not exist under current ordinances and /or practices.
Lastly, consistency of applying four year to any credit and /or
back charge is prudent and has been found legally sufficient in the
past as a rule, and we have back checked with our special legal
counsel, and they also, indeed, support business practice and what we
have done in the past, applying the statute of limitation in this case,
four years, as we have done in the past, moving forward.
And those are the three points that I want to bring and disclose to
the board as part of our facts and findings summary.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. How many speakers do we have,
Ian?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have three speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioners, would you like
to hear the speakers first before you --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Why not?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Then let's call the first
speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker is Michael Etelamaki.
MR. SAMOUCE: Yeah. Real quickly, I'm Rob Samouce, the
attorney for the association. And we're going to have Michael speak
first, then we would like to have Stan Kowalski (sic) speak on behalf
of the association, and then I'd like to recap our position, okay?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. SAMOUCE: I have a copy of the handout he's going to
Page 61
April 24, 2012
show you on the overhead for you -all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Could you give it to the court
reporter there for the record.
MR. ETELAMAKI: Mike Etelamaki. I work for W.J. Johnson.
We're the engineer for Quincy Square turnover.
I was here at the last meeting when this was on the agenda and,
basically, in summary, my conclusion is there is no benefit to having a
two -inch meter on a one - and -a- half -inch line.
I prepared this handout and presentation. Starting with Page 1, it's
entitled "Quincy Square Meter Service Sizing." This is the document
that was provided to us in a meeting December 9th here at Collier
County Utilities offices.
And, Leo, if you would focus in at the bottom of that a little
closer, it's dated 2/9/2011. This is based on Florida Building and
Plumbing Code requirements for sizing. And this is Collier County
Utilities' own calculation.
At the bottom to the left we have a per -meter table exceeding 50
gallons per minute; meter size, one - and -a -half inches.
We, at that time, thought we had an agreement with sizing a
meter to inch and a half. I've got brief time here, so I'll keep moving
along.
Page 2 is "Florida Building Code Minimum Water Requirements
Service Size," and I have a note on the upper right -hand corner,
utilities engineer calculations of fixture units is 88, from the first page.
The Florida Building Code recommends an inch - and -a -half
meter. If you'd follow the red arrow down to where the big "88" is
placed and you go across the table, diameter of water pipe, inch and a
half. Recommended meter size, inch and a half.
Okay. Moving on to Page 2, and this is where it's critical to
understand the difference between capacity based on flow and
capacity based on pressures. Pressures are important. There's
pressure loss involved. And what I've provided on this page at the top
Page 62
April 24, 2012
is a table of a calculation of water flow rates for different pipe sizes
based on an engineering formula called a Hazen - Williams formula,
and it's got various pipe sizes across the top, pipe length.
And if you go to the one - and -a- half -inch pipe size and the
100 -foot length, the flow is 101 gallons per minute.
Now, how does that fit into what staff is saying? I took Table 3
from their Attachment C on your agenda item at the bottom. And note
that the maximum flow capacity of a two -inch water meter is 160
gallons per minute, which was already stated earlier, and an
inch - and -a -half meter is 100 gallons per minute.
Now, if you take that calculation from above, 101, and insert it in
their table, which I've done -- so this is a modified version of their
table. Insert the 101 gallons per minute, and then go across to the net
benefit, the last column, you're getting a one - percent net benefit of
putting a two -inch meter on a one - and -a- half -inch pipe.
And understand, you've got a restriction of one - and -a- half -inch
pipe, you've got a two -inch meter with a capacity of up to 160 gallons
per minute; you cannot possibly put 160 gallons per minute through a
one - and -a- half -inch pipe that only handles 101 gallons per minute.
That's the conclusion on that page, the bottom.
And I'd like to finish in summary the last page on your handout,
on my handout. These points are very critical. And the last one is
what we need to hammer home here. Number 1, is a two -inch meter
on a one - and -a- half -inch pipeline necessary? And I've said this at the
last meeting and before, the answer is no because the two -inch
water -meter capacity of 160 gallons per minute is wasted due to the
one - and -a- half -inch pipe flow restriction of 101 gallons per minute.
See the bottom of Page 3. And, sorry for the repetition, but these are
emphasizing the points.
Point No. 2, is a two -inch meter on a two -inch pipeline overkill?
And my answer is yes, it's akin to a Rube Goldberg. I don't know how
many people here have heard the expression Rube Goldberg, but this
Page 63
April 24, 2012
is overdesign, overkill. It's not necessary. We have a total demand,
peak demand, of 55 gallons per minute. Why do you need 160 gallons
per minute to meter 55 gallons -- 55.4 gallons? And I'll get to that
later at the bottom.
I guess the valid question under No. 3 would be, does a
one - and -a- half -inch meter meet code requirements? The answer is,
simply, yes. See Page 2. I talked about that already. It meets all of
the Florida Building and Plumbing Code requirements.
Number 4, does it provide an optimal range of design flow that
meets minimum code requirements as well as provide optimum range
of flow for meter accuracy and functionality? Yes, a
one - and -a- half -inch meter capacity is 100 gallons per minute. The
total demand is 55.4. So you've got an extra capacity over and above
that total peak of 44.6 gallons per minute. That equates to about 81
percent safety factor, if you want to call it that.
Therefore, an inch - and -a -half meter has extra flow capacity over
and above the total demand and exceeds without compromising the
meter's accuracy or functionality. And that's always a consideration in
designing.
Number 5 -- and this is where this really -- where the rubber hits
the road. Does an inch - and -a -half meter on a one - and -a- half -inch
service pipe under peak use in all four units in this building -- now,
you've got four units turning -- and here's my scenario. Four units
using all that water. It's called -- this is the total peak demand
calculation, the 55.4. It includes all four units.
The inch - and -a -half meter can handle up to a 100 gallons per
minute, which is nearly twice the total peak demand; 55, compare that
to 100. Again, you have extra capacity. Anything over that 100 is
total wasted Rube Goldberg design.
So in order to reach a total or peak demand of 55.4 gallons per
minute, all four unit occupants would have to run all of their
appliances, flush all their toilets, open all faucets and outdoor hose
April 24, 2012
bibs at the same time. This kind of event just simply wouldn't happen.
It is very highly unlikely to happen.
Any questions?
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Stan Chrzanowski.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Hold on a minute, hold on a minute. All
the commissioners have their lights on, and they want to speak. Does
anybody have a question of this particular speaker?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead and ask it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I understand your whole
report, but being that we didn't offer that meter, the developer did,
have you asked him those questions? And, then, have you asked him
why he ordered them if he knew the answers? And, lastly, why would
you want us to pay for his errors?
MR. ETELAMAKI: Well, I -- it's hard to speak for something
that happened six years ago that I wasn't there for, but I would answer
that question by saying there should be a process in -house for taking in
requests under permits and sizing water meters, which I think I talked
about already last meeting with this form that's filled out, and it's based
on fixture unit demand, and it sizes the service line and meter.
The only other possible scenario is that staff -- utility staff
wanted a minimum of two -inch under any circumstance. I don't know
that to be a fact. I wasn't there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I would like to -- I would
like to address what you said, because the evidence you've produced
contradicts very clearly what has been represented by staff in their
earlier presentation.
Page 65
April 24, 2012
And as to the issue of your question, Commissioner Fiala, as to,
you know, where is the developer in all of this, I actually would like
the engineers for these different projects from that period of time -- I'd
like Hole Montes to come and speak and tell me what happened when
they presented their plans, I would like Agnoli Barber to come -- in
fact, the engineer for the county, our chief engineer right now used to
work for Agnoli Barber. I'd like him to come up here and tell me,
whether on projects similar to this, how staff directed professionals to
install one type of meter over another. I want to know whether there
was any option given to these engineers or whether they were told by
staff, this is what you have to do.
And I will also say this. In the evidence that was presented at the
last hearing, nowhere did we see the developer sign off on those
two -inch meters. Nowhere did we see the developer's engineer sign
off on those two -inch meters. In fact, there is nothing telling us who
that individual was that signed off on the form that staff presented. So
I'm left very, very concerned.
And while I completely understand the issue of, you know,
shifting responsibilities, it is what it is. And either county staff did
specifically provide that two -inch meters would be installed or they
did not. And if they did, where clearly there was no benefit -- and you
have clearly also disproved the argument that there has been benefit
that the county -- you know, that these individuals in Quincy should
be benefitting -- I'm sorry -- have benefited from and therefore, should
be paying for.
I mean, you've clearly disproved that, because on your -- and I
just want to clarify my understanding because this is the first time I've
seen this -- but when I look at your chart on Page 3, when you
introduced the 101 in GPM in the staff analysis, the incremental
benefit is 1 percent. So, clearly, there is no benefit, and the benefit is
derived by virtue of the size of the pipe, not by size of the meter.
So with the one - and -a- half -inch pipe, you're going to get X
April 24, 2012
benefit. And the meter is not going to add the benefit, contrary to
what was presented. Now, that is very, very compelling evidence.
So the argument that Quincy has somehow detrimentally -- or has
somehow benefited and, therefore, should pay is not true. Quincy is
being asked to pay for no benefit, and this one percent represents the
no benefit.
So is my understanding correct?
MR. ETELAMAKI: Yes. And what's missing in staff s analysis,
is they never go into calculating what a pipe -- using Hazen Williams
formula, which is a recognized engineering method, they never
introduce that. They always talk about pressure benefits.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I'm very concerned. That is
a material omission. And it's very, very clear to me that the additional
cost that Quincy has been made to pay did not provide any additional
benefit and, therefore, they should not be charged.
So I'm going to make a motion. And I understand that you still
want to speak, and I'm going to let you speak, but I'm going to make a
motion that we approve Alternative 3.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Hiller to approve Alternative 3, second by
Commissioner Henning.
We still have speakers. Who's the next speaker?
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Stan Chrzanowski.
MR. SAMOUCE: Yeah. Stan's going to speak on the capacity
issue and how that was handled when he was engineer with the
county.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners. Long
time no see. Been retired for a little over a year and a half now.
I was the engineering review manager and a senior engineer with
community development for about 14 years, worked for Collier
County a total of 19.
Page 67
April 24, 2012
During the time that I was with community development, which
later became growth management division, my department was
charged with reviewing subdivision and site development plans;
utilities, stormwater, all the facets of the drawings.
There were three people that did utility review under my watch.
One of them is retired presently, living in Collier County, probably
watching this right now. I got an email from him the other day. The
other one is dead, and the third one still works at Collier County doing
the same thing.
The one that's retired, I talked to him, and his memory and my
memory are when a project was designed, it was submitted, and the
sizing of the meters was done by the utility department. All the
engineer submitted was a fixture count. The utility department told
them what size meter they had to use.
Now, I'm only here to talk about process. I'm not here to talk
about the engineering. I'm not here to talk about one type of meter as
opposed to another. Just process, that's all. I don't know -- I know
Mike from when he worked at the county. We were never real close,
but I know him. He's a good guy. I don't know Rob Samouce at all.
Never met him before. I'm not being paid to be here. I was just asked
during a telephone conversation by Rob if I would come in here and
verify what I told him on the phone, and that's why I'm here.
Any questions?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead, Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Stan, thank you very much
for what you've explained. So if I understand correctly -- and I'm
looking at some emails that I received -- I actually asked the question
that you are answering here today, but the answer that I got from staff
was very different. And so, obviously, I'm very concerned by staffs
representation in these emails. And you're welcome to see them.
County engineering reviewed the plans, and the meter size was
April 24, 2012
specified by utilities.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, and there was a period of time
where the meter actually was -- the engineers were told not to put the
meter size on the drawing when they submitted, that they would be
told later what size meter they were going to put on the project.
But that was -- there was a long period of time where there was a
lot of work going on in Collier County. And the people that are
involved in this right now, I don't remember them being actively
involved when this was going on when I was doing it. So it's possible
people don't remember what was going on or don't know.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I certainly can understand that, and
I really appreciate you being here, because it -- you know, actually
you are a credible witness, if you will, in this particular case. I mean,
you absolutely know what happened then, so I'm going to disregard
these emails from staff.
The other thing that concerns me is it appears that all these
meters had to be purchased through the county; is that correct?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: You'd have to talk to the utility
department about that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Did -- were -- let me ask. George
-- or, I mean, who was here back then? Did the meters have to be
purchased through the county? I asked a question about who sold the
meters to the county, and the response I got was a firm called
A- M -C -O, AMCO. And I don't know if they referred to themselves as
AMCO or A -M -C -O -- that they were located in Ocala and that they
basically were the sole source for meters at the time, and I would like
you to correct if my understanding is incorrect, that all meters had to
be bought through the county; is that correct? Or paid for to the -- you
know, I guess you -all purchased the meters and installed the meters?
MR. YILMAZ: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So these meters were not
purchased and installed by the developers?
5�6 11
April 24, 2012
MR. YILMAZ: In this specific case, we installed the meters.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And you purchased the meters
also?
MR. YILMAZ: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Did AMCO have
one - and -a- half -inch meters available at that time?
MR. YILMAZ: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. And these meters, by
the way -- sorry. One last question. They were not defective, were
they? Because you had said earlier that they were defective, and now
in the email that you sent me you say that they were not defective, the
two -inch meter.
MR. YILMAZ: They have not been defective. We tested
in- house, and we also have an independent testing company
confirming that they were not defective.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So the defective meters you were
referring to related to another case?
MR. YILMAZ: The question I had was in general. In this case,
were the meters in this specific subdivision accurate? The answer
was, yes, they were accurate, not defective.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So there were no -- there -- you
had in the previous hearing discussed malfunctioning meters or meters
that somehow were defective. I'm not sure what the proper
terminology is for, you know, describing the situation. But that did
not relate to these meters, to the Quincy meters? There were other
meters that were found to be defective? I just want to reconcile the
facts between what we heard at the last hearing.
MR. YILMAZ: In this specific case, all the meters were tested.
They were found to be accurate and not defective.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So in other words, none of
the overbilling is related to product defect, and AMCO has no liability
for any -- anything because what they provided to you, the county,
Page 70
April 24, 2012
that you, in turn, installed for the benefit and, in this case, to the
detriment of Quincy -- hang on. I hear chirping.
(Cell phone ringing.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who's quacking?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sorry. I was a little distracted.
MR. YILMAZ: Yes, the answer is yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Yeah, got it. So they have
no responsibility whatsoever, because you have no problems with the
manufacturing?
MR. YILMAZ: In this case, yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. But they are responsible in
another case?
MR. YILMAZ: We're planning to come back before the board,
target day being the second meeting in May. We will present to you
our substantial completion of the planner for the -- district -wide,
which is our internal QAQC, an internal process control, and facts and
findings will be presented at the time to the board, but that's
district -wide, not neighborhood by neighborhood.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And you have found defects in
these meters district -wide?
MR. YILMAZ: In some cases.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: All right.
MR. YILMAZ: And, Commissioner, if I might?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, of course.
MR. YILMAZ: And, Chairman, with your permission, very
briefly, in response to what we heard from our -- my peer licensed
professional engineer, I would very much appreciate it if you go to
your package and your executive summary and go to page, packet
Page 243, if you might, please.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you put it on the overhead,
please --
MR. YILMAZ: Certainly.
Page 71
April 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- so everyone can refer to it at the
same time.
MR. YILMAZ: Much easier. That's the -- that's the summary
page. As you can see, we have -- we have -- if I might, sir, move it a
little bit up.
MR. OCHS : Why don't you grab the portable mic and come
over here and just work it from here. That way you can point to what
you want. Speak right up into it.
MR. YILMAZ: If I might, Commissioners, the benefit summary
on that page clearly indicates that water main service line, which we
main (sic) and operate two inch going into water meter size, that is the
size of meter requested at the time by the developer, that we put in
place, connected to one - and -a -half inch, which comes later after we
install the meter, shows that capacity benefit, worst -case scenario, 90
percent, and the pressure benefit being 97 percent if compared to that
pipe was two -inch in lieu of one - and -a -half inch.
The second point I want to make, if I might, Commissioners, is
that we had three licensed professional engineers sign this document.
And all of those, not only hydraulics, but civil engineers. In addition
to that, two of those are water GEMS certified expert model.
What we have done here is not a linear model or linear
calculation. This was a water GEMS model, which includes multiple
dependent and independent variables going all the way the second
floor, first floor fixture counts, site specific assessment.
I just want to point out that this is what we have done in- house,
and we have -- we have -- two certified expert modelers signed off on
it, and three out of four certifying professionals are licensed
professional engineers.
And if I might, this is also part of your executive summary
package is that -- it is on Page 244. We have requested from an
off -site independent engineering firm to do a peer review on our facts
and findings. And a peer review, without repeating what's in the
Page 72
April 24, 2012
executive summary, came back and confirming that means and
methods and facts and findings that we came to, sound.
With that, I want to be able to indicate that we have gone through
site - specific modeling with internal QAQC.
Next we have included within our package independent
consultant peer review. So it's not just the staff work, but we have an
independent consultant peer reviews looking at it, and the consultant
also is a business consultant, has an MBA, in addition to being a
licensed engineer.
Therefore, we strongly think that what we have before you today
is technically sufficient, scientifically prudent, and legally defensible
based on internal /external experts on record as listed in Attachment C
of your docket book in executive summary.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: George?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: On this subject, could I just ask one
question? May I?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Your questions were great. Thank
you very much.
And I really appreciated Stan. I just have one -- to me it's a very
simple question but a very direct one. I understand everything that
you've put on the record here is correct except nobody's told me yet
who actual ordered these things. And, Stan, you said that usually staff
was the one to determine the size; is that correct?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: To the best of my recollection -- and
I'm 100 percent positive, because I did talk to the reviewer that did
most of these for the span of 14 years, and both of us say that the
fixture count was given by the engineer, and the utility department
sized the meter.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So if the utility department
then ordered this size, then it casts a different shadow on this whole
thing.
Page 73
April 24, 2012
MR. MONCIVAIZ: Good morning. I'm Gilbert Moncivaiz,
with public utilities, impact -fee coordinator.
A couple points that I wanted to make is we're talking about the
meter size. The meter size was driven by ordinance back when that
first permit came in in 2005. The ordinance in place was -- to size the
meter was based upon the square footage of the unit.
And I can take you -- I can show you the original permit that first
came in and how the request happened. If public utilities had operated
in a vacuum, the size would have been an inch - and -a -half meter, and
that would have been installed; however, we received a request for a
two -inch meter, and that's what was installed.
So if I can -- I can show you the first permit that came through.
This is a 2005 permit, and the contact information has a person listed
as Dorsey. If we go to the second page, in which we have the content
and comments in the permit, the reference from 2005 shows that there
was a request from the developer from this contact to put in the
two -inch meter. So that's how -- that's how that happened.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you point out where that is?
MR. MONCIVAIZ: Right where the pen is highlighting is the
2005 request that we received. So since this was the contact name, this
request was honored.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So it was not our utility department
that made that decision; it was the developer?
MR. MONCIVAIZ: That's correct. If we were to operate in a
vacuum, we would have put that as one - and -a- half -inch meters,
according to the ordinance in place at that time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Rob, it's your turn, I think; is that
right?
MR. MITCHELL: It is, sir.
MR. SAMOUCE: Okay. Just to clarify and recap, first of all,
the Dorsey on the overhead and that phone number, we tried to contact
Page 74
April 24, 2012
that number, and it doesn't work. Nobody's been able to find a Dorsey
representing the developer.
We have testimony from the engineer at the time saying him and
his colleagues for all the time they were there, it was the utility
department who decided the size of the meters, not the developer.
It is our understanding many times the developer would make a
certain request or they were told, like he said, to leave it blank, and
they would come back and say what size meter needs to be in there.
As into the report with the independent verification, that you get
97 percent of capacity out of a one point -- 2 -inch meter as compared
to 1.5 -inch meter, again, it's kind of irrelevant when all you need is
55.4 gallons per minute, and your 1.5 gives you 101, your 2.0 gives
you 160. You're never going to need more than 55.4 when all the
valves and faucets are turned on.
So it's not that it's contradicting what staff is saying. We're
saying it really doesn't matter. The capacity would never be needed by
that building the way it was sized. It should never have been needed.
So on those points right there, you know, we definitely think it
would be right for the county to reimburse our clients for the water
they never could have used, never did use but were charged for in the
amount of Alternative No. 3, which is about 99,000 some odd dollars.
As to the four -year statute of limitation that was brought up for
Alternative 2, again, our clients did not take over the association until
2010 to even know about the problem. The statute of limitations,
there is case law that says if you have a statute of limitations, it is
extended from when you knew or should have known of the problem.
There's no way they would have known of the problem until 2010 at
the earliest, which would give them to 2014.
So we respectfully request that County Commission direct staff
to credit their account for the Alternative No. 3 amount. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How much is the developer paying?
Because it was his decision apparently that decided the two -inch meter
Page 75
April 24, 2012
rather than the one - and -a -half. How much is he paying toward this?
MR. SAMOUCE: Well, first of all, you just had testimony it was
not the developer who decided what size meter it was. The engineer
said at the time it was county was the one who told the developer what
size meter to put in. So the developer is not involved at this point.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Stan, did you mean on this
particular item or just generally?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Ma'am, I don't remember this particular
item.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: But in general it was the utility
department that told the developer what meter size for --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And if somebody --
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: -- fourteen years.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- ordered it, like the order that we
saw here, would you follow that or would you -- would you follow
what they ordered, or would you put in what you thought was right?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: There were -- well, it's what the
engineer thinks is right, and if he's upsizing a meter, we wouldn't care.
If he was downsizing a meter, because of head loss issues, we would
have cared. But there were some -- you have to remember, back then
there was a big push to accelerate projects through the system, and if
you got turned back on a project, it took you three or four months to
resubmit and come through the process again.
So there were some engineers that just automatically put in a
two -inch meter knowing that it would get through the utility
department.
If this is that case, I don't know, but I don't know the specifics of
this case. You'd have to go by paperwork that Gilbert found and I --
just, in general, the utility department sized the meters.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. No more public speakers?
MR. MITCHELL: No, sir. That was your last public speaker.
Page 76
April 24, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm the only one that hasn't
spoken.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It's time for you to speak.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, thank you, sir. I
appreciate that. Get to my notes here again, if I may.
When the utility itself -- I'm sorry. Mr. Yilmaz, if you would
please. The utility itself is a closed system. Just the utility customers
are the only ones that pay into the system, and those -- what they pay
into it goes to cover the expenses, is that correct? Or do you use
general funds?
MR. YILMAZ: The first statement is correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MR. YILMAZ: Utility fee -- utility fee drives the enterprise
fund, and it's a closed system.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So whenever you take
anything into consideration where you're going to give one ratepayer
special consideration over another ratepayer for whatever reasons,
you're going to have an effect on the total outcome downstream for
everyone else. I think that would be a correct way; downstream works
for utilities when you use that terminology?
MR. YILMAZ: Yes. From engineering standpoint, I was just
going through that process in the morning, downstream and upstream.
And in financial terms, it is -- it is a fund, closely control, needs to
balance itself as enterprise fund. Short answer is, every penny comes
in and every penny goes out has to be accounted for, Collier County
Water /Sewer District.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So everything I've heard
here today leads me to believe the fact that we have to make a
decision based upon performance of our sewer and water department
at one point in time regarding the installation of meters.
And who was responsible for ordering two -inch meters versus
Page 77
April 24, 2012
one - and -a -half? When it came to the two -inch meters, the developer,
whoever it was, did they sign off in the end on what was there? How
does this process works? Just to make sure I understand it.
MR. YILMAZ: Going back and doing the research and looking
at all the facts and findings came and presented to me, I have enough
information and data shows that it was requested by the developer -- at
the time developer was named as Centex -- and for every meter except
one, pool meter, which we have given credit under Alternative 1 as
recommended, that the request was driven by the developer.
Now, if I might, Commissioners, one - and -a -half inch is the meter
we have requested at that time based on the information I reviewed.
Now, if the developer comes in, and says for any reason, I want
to have a higher service level standard, we're not here to constrain or
restrain our customer base. If our customer comes to us and they say
we want above and beyond your minimum service level in terms of
flow rate and pressures, our general approach has been, and will
continue unless otherwise we hear from the board, that we're not here
to tell people up to how much they can use water. We're simply here
to establish minimum standards based on public health, safety, prudent
engineering practices, and plumbing code.
So in this case, we did have the minimum standard; developer
came in and requested higher level of service. We granted it.
One more point. As far as the process goes, if the developer came
and said, I want more than one size up, we would request record of
engineer, engineering of record, come back and demonstrate a need
for that additional step. But this was one - size -up meter request, and
we usually don't get our customer base, in this case developer, go
through heavy engineering research and development and modeling if
it's only one size up.
So it's one of those things that not only we like to be responsive
to our customer base, but also we have to maintain our minimum
standards. But we're not here to tell people how much they can, they
I •
April 24, 2012
cannot use water.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But back a number of years ago,
closer to 2000 when we first came on the commission, there was all
sorts of shortages as far as available water --
MR. YILMAZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- and sewer, and I remember at
that point in time that we even had houses that were built that we
couldn't give them the certificate of occupancy --
MR. YILMAZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- because of the fact that we
couldn't guarantee that there'd be adequate capacity.
MR. YILMAZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I remember that well.
MR. YILMAZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So there is something to be said
with -- when a person takes a certain amount of capacity, they pay for
the price. The price that they pay is in relation to the capacity they
can draw on.
MR. YILMAZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There's only so much capacity
that we have until we build more facilities.
And so with that in mind, I -- I'm kind of at a loss. And even
though I heard this passionate argument about how the county was
wrong in this case, I can't agree with that, and I can't support the
motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Were you next, or was
Commissioner Henning next?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know. Maybe Henning.
you?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think you already spoke, didn't
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I had one more thing to say.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ask questions, but --
Page 79
April 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, if you don't mind.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure, please.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, this has nothing to
do with who got the meter size. The fact is, is the capacity and can
you use that capacity, gallons per day. And it was clearly
demonstrated that gallons per day with all the faucets on, the
dishwasher, the clothes washer, the showers, the tub, the outside
spigot, you still can't get that capacity.
So, you know, you're providing a fee for service, and if you can't
use that service because the capacity -- you have a capacity issue with
an inch - and -a -half line, you can't charge for it. That's the bottom line.
I mean, taxes is a different thing. You can change taxes all day long,
but a fee is a fee for service, and you need to have empirical data that
that fee for service is just.
Now, Mr. Yilmaz, you had a recommendation that you put on the
overhead. When was that recommendation developed?
MR. OCHS: Which one, sir? There were three alternatives.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no, no. The
recommendations. The alternatives is a choice of the board.
MR. YILMAZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The recommendation is what
staff is recommending.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Alternative 1, George.
MR. YILMAZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: When was that developed, the
recommendation? I know what Alternative 1 says, I know what
Alternative 2 says, and I know what Alternative 3 says. When was
your recommendation developed?
MR. YILMAZ: For this executive summary, because of the pool
meter that we added, it was developed within this executive summary,
because the pool meter came up and we included the pool meter as
part of our Alternative 1, giving the credit.
April 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So those recommendations were
developed last year?
MR. YILMAZ: These recommendations were developed in this
executive summary cycle.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Here's what my
recommendations in my -- it says, is that the Board of Commissioners,
as ex- officio governing Board of Collier County Water and Sewer
District, provide direction to resolve the outstanding Quincy Square
Homeowners' Association discussion topic from the March 27, 2012,
meeting, Agenda Item 1IF.
MR. YILMAZ: Yes, sir, that's our recommendation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Isn't that what the
motion is going to do is --
MR. YILMAZ: Under --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Yilmaz --
MR. YILMAZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- is that what the
recommendation -- the motion that Commissioner Hiller provided and
I seconded, are we -- we're giving that direction. Is that correct?
MR. YILMAZ: Yes, sir. We're here to get the direction.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Let me ask you. What is
your reserve, monetary reserve in water /sewer district? Just a rough
guess.
MR. OCHS: Let Tom --
MR. YILMAZ: If I might, Mr. Wides?
MR. WIDES: Commissioners, for the record, Tom Wides,
operations director for public utilities.
At the start of this year, our unrestricted reserves were $46
million.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you want to fall on your
sword for less than $100,000?
MR. WIDES: Sir --
Page 81
April 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's a statement. You don't
have to answer that. You know, the bottom line is, it's not about who
requested the meter. It's about, again, can you use that capacity. And I
just can't see it using the capacity. I mean, common sense would tell
you if you have a different size delivery, you can't use that capacity.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. County Manager, you want to
say something?
MR. OCHS: Just quickly. And, Commissioner, I need some --
probably some help from the staff. My understanding is that once we
install the meter, then the decision on the size of the service line to the
residence is the contractor or the developer.
So I have to disagree a little bit. As I understand the issue, it's all
about the meter size. It's not about what size pipe the developer put in
after the meter. They could have put a two -inch to the building, which
they did in one case, or they could have put an inch - and -a -half.
The point we're making is that with a two -inch meter, there's
certain capacity reservations that are made, and that is attendant to
cost of the system to provide the capacity for that development. So --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I mean, you just gained
capacity going from a one - and -a -half meter to a two -inch -- from a
two -inch meter to a one - and -a- half -inch meter, correct?
MR. OCHS: Yes. We've retrofitted now, but that's not -- that's
not the point of this discussion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, my point is -- maybe you
didn't get it is -- I mean, why are you falling on your sword? Because
it's clearly -- if they open up all the faucets, they still could not use
that capacity.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They didn't know.
MR. OCHS: We did not know that at the time we put the
two -inch meter in. What if the developer put two -inch pipes to all the
service buildings -- or service lines to all the buildings? I mean, they
could have done that is my point, sir, is all I'm saying.
April 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
MR. OCHS: In fact, they did it in one case.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So nobody knows -- I mean, we
know what -- we know what size amperage electrical meter or
amperage electrical service box and what size wire that we have in a
house, okay, we know how many two -by -fours are in a house, but we
don't know what size pipe we have in the house? I find that hard to
believe, Mr. Ochs.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, my understanding is that we set the
meter, there's a minimum code on what pipe size has to go from that
meter to the building, but there was nothing, as has been said here by
both sides, to stop a developer from upsizing that capacity for their
own benefit.
Again, my only point is I think this is entirely about meter size,
not the sizes of the pipe going to the building.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. My light's on.
This is a very, very difficult issue, and I'm not sure how -- you
know, how we could solve it. The problem is that proof has been
provided to us that in this particular case the developer requested a
two -inch meter, unless someone fabricated that document, and I find
that hard to believe.
We've been offered opinion by people who are familiar with
other projects, and we have clear disagreement between one engineer
about the benefit of the two -inch meter and three other engineers who
have signed off on the staff s recommendations.
So there really isn't any clear and absolute answer to whether
there's a benefit to having a two -inch meter. But from my standpoint,
I don't think it makes any difference.
If the county had accepted the request of the developer for a
two -inch meter and said, no, I'm not going to give you a two -inch
meter. I'm going to give you a one - and -a- half -inch meter, and then
the service wasn't adequate for the residents five years later, 10 years
April 24, 2012
later, the county is going to be liable. People are going to come to the
county and say, you wouldn't give us an appropriate meter so you
have to pay us for whatever inconvenience we have endured, and
you're going to have to solve that problem for us.
But if we give the developer what they want, which is a two -inch
meter, we're also held liable. It's crazy.
And the point of demarcation is the meter for the county. We
install the meter that's ordered, and whatever they do after that point,
apparently, is okay, because we have no way of checking that.
MR. OCHS: As long as they meet minimum code requirement.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, okay.
And the minimum code requirement in this case was
one - and -a- half -inch pipe. We had no way of knowing what they
would ultimately do with that meter. And in order to find out now
what our liability would be, if we set a precedent for paying for that
action, we have to go out and dig up every line connected to a meter in
Collier County to see if there are others that are in the same situation.
That is also crazy.
So I believe that the residents are due some consideration, but it
seems to me they're due some consideration from the developer and
not from the county, because it appears that the staff did exactly what
the developer asked for, just as they did accept what the developer
asked for with respect to every other element of construction of that
building as long as it met code.
So I'm very reluctant to accept responsibility for something that I
don't believe the county is responsible for. But I would encourage you
to pursue the developer about that.
But, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you said about everything I
was thinking, as a matter of fact. So -- and you said it much better.
I just -- I just -- as much as I -- I wanted to work with these
people, because they're some really nice people, and I have some
April 24, 2012
friends in there. But at the same time, it wasn't us that ordered that
meter; it was the developer. And as much as I want to work with
them, I think they should really go after the developer because he's the
one that ordered it. We just followed instructions. It's just like going
into a shoe store. You -- if you order a pair of shoes, Size 10, and they
don't want to give you a 10, they want to give you a 7 and a half, so
they do, then you go back and -- I mean, who should be paying for the
error, you know.
But, anyway, in my case -- in this case I fully believe that the
developer is certainly responsible, and I bet he's thrilled that you're
going after us rather than him. But maybe there's something we could
do as far as the pool replacement or pool meter goes, and to waive all
meter installation costs seems like a nice gesture also. I don't think that
that's ridiculous to ask at all. But I believe that's as far as I would go.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. It was clearly shown
here today that the two -inch meter does not add a higher level of
service. So the statements being made that, you know, we give the
developer and the developer's engineer the option to upgrade the level
of service to the unit by giving them the option of going above the
one - and -a- half -inch meter to a two -inch meter is absolutely false
because, again, mathematically it has been shown that there is no
incremental benefit from a two -inch meter over a one - and -a- half -inch
meter.
With respect to the statement as to the pipes, that the developers
can put in whatever pipe they like and the pipe comes in after the fact,
the pipes are clearly identified by way of measurement on the plans.
So this notion that, you know, they can come back and put in a
one - and -a- half -inch pipe when they're requesting a two -inch meter
makes no sense whatsoever because it clearly wouldn't pass
inspection.
Second -- thirdly, the issue of the expert brought in by the
April 24, 2012
county, Tetra Tech, I read the expert opinion. Tetra Tech verified
nothing. They reviewed the calculation to make sure that it was
mathematically correct, and they didn't do anything more.
So to place reliance on Tetra Tech's review would be incorrect.
And they're not even here to defend it, so I'm left very concerned
about that.
We do not have any evidence that the developer ordered this
meter. We have evidence here today that -- from the chief engineer of
the county at that time that the utilities division was the one who made
the decision about the meter size.
Now, Commissioner Coyle at the last meeting made a very
correct statement and that is, to the extent that Quincy has overpaid for
no benefit, that overpayment is to the benefit of the other users of the
system, not the contrary argument that was made here today.
So quite frankly, I have to say that all the evidence here shows
the county was at fault. And, in fact, I'm going to do a records request
for all the projects that were approved in that year with a two -inch
meter. I want to know how many projects were approved for a
two -inch meter.
And then I want to see, of those projects with two -inch meters,
what the pipe sizes were per the plans and the permits. And I think
we're going to find that there were a lot of two -inch meters being
required by the county at that time. And this was just one of those
many projects out there.
Now, the argument that we should be shifting the responsibility
to all the engineers, oh, I would like to see Hole Montes come in here
and tell me on the projects that they had approved that they were the
ones who recommended the two -inch meters, okay, because it's either
the engineers representing the developers or it's the county. One or the
other.
I'd like to see Hole Montes in here, I'd like to see WilsonMiller in
here, I'd like to see Agnoli Barber in here, I'd like to see them on this
I'.:- :i
April 24, 2012
stand telling us what the county was requiring of them at that point in
time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we going to go to the
motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm really concerned. I made a
motion. My motion stands. I think utilities has a very significant
problem. I think if you go back and look at the evidence of how the
meters were sized back at that time, the number of projects that were
required to have this upsized meter, I think you will see that there is a
pattern that works against the county. And I would like to see
testimony from all these different engineering firms to tell us exactly
what happened.
But my motion stands, and I'm very concerned.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor of Commissioner
Hiller's motion, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I've got to vote on my own motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I was beginning to wonder there.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I always take it as a given. You
know, I just say whatever, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All opposed, signify by same
sign.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So the motion fails with Commissioners
Fiala, Coyle, and Coletta dissenting.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve Option 1.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Coletta
April 24, 2012
to approve staffs recommendation of Option 1, seconded by
Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, 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. It passes in this case with
Commissioner Hiller and Henning dissenting.
And with that, we're going to break for lunch. We'll be back at
1:01.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, the Board of
County Commission meeting is back in session.
Where do we go now? We have a time - certain?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Item #5A
IMMOKALEE AIRPORT UPDATE BY THE FLORIDA ARMY
NATIONAL GUARD — PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Item 5A is a 1 p.m. time - certain hearing. It's a
presentation regarding the Immokalee airport update provided by the
Florida Army National Guard, and Mr. Curry will kick this off, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Chris?
MR. CURRY: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Chris Curry,
executive director of the Collier County Airport Authority.
April 24, 2012
I would like to introduce Colonel Widener, who's with the unit
that will be positioned at Immokalee airport in the future, to provide
you with a brief presentation and introduce the other members of his
staff.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. Colonel Widener, it's a pleasure
to have you here today. We're looking forward to your presentation.
COLONEL WIDENER: Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Lieutenant Colonel Mark
Widener, for the record. I'm the construction and facility management
officer for the Florida Army National Guard Hickward (sic) out of St.
Augustine.
And on behalf of the adjutant general, Major General Emmett R.
Titshaw and the almost 12,000 soldiers and airmen of the Florida
National Guard, we are honored to be here to make this presentation.
Just to introduce my staff, who I have with me this afternoon is
Colonel Holiday. He is my plan and programming manager. And
Captain Peck, she's my master plan. And fortunately we have two
members of the unit that are actually here in Collier County. I have
the commander, Captain Garcia, and his first sergeant, First Sergeant
Caballo.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good.
COLONEL WIDENER: So with that, I would like to give you
just a short overview, which is basically in two parts. One is for our
organization, the Florida National Guard, and the second is some
particulars as far as the facility that we plan to build.
So with that, the slide I have up here at this point is just showing
you that the Florida National Guard, like all National Guards, we work
directly for the governor, Governor Scott. He's our commander in
chief, because we are a Title 10 organization on a day -to -day basis.
Our second mission, which is a federal mission, if we should
have our soldiers activated under federal orders, we would fall under
the president of the United States and under the command of the Army
Apri1245 2012
and Air Force.
And, of course, the 856 Quartermaster Company will be
deploying and they will, in fact, go into that type of organization.
Our major commands on the Army side are located in
Tallahassee with the 83rd troop command. Our 53rd infantry brigade
combat team is in Pinellas Park. The 50th area support group is in
Homestead. We have the 164th air defense artillery in Orlando. We
have our Camp Blanding joint training center, which is a 73,000 -acre
training site, in the north central part of Florida and, of course, our
joint forces headquarters where General Titshaw resides up in St.
Augustine.
On the blue side of the house, Air Force. And as you -- even
though I wear blue now, because the Army kind of likes blue for their
dress uniforms, I'm not an Air Force guy. But this is where our Air
Force commands are.
As you can see, we're located over in Tyndall. We're also located
at the MacDill Air Force Base with their joint communications support
squadron. We have our Det. 1 of the 125th fighter wing, which is in
Homestead, and of course they have the mission of guarding our coast.
We have the 114th -- the 114th range operations at the Cape, and
we have the 202nd red horse, which is an engineer squadron, and the
weather flights at Camp Blanding, and then, of course, we have the
one wing, the 125th fighter wing, up in Jacksonville, and they fly the
F 15's. And I know that they are C and D models because my son's in
the Air Force, and he is a crew chief to an F 15 E Model, and he's very
quick to tell me the difference between an E, C and D. So he keeps
me straight as far as Air Force.
As I mentioned, we do have a federal mission. And as you can
see, we have been engaged in most of the conflicts that we've had over
the last 30 years. That's pretty much what you're seeing here. Not
necessarily your tourist spots, but wherever there is a need for us to
support the Army and the Air Force, the Florida Army National Guard
April 24, 2012
has had guardsmen there.
And, of course, of interest to the county and the state, we respond
to emergencies. And as you can see, from 1992 to 2011, we have had
71 activations of the guard in response to -- such as tornadoes and
fires, hurricanes and floods. So we are a tremendous asset to the state
and counties as far as responding to the needs to protect life and
property.
Hurricanes are a part of our heritage. And as you can see, as the
map draws all of these tracts of storms, we've had to respond to a
number of them.
I didn't know that slide was going to do all that.
CAPTAIN PECK: I didn't either. Sorry, sir.
COLONEL WIDENER: But that is pretty impressive.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, it sure is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You haven't even gotten to Wilma yet.
Oh, there it is.
COLONEL WIDENER: There we go, all right.
And, of course, we were somewhat challenged back in 2004 and
2005. If you are tracking the activations of the Florida Guard, we
were very much involved with Iraq and Afghanistan at the time. Pretty
much half of our formation was down range and, yet, we had these
storms make landfall, and we were able to respond to the needs of the
citizens of Florida and to the governor's call for support on all these
storms.
As you -- as you well know, Wilma came right across here. I
think you -all even had some of the blowing from Charley, which was
a fairly severe storm. So I was involved with those, and I know how
important it is to have the guard respond to you -all's needs.
Continuing on, of course, we have historic experience of plenty
of activation for tropical events. As you can see here, I've already
mentioned, wildfires is another. Right now we are in the fire season.
We don't really have a large presence right now in fighting fires, but
Page 91
April 24, 2012
like in 1998, when Florida was basically on fire, we had as many as
1,800 folks that were onboard and responded to that call.
We have a lot of capabilities that we bring to the community and
the state. We have rapid availability to provide security transportation,
aviation, liaisons, and engineering, and we have an unparalleled
experience in support of civilian authorities, which that is how the
guard works is we support your civilian authorities and, by direction
of the state, we're on call and we bring in that expertise, and we bring
in that equipment to help the communities deal with these type of
emergencies.
We also are very involved in our organization in the counter drug
fight to protect and make our communities safer. We bring to these
fights expertise and equipment that allow for our law enforcement to
do the job they need to do to curtail this fight that we have.
And, things like the Republic National Convention that's coming
up, which is going to be right down the street from you guys, you
know, always -- things like this that come to the state, it brings the
nation's eyes on Florida. And, of course, you don't want any hic -cups
in security. So, this is where the Florida Guard comes onboard and
helps authorities as far as maintaining security and makes sure that
things like the Republican National Convention go off without a hitch.
And we're teamed up with all of the joint interagency relations
that we use to make sure we get the job done.
Also, more importantly, more in the community base, is we do
bring programs, as you can see, with helping youths achieve their best.
Our organization is an organization of professional soldiers and
airmen and we use that through these programs, as you can see in drug
demand reduction and youth challenge and mentoring and teaching,
such as in STARBASE, because youth is our future and, you know,
that is what's very important to us and to the community and we
support that.
As I mentioned several times, we are a community organization.
Page 92
April 24, 2012
And this slide, more than anything, tells you where we are.
Thirty -nine counties we're located in, and we've highlighted Collier
because now we are in Collier. We weren't in Collier before. We
brought the 856 on when the Army went through a program called
Grow the Army and we got the additional unit, and we wanted to
locate that unit here in your county.
The 856 Quartermaster Company, as you can see, is command
control and logistic support for receipt, storage, issue, and distribution
of Class 1, which is perishable type material and non - perishable items
to support Army organizations.
And, of course, it goes back to the earlier slide, we support our
National Guard formation as well as capable of supporting the Army
as well if called upon.
We propose to put this facility -- and this is just a conceptual
facility as far as what you see as far as a picture, but that's kind of
what we're building to these days. We plan to put it in Immokalee.
It's an estimated 50,000 -plus- square -foot facility, and it will house 152
soldiers, which makes up the company. It's a one -unit facility.
And their complement equipment is 80 trucks and 13 trailers. A
little bit heavy on the equipment side, but that's because they are a
quartermaster company.
The 856 Quartermaster Company, it provides the critical support,
both federal and state missions, and also for the natural disasters, and
the economic impact, of course, bringing 152 soldiers together at least
once a month, and then we also have a full -time cadre, a small
full -time cadre right now that's working in the temporary facility, but
we estimate that that construction of that facility will be between 15
and $20 million, and the economic impact to Collier County on an
annual basis would bring around 72,000 in state funding and about
$1.8 million in federal funding on an annual basis. Not a large
economic footprint, but it is significant.
This slide here, to the best of my ability, as the construction and
Page 93
April 24, 2012
facility management officer -- this is what keeps me up late at night
worrying about how we're going to get there. But the military
construction program, which is the program Congress uses to build
these facilities, is somewhat of a slow program. We have to wait for
the appropriation. And what I tried to lay out for the leadership here
for the county is that even though we've been here a couple of years in
a temporary facility, here we are, 2012. My best projection as far as --
this facility is number two on General Titshaw's long -range
construction plan, that we should be able to get the congressional
appropriation to be on their -- what they call their future year's defense
plan within a couple years.
And then once we get on the FYDP, Future Year's Defense Plan,
we're targeting somewhere around the '18 to '19 time frame to build
the facility. And, of course, when you see that 2020, that would be a
completion date, because a building of this size usually takes about 18
months to two years to build.
And, in closing, we're a proud tradition, started in 1565 with our
first formation, and we're committed to Florida citizens, we're
committed to the Collier County citizens and we're here to answer the
country's call at any time with the soldiers and airmen of the Florida
National Guard.
And with that, sir, I will answer any questions that you may have
of myself or my staff, if I can.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. Thank you.
Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
First of all, I really would like to thank you for being here today
and for, you know, your service to the country and your willingness to
help us in Collier County in the event of a storm or a flood. It would
be wonderful to have you here. So I have to really, you know,
commend County Manager Mudd when he sought to bring you here. I
think that was done with tremendous foresight.
April 24, 2012
Now, with that being said, I do want to emphasize a point that
you made. I think there's a popular misconception among, I believe,
staff in part and the community in part that you -all will be here in the
very near future. And I really do appreciate you putting up this
operational and economical impact or, I should say, timing graph that
shows that you will not be here until 2020, which is eight years out.
And I don't want you to feel that in any way, just because you're
not here till that point in time, that we don't appreciate your
commitment to the future --
COLONEL WIDENER: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- to Collier County and to the
country.
COLONEL WIDENER: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I don't think there's any
concern from that standpoint. No one's going to give your land away.
COLONEL WIDENER: Oh, that's very good to know, ma'am.
And, of course, the unit, the 856 Quartermaster Company, they are
here. We're in temporary facilities. We're -- we are funded to house
them in that way even though it is considerably smaller than what we
would build to. But our unit, the National Guard, is here in Collier
County until we build it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How many, if I may ask, are here
now? I understand that you're projecting 152.
COLONEL WIDENER: The unit of 152, that is the strength
now, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, that's great. What is the
proposed strength? When -- by 2020, do you expect that will be --
COLONEL WIDENER: Right now I believe it would stay 152.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, so that will be consistent from
now to --
SERGEANT CABALLO: Ma'am, I'm sorry. First Sergeant
Caballo on the radiant sensio (sic), the senior full -timer for the unit.
Page 95
Apri124, 2012
Right now we have 172 soldiers that are actually drilling at the unit.
Maybe a few projected changes here or there for a few gains and a few
losses, but you can look at 172 to be a long -term number.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Got it.
SERGEANT CABALLO: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you so much. Very much
appreciated.
COLONEL WIDENER: Thank you, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. Any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much for being here.
COLONEL WIDENER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you're very much welcome here as
fast as you can get here.
COLONEL WIDENER: Okay, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COLONEL WIDENER: And on behalf of General Titshaw and
the leadership up there, if, by chance, you -all would need him or any
of the leadership to come down, they're open to accept any invitation
like that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And if he needs anything from
us, be sure to call upon us. We will be recognizing the members of
the unit that are being mobilized shortly. I think we'll do that next
meeting, is it?
MR. OCHS: No, we'll do it right now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, okay. That's right. We've got the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Proclamation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- proclamation right here.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
MR. OCHS: If I might.
COLONEL WIDENER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Me ••
April 24, 2012
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING MEMBERS OF THE 856TH
QUARTERMASTER SUPPORT COMPANY, 260TH MILITARY
INTELLIGENCE BATTALION (L), 50TH REGIONAL SUPPORT
GROUP OF THE FLORIDA ARMY NATIONAL GUARD
DEPLOYING TO AFGHANISTAN. ACCEPTED BY CAPTAIN
GARCIA, COMMANDER AND FIRST SERGEANT CABALLO —
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS : That would take us to Item 4A on your agenda. It's
a proclamation recognizing members of the 856th Quartermaster
Support Company, 260th Military Intelligence Batallion L, 50th
regional support group of the Florida Army National Guard deploying
to Afghanistan. To be accepted by Captain Garcia, Commander; First
Sergeant Caballo.
This item is sponsored by Commissioner Coletta. And if you
gentlemen would please come forward and receive your proclamation.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much for your service.
You want to join them? Come on up. Who gets the proclamation?
COLONEL WIDENER: The boss.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So you're here now? Where are you
now?
SERGEANT CABALLO: Where am I?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He's in Immokalee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Right now you're in
Immokalee. Where do you stay?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks for being here. I'm so glad
you chose us. There you go.
Page 97
April 24, 2012
MR. OCHS: Could we get a photo please, Colonel. Let's get a
photo.
COLONEL WIDENER: They want to take our picture. Thank
you.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve Proclamation
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Henning to
approve the proclamation, 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: It passes unanimously. Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Exciting new ventures, huh?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep.
MR. OCHS: It's great news, great news.
Item #8A
RESOLUTION 2012 -71: VA- PL2011 -1410, WAHL VARIANCE —
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, RELATING TO PETITION
NUMBER VA- PL201100014I O, FOR A VARIANCE FROM LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 5.03.06.E.5 TO PERMIT A
olf • :
April 24, 2012
REDUCED SIDE YARD (RIPARIAN) SETBACK FROM 15 FEET
TO 9.3 FEET ON THE EASTERN BOUNDARY OF PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 8 PELICAN STREET WEST, ISLES OF CAPRI IN
SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 52 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST IN
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA — ADOPTED STAFF'S
RECOMMENDATIONS
Commissioners, your next item is Item 8A, your advertised
public hearing, Board of Zoning Appeals. This item requires ex parte
disclosure be provided by commission members. Should a hearing be
held on the item, all participants are required to be sworn in.
It's VA- PL2011 -1410, Wahl variance, resolution of the Board of
Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, relating to Petition No.
VA- PL20110001410 for a variance from the Land Development Code
Section 5.03.06.E.5 to permit a reduced side yard riparian setback
from 15 feet to 9.3 feet on the eastern boundary of the property,
located at 8 Pelican Street West, Isles of Capri in Section 5, Township
52 south, Range 26 east in Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're going to have -- everyone
who is going to provide testimony please stand to be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
And for ex parte disclosure we'll begin with Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have no disclosures.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. No disclosure for Commissioner
Hiller.
How about Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have a staff report, I've also
received some emails, I've had some people from Isles Capri talk with
me about it. In fact, I talked to quite a few people the other evening.
That's it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And I have received emails, and I
April 24, 2012
have reviewed the staff report, and that's it.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir. Regarding 8A, I've
received the staff report.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I received the Planning
Commission's report from staff. I also received an email from Jason
Maxwell.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Who's going to make the
presentation?
MR. MAXWELL: Hello. For the record, Josh Maxwell from
Turrell, Hall & Associates.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MAXWELL: Before you on the screen is the proposed
dock layout. As you can see, it's to fit within the existing dock. The
dock is grandfathered in its existing condition.
The T that you see, the portion of the T was removed last year
when the Wahl's replaced their seawall, so now it's just the L dock
that is shown to the left. Let me give you guys a line drawing so
there's no confusion.
MR. OCHS: If you want, work with the portable me so you can
point out areas.
MR. MAXWELL: So the area that we need the variance for is
for this side slip. We would like to be able to put in a boat lift there to
allow the Wahl's safe boarding -- loading and unloading from their
vessel on the side. They'd like to have the two boat slips allowed to
them.
And the dock itself is grandfathered, and according to the DEP's
aquatic preserve rules, we cannot move it. If we could move it, we
would so we wouldn't have to get a variance but, unfortunately, that's
not an option here.
So we're asking -- we are here today asking you to support staff s
Page 100
April 24, 2012
recommendation of approval for the variance so that the Wahl's can
have safe loading for both of their vessels.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you. Is anyone else going
to participate in this part of the presentation? No? Okay. Is staff
going to have something?
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, staff.
MS. GUNDLACH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Nancy
Gundlach, principal planner with the department of land development
services.
And staff is recommending approval of this variance. And it
would be my pleasure to answer any questions you might have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller and Fiala,
you have your lights on. Do you want to ask a question of staff at the
present time, or you want to wait for the public speakers?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wait for the public speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I wanted to make a motion
to accept staff s recommendation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Hiller
to accept staffs recommendation, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Please call the --
MR. MITCHELL: Speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many public speakers do we have?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have two speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker is Joan Evans.
MS. EVANS: Good. Hello, Commissioners. I didn't think I'd be
here again but I am. I live at 6 West Pelican Street, east of the Wahl's.
And I am adamantly opposed to the variance they're asking for.
First of all, I want to say that I'm in the process of putting in a
Page 101
April 24, 2012
boat lift myself, and my registration is already accepted. I have copies
of that, and my down - stroke on the boat lift.
Florida law says that riparian rights are issued to the owner, and
these rights are my rights of the ingress /egress, boating, fishing.
They're subject to reasonable governmental restrictions. My right to
build a dock, to access navigable waters, lands bordering water, which
were navigable at the time the Florida Statehood benefited by riparian
rights.
My riparian rights lines are drawn from the extension of the
upland property lines. Therefore, I request you do not grant this
petition.
I also would like to say that before the Wahl's built this large,
beautiful home, which was a year in the process, I'm sure they must
have looked into what existed and what didn't and what they could do
and what they couldn't do to build two boat lifts and also a seawall
with riprap that was removed and riprap that was put back, which
made it illegal -- and not legal to place their boat parallel to the new
existing laws.
Anyway, I just -- I want you to put yourself in my place. Would
you want to give up your riparian rights? I've been there 19 years, and
I'm looking forward to putting a boat lift in.
And if I need to give copies, I will, of my registration with DEP
and also my bill from the boat lift owner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's not necessary that you leave that
since it's not part of consideration here.
MS. EVANS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right.
MS. EVANS: Okay. I just wanted to let you know that this is
what I'm doing. I'm putting a boat lift in.
But, anyway, I just hope that you will understand. If it were you,
would you want to give up 15 of your riparian rights?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Page 102
April 24, 2012
MS. EVANS: I don't want to. I'm here to defend my rights and I
hope you will agree with me and not give the variance.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Anthony Rinaldi.
MR. RINALDI: Afternoon, Commissioners.
I own the home on -- at 10 West Pelican Street since 1985, so
I've been here for 27 years.
I just can't understand how the county Planning Commission
denies this variance, then you have two county people come up and
say they're recommending it. It's a 75 -foot dock, and they want to put
201 30 -- 60 feet of boat in, a 35- and a 25 -foot boat on a 75 -foot lot.
I think we have some rights, too, and we want to enjoy the beauty
of the Isles of Capri and the Marco River, and I'm against this
approval. I think it's just totally wrong.
Thank you very much.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who was first, Commissioner Fiala or
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I was.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I don't understand, how them
building a boat dock, would injure your ability to build a boat dock. It
doesn't occur to me at all. I mean, you know, if they want to build a
boat dock and you want to build a boat dock, fine. You know, I don't
understand that at all.
And I've spoken to quite a number of people on Capri, and they
all feel that it's fine with them. They feel that everybody should be
allowed to have a boat dock who's built on water.
And so I second Commissioner Hiller's vote -- or motion.
MS. GUNDLACH: Commissioner, could I just get on the record
real quick, the CCPC did recommend denial of this variance, but staff
Page 103
April 24, 2012
is recommending approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I know, okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Should there be consideration of
hardship on a variance? I know we have that on other variances.
Nancy?
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, there should be consideration of
hardship.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what's the hardship?
MS. GUNDLACH: In this case, because this particular dock is
located in the Rookery Bay Sanctuary Aquatic Preserve, the state is
requiring that they rebuild the dock in the exact location.
Now, you'll notice that the dock that they are rebuilding is
slightly smaller than the one that exists there now and, because of that,
they can't rebuild it in a configuration to avoid having to come in for a
variance.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So is it a hardship not having
two boat lifts or boat docks or a dock that accompanies two boats? I
mean, the -- clearly here they're going to moor two docks -- two boats.
MS. GUNDLACH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's a hardship?
MS. GUNDLACH: The hardship --
COMMISSIONER HENNING- They're putting the bigger boat
within the -- within the setbacks, correct?
MS. GUNDLACH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Couldn't they put that on the --
where the smaller boat is and put the smaller boat on the -- would it be
the north side, I believe? No, it would be the west side.
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. I was going to recommend that we
have our expert respond to that, because they did design the boat dock
configuration, but also I hear my manager in the background saying
that even that second smaller boat would still encroach and create a
Page 104
April 24, 2012
variance.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, your manager
needs to -- if you put it on the opposite side, you put the boat -- the
smaller boat on the opposite side where the lift is, does your manager
still agree that it needs a variance?
MR. MAXWELL: For clarification, Commissioner Henning, are
you referring to putting the boat lift here?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
MR. MAXWELL: I don't believe that would require a variance,
but that -- due to the configuration of the neighboring dock, that poses
a very difficult ingress /egress for the Wahls.
The currents in Big Marco River are quite swift, and weekends
like this last one the waves can be pretty bad. So to try to get a boat of
any size to come within -- between their dock and a neighboring dock
to the west and actually moor on a boat lift would be quite difficult.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you have almost 30 feet.
How wide is the boat?
MR. MAXWELL: Right now they currently own a 22 -foot --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The smaller boat, how wide is
the boat?
MR. MAXWELL: How wide is the boat?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, the smaller boat.
MR. MAXWELL: I believe it's got close to an 8 -foot beam.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And they couldn't get in there;
with a 30 -foot opening and an 8 -foot beam, they couldn't get in there?
MR. MAXWELL: I personally would not want to try to during
any kind of tide. Yes, at slack tide, possibly they could, but with wind
and tide as they can be, I don't believe it's a safe recommendation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You couldn't angle the boat lift
MR. MAXWELL: Then the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- so you can get a straight shot
Page 105
April 24, 2012
on it?
MR. MAXWELL: The difficulty if you angle the boat lift would
then be -- are you talking about to angle it, per se, like my fingers?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
MR. MAXWELL: Then it becomes very difficult to load and
unload on and off the boat. So we don't want to create a hazardous
situation for the Wahl's to enjoy their own personal vessel.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I mean, you could angle
the dock -- you could slant -- you could put, you know, two -by- four's
or two -by -six's along the T and the walkway.
MR. MAXWELL: But then we would be altering the footprint of
the dock, which then the State of Florida says we cannot do. I asked
them if we could change it by, you know, making it just a finger dock
instead of doing it with the terminal platform. They said that would
not be in compliance with DEP's rules. And so to put an angle on to
give them, say, a six -foot access area would not be permissible by
state standards.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller, did you
have anymore comments?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. The only -- it's really not a
comment. I just have a question. I just want to make sure you know,
there was some discussion by one of the speakers about riparian rights.
Jeff, did you see any issue with this with respect to property
rights and, you know, are we approving something that's encroaching
on someone else's property?
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't understand the argument on riparian
rights.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I didn't either, and that's why I was
wondering -- so setting aside --
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't understand the argument on riparian
rights.
Page 106
April 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. So you --
MR. KLATZKOW: My understanding is this is about a boat lift.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: That they can have the boat in there
irrespective of whether or not you grant the variance. The entire
purpose of the variance is putting a boat lift there. Is that correct,
Nancy?
MS. GUNDLACH: That is correct. They could still have a boat
there.
MR. KLATZKOW: So I don't get the riparian rights issue.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I didn't understand it myself, and
that was why I wanted you to clarify, you know, your understanding.
So, again, my motion stands, and I really -- I really don't see how
this is, you know, adversely affecting anyone.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm going to need some --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because since the boat could be
there anyway, as you pointed out, this is strictly a question of whether
or not, you know, they can put the lift where you're proposing that it
be placed, so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The -- I'm not sure I understood
your answer, County Attorney. Does the issue of riparian rights not
relate to permissible setbacks?
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't believe it does, no. I mean, the other
property owner, their riparian rights begin and end on their property
lines.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: This doesn't affect their property.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So the approval -- the fact that a boat is
placed within the required 15 -foot setback area is not an issue before
the commission; is that true?
MR. KLATZKOW: That's true. The only -- my understanding
-- Nancy, correct me if I'm wrong -- that the only issue here is whether
Page 107
April 24, 2012
or not you're going to allow them to have a boat lift in that area.
MS. GUNDLACH: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Boat lift in the area for the larger boat?
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. We're going to point to it.
MR. MAXWELL: Yeah. Regardless of the size boat we put in
here, we're going to require a variance. There's just not adequate room
to put in a four -post lift next to the dock without encroaching the
15 -foot setback.
And just for clarification for everybody, the Wahls' riparian
rights are between the two riparian lines. The hatched sections were
added at a request by staff just to outline the offsets required by the
county. And everybody -- the neighbor's riparian rights start at the
land -- start at the riparian line and go east and west.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So the riparian rights have nothing to do
with the setback issue. There is a required setback from the property
line of 15 feet, and you're merely asking for a variance there, and it
has nothing to do with riparian rights?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Uh -huh.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nope, I'm okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. All in favor of the -- we'll
close the public hearing. All in favor of the motion to approve staff s
recommendations, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
Aye.
So it passes 5 -1 (sic).
Apri124, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Five -one.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry, 4 -1.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You don't count.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't count, that's right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Does this take a supermajority?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, no.
Okay. Where does that take us?
Item #9B (Tabled earlier in the meeting)
RESOLUTION 2012 -72: RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE
PROPOSED EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT -BASED
AMENDMENTS TO THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PLAN, ORDINANCE 89 -05, AS AMENDED,
FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY FOR REVIEW AND OBJECTIONS,
RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS RESPONSE —
MOTION TO APPROVE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
AND BOARD DIRECTED CHANGES — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, that would take us back to Item 9B
to finish that up. That was the EAR report transmittal hearing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. What do you have for us?
MR. BOSI: Good morning -- or good afternoon, Commission.
Mike Bosi, comprehensive planning.
At the request of the BCC specifically related to the motion that
was placed on the table this morning, requested that we bring back and
include on the visualizer the specifics of the requests that were made.
I'll go through them in order hopefully not of difficulty.
The first is related to the Economic Element, and it was the
suggestion of Commissioner Henning that the policy be tweaked
somewhat, and the modification is below on the visualizer, and the
Page 109
Apri124, 2012
new policy will read, the county may support the appropriate
economic development initiatives of the regional nonprofit
organization goals and efforts of countywide organizations and efforts
of localized organizations just to be more flexible within the wording,
and I think that was the intent behind the modification.
MR. OCHS: Mike, just for clarification, you've got "where
appropriate" struck on the revised proposal; is that correct?
MR. BOSI: Yes. The "may" substitutes for the "where
appropriate."
The next issue related to 10.1.5 and 10.1.6, the proposed 10.1.6
and 10. 1.7 in the proposed EAR -based amendments. Based upon the
direction that we had been provided within the motion, both of those
policies will be deleted from the COME.
As shown on the visualizer, the first is the 10.1.5, and the second
is the 10.1.7. As you can see, all of the wording and text have been
deleted based upon -- consistent with the motion of this morning.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Wait a minute. Go back, if you
might, to -- yeah. All right. That -- what --
MR. BOSI: That parentheses just basically was -- the staff
recommendation was to delete the policy. The CCP (sic)
recommendation was to retain the policy.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, okay. I just wanted to make
sure. Yeah, that's fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute. Before you go away, the
CCP recommendation was to retain Policy 10.1.5; was it not?
MR. BOSI: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you're eliminating it?
MR. BOSI: Staff suggestion was to eliminate it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So are you in fact eliminating it?
MR. BOSI: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that was a part of the
motion.
Page 110
April 24, 2012
MR. BOSL• Correct.
MR.00HS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right.
MR. BOSI: And the third issue related to the revisions to the
Coastal High Hazard Area -- and this was a fault of staff in our
responding back to your questions of this morning. As proposed
within your Exhibit A of your Future Land Use Element, the
modification to the Coastal High Hazard Area is support -- the map is
supported with text, and the text basically says that if a project lies
within the Coastal High Hazard Area, a unit is -- of potential density is
removed from the base allocation.
And based upon the Planning Commission's concerns, we had
went through the map of the new Coastal High Hazard Area compared
to the old Coastal High Hazard Area, and we identified the one area
that would be subject to that potential reduction, and we exempted it
from that reduction with specific language as it reads, except for those
properties within the Coastal High Hazard Area in Section 1,
Township 50 south, Range 25 east.
And how this was accomplished -- there was more properties
than just that one section that is now part of the new Coastal High
Hazard Area, but those properties were also previously covered by the
Traffic Congestion Management Area. And that Traffic Congestion
Management Area had a one -unit reduction.
So we're exchanging the one -unit reduction for Traffic
Congestion Area for a Coastal High Hazard Area, so there will be no
essential -- no net loss in the potential for density rights within that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I comment, Commissioner
Coyle?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand exactly what you're
saying, and I appreciate your clarification on that. That certainly
helps on that issue.
Page 111
Apri124, 2012
But what about with respect to going back to what we talked
about earlier, any density bonuses? And by the way, what I was
saying about "as a matter of right," if you have incentives where, you
know, if you've complied with X, Y, and Z, you do get it as a matter
of right. And so they do exist.
So I just want to make sure that with respect to this change that
this does not impact on those type of density bonuses, that those all
stay the same and that the only one effect on densities relates to this,
which you're now telling me is basically a wash, like basically
transportation to coastal, and so it's one, one.
MR. BOSI: For all the areas except for the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Except for that one, which I
understand that you've identified. But just give me assurances that no
other -- no -- that the densities will not be adversely affected by this
change in any other way, that there is no other cap or reduction
imposed on what exists.
MR. BOSI: Based upon the Planning Commission's original
concerns and the modification that staff had drafted to address those
concerns, it's our understanding that this will not take away the ability
to seek at the level that it was prior to making this change. That -- as
clear as I can state, that is staff s understanding related to these
changes.
And it's further backed up within the CCME policy -- we have a
CCME policy where we're adding additional language that says, for
properties not previously within the Coastal High Hazard Area but
now within the Coastal High Hazard Area due to the adoption of
revised Coastal High Hazard Area boundary in 2012, the native
vegetation, preservation, and retention standards of the non - Coastal
High Hazard Area shall continue to apply.
Meaning that there was another step we took to make sure that,
well, even if we had given them the right to seek that additional
discretionary unit, but they would find themselves with a more
Page 112
Apri124, 2012
restrictive native vegetation requirement. We've addressed it within
that concern.
And one other area that Mr. Weeks has discovered when we were
going through this exercise, and that was related to Page 13 of the
Future Land Use Element -- we had proposed that a couple or a few
activities centers would have been affected --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
MR. BOSI: -- by this change, and we were suggesting a
reduction of those densities, and that was contained on Page 13 of
Exhibit A. Based upon the no- net -loss directive that was provided
from the dais this morning, staff would suggest to go back to the
original language within -- within the Future Land Use Element
support documentation as on -- as bracketed on the visualizer.
Basically the changes that we had suggested that would have affected
the activity centers will be pulled back based upon the direction
provided by the board.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's great, and that was my other
concern, that anything related to those mixed -use activity centers
would be eliminated, that they would not be changed from what exists
now, and they'll be preserved as -is. Fantastic.
MR. BOSI: And with this -- and with this change and with that
direction that you provided, we will assure that that is, indeed, the case
from the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, great.
MR. BOSI: -- from the transmitted.
And the last issue --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have a question also on the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- the coastal high hazard area that
you were just mentioning and you said "except for." Why is that
region "except for "?
MR. BOSI: Because that one region that we've identified, it was
Page 113
April 24, 2012
not part of the Traffic Congestion Management Reduction Area but
now was being included in the new Coastal High Hazard Area so that
that would have faced a new one -unit potential reduction. Because of
that, we singled that out and said that that one -unit reduction is not
applicable to that section, that they will, indeed, entertain the same
allowances that were provided currently -- that's currently provided to
those properties.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Where is that section or that area?
MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks of comprehensive
planning.
Commissioner, that section is on the east side of Airport Road
running from Radio Road south to Davis Boulevard.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's a Coastal High Hazard Area?
MR. WEEKS: The coastal high hazard area in that location runs
east of Airport Road for a portion of that section's dimension.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you put the map back up --
MR. WEEKS: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- and show it on the map, because
you can see where it's re- drawn, how they've shifted it.
MR. WEEKS: That would be this area where the pen is pointing.
The red boundary -- oh, excuse me. Here it is.
Finally, let me -- right here. The green boundary is the existing
Coastal High Hazard Area boundary, which is also the Traffic
Congestion Area boundary. The red boundary, which is to the east of
Airport Road, is the new Coastal High Hazard.
So the difference between the two, had we not put in this
exception language, would have now been subject to a
one - unit - per -acre reduction.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. My next question is, and I --
it doesn't affect me, so I'm just asking you this. Does that mean now
that they've become part of the Coastal High Hazard Area and they
weren't before, did their insurance rates go up?
Page 114
April 24, 2012
MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, that I don't know. The --
MR. BOSI: The insurance rates are dictated by the work that
Robert Wiley has been doing with the flood maps, and that dictates.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And this doesn't affect that at all?
MR. BOSI: There may be an interrelationship between the
numbers, but there's no regulatory tie -in.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could you put that previous page back
on the viewer on the -- and could you look at the third line down from
the top of that paragraph that says subdistrict up to 16 residential units
per grow acre may be permitted. What's a "grow acre "?
MR. BOSI: Scrivener's error.
MR. WEEKS: That would be a typo.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What would you put there, "gross acre "?
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir, gross.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Close enough.
MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, we could verify, but I suspect that
was literally a typing error on the page. I suspect that the ordinance
that was adopted had the correct terminology.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: See, now, I thought it was acreage
that they had farmland on or something.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You see, that's why it could be
misinterpreted. You must be precise.
MR. BOSI: Yes, Commissioner -- Chair.
And the last of the issues -- and I'm not quite sure exactly where
the direction was, but it was related -- and it was related to the
Housing Element. And the first issue that I wanted to address within
that is within that element both the generic "affordable housing" term
is utilized as well as the specific "affordable /workforce housing,"
because -- and a good example is the first objective, and it's provide
new affordable housing units. That's referring to affordable housing
Page 115
April 24, 2012
units in a general term, not trying to segment a specific level.
But if you look at Policy 1. 1, it talks about demand for very low,
low, moderate, and affordable /workforce housing. Now,
"affordable /workforce" is a specific term defined by Florida Statutes
that -- on the overhead that we're putting up, and it's hard to get in to
read, I know, at this level, but there's a definition for very- low - income
households, low - income households, moderate - income households,
and then affordable /workforce means housing that is afforded to a
person who earns less than 120 percent of the area median income or
less than 140 percent of the area median income if located in the
county in which the median purchase price for a single - family existing
home exceeds the statewide median purchase.
So what we wanted to at least establish was the term's utilized a
number of times within the element but specifically to the general --
the purpose or of the context of the term. Sometimes it's used in the
generic and sometimes it's used more in the specific when we're trying
to target that specific 120 to 140 range.
I wasn't sure if that clarifies the issue on the housing other than
the issue about the ability to develop the appropriate indices.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That was Commissioner Fiala's
question. She wanted it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, it was. And I just wonder
why the Planning Commission kept wanting to put it back in with
your explanation. There must have been a reason for them to want
that phraseology included.
MR. BOSI: Oh, there was some discussion about that specific --
the utilization of general terms to specific terms. And at the March
6th Planning Commission, when we had our final hearing related to
the items, I think the Planning Commission was satisfied with the
mannerisms that we utilized the terms within this document.
And I will say the Planning Commission has spent now two years
of meetings with staff over these issues. So there may have been a
Page 116
April 24, 2012
time where they had made a suggestion, there were modifications, and
it came back in a different form, but there was no disagreement, I
think, at the March 6th when we reviewed this for the final time with
the Planning Commission. It seemed like there was unanimous
agreement that it was presented as they found acceptable.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Was it struck through at this
meeting?
MR. BOSI: It was as you -- we have presented it to you, it was
how it was presented to the Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Because the person that
referred to that particular meeting said that it was issuing -- it wasn't
struck through, and it was struck through afterwards. And, you know,
I can't -- I didn't see it. All I know is what she said, okay. So that was
one thing.
And another thing that was said was that by keeping it as
affordable, people think that it means very low, as a matter of fact.
And when you talk about housing, they always say nurses and
teachers and firemen and stuff, but very low or even low, really none
of them qualify for that type of housing anyway.
And what they're trying to do is get some of that housing to
people that really don't have -- don't have the ability to buy because
they make too much money for that income category, and I think that
that was where they were going.
MR. BOSI: And it could have been the -- that could have been
the genesis of the conversation, but if you reviewed these elements, or
this element and objective and the policies, we specifically state that
we're also trying to target not just the low, the very low, and the
moderate, but the affordable /workforce housing in terms of addressing
affordable housing in general. So it's utilized twice or numbers of
times within this one page, but the context within how it's used is
different, and maybe that has led to the misunderstandings.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know that. I need to talk to
Page 117
Apri124, 2012
them again, because it was more than one person, and just see what
they had understood, and also I wanted to make sure that not only am I
talking about my district, I'm talking about Immokalee, and one of the
things they feel is a must is to add other housing categories, rather
than just very low, into their community so that they can attract
teachers and firemen and so forth, but right now there is no housing
for them, and so they're really trying to get a better balance to the
community, just as I am.
MR. BOSI: I understand, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I -- may I?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Your light isn't on.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's not working. I agree.
I agree. The problem is is that affordable housing is really not
the limiting terminology. It should be affordable plus gap housing,
and that's what's not being provided for.
And then, obviously, as you point out within affordable housing,
not just very low and low income housing but, you know, the basically
80 to 120 percent of median income housing that has to be considered,
the moderate housing, the moderate affordable housing.
So I agree with Commissioner Fiala. And when you read this, it
doesn't read that way. So I think the wording should be clarified so
it's understood that it's the scope as described and not, you know,
subjecting someone to go back to looking up definitions to understand
what the paragraph means.
The other thing is, with respect to the policies on indexing, you
constantly have the word "shall," "shall," "shall," "shall" and it really
ought to be "may," and it should be at the direction of the board, not
that the department of housing shall develop the index.
Because, again, we don't know that that's necessarily what we
want. We haven't heard back from the advisory board, and the
advisory board hasn't necessarily come to that conclusion either. So I
Page 118
April 24, 2012
think it's incorrect to say "shall," "shall," "shall."
MR. BOSI: Well -- and the reason why it's "shall," it's related to
the former DCA, or the current DEO. There's still a requirement for
the provision of affordable housing. In our current GMP policy -- or
it's not a policy --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's not the issue.
MR. BOSI: -- it's an objective. We have a thousand issues, and
we want to get away from a fixed number.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. I understand, but I think
that's why no one's disputing the need for affordable housing when a
need is identified. The issue is is the word "shall" with respect to the
methodology for deciding on what that number should be, and we
should not be pigeonholed into "we shall index."
MR. BOSI: Well, the state -- we're taking a fixed number away
from the state. The state wants to see a fixed number. We're going to
take that away because we think it's arbitrary, but we have to tell them
we're going to -- not "may." We're going to have to tell them we're at
least going to make an effort to develop an indexing methodology to
identify the true need for affordable housing in the county.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is that the only alternative? Is it
either a fixed number or indexing?
MR. BOSI: You could probably defer to the Shimberg
assessments, but we haven't always been satisfied with that, and we --
and I thought, through the discussions -- and I haven't been at every
one of the Affordable Housing Subcommittee meetings, but I think
that they feel that they can better identify an approach that will
identify the local matrix -- or the local market area and be able to
analyze that local market area to define what the need is.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think we're adopting a policy
without enough of an understanding of what we're agreeing to. And I
-- can we carve the housing changes that we're not comfortable with
out of this transmittal and basically approve everything except for this,
Page 119
April 24, 2012
and then bring this back at another transmittal hearing and allow us to
be educated so we can properly develop the policies?
MR. BOSI: Well, the one thing I would --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, why do we have to do that
now? Because you're saying it's by January 14, 2014. I mean, we're
talking two years from now.
MR. BOSI: The original EAR report that we adopted, the board
was pretty definitive that they wanted to get away from a fixed
number. And if we have --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm sorry. Who was that?
MR. BOSI: The Board of -- yourselves, the Board of County
Commissioners said let's get away from a fixed number because that --
it doesn't hold constant every year. So this amendment is aimed to get
away from that fixed number, an arbitrary number, and try to develop
the -- a measurement tool that will be able to provide a better
reflection of the true need within the community.
If you want to -- I mean, if we don't make the change as you're
suggesting, I -- I guess we would be -- we would be standing pat with
the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: A thousand.
MR. BOSI: -- thousand.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And, quite frankly, I think we have
satisfied that thousand -unit requirement. In fact, we're probably well
ahead of that requirement in light of what's happened with the housing
market. So I'm not sure that in this next year that we don't have the
time to go back and revisit it.
I think we have to be very prudent with respect to how we're
going to move forward, you know, with this requirement. And we just
don't know that that's the best option.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioners, we asked the staff to
bring back to us the changes that the prior motion required.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yep.
Page 120
Apri124, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They have done so. We're modifying it
again. It's my suspicion that this is not going to get approved at all and
you may as well just start all over again and take another five or six
years of working it out.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, for the record, Nick
Casalanguida. When we talked about it breaking -- and I know Mike
and I briefly touched on it -- this is just transmittal. We're going to
come back to you this fall with your affordable housing report right
after probably the summer break. We've done it a couple years where
we show the matrix of what's out there on the supply side. What I
would suggest is we take this item, keep it in the transmittal but make
it a workshop item with the board on tweaking it for adoption.
In other words, the language that's in here now, if you don't
change it, you don't have to -- and you don't like it, you don't adopt it
in the fall. But this summer when we bring you the item, we can give
you a couple options after vetting it and explaining it with the housing
folks, maybe even bring them to the board and bringing an item for
you, and that way you're not bound, we can keep the process moving
forward, and then workshop it with you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The other alternative would be to
eliminate it from the transmittal and then transmit everything else and
then continue to work on this and bring it forward after the workshop,
after the proper vetting, in the next transmittal hearing when we go
through this process again.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The problem is, you can't add it in in
the adoption period. You can strike it out later, but to add it back in
requires a whole other process. You'll be stuck with the old language,
and you definitely don't want that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But until the next transmittal,
which will be a year from now.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: When will the next transmittal be
Page 121
April 24, 2012
up?
MR. BOSI: You'll be -- I mean, if you wanted to make the change
to this policy outside of the EAR, you most certainty can do so.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
MR. BOSI: I mean, you'd be eligible with any growth
management cycle that you would authorize.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It would have to be advertised and go
through the whole process.
MR. BOSI: It would have to go through the process.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But we --
MR. BOSI: We could do it, we could do it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's fine.
MR. BOSI: It just has a simple Growth Management Plan
amendment.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
MR. BOSI: What Mr. Casalanguida was referring to as this EAR
process, we've adopted the EAR in January. We said these were the
changes we were making. We came back. These are specifics of
those changes. If we transmit something that doesn't contain a change
and then at adoption contains that change the last time that the state is
going to review it, that may set some flags and that may -- it's an
inconsistency with the process that could cause concern for the overall
EAR process.
But we could -- I mean, if you want us to remove these potential
changes, leave it as it stands today with that thousand fixed number
and workshop it over the period of time and bring it to the board as a
GMP amendment just as a stand -alone amendment, if that's the
direction of the board, you most certainly have that discretion
available to you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I know I personally would prefer
that because I would like to know what all the alternatives are. I mean,
we are presented with indexing as the only option to the 1,000, and we
Page 122
April 24, 2012
just have too many issues with housing. I mean the whole -- this
whole section really needs to be reworked. And I think it's premature.
I mean, I personally would really be happy with that. And the
idea of the workshop, I think, is great. And then bringing it back, you
know, as part of the GMP amendment cycle makes a lot of sense,
rather than, you know -- because, again, even if we -- the concern I
have is if we adopt it with this wording, even though we can delete it
in its entirety, now we've delayed that much longer, and what we
haven't done is we haven't presented the other alternatives. Like I
said, I completely respect your decision to move away from a
thousand. That makes sense.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. There's a motion.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You retain the ability.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, no, no, no, no. There's a motion to
do a specific thing, to change specific things here, and we're getting
off into a never - ending cycle of changes and reviews and workshops
where nothing ever gets finished.
Now we're going to vote on the motion to change the things that
were specified, okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to change my motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Change your motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to amend my motion
to include the items that staff brought forward after the break, okay.
And I think it's worthy to have a workshop on those housing elements
so that we have a complete understanding. There's nothing wrong
with that.
MR. OCHS: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, what are you going to send
to the state? What are going to transmit?
MR. BOSI: Based upon the direction that I had just heard, we
would pull back from the --
MR. OCHS: What did we just present to the board a minute ago?
Page 123
April 24, 2012
Hold on, Mike. The question is, what did we prepare to respond to
this morning's motion, and it's this, correct?
MR. BOSI: No.
MR.00HS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, what else -- Commissioner
Henning just modified his motion to include further modifications
concerning the affordable housing issues.
MR. OCHS: No. I didn't understand it that way, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Neither did I.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well, then explain it to us.
MR. OCHS : There's no changes in the Housing Element
recommendation based on the knowledge now of the definitions of
terms are inclusive of all the categories of affordable housing up to
140 percent of AMI. And if I understand Commissioner Henning
correctly, he is satisfied that that satisfies the concerns expressed
earlier, and we're going to leave that element and follow on with a
workshop.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That sounds better.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the most important thing,
we're going to follow up with a workshop --
MR. OCHS : Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- so we're all on the same page,
okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm going to withdraw my second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there a second to
Commissioner Henning's motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I make a motion that we
accept staff s recommendations.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that.
Page 124
April 24, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: With the -- with the changes
outlined this morning.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second stands.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And this afternoon.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right.
MR. OCHS: Got it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor of the motion to approve the
staffs recommendations as amended, please signify by saying aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It's opposed by Commissioner
Hiller and Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we still having a workshop?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. It's in May. It's already scheduled. Do
you have the date, Mike?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, it's May 1 lth.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Ian.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Item #I OA
APPOINTING MEMBERS TO THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT
COUNCIL — RECONSIDERED LATER IN MEETING
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, that takes you to Item l OA, which is
Board of County Commissioners appointment of members to the
Tourist Development Council.
Page 125
April 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve Doug House,
Murray Hendel, and also the municipal recommendations of Mayor
Sorey and Councilman McBeth.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we do have a public speaker to this item.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Coletta to approve Murray Hendel and Doug House for
appointment to the TDC, and please call the speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: Emily Maggio.
MS. MAGGIO: Good afternoon. For the record, Emily Maggio.
I rise today in opposition, ask you to please not reappoint Mr.
Medwedeff to the TDC.
Membership on the TDC or any county board, advisory board for
that matter is a position of public trust not an inside privileged position
from which to promote one's private agendas.
I attended a workshop right in this room, many of you did too,
when Mr. Medwedeff spoke out quite insistently about removing
funding from museums. I then went to a TDC meeting where the
beach facility that will be built at Vanderbilt Beach was discussed;
more of the same, we shouldn't spend the money, it should go to
advertising.
Last fall I went to another TDC meeting, and it was more of the
same. I don't know. I can't know what Mr. Medwedeff imagines his
function as a TDC member to be, but it appears he believes he has the
authority to change or at least circumvent the ordinance. No member
of the TDC or even the entire council has a right to amend or alter the
law.
Function of the TDC, unless I'm sadly mistaken, is to review
expenditures and projects, make recommendations to this commission,
based primarily on whether or not they're in compliance with the
ordinance.
Remember, the ordinance was enabled by the voters of Collier
Page 126
April 24, 2012
County. Without their approval, there would be no tourist tax. If the
focus of the ordinance is to be changed, it should only be done with
the approval of the voters. It shouldn't matter, really, where TDC
members live in the county or who they represent or advocate for on
the board, because the bottom line is, they are bound by the provisions
of the ordinance.
I think Mr. Medwedeff should be thanked for his many years of
service, but I think it's time for something new.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The TDC is looking to ask the
Board of County Commissioners to change the ordinance on the
representation of the TD -- in the members of the TDC, recognizing
that 30 percent or 20 percent of the monies come from Marco Island --
MR. OCHS: I believe it's 20 percent.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Twenty percent?
MR. OCHS: Roughly, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: By the motion and the second,
that would prevent that from happening for another four years. So I
just want the board to be -- recognize that the TDC, what they're
working on, what's going to come up in a short time would prevent a
representation of Marco Island there for four years.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. You know -- and that was a
concern of mine when I was reviewing the material and I saw that
there was going to be no representative for Marco because of the
rotation between the cities. I was somewhat troubled by that.
I don't think it would matter who we appoint today, because if we
change the ordinance, we can also say that, you know, effective of the
date of the ordinance, whoever is in those positions, you know, their
position -- or their service would be terminated. I mean, it could be
part of our ordinance to specifically -- and I think that's correct.
Page 127
April 24, 2012
Couldn't we do something like that and basically terminate the
representation of whoever we appoint today or -- can we expand --
could we expand the TDC to add another member or not? It would be
an even number.
MR. KLATZKOW: Your TDC is statutory as far as the
composition goes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Does it say that we have to -- and I
don't remember, but does it say we have to alternate between the city?
MR. KLATZKOW: Your ordinance says that, but the state
statute does not say that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What does the state statute provide
with --
MR. KLATZKOW: State statute provides for two municipal
representatives, and the larger city has to be -- have a city. So Naples
has a seat. And the way we've always structured the other one --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's alternating.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- is just alternate it. It's never been an
issue, I understand, because Everglades simply hasn't appointed
anybody all these years.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what can we do to solve the
problem to make sure that Marco has a seat at the table? Because,
obviously, they're a very important member of this group.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, you know, you can do two
approaches. You can take your approach and vote on the motion, and
then should you decide to change the ordinance, you can reconstitute
the board then, or you can simply defer the appointment of the
Everglades representative for now --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I see.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- until this comes forward to you. And I
think -- Colleen, we take it to the next meeting?
MS. GREENE: The first meeting in May.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, that makes sense. I see where
Page 128
April 24, 2012
you're coming from.
MR. KLATZKOW: The first meeting in May we're taking it to
you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we should defer it to allow the
ordinance to be modified. I see where you're going. I completely
appreciate your recommendation. That makes sense, because Marco
absolutely has to have a representative.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We always have somebody at the
table.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, Marco does have a representative.
Mr. Gibson is representing Marco.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I don't believe Mr. Gibson
represents Marco. He's a general member.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, he's on the board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He lives in --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, but he's not the Marco.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mr. Gibson, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He's going off. He's going off.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And he's leaving?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Who? Jerry Gibson is leaving?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If he is, you can appoint another one
from Marco.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, another city councilman,
then?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, if you wish to do so.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I mean, it's going to
Everglades City.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, that's the problem, because
based on the way the ordinance is written --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can I, please?
Page 129
April 24, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't see it's a problem.
Everglades City does play a part in the role of this. There may be an
error in how we've got the distribution set up, but the idea being now
that it's Everglades City's chance and they've got a council member to
step forward and agree to do it, we shouldn't automatically say, well,
they're not eligible.
What we need to do is to be cognizant of the fact that the
gentleman that's going off from Marco that we talked about, that we
encourage several different people from Marco to put their name in for
that place.
I have no problem with representation from any part of the
county. I do have a problem where all of a sudden we get down to the
very last moment, and a community that was counting for a certain
amount of representation for a while is going to be possibly denied
while we redo the rules just because their percentage is off a little bit.
If that was true, each commissioner would be able to appoint so
many people to the Planning Commission by the amount of people
that have paid taxes in a certain area based upon how much they pay.
You've got to keep -- rules and regulations are set up for reasons,
and when they're amended, they've got to be amended for the same
reasons, not on the fly. So this has been -- this has been the rules that
we've had in place for some time. Here we are now at the 11th hour. I
haven't seen a recommendation from the Tourist Development
Council telling us that we actually want to do this. They're going to
consider it.
So let's be fair for everyone concerned. Now, let's keep in mind
when the next position comes open again, that we do have somebody
from Marco Island, maybe somebody from the tourist industry. And I
have no objections if we have two people from Marco Island. It's just
right now at this point in time, let's stay within the rules that we
originally established.
Page 130
April 24, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's not a true statement.
As it was stated, the recommended ordinance is coming back to this
body at the next meeting. Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then we can take action on that at that
point in time.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I'd like to make a motion --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've got a motion on the floor.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What was the motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The motion was to accept the
applicants that are in our agenda.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Who made that motion?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Murray Hendel and Douglas House.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Who made that agenda (sic)?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I did.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, you did? Well, I would have said
to defer it and to do what the county attorney says so I won't -- certainly
can't second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just -- I represent Marco
Island, and I know that, you know, tourism is great on Marco, and
they're a great reason for us to draw people down here. So I'm just -- I
will try and make sure we reserve a seat permanently for --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Marco.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- somebody from Marco on there,
whether it be -- I didn't realize Jerry was going to be off of it, but if --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I could agree with that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
Page 131
April 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Huh?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I could agree with that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. And so when this thing
comes up at the next meeting, I want to push for it right away.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. 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. Motion passes 3 -2 with
Commissioners Hiller and Henning dissenting. So -- and we need to
accept the municipal recommendation for Mayor John Sorey and Beth
(sic) --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That was part of my motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right. That's right. Okay.
We're all done. Let's go to the next one.
Item #I OB
ADVISORY BOARD VACANCIES PRESS RELEASE APRIL 5,
2012 WITH A DEADLINE OF APRIL 26, 2012 — READ INTO
THE RECORD
MR. OCHS : Item l OB is advisory board vacancies press release,
April 5, 2012, with a deadline of April 26, 2012.
MR. MITCHELL: Commissioners, the current press release, it
expires this week on the 26th. We've had a reasonable number of
applicants, but there are some areas that we're still sadly lacking.
The Affordable Housing Advisory Committee currently has one
Page 132
April 24, 2012
vacancy; the Airport Authority Advisory Board has one vacancy; the
Animal Services Advisory Board has a vacancy. This is in the
category of a vet or a veterinary technician, and this is -- we've had no
applicants. And so I would appeal to anybody who's listening that
qualifies to get their application in.
The Bayshore Gateway /Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory
Board has three vacancies; the Contractors Licensing Board has three
vacancies; 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, finally, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board has
two vacancies.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Where do we go now?
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, I'm going to suggest that if you're
getting ready for a break for the court reporter, this might be a good
time, because the NSP item will take some time, I would suspect,
unless you want to go to the county attorney items, because I notice
we do have some people here for that. Maybe they can --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's take a look at them and see if any
of them can be done in less than a day.
MR. OCHS: I'll defer to Jeff.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Nope.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I can make --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The consensus is that we take a break
right now. Okay.
MR. OCHS: Very good.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll take a 10- minute break. We'll be
back here at 2:34.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. SHEFFIELD: You have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, Board of
Page 133
April 24, 2012
County Commission meeting is back in session, and Commissioner
Hiller will stop her sidebar discussion here shortly. Well, maybe not.
Okay. Where do we go?
MR. OCHS: Well, Mr. Chairman, for the convenience of the
audience, I know we have some members of the audience in from
Immokalee, and it might be a good idea to take Item 12 and then Item
-- excuse me -- Item 12 first so we can get those out of the way.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's do it.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. Before we get started, I just
want to make a comment about the last vote on the TDC board. And
I, honestly, did not understand the executive summary, and I'm sure
that others on the board, like Commissioner Fiala, might not have
understood it either, and you may want to reconsider your vote.
I just want to explain -- and I'm going to turn this in as part of the
backup on that last agenda item. The committee recommended that
Rick Medwedeff be reappointed and Murray Hendel be reappointed.
And Mr. Gibson is not any longer going to be on the TDC.
The vote that was taken here that you participated in removes
Rick Medwedeff and replaces him with Mr. House, the consequence
of which is that now Marco Island has no representation because both
Mr. Medwedeff and Mr. House are off.
So I -- when I was looking at this, the way it's articulated here
wasn't as obvious. And then when I revisited it during the break it
came to my attention. And so I wanted to bring it to yours because I
don't know if that's what you wanted.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So now that means we have two
people from Everglades City and nobody from Marco?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, we've got -- I don't -- Mr.
House -- Mr. House is -- I don't know where he's from. He's
categorized as a non - owner /non - operator. He's from District 5. I
don't know if he's specifically from Everglades. But the consequence
Page 134
April 24, 2012
is is that you have nobody from Marco now. And so basically -- this
also flies in the face of the TDC's recommendation. So if you wanted
to reconsider that, I mean, you can take a look at it, and then we can
enter it into the backup.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Let me work on that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And if -- has Mr. Gibson's seat
been declared vacant?
MR. MITCHELL: Well, Mr. Gibson's -- because -- he was an
elected official and he was a representative of Marco Island, so this
time that seat switched over to Everglades City, and Everglades City
recommended one of the officials from Everglades City to take his --
what was his seat. And Mr. House has taken --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He's not off there yet.
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, he -- well, his term -- yes, he is, because
his term expired on the 21 st of April.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Does that leave a vacancy?
MR. MITCHELL: No, sir, not after the action of the board
today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And are you going to -- I understood
there was going to be a recommended change in the ordinance that
would be recommended by the TDC.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that's being presented to you at the next
meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why don't we take a look at that and see
what it provides.
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir, but as well as with all the advisory
boards, the members of the advisory boards serve at the commission's
pleasure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I understand that.
Page 135
April 24, 2012
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir, you can change it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could we -- like, with the City
Councilwoman (sic) McBeth Collins -- I guess that's a person -- I
mean, a girl, a lady. I don't know.
MR. MITCHELL: No, it's a gentleman.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, it's a gentleman. Could -- for the
time being, could Jerry Gibson just stay there until we -- no, okay.
MR. MITCHELL: No. There's two aspects to that. One, he
would have to be nominated again by the Marco Island City Council,
and the other one is, the position's taken by McBeth Collins.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If I may, you know, the solution is
is if you want Rick Medwedeff to remain on there, then Mr. House,
who is the nonowner /non - operator that was part of the motion of the
board, would be replaced by him. This has nothing to do -- Mr.
Medwedeff goes to Mr. House's position. That's the issue.
And the motion that they made this morning was -- or this
afternoon, I should say, was to reject the committee's recommendation
of Mr. Medwedeff and, instead, put Mr. House on.
So you actually had two representatives from Marco; you had
Mr. Medwedeff and you had Mr. Gibson. Mr. Gibson -- Mr. Gibson's
position rotated with Everglades City. Mr. Medwedeff was
recommended, but the motion that was made by the board, voted on
by the three of you, was to replace Mr. Medwedeff with Mr. House.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right, yes. Let -- let me not only
think about it but let me call some people from Marco in our
breaktime, and then before the end of the day I need to address that.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. That's a very significant
issue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It certainly is.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And considering Mr. Medwedeff,
you know, is, you know, one of only two experienced hoteliers on that
Page 136
April 24, 2012
board -- and by the way, the constant push to move the money from
the museums to advertising really has been spearheaded by Mr.
Hendel, and it was supported by the TDC as a whole. So it can't --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mr. Hendel spearheaded that?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, a long time ago, a long, long
time ago.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because I know that the people on
Marco have been rather offended by that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. But Mr. Hendel, actually,
was the one who has always been pushing for that, as have many of
the other members of the board. It certainly hasn't been, you know,
Mr. Medwedeff exclusively. He did incorporate the recommendation
in his subcommittee analysis because it was something that everybody
agreed with.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Could we have this conversation
over a cup of coffee?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, that's a good idea.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You can't. Okay.
MR. OCHS: 12A, sir?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, let's go to 12A.
Item #12A
RECOMMENDATION PURSUANT TO COLLIER COUNTY
RESOLUTION NO. 95 -632, THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AUTHORIZE THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT AIRPORT AUTHORITY
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR THOMAS C. CURRY, AND AIRPORT
MANAGER THOMAS VERGO, WHO ARE BEING SUED BY
STEPHEN J. FLETCHER AND FLETCHER FLYING SERVICE,
INC., A TENANT AT IMMOKALEE AIRPORT, IN THE CASE
STYLED STEPHEN J. FLETCHER AND FLETCHER FLYING
Page 137
April 24, 2012
SERVICE, INC. V. THOMAS C. CURRY AND THOMAS VERGO,
CASE NO. 12- 1124 -CA, TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN
AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA — MOTION TO DENY
— FAILED; MOTION TO APPROVE BUT TO HIRE OUTSIDE
LEGAL COUNSEL TO REPRESENT STAFF WITH FUNDING
FROM RESERVES VIA BUDGET AMENDMENT — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 12A was previously 16K1. It was moved to 12A.
It's a recommendation pursuant to Collier County Resolution 95 -632
that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the Office of the
County Attorney to represent Airport Authority Executive Director
Thomas C. Curry and Airport Manager Thomas Vergo who are being
sued by Stephen J. Fletcher and Fletcher Flying Services, Inc., a tenant
at the Immokalee Airport, in the case styled Stephen J. Fletcher and
Fletcher Flying Services, Incorporated, versus Thomas C. Curry and
Thomas Vergo, Case No. 12- 1124 -CA, 20th Judicial Circuit in and for
Collier County, Florida.
This item was moved at Commissioner Hiller's request.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Would you like me to comment on
this?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead, Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I was very concerned that
we would be using public funds to provide litigation defense for Mr.
Curry and Mr. Vergo when this lawsuit that's being brought by Mr.
Fletcher is against them individually and not against the county.
So I think it's a completely inappropriate use of public funds.
And I know that we are actually in the process, as I understand,
of still -- of funding the defense of Marcy Krumbine, if I'm not
mistaken.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, we're not.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We're not? Have we stopped that?
MR. KLATZKOW: We never did.
Page 138
April 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, who did we -- in the PLAN
litigation --
MR. KLATZKOW: PLAN. We're defending PLAN itself.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. So I don't understand why
we're doing that either, because, you know, we're defending a
nonprofit that is not --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's not the topic of discussion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand. But, I mean, that's
just another example of where we have inappropriate use of public
funds.
So I cannot understand why or accept any basis for funding the
defense of Mr. Curry and Mr. Vergo. I think they need to defend
themselves in this action.
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, it is my strong belief and
opinion that if this board does not stand behind Mr. Curry and Mr.
Vergo it will send a chilling message to each and every one of your
employees that they do not have the support of this board.
If you are of the belief that Mr. Curry and /or Mr. Vergo have
acted inappropriately and outside the scope of their duties, that's a
different issue. But barring that, everybody knows what this is about
at this point in time.
It's my belief that the complaint was structured in a very
particular way, and I believe that Mr. Curry and Mr. Vergo deserve to
be defended by the county. I'm not asking you to expend ad valorem
taxes on this. We'll do this in -house with our, you know, in -house
counsel. It will take time for us to do it but, frankly, I don't believe
that the lawsuit has any merit whatsoever, and I don't expect it to be
taking all that much time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, my concern is that by using
your staff, we are spending ad valorem dollars because your staff is
funded by ad valorem dollars. So you know, we are using -- we are
using the taxpayer dollar to defend this litigation.
Page 139
April 24, 2012
Can you tell us a little bit about what the allegations of this
lawsuit are?
MR. KLATZKOW: The allegation, briefly stated, is that Mr.
Fletcher, who's a long -time tenant at the Immokalee Regional Airport,
believes he's being treated unfairly, believes he's being harassed by
Mr. Curry and by Mr. Vergo, and they are seeking a permanent
injunction to restrain this behavior by the -- your director and your --
and Mr. Vergo.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think there's merit to that. I
mean, it appears to me Mr. Curry and Mr. Vergo both have been very
prejudicial against Mr. Fletcher and have basically been improperly
treating him and not treating him equal to other tenants at the airport, I
would say, making it extremely difficult for him to do his business.
So if the -- the position is that we shouldn't be funding it because
we don't believe there's merit in the case, or I should say merit in the
defense of the case, then I would say that I would have -- I would have
to agree with that. I don't believe there is merit in -- I'm sorry. There
is -- I'm getting -- let me just restate that.
I do not believe there is merit in us defending Mr. Vergo and Mr.
Curry in light of their conduct toward Mr. Fletcher, and I do believe
the suit brought by Mr. Fletcher does have merit in light of the facts
that have come before us as a board.
MR. KLATZKOW: Ma'am, it's my strong opinion that you
either defend them or you fire them. There's no in- between on this
one. If you believe their actions are outside the scope of their
employment and inappropriate, then the proper course of action is to
terminate them. I don't believe that that's true. But having said that,
you need to defend your employees.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let -- your opinion is fine,
Commissioner Hiller, but there are other opinions that need to be
expressed here. Who --
Page 140
April 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I'd like to make a motion to deny.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Hiller
to deny.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Second by Commissioner
Henning.
Who was next?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I was.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning, go
ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Jeff, you're saying that you're
not going to hire outside legal?
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're going to do it inside?
MR. KLATZKOW: We're going to do this inside.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That wasn't very clear in
the executive summary.
Now, can we fire Mr. Vergo? I thought the airport director only
works for us.
MR. KLATZKOW: You know, I'd have to look at the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't think we can fire him.
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm not sure what his relationship is, if he
works directly for the airport director or if he works for the county.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. We never hired him.
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: He may, in fact, work --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller, just a
moment.
Are you finished?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
Page 141
April 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, Commissioner Fiala was
first.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I think -- I don't think we're
here to judge. I think it should be going to -- you know, if that has to
be, then we should give it to a judge to judge, and we should play it
out as it needs to be.
We ought to make sure that we always protect our employees. I
mean, if it was one of us, I know I would expect the county -- whether
somebody didn't agree with what I did or not, I would expect them to
defend me, especially if I felt I was innocent. And I feel that -- that
same way. We have to protect our employees.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you.
You know, it's -- we all know where this is all coming from. We
all understand the fact -- we've been briefed on almost an hourly basis
by the airport director, Chris Curry, of everything that's been taking
place. There's been no gap as far as knowledge of this commission.
We've heard everything that was coming down. We followed it
inch by inch. We might not have agreed along the way.
So, you know, this -- like the county attorney said, this case is
without merit. It is all for the wrong reasons. And I, for one, am
going to make the countermotion when the time comes to support our
airport director and his assistant and show good faith for the rest of the
county employees.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And, Mr. Curry and Mr. Vergo, I
think you've done a commendable job. In fact, I think you have been
very reserved in your reaction to Mr. Fletcher and others on the
airport. Other professional managers of airports would have taken
much more severe action against those people, and you're certainly
going to get my support. So I'll call the question.
All in favor of Commissioner Hiller's motion not to defend our
Page 142
April 24, 2012
airport director and manager, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All those who agree that they
should be defended by Collier County, please signify by saying aye.
Aye.
Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That isn't the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Erase that. Okay.
Is there another motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, sir. You didn't finish up.
Those who are opposed to the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Those that are opposed to the motion --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's getting late.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay -- please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And so the motion fails by a vote of the
one for by Commissioner Hiller and four against by Fiala, Coyle,
Coletta, and Henning.
Is there another motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, a motion to approve the
defense of the airport director and his assistant.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But I do have a question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question on the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, that's for the County
Attorney's Office to defend --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, that's what I wanted to talk
Page 143
April 24, 2012
about. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- or expend taxpayers' money
on an airport -- of Immokalee airport that the reports show that we're
losing more and more money all the time. That's --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I, sir?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You may; go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. Are you through,
Commissioner Henning? I didn't mean to jump in front of you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. That's just not the fiscally
responsible thing to do. County Attorney's Office is a part of the
budget process anyways.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. If I may -- and I'm sorry,
my motion, I would like to amend it. I'll tell you what I'm thinking at
this point in time.
I can remember different people, some within this room, who
were represented by outside counsel because we felt that there may
have been conflicts within using the County Attorney's Office for
trying to accomplish this.
We have one person that's very outspoken about what the county
attorney's doing, what the airport authority's doing, and I'm afraid that
if the County Attorney's Office is part of this process, that interference
could carry over to this case.
That's a concern. I'd like to talk about that before we take a final
vote on this, and then I may amend the motion to hire outside counsel
to do it.
And it's not a case of money, because the County Attorney's
Office is still going to have to expend time and energy.
Mr. Klatzkow, my concerns, are they unfounded?
MR. KLATZKOW: Now, look, this is -- I mean, the airport
authority's become a lightning rod, and I have no doubt that that will
continue. We're happy to provide the representation. I'm sure there
will be criticisms levied, but --
Page 144
April 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: For the best possible defense, do
you think --
MR. KLATZKOW: We will give you the best possible defense,
yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The County Attorney's Office
can provide that?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Without any question, and you
don't think that outside interference would hamper your ability to be
able to perform?
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. In that case, I leave my
motion as -is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning was first. Go
ahead, Commissioner Henning, because I have a question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I need to understand the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then let me ask my question first
because it might clarify Commissioner Coletta's intent.
This issue involves airport operation. We don't have anybody on
county attorney staff who has experience in airport operations nor do I
believe they're all that familiar with federal aviation regulations.
I, personally think this suit should be defended with the most
rigorous and informed and experienced legal capabilities we can pull
together, because it is outrageous. And I think that any appropriate
countercharges should be considered. And I don't see that happening
with people who are inexperienced with aviation law.
So I would -- I would suggest we provide them the best possible
defense we can provide with people experienced in aviation law.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll incorporate that into my
motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And second.
MR. KLATZKOW: You'll need -- you're going to need to
Page 145
April 24, 2012
budget for this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Uh -huh.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And what's that going to require?
MR. KLATZKOW: Some -- you'll need to figure out some
source for the money.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's not going to be coming from
the airport.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Until we do that -- Chris, raise all the
rents at the airport.
MR. COURTRIGHT: He already did that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Cover these costs with the rents from the
airport, will you?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Charge all the animals that fly
over it, too.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But in any event.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Take it from the CRA.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would it be appropriate, then, to say
until such time as appropriate funds can be identified, that you will
perform the --
MR. KLATZKOW: We'll identify -- usually in the fiscal impact
we identify where the funds are coming from.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, if that's the direction of the board,
we'll process a budget amendment from reserves and set up a litigation
line item in Jeff s budget and move on, if that's the direction of the
board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right. Is that your motion then,
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's my motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Fiala seconded.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning, anything
Page 146
April 24, 2012
else?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Since you commented on
the merit -- merits of the case, there were several reports from the
airport staff, complaints to the FAA on Fletcher Flying. Nobody has
ever brought that there was any -- that those complaints were valid.
Okay. They're invalid.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, that's not true. They can't be called
invalid because --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They're not --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- no actual action has been taken to
date.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So -- yeah. No, there hasn't
been because there's no finding of it.
You're losing business at the airport, all right. You're losing
money at the airport. You want to use, you know, taxpayers' money,
General Fund money, and this resembles the lawsuit to stop the clerk
from auditing. It just didn't make sense, okay.
You know, I could support it if the county attorney would have
defended it because it wasn't taking other monies that we can use to
pay our debt down. We have legal staff to do it; however, you want to
get the best and the most expensive; that's what it's going to be, the
most expensive to defend this. And the issue is, there's a lot of people
in Immokalee, and a lot of people that use that airport are very upset,
and a lot of people -- tenants have left, and I don't think defending this
vigorously is going to help bring in monies at the Immokalee airport.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that's an opinion, but --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- my opinion differs, and I don't believe
that the airport is losing all that much business.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We got the report.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We've got every hangar leased up; is that
correct?
Page 147
April 24, 2012
MR. COURTRIGHT: Be careful.
MR. CURRY: I think --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that's all right. Forget it.
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
Commissioner Hiller and Henning dissenting.
Item # 12B
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO JOIN FLORIDA ASSOC.
OF COUNTIES AS A PLAINTIFF IN LITIGATION TO
CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF CHAPTER 2012-
33, LAWS OF FLORIDA (HB 5301) — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, 12B was previously 16K2. It's a
request for authorization to join Florida Association of Counties as a
plaintiff in the litigation challenging the constitutionality of Chapter
2012 -33, laws of Florida, House Bill 5301. This item was moved at
both Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner Henning's request.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. This is more or less just an
advisory for everyone. We, the county, in particular, as your
representative and member of the executive board for the Florida
Association of Counties, are working together to prepare a lawsuit,
actually, to challenge the constitutionality of a bill that's just been put
in place, and what it does is pass down unfunded mandates to all of
April 24, 2012
our citizens, actually to all of the counties in the State of Florida, not
just us, everybody. We have all -- all 67 counties are joining together
to stop this from happening.
And what it actually -- it's going to cost us $3,500 as our share
because every county will be putting in -- now, we don't know if it
will actually be that much -- might be a lot less, depends how it goes,
but what this is all about is -- how can I -- counties have always been
contributing to Medicaid, okay. We've been contributing to Medicaid
collections over many, many years, and collections have steadily
decreased now with only 64.7 percent of billings being paid that year.
The backlog of billing resulting in a shortfall in the state's general
fund is blamed on the electronic billing system. They got a new
electronic billing system.
Being that they're getting so much less money -- that their new
electronic billing system is telling them that that's all they deserve, but
they say it's costing them more -- they're now wanting to charge all of
the counties to cover the costs.
And the counties are saying, well, wait a minute. That isn't what
we have to pay. You know, that system is wrong. You're wrong to try
and bill us.
So we're all gathering together. And I just wanted the public to
know that's something that we're going to be doing and, actually, it's for
our taxpayers, to stop yet another unfunded mandate from being passed
down to all 67 counties in the State of Florida. So that's about it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Do you have a motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve by
Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Coletta.
Do you have public speakers?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir. We have one speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Page 149
April 24, 2012
MR. MITCHELL: Peter Gaddy.
MR. GADDY: Peter Gaddy. Good afternoon, Commissioners.
Thank you, Commissioner Fiala for describing the background of
this item. I support the litigation, and I'm glad the board is concerned
about this and doing the right thing.
One suggestion I had was our local representative, Matt Hudson,
was one of the sponsors of this litigation. My suggestion is that you
have him come before the board to explain why he supported this
litigation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He didn't support the litigation. He
supported the legislation.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Not the litigation bill.
MR. GADDY: The legislation, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: He actually -- it was his -- it was
his bill.
MR. GADDY: Right. I'm just suggesting to you, if you think
about it, an invitation might be in order. Maybe he has some
explanation that we're unable to figure out.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Actually, I'd like to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: He did. He came before -- I'm
sorry. Mr. Gaddy, you're right. We did this by phone with him when
he was working on the legislation, and we expressed our misgivings
with it at that point in time. And we engaged him in conversation
probably for 15, 20 minutes, I'd say.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're absolutely right. I
remember that. It was on video (sic).
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, I don't know what
purpose it would serve at this time. He passed -- and I got to be
honest with you, even though we're opposed to it, there is a lot of
support out there, especially at the state capitol and within the medical
industry itself.
So it's a double -edged thing. It's going to hurt us financially. On
Page 150
April 24, 2012
the other end it's going to enable them to have funds to go forward. If I
had a way to bring it to an end, I would. That's why we're sponsoring
the suit.
And thank you Commissioner Fiala, for representing us on the
council there for the Association of Counties.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let me clarify that just a little bit. When
we talked with --
MR. GADDY: Mr. Hudson?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- well, the legislature who passed this
thing, we talked with him about his proposal to consolidate certain
medical functions to include public health agencies in Collier County.
To the best of my knowledge, the portion that we talked with him
about was defeated and did not happen. I'm not at all sure -- I don't
recall that Mr. Hudson discussed the issue of Medicare -- Medicaid
billing that we're currently litigating.
MR. GADDY: That's my recollection of that phone call also.
And I don't think at the time of that phone call anyone understood the
ramifications explained by Mr. -- Mr. Ochs a couple of meetings ago.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think that's right. So we didn't
understand a part of the legislation --
MR. GADDY: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- that pertained to the recovery of
Medicaid funds from counties was going to survive. We didn't know
that that was going to happen. But it did, and -- so it certainly would
be good if we could get an explanation as to why that legislation was
sponsored and passed.
MR. GADDY: I just had one question of Commissioner Fiala or
the county attorney. Do you have any more updated information, like
a copy of the complaint or anything like that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's coming up. I had a
conference call with all of the counties that were able to be on that
conference call at the time, FAC heading the conference call, and they
Page 151
April 24, 2012
said that they were going to be printing something up. And when I get
it I'll make sure that you get a copy of it, but I'm sure we'll be making
it public.
MR. GADDY: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I like your idea about inviting
Matt Hudson back to talk about this. I would like it if other
commissioners felt the same way.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I'll support it. I'll support it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I think that's a good idea.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's break this into two parts.
Let's vote on this motion, and then we can talk about having
Representative Hudson --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, we already voted on this, and
we passed it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, we didn't.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't think so.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's not even a motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Huh? Didn't I say motion to
approve and somebody else said --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I thought you did.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And when we voted on it I thought
that I -- poor Peter Gaddy was still sitting there and we'd already --
MR. GADDY: You didn't. I had interrupted your vote to say
that there was a public speaker. So you didn't complete the vote.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I didn't call the motion until after we got
to public speakers.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But I had -- I pulled it off the
consent agenda also; is that correct?
MR. OCHS: That's correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think I did that because I had a
question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead. But first of all, let me
Page 152
April 24, 2012
participate in the conversation here.
HB 5301, and that's what we're opposing, was and is
Representative Hudson's bill. That's the bottom line.
Now, he would have to agree to bring that language in there on
the whole cost -share thing where it's going to cost the county $2
million. That happened at the end of the legislative -- and I think it
was the day -- the last day or the second -to- the -last day. That was
prior -- that was after we had a discussion with Matt Hudson about
that, okay.
So that's -- that's the time frame of the whole thing is we spoke to
Matt Hudson. He said that the parts of the bill that we objected to
were removed; however, after that he allowed for a cost sharing that's
going to cost the Collier County taxpayers $2 million. That's exactly
what happened, okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And my question and why I
wanted it off the agenda, because this -- this bill, HB 53015
Representative Hudson's bill is unconstitutional. Remember when I
sent you that information the next morning when it was in the paper?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, you did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This bill is unconstitutional. It's
against the Florida Constitution. There's no question about it. And I
know we'll prevail.
So once we prevail defending or proposing litigation, what's the
chances of us asking and receiving our costs back for this litigation?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I'll get with Susan Sharudi, who's
going to be one of the lead attorneys. I have a long -time relationship
with her and I'll ask her to include that as part of the complaint. We're
just going to be one party of maybe 30 counties in this. The chance of
getting attorney's fees are probably relatively low, but I will ask her.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good, good.
Okay, Commissioner Coletta, do you have anything more?
Page 153
April 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, nothing more.
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: Okay. It sounds like it passes
unanimously, but I'll ask the question anyway.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes unanimously.
Where do we go next?
Item #13A
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD ACCEPT THE
INVESTMENT STATUS UPDATE REPORT FOR THE
OUARTER ENDING MARCH 31, 2012 — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, let's go to 13A. It was previously
16J5. It's a recommendation that the board accept the Investment
Status Update Report for the quarter ending March 31, 2012, and this
item was moved at Commissioner Fiala's request.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, thank you so much. It's pretty
simple. I was just -- really, I thought these figures were -- your report
is outstanding. You guys have always been investing our money so
well, and I don't think we make enough points about that.
So instead of being just hidden in the consent agenda, I wanted to
bring it out so that the public knows that we're working together not
only to get this money but also to save it and to get interest on it to use
Page 154
April 24, 2012
then wisely. And so, you know, go ahead and brag.
MR. JOHNS SEN: Commissioner, Derek Johnssen for the
Clerk's Office. Thank you very much.
If I could just highlight a couple of items. The board's total
pooled investment portfolio as of 3/31/2012 --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you speak into the mic?
MR. JOHNS SEN: -- was $694 million. The annualized yield
was .58 percent. Of these monies, $85 million was available on an
overnight basis to pay bills as they came due, and $609 million was
invested in treasuries and federal instrumentalities.
As of 3/31, the fair market value of the portfolio was $409,000
more than its purchase price.
The portfolio's structured to preserve principal in accordance
with our investment policy, your investment policy. The current
strategy is to protect principal by buying conservative investments
with very short terms.
We expect that -- that philosophy or that strategy to be what we
are doing for quite a while. And in this case we'll be able to -- in order
-- be in a position to be able to take advantage of any future interest
rate increases.
Those are all the comments I have.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's it. And I make a motion to
approve.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve by
Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Hiller.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 155
April 24, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's a good -news item. Thank
you.
MR. JOHNSSEN: Thank you, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. I think you should get higher
interest rates, though.
MR. JOHNSSEN: Sir, I agree. I couldn't agree more.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Five to 10 percent would be great.
MR. JOHNSSEN: Sir, are you paying that?
MR. OCHS: With no risk.
Item # 14B 1
RECOMMENDATION TO PROVIDE "AFTER- THE - FACT"
APPROVAL OF THE SUBMISSION OF A COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) APPLICATION TO
COLLIER COUNTY'S HOUSING AND HUMAN SERVICE
DEPARTMENT SEEKING GRANT FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT
OF $36000 TO SUPPORT FURTHER IMPLEMENTATION OF
SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE IMMOKALEE BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENT CENTER — APPROVED
Commissioners, that takes us to Item 14B on your agenda. It was
previously 16B 1 under your CRA. It's a recommendation to provide
after - the -fact approval of the submission of the attached Community
Development Block Grant application to Collier County Housing and
Human Service Department seeking grant funding in the amount of
$360,000 to support further implementation of the services provided
by the Immokalee Business Development Center. This item was
moved at Commissioner Henning's request.
Page 156
April 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to support the grant.
However, I think we need to give direction as the CRA, because we
are acting as the CRA right now. The item, if you look at the
executive summary, says -- it states, March 9, 2010 the board
approved the creation of the Immokalee Business Center at the airport.
And what I recall of it, it was trying to get the incubator filled up.
However, I think there's some great opportunities. In fact, Penny
Phillippi has provided those in a report. And I think what -- the work
that has been completed is outside the airport -- created 10 jobs -- no,
I'm sorry -- 10 businesses and 14 new jobs in Immokalee. And, you
know, I hope that we can highlight those. I would like to know who
they are. But they're not at the airport, is that correct?
MS. PHILLIPPI: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Can we -- can we change
the makeup of the Immokalee Business Group -- I'm sorry. Tell me
the name of it.
MS. PHILLIPPI: The Immokalee Business Development Center.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- Immokalee Business
Development Center to focus on new business and expanding
businesses in Immokalee, change the scope of it so it matches what
you're doing today?
MS. PHILLIPPI: If you recall, back on June 28th when we came
to lease the property that we're currently in, we had a pretty extensive
discussion about why we needed that leased space and that we had to
set the Immokalee Business Development Center up with classrooms
and a lab and those kinds of things, and --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know you did, but it -- during
the creation of the Immokalee business center, it was supposed to be at
the airport.
MS. PHILLIPPI: At the airport, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Now you're doing things
different. It was all set up and focused around the airport. And, quite
Page 157
April 24, 2012
frankly, it would probably be best to stay away from the airport at this
time and focus on new businesses and job creation and business
expansion in Immokalee.
So I would just ask you to, in the future, change what was
reported to the board March 9, 2010, and expand what you're -- what
this --
MS. PHILLIPPI: Well, you're absolutely right. We do need to
completely readdress those policies and procedures --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
MS. PHILLIPPI: -- that the board initially approved. And I
think we very recently had a discussion that that was the case.
The only reason we didn't go to the airport was they didn't have
the space for us. We had a nice partnership agreement, and they just
simply didn't have space.
Our current experience over these past two years has told us that
people don't want to be at the airport unless they're a heavier industry.
The folks that we actually are working with want to be on Main Street.
So you're absolutely right. We need to readdress our policies and
procedures.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And could you provide the
board at a future date of what these new 10 businesses are?
MS. PHILLIPPI: Yes. I believe we put a list -- they're new and
expanding businesses. I believe we put a list of them on Page 4 of our
annual report. And one of the first people to sign up, whom you all
know, I'm sure, Airboats and Alligators, or is it Alligators and
Airboats? Ski Olesky, whom you all know pretty well. Since he
signed up -- and he asked specifically for marketing and advertising
expansion and how to build that business -- he's bought two brand new
airboats and now he has two more on order. I mean, it's just like a
factory out there in the way that this has helped his business, and we
all owe it primarily to Marie Capita. I'm telling you, she's been a real
fireball out there.
Page 158
April 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I'm very interested
in 10 new businesses. So if I could have some information later on, I
really would appreciate that.
MS. PHILLIPPI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to make a motion that
we approve this item, and it sound like Penny's going to change the
policy -- goals and policies --
MS. PHILLIPPI: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- for this so the grant can be
paid.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner
Henning to approve, and seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
And, Commissioner Hiller, you're trying to turn your light on or
off?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I am. I'm trying to.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry. It's not on, so you can't speak.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do you like this -- I mean -- this
abuse here?
Penny, what happened was when I had reviewed this -- help me
out. You know, when I went through this, I read all the stuff, you
know, that you explained about all the different programs you're
developing, which is all really good, but how exactly is this -- what I
didn't see in here was how these funds were actually going to be used.
So can you help me out? How is this --
MS. PHILLIPPI: We actually did put a budget in there, but --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And, unfortunately -- I usually pull
it up electronically. My computer isn't working right now, I just --
MS. PHILLIPPI: If we may for you --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I just could not -- I couldn't
find it, so -- and I was looking for it, and maybe you can help me out.
Could you put it up on the board and --
Page 159
April 24, 2012
MS. PHILLIPPI: Just for your --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because I could not --
MS. PHILLIPPI: -- information, Marie put together kind of a
quick and dirty PowerPoint so that she could talk about the kinds of
things that we hope to expend these funds on. And this is a two -year
grant, not a one -year grant.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
MS. PHILLIPPI: So 365 is for 2 full years. So -- 360, I'm sorry.
MS. CAPITA: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Marie Capita, and I'm the center manager for the Immokalee Business
Development Center.
The Immokalee Business Development Center is a center for
entrepreneurial creativity, because there's a lot of creative minds in
Immokalee, and we're helping them bring out their creativity.
The CRA has identified a unique and proven method to improve
the business and economic development in Immokalee. And for the
past year this method has proven to be very successful by the work
and the success stories that we have accomplished so far.
The IBDC, Immokalee Business Development program, is an
economic development tool designed to facilitate the growth and
development of new and existing businesses. With the money that is
being requested through the fund, we will provide educational
workshops and training entrepreneurial school information,
informational technology, assistance in job creation.
Workshops and training. Today the IBDC has so far given several
workshops in which 165 participants have gone thru our workshops.
And these are business - related workshops. We have workshops on
business law, we have workshops on business insurance, we have
QuickBooks workshops, we have Section III workshops, we have
MBE workshops for minority business enterprise to help businesses
get certified. And we have several more you can see on the list.
The entrepreneur school is one of the main focuses of our
Page 160
April 24, 2012
business development center. There is a six -week course, which I
teach, which provides the new participants who want to open a
business -- I call it business boot camp. We try to introduce the
concept to them of what opening a new business entails. After the six
weeks, several people say they're not ready. Some of them proceed
into the program.
But I always tell them that it's better to know now than later
whether or not you're ready because you don't expend that money.
And some of them who have told me they're not ready at the
beginning, they come back when they're ready for the program.
The information technology component of the program, thanks to
Suncoast Federal Credit Union, they donated 10 computers to the
IBDC. Now we have a full functional computer lab which we can
provide QuickBooks services and other business - related software
training to the businesses in Immokalee.
The job creation component of the program is that we provide to
assist the businesses in getting certified in Section III certification,
disadvantaged business enterprise certification, HUB zone, and
PTAC, procurement technical assistance certification. These would
get -- these would allow them to get certified, and then they could
expand their business to hire more people within the community.
Partnerships formed. So far we have formed numerous
partnerships with different entities within the community. We formed
a partnership with SCORE, we formed a partnership with SBDC at
FGCU, we formed a partnership with the National Business Incubator
Association.
On June 20th we -- on January 20th, sorry, our most prized
possession was our partnership with the United States Small Business
Association. The district director came to our office, and he signed a
partnership agreement with us whereby now we are partners with
them. We are on their website where -- if a business goes onto their
website, they have the Immokalee Business Development Center as an
Page 161
April 24, 2012
entity that provides business technical support in the Immokalee area.
Accomplishments to date. To date we have created and extended
10 new businesses, we graduated three classes from the entrepreneurial
school, we trained more than 140 individuals and workshops, we
assisted three businesses in getting Section III certification, we set up a
training computer lab within the IBDC facility, and currently we're
working with 10 participants in the IBDC program.
So this grant will allow us to continue the services that we're
giving to the Immokalee community.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you very much for your
presentation. It's really great to see all the work you're doing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm sorry, I had asked the question.
That's what she was responding to.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I just wanted to finish my
question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there another question?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, it's part of it.
I understand the programs that you're going to be developing.
The funding that you're receiving is going to pay for the salaries and
the rent for the facilities so you can do this; is that correct? Is that
what the CDBG funds are for?
MS. CAPITA: The funding will be used to pay -- the bulk of the
funding will pay salaries for myself and my assistant --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
MS. CAPITA: -- and then --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The rent.
MS. CAPITA: -- and then it will be rent, it will be other
contractual services, because sometimes when we have workshops, if I
don't do the workshop personally, the individual who does the
workshops charges a fee.
Page 162
April 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure. No, that makes perfect sense.
And the reason I'm asking is because I just want to clarify where the
CRA monies are going versus where you're pulling CDBG monies.
MS. CAPITA: If I could --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I just want to make sure
because -- is this a source of funding that's new to us and, as a result,
are we freeing up CRA monies to be allocated in a different way?
MS. PHILLIPPI: I can answer that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do you see where I'm coming
from?
MS. PHILLIPPI: We haven't to date expended CRA funds
unless it was something that a grant wouldn't pay for. The Immokalee
Business Development Center has been funded completely by --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Grants.
MS. PHILLIPPI: -- grants. We do keep some funds in our Fund
186 in case something should happen. For example, any -- initially,
lunches or meals at meetings wasn't covered or something like that, so
we would pick that up with Fund 186.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the rent for the facility was
always intended to be paid for by CDBG funds, not by the CRA
funds?
MS. PHILLIPPI: The CRA pays for its rent. The grant only pays
for the space that they utilize, because they do have a classroom and
lab and two office spaces.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So that facility -- that office is
actually divided between the CRA office and the business
development office --
MS. PHILLIPPI: Right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- with the business development
office being supported by this grant?
MS. PHILLIPPI: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it's all under the same lease?
Page 163
April 24, 2012
MS. PHILLIPPI: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So the payment is being
bifurcated? Okay, that's what -- that was the clarification I wanted. I
just was hoping that there was -- somehow that -- you know, that you
had gotten some new money and that was going to free up some CRA
money, but -- so I was going to ask -- my next question was going to
be where was that going to go. But, no, it's great. I mean, I think it's
wonderful that you're applying for this.
MS. PHILLIPPI: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Penny, kudos to you for pulling
all these things off.
But going back to the actual money that you collect as the CRA
from taxes, how much is that in a year?
MS. PHILLIPPI: I believe it was 430,000 last year, more or less.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And so -- and how much money
have you pulled down in grants to be able to enable you to do all these
different programs?
MS. PHILLIPPI: I think we're walking up to about $8 million
right now.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Eight million?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm glad you're working for us
and not somebody else. It's truly remarkable.
Tell me, the program that we're talking about at the moment
regarding the further education of future business owners, what is the
geographic location, I mean, as far as what area do you draw from?
Just from the Immokalee area or --
MS. PHILLIPPI: Predominantly. We would say -- this is a
federal grant. We can't discriminate against anyone.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So if somebody from Golden
Gate Estates had an interest in starting a business -- I'll tell you where
I'm going with this. There's limited resources in the rest of the county
Page 164
April 24, 2012
right now with the demise of the EDC back about a year ago. We've
been trying hard to fill that gap, and we've been less than successful.
There was a big meeting yesterday. There's a tremendous
amount within the community to be able to move to the next step;
however, with that said, Leo, what would you say, we're probably a
good year out before we have another group that will be able to serve
like an Economic Development Council?
MR. OCHS: I would say six months at least, sir, until the private
sector kind of gets their act together.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. But meanwhile in
Immokalee we already have together the forces to make these things
happen, and I just want you to know how much I appreciate the fact
that you're there and that your staff s there to make this all happen.
MS. PHILLIPPI: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's made a big difference in a
lot of people's lives.
MS. PHILLIPPI: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning, you did
have a motion, didn't you --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I did. Are we acting as the
CRA?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- for approval? CRA, I'm sorry.
Commissioner Fiala --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that -- and what does the EDC
have to do with this item? Nothing, yeah. That's why it takes us so
long to get these meetings done.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So do we have a motion on the floor and
a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, we do.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
Page 165
April 24, 2012
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you Commissioner Fiala.
MS. PHILLIPPI: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: CRA meeting has ended and back to the
regular Board of County Commissioners meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now we'll get this thing moving
along here.
Okay. Where do we go now, County Manager?
Item #1 I B
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE NEIGHBORHOOD
STABILIZATION PROGRAM DEVELOPER AGREEMENTS
WITH HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC.
THEREBY TRANSFERRING OWNERSHIP IN REAL PROPERTY
AND PROVIDING ACCESS TO $394959749 IN FEDERAL GRANT
FUNDING — MOTION TO APPROVE W /CHANGES — FAILED;
MOTION TO APPROVE OPTION #1 AS OUTLINED IN THE
BOARD'S EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND WITH STAFF
RECOMMENDATIONS — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: We go to Item 11B, Mr. Chairman. It's a
recommendation to approve Neighborhood Stabilization Program
Developer Agreements with Habitat for Humanity of Collier County,
Incorporated, thereby transferring ownership in real property and
providing access to $3,495,749 in federal grant funding.
Ms. Kim Grant, your interim director for housing, human, and
Page 166
April 24, 2012
veteran services, will present.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, we've done this about three
or four times already. Can you just tell us the final agreement that
you've worked up to meet the requirements for the housing categories
that were discussed last time?
MS. GRANT: Yes. We did work it up pursuant to the board's
direction.
I do have one related modification to that, but it -- when you're
ready, I would read it into the record, but let me just show you real
briefly what that is, and it's --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's probably not going to do much good
to do that unless we have three commissioners minimum here.
MS. GRANT: Okay. And Commissioner Fiala is not here. She
was the one who wants to do this. So without her here, there's no point
in going through it.
MR. KLATZKOW: There's also no quorum.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep. All in favor, please signify by
saying aye.
MS. GRANT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye, okay.
MR. OCHS: Crystal, aye?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Take a break.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to take a break until we can
get these commissioners back under control.
MR. OCHS: Five minutes, 10 minutes?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Five minutes. We'll be back here at --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ten minutes from now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- 3:45.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. OCHS: We have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We've got a live mike. So the next item,
go ahead.
Page 167
April 24, 2012
MR. OCHS: Well, we were just in the process of beginning the
presentation on I I B when we broke.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: When everybody walked out of
the room. We're all -- we've got three of us here now.
MR. OCHS : Yeah, we're ready to keep going.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I guess Commissioner
Coyle's last comments were this is what we heard before. What is
different this time?
MS. GRANT: Okay. There is, I don't think, anything different.
But what I have up on -- this is Kim Grant, for the record.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Was there a motion on the
floor?
MS. GRANT: What I have up on the presentation --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, not yet.
MS. GRANT: -- slide is to confirm for you the stratification of
the funds by income category, which was done in response to the last
board meeting. There was one thing that, if the board is in agreement,
I will need to read into the record concerning this.
From a practical standpoint, it is unlikely when Habitat is out
purchasing homes that they're going to add up to these exact dollar
amounts.
So what staff is recommending is that we allow for a 25- percent
(sic) window, if you will, plus or minus --
MR. OCHS : Twenty -five thousand, not percent, not a percent.
MS. GRANT: Did I say percent? Pardon me -- $25,000 plus or
minus each of the income categories to provide for reasonableness in
the actual prices of the homes; otherwise, we are exactly on point with
what the board had asked us to bring back.
If the board is ready, I will just read those changes into the
record. NSP --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Why don't we go with that,
Commissioner Hiller, then come right back to you, and you'll be first.
Page 168
April 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
MR. GRANT: For NSP 3 -- we actually have a couple of very
minor changes on NSP 1 also. For NSP 3, Page 43, Exhibit B, should
read, developer has the authority to reallocate $25,000 per income
category but shall not expend less than the low income set -aside
allocation of $971,042. That is a requirement of the program.
Should the developer determine that the reallocation is necessary
-- and, once again, this is just to deal with the minor various -- you
know, variances in home prices -- a prior notification and written
approval shall be duly signed by the developer and the director of
HHVS, so it will be a prior notification.
Reallocations above $25,000 between the income categories will
require prior grantee approval. And what that means is we'll be
coming back to the board. This language appeared in multiple
locations in the agreement. So it also applies to Pages 3, Section
II(A)(2); Page 5, Section II(E)(1); and Page 9, Section V(A).
And very briefly on NSP 1, on Page 17, the second bullet point
should read, whose income "does not exceed" instead of "do not
exceed," and on Page 41 under budget it should read shall be $231,000
and zero dollars.
And with that, I'll be happy to take any further questions.
MR. OCHS: Go back to the other slide.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, thank you very much.
Kim, thank you for doing all this work and trying to come up
with an exit strategy. I'm going to go back to what I have said at the
previous meetings.
You know, a statement was made at the previous meetings that
there is no money in this for any other developer. And, quite frankly,
that isn't so, because as you can see from the graph that you've put up,
there is a 10 percent developer fee, which is a very hefty fee for any
developer.
Page 169
April 24, 2012
So, again, I go back, that from a public policy standpoint not to
put this out for competitive bid remains a -- really, again, a bad
decision from a public policy standpoint.
The second issue is the fact that we remain in the business of
construction and construction review, notwithstanding the fact that
Habitat would now be overseeing this. Our liability remains the same,
and now we are one step removed from the contractors and how this
money is going to be spent.
We're not good at it, which is why we had made the decision as a
board not to be in the acquisition and renovation of housing business.
We can help Habitat, and we can also stimulate demand in the
community by taking these monies and shifting these monies to down
payment assistance.
Lee County has a very effective program.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was going to say that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, well, you're smart. Lee
County has a very effective program. They are actually providing 40
percent down payment assistance on the homes that they have for sale,
and they're selling them very, very quickly and successfully, and that's
exactly what this money is intended to do. It's all about getting those
houses sold. Putting more houses up for sale isn't going to help us.
We have an oversupply. We need to help people get in those homes.
Now, as far as lending institutions out there, there are a lot of
highly - qualified lending institutions that really want to participate in
these programs. Wells Fargo is one, SunTrust is another. They're
working very successfully with other jurisdictions that are using NSP
funding for down payment assistance. They can be used to assist with
the acquisition of Habitat homes.
We don't need to be doing this. This is the wrong strategy. The
county continues to get its administration, your staff continues to be
supported with NSP dollars to administer this program. So you guys
are not out the support for your staff, and it's a win -win all around.
Page 170
Apri124, 2012
Giving almost $4 million to Habitat to acquire and rehab more
homes does not achieve the end we're looking to achieve, which is to
put families in homes. The quickest way we can do that is with down
payment assistance.
And I propose that we do that not only for this $3.9 million, but
also with respect to the homes that we own, because the same
developer fee applies, that we go ahead and we provide down payment
assistance on those homes that we have to liquidate them, and we will
liquidate them very quickly with a 40 percent down payment, you
know, assistance program.
Like I said, Lee County is doing it and they're very successful.
The banks really want to participate, and I'm talking about big banks,
and everybody benefits. Habitat will benefit. The community will
benefit. We will get unsold homes off.
And so I make a motion that we adopt that as our exit strategy
and not accept your proposal here today, notwithstanding that I really
appreciate all the work you've done to bring this forward.
So that's my motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that motion. And it's
interesting, because I hadn't thought of all of those things.
What I was thinking of -- if I may, I'll take my turn now. I'm the
only one that has a button on now. And I was thinking of using those
dollars, but I like that idea, too.
For young -- young families right now who -- teachers and, you
know, the people we've been talking about, and firemen and
policemen and so forth, techs at the hospital, you know, all of those
who've had so many problems because of the economy that they're
almost losing their house or they're being foreclosed upon if they can't
come up with the money to salvage their own homes that they're in but
they're going to be kicked out. And I thought, we should be helping
those people stay in. And if we could take this money to actually help
them --
Page 171
April 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's a brilliant idea.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- get settled and, you know, cover
those costs, they don't even have to be removed from their homes.
They can still have their homes and get on the right side of things. I
would love to see something going like that as well.
And right now -- just a side question. Right now, when we give
any of these homes to Habitat or whomever, it doesn't make any
different -- SHIP has always been -- or we, the taxpayers, have always
been providing $20,000 down payment assistance. Are we still going
to do that as well? So we give them the homes and the $20,000 on
each home?
MS. GRANT: SHIP funds are available for any qualified
purchaser, yes, and are -- per the board direction fairly recently, the
amounts are up to $25,000.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So -- see, so that would -- that's
another thing. It would -- you know, the taxpayers would have to deal
with, whereas, if we could give this money to people -- and I love
your idea about, you know, letting people who haven't been able to
buy a home buy some of these things, we give them down payment
assistance, then they find the money to fix it up. We won't have to do
that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, they have to do that
themselves, but it will -- you know, if people work hard for
something, they have their own sweat equity in it, and they will feel
better about it, and all we do is give them a helping hand there. So --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I agree.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Would you consider
modifying your motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the NSP 2 money, did --
Page 172
April 24, 2012
we settled those, right? Or the NSP 2 -- the houses and the monies?
MS. GRANT: We have two programs, NSP 1 and 3. And the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: One and three, okay. Number 1,
has the board already allocated?
MS. GRANT: Today before you are development agreements
for both. I think most of our discussion is on 3. I'm assuming there
are not issues with 1. So if this motion passes, then 1 will be done,
and we will start that transfer.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not done yet. You had
plenty of time to talk.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Go ahead. I know.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, the NSP 1, that has to deal
with the homes that we have in inventory.
MS. GRANT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So why can't we use -- still let
Habitat do the management of it but use some of the monies -- like
you're talking about, is down payment assistance -- for the targeted
homes? You have -- let's see. I mean, you've got a category -- the
highest category here is 51 to 80 percentile. We can give directions to
use a portion of that money for that down payment assistance for those
houses.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: For on those 50 homes. Yeah. Can
you do me a favor? And I'll consider modifying my motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute. Commissioner Henning
still has the floor.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I wanted to be responsive.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Unless he's finished. Are you finished?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I guess I am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I talk to Commissioner
Henning?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
Page 173
April 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Henning, I would
like to consider your idea and consider modifying my motion, but I
want all the information on NSP 3 in the same format that you have
here so we know exactly what we're talking about in terms of the
dollars for NSP -- I'm sorry -- for NSP 1.
MS. GRANT: For NSP 1, the only dollars involved are the
developer fee dollars. There's no money going for rehabilitation, so
it's essentially a transfer of the property, and then the developer fee.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And which is?
MS. GRANT: The developer fee is -- yeah, we've negotiated
different developer fees for the two different programs. And I realize
you're kind of in the middle of setting a motion here. I would really
like -- if you want to hear about developer fees, I'd like to talk to you a
little bit about how we established them, but that's up to you if you
want to hear it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's the developer fee for NSP I?
MS. GRANT: The short answer is, the developer fee for NSP 1
is $5,500 per property, and the developer fee proposed and negotiated
with Habitat for NSP 3 is $10,000 per property.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. The NS -- the NS -- the
developer fee for Habitat -- well, NSP 3 is off the table because we're
proposing something completely different.
So for NSP 1, which is strictly the houses, what is the value of the
assets that Habitat would be selling?
MS. GRANT: It's a -- let me just double- check. It's about 2.7
million? Yeah, it's approximately $2.7 million.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Two point seven million as a value
of the houses that we are assigning over to them?
MS. GRANT: The houses and the properties that are in the land
bank, so the undeveloped properties and the homes, that is correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And how is that 2.7 million
determined?
Page 174
April 24, 2012
MS. GRANT: Did we use the purchase price? Yeah, that figure
is the accumulated purchase price. It's not a current appraisal.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. And what is the total
developer fee that's estimated on those properties?
MS. GRANT: For NSP I. it's $231,000.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
MS. GRANT: So -- and the idea there is 4,200 -- or the math
works out -- not 4,200 -- 42 parcels times 5,500.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So basically what would
happen is if we transferred those properties over, they would get a
developer fee of 231,000, and then Commissioner Henning's
recommendation is that we use part of the NSP 3 as down payment
assistance towards the sale of those properties, with the balance of the
NSP 3 funds used towards down payment assistance for any qualified
buyer in the NSP program who is looking to buy an affordable home.
So, Commissioner Henning, how much were you thinking of
putting towards assisting the -- with the purchase of county homes?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Up to 40 percent.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. That's fine.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Up to 40 percent of the -- assist
in down payment. I mean, if it's working in -- and I'm taking your
word for it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's working in Lee County; why
not use it in Collier County?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And up to $400,000 of NSP 3
money to accomplish that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So I think that's a great --
I'll modify my proposal that, with respect to NSP that the homes be
transferred to Habitat to allow them to sell those homes. In exchange,
they will receive 5,500 per house or lot that they sell, and that we will
Page 175
April 24, 2012
make available towards the sale of those properties up to 400,000 in
NSP 3 funds to provide up to 40 percent in down payment assistance
to qualified buyers on those properties.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll tell you, you can do a motion
a lot cleaner if you just accept staff s recommendations with this
modification of using up to $400,000 of NSP 3 funds for 40 percent
down payment.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: For NSP 1. We're talking NSP 1,
because NSP 1 are the houses that we're transferring to them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's correct, but what's
wrong with not using it -- why shouldn't we be using it for NSP 3?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. What we're doing is we're
using the -- we're using 400,000 of the 3.9 million as down payment
assistance. This is -- I'm going to make my motion in two phases, or
two parts, Part A being NSP 1 and Part 2 being NSP 3.
So with respect to NSP 1, which is the transfer of the houses, we
are transferring those houses to Habitat, allowing them, you know,
5,500 as a developer fee on the sale of those properties each, which
amounts to $231,000 because there are 42 properties, and then
allocating 400,000 of NSP 3 dollars to help finance the sale of those
county homes through down payment assistance up to 40 percent.
And then Part B is, as far as the NSP 3 funds, to do what
Commissioner Fiala and I have suggested which is -- which you seem
to support, which is down payment assistance of up to 40 percent to
income - qualified buyers of affordable homes in Collier County, and
that would be administered through the county, not through Habitat.
This has nothing to do with Habitat.
Because, remember, the county is getting $388,000 as an
administration fee. And, essentially, what happens is, it goes out to
the banks, you let the banks know, you let all the brokers know, and
when they sell properties, they bring buyers in and they qualify for the
loans, and the banks provide the mortgage.
Page 176
April 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I ask two questions on that
proposal?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute. You've got some people
ahead of you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, it's --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, are you
finished?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I could, Habitat, if you could
come up, I -- I don't see any flaw in what Commissioner Henning is
proposing. The only thing is -- I'm sorry, you do, huh?
MS. GRANT: At some point when it's appropriate, I feel it
important to inform the board about a few items that might help their
decision, but I'll let you let me know when that's appropriate.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I tell you what, I'm still
trying to form my opinion, so tell me -- now's the appropriate time.
MS. GRANT: Okay. Thank you for the opportunity to talk a
little bit about down payment assistance.
First of all, let me talk a little bit about Lee County. Lee
County's approach, as has been characterized here, for down payment
assistance was in concert with properties that they purchased and
rehabilitated. That model is virtually identical to the one that Collier
County has been running for quite some time. And we've been
leaving up to 30 percent in the homes, depending on the math for a
particular individual.
Now, staff feels very strongly that we would advise against -- and
I think in this case we'd have to call it sort of a stand -alone down
payment assistance program, and even if it's not stand -alone -- so if I
could just explain to you a little bit of what we found out and why we
Page 177
April 24, 2012
would feel that way.
I'm going to go back to the tenets of the entire exit strategy.
What we were asked to bring back was a strategy that allowed us to
exit NSP. One of the components that you've heard us talk a lot about
as we've had all these conversations is something called program
income. By selecting a developer -- doesn't have to be Habitat -- to
take these funds and manage them through to completion, Collier
County stops program income.
Now, why is that important or why am I coming back on that?
Because program -- the way NSP was generated -- and many
programs are created -- are that we essentially recycle funds through.
So we go out, we buy a house, we sell it, we take that money back, we
buy another house, et cetera.
Frankly, one of the incredible challenges for staff has been trying
to come up with an exit strategy that would achieve what we heard is
the original objective, which is to exit the program.
Going into a down payment assistance strategy keeps us in the
business forever because the second mortgage that's associated with
the down payment assistance would need to be met -- monitored
forever. And if anybody repaid for any reason, that money comes
back in, and we'd be back here before you, or whatever commission is
at the time, trying to figure out how we're going to reallocate those
funds. That's one of the main reasons that we do not suggest this.
Also, even though it might sound simple on the surface -- and
I've struggled over how I was going to say this. Even though it might
sound simple on the surface to do a down payment assistance
program, especially because we do one with SHIP and we have some
familiarity, I'd like to let the board know that any one of these things
that we do that we haven't done before represents a start -up program,
and that's very risky. And in my opinion, we're not in a position to
take on too much more risk.
It's risky -- for example, when we were doing research for this
Page 178
April 24, 2012
paper, we actually found conflicting HUD guidance, much like what
we've had to do to prepare the strategy to bring it forth to you today;
we've spent hundreds of hours, we've spent a lot of time with HUD.
We spent time with HUD TA's, et cetera, trying to make sure we
could bring to you something clean and compliant and that would
achieve your objectives.
We're very concerned about down payment assistance, unless we
want to go back to our old model and keep the money here and do our
own acquisition rehab.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, we don't -- that's not true.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just let her --
MS. GRANT: The other considerations for you -- and, once
again, I'm laying out the considerations, okay.
The individuals who would be looking to come through the
program would have to be in eligible locations. Now, the idea of
partnering with Habitat, we know we've got that covered. The
property would have to be eligible. We've got that covered.
So the big issues are that it's risky because it would be a start-up
and a new program. It would also take us some time to get that going,
and we'd be back in the program- income business forever, and that
was a very, very, very important component that staff was able to
bring to you to achieve your original objective of exiting the program.
So I just wanted to let you know what staff has found for your
consideration.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think I'm still up, if I may.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So I understand what
you're saying, what you're saying is is that if we want to go with this
particular plan, we have to be resolved with the fact that we're not
Page 179
April 24, 2012
getting out of the business, that we're going to stay into it, which
maybe at that limited point it's not a bad idea. I mean, I don't know.
Maybe my fellow commissioners might want to express an opinion on
that. It might be a little early, but let me -- I'd like to go to Habitat, if I
could, and just talk to them about the discussions that's taking place.
Very good to see you today.
MR. KOULOHERAS: It's nice to see you, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. You heard the discussion
that's taking place. Can you give us some guidance, please?
MR. KOULOHERAS : Sure. Nick Kouloheras with Habitat for
Humanity, and Lisa Lefkow.
You know, we're in favor of down payment assistance as well. It
helps Habitat families, it helps non - Habitat families. In fact, I was at a
NABOR meeting the other day, and I was telling them about the SHIP
program in more detail.
We agree completely with Kim. And as we've been talking about
program income since December, we said, how do we get the county
out of a position of monitoring program income for eternity? Because
the way it would work -- we'll use Habitat as the example, we -- our
applicant gets some dollar amount in down payment assistance
through NSP. That applicant, sometime down the road, sells their
house. That money is reserved through a second mortgage. It goes
right back to Collier County, and Collier County has to come right
back to determine what are we going to do with that money.
So although we're in favor for down payment assistance as a
whole because we agree with you, it helps stimulate the market on the
purchase side, for this particular situation it's a lot more complicated
than the SHIP program.
So I don't know --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Leo, how many times have we done this,
have we gone through this?
.l
April 24, 2012
MR. OCHS : I think this is our third trip to the board on this,
Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. OCHS : Again, as Kim said, we were working under the
initial direction of trying to exit the program without having to
continue to monitor this residual program income, and this was a
strategy that we had vetted with the board a couple of different times.
And, quite frankly, if it's the will of the board to modify it, I'm going
to recommend that we step back, and we're going to have to rework
some of the agreements and documents and schedule this for another
board hearing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. You see what's happening here?
MR. OCHS: And the clock's running all the time on this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, I understand, and there's a deadline
as to expenditure of some of those funds. What's happening here is
that every time you come in with a set of recommendations, we
change the ground rules. And so you come in with another set of
recommendations, and we change the ground rules.
Now, we do this over and over and over again, and every time we
do it we lose two weeks every time, maybe longer. And that's where
you're headed again.
In fact, this time you'll have to come in and rework this whole
thing. So we're going to a point where no decision is going to be
made, and there are going to be serious consequences as a result of
that.
The idea that down payment assistance is the salvation to this
problem is -- simply doesn't recognize the fact that when you're
dealing with low- income people who cannot make the standard down
payment on a house and who don't earn enough -- a lot of money in
the first place, the first blip they have, like the loss of a job, means
they're going to lose that house probably.
Page 181
April 24, 2012
And when you lose the house -- we've seen what happens when
you walk away from a house -- you don't have that much in it -- it
becomes another blighted house in the neighborhood. And guess who
has the responsibility then for getting it cleaned up.
You don't always get that down payment money back. It depends
on the value of the house at the time it's repossessed by the bank.
So it is a complicated process, and nobody can forecast where it's
going to lead you. So if we don't get to a decision pretty quickly and
stop running this process around and around and around, then we're
wasting your time, we're wasting Habitat's time, and we may as well
just send the money back to the government and say, guys, we don't
want any more, we can't administer it, and then concentrate only on
getting out from under the ones that we have bought.
And I am just amazed that this board cannot make a decision on
these issues, that we continually go through this process over and over
and over again finding we need to do studying again and reformulate
the recommendations, because it's never going to end. Okay.
MR.00HS: Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. OCHS: May I ask Buddy Ramsey to just come up for one
quick minute to make a distinction between -- just so that everyone on
the board understands the distinction between the down payment
assistance offered through the SHIP program versus the NSP 3
program? Because there are some subtle but important distinctions,
and I don't want those lost on the board.
Buddy?
MR. RAMSEY: Thank you, sir. Frank -- or Buddy Ramsey for
the record.
Under the NSP 3 program, home -- homebuyers receiving
assistance would be subject to the affordability requirements of the
program. And what I mean by that is, based on the amount of funds
invested, the home must remain affordable for a certain period of time,
Page 182
April 24, 2012
likely 15 years.
And how the county has chosen to enforce the affordability
requirements is by limiting the appreciation that the client can earn on
the home if and when the market were to improve.
Furthermore, as has been stated, the NSP properties would have
to be located in the approved target areas.
Alternatively, under the SHIP program, there is no requirement
that we limit the appreciation. So the client would benefit if the market
were to improve and they were assisted by SHIP. And, additionally,
under SHIP there's no requirement that the property be located in
specific areas of the county and can be purchased anywhere in the
county.
And finally, under SHIP, the program -- under the SHIP program,
the house would not have to have been foreclosed, vacant, or
abandoned to be eligible. It could be any property for sale in Collier
County.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, my only point is, you know, if
you're a buyer and you have those two options, you're more likely to
take the more flexible option if you can do it. If you -- if we're going
to use down payment assistance with NSP funds, it still has to be
homes that are limited in certain catchment areas identified in the
plan.
That doesn't mean it's impossible. I just wanted to draw the
distinction so you could -- if you're a buyer, you're most likely to take
advantage of our existing SHIP down payment assistance program,
which we just upped the limits because we haven't been able to get
enough buyers to take, and we're up against a spend -down deadline on
that as well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well, why don't we bring this to a
conclusion. If it's the desire of the majority of the board to do this
over again, let's do it over again. If it's the desire of the board to
approve your current recommendations, let's get it done, and let's
Page 183
April 24, 2012
move on.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: There's a motion on the table.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You never even allowed me to ask
my questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I'm getting to the point now. So
you're next, and then Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I hate to ask you to go back to what
we were talking about 20 minutes ago -- and you were talking about
down payment assistance, and all I wanted to know was if we
provided down payment assistance at $40,000, do they also get the
$20,000, so that's actually $60,000 down payment; two different
funds, right?
MS. GRANT: Let me make sure I understand the question. So if
we were to choose to offer $40,000 of NSP down payment assistance
money, would they also be eligible to apply for SHIP? I'm pretty sure
the answer is yes, but let me just double- check.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yep.
MS. GRANT: Does anybody see a problem with that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're talking about $40,000 or 40
percent of the down payment?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, $40,000.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Forty percent.
MS. GRANT: It would be allowable. We'd have to look at our
plans and make sure we had all the right numbers and so forth. It
might have to come back for a vote but, yes, it would be allowable.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I was just wondering because,
you know, that's an awful lot of money. And I mean -- as it is, and I
don't think many people realize for Habitat, for instance, we always
give them $20,000 down payment assistance out of the SHIP funds.
So that's something. This is -- we upped it. We used to have it that
way, then it went down with all the economy, then it went back up
again.
99 =. m
April 24, 2012
MS. GRANT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I understand that.
Also what I was really talking about was assistance in foreclosure
prevention, helping people who are about to lose their home, but
middle -class people who have been working and who, for one reason
or another, maybe their job closed down or maybe they were cut back
to 20 hours a week to keep them on so they still have a job, but until
the business recovered, their money had been reduced a great deal.
I'm just talking about down payment assistance to try and keep
them in their house. They've been paying taxes. That's something we
don't get from a lot of the very -low- income housing, and I'm sure you
know that. And now they need assistance. They've been paying taxes.
I think that they should get our assistance. And now, instead, we're
going to be creating more low- income housing instead of helping
these people out of a jam.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And -- we have a lot of empty land
there and money to go for more is what I'm talking about, Leo. I saw
you moving in your chair.
I have so many notes here, and I'm afraid I can't read them all.
One of them is we -- when we first started all this affordable housing
and requirements and so forth, at that time we were talking about
workforce housing, we were talking about helping young people who
are in bright jobs, you know, and have had some type of an education
and helping them to establish a place to raise their children and so
forth, but we got into the low- and very- low - income housing instead.
We don't seem to be building anything above that, and -- and those
people that we were going to build it for don't even qualify for any of
this low income, so they go without.
And I've talked to a couple friends of mine who have children,
who are educated children, but they can't even afford to buy a home
because everything is out of their range because they're just -- they
Page 185
April 24, 2012
make just a little bit too much money as a fireman or a nurse or
something like that.
And so I think we've lost sight of trying to help all people, and I
think we should be a lot more flexible so that we don't only help low
income and don't build for anybody else. We should be making this a
well - balanced decision. So those are the things I had to say.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there a motion to do
something?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There is, a motion and second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, but it doesn't comport with what
each of the commissioners is saying they want to do.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. There's a motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well let's just vote on the motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: There's a second, and I
incorporated --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Repeat the motion, Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. I'm going to repeat the
motion.
Number 1, with respect to the NSP 1 program, that we transfer
the county properties, of which there are 42, to Habitat for them to
sell, that Habitat receive a developer fee equal to 5,500 per property
that they sell, and that in order to assist Habitat with the sale of these
properties, that we will allocate 400,000 of NSP 3 funds out of the
total NSP 3 budget of 3.9 million which can go towards down
payment assistance of up to 40 percent per house.
And if you want, Commissioner Fiala, what we can do is we can
say that if other funds are available, like SHIP, that it would be a
combination of NSP and /or SHIP up to 40 percent so it doesn't become,
like 60 percent, then -- because what can happen is once we use up all
the SHIP monies then they can get up to 40 percent of NSP 3. So that
would take care of the NSP 1 program.
1 -I i t
April 24, 2012
With respect to the NSP 3 program, we would do down payment
assistance of up to 40 percent, again, and that would be NSP 3 plus
SHIP or just NSP 3 if, you know, they don't qualify for SHIP or if
SHIP is used up, and that that assistance would not only be targeted to
the income - qualified per the NSP 3 program which is, you know, up
to the median income of 120 -- 120 percent of median, but would --
that we would, as staff, do everything we can to promote assisting
with down payment assistance of individuals who own homes that are
looking to restructure their debt so that they can stay in their homes by
adding down payment assistance where we can provide that kind of
help to enable them to have smaller mortgage payments and,
therefore, be able to stay in their homes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. You don't really mean
foreclosure. I mean, you don't really mean down payment; you mean,
like, foreclosure prevention or something?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, exactly. And, basically,
what would happen is if you have someone who is in a position of
being foreclosed on and the bank is willing to restructure their debt, by
providing that down payment assistance, if NSP will allow for that,
they're basically able to reduce their monthly mortgage payment
because more money has been put down towards paying off that
mortgage, which is what you're intending to accomplish.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm trying to help the middle guy,
too, because --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, you're absolutely right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And with very every low income,
we still have to pay for their healthcare, we still have to pay for their
food stamps, we still have to pay for their down payment assistance.
It really --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Your recommendation is a very
good one, and basically that's the motion. So by doing that you are
stimulating -- well, I'm sorry, but there's a lot to this issue, okay, so it's
Page 187
April 24, 2012
a big motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Plus the taxpayers --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm sorry. You can laugh all you
like, but you've got people who need a lot of help. I mean, I've got
journalists at the Naples Daily News who make $50,000 and, you
know, are supporting a family on that, or $70,000 and supporting a
family of four on that. They are well qualified, they have a good job,
but it's very difficult for them to save. And this is exactly the kind of
person we're targeting --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- you know.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My turn.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And by the way --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute. Just a minute. There is
no way that anybody in this room understands this motion. Right?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you understand it, Leo? If you do,
then you're saddled with it, okay.
MR.00HS: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I am at a total loss as to how --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Then why don't I -- let me make --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: When a person is living in a home --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You don't have to vote for it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Shh, Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Just vote no.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, we need a motion
that makes sense. How is it that a person living in the home who's
already purchased the home who gets in financial trouble is going to
get out of financial trouble by down payment assistance when there is
no down payment because it's already been paid and they've been
living in the home all the time?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If --
::
April 24, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's -- what you're talking about is
giving money to people to help them make their mortgage payments.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. What you're doing --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that's what you're doing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. What you're doing is you're
increasing the amount -- well, you're basically paying down the
mortgage and allowing for a re- amortization of the unpaid balance of
the loan so as to make it more affordable by reducing the monthly
payment, okay. It's as simple as that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My turn.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And let me just say this: It would
be really nice if NSP funds could be used towards that. It's a very
creative idea that Commissioner Fiala came up with. I'm
incorporating it into the motion because if it can be done, it should be
done. And if it can't be done, it doesn't have to be done.
What should be done is that these NSP 3 funds should be used for
down payment assistance to assist with the acquisition of properties.
We do not need to purchase and redevelop more properties. We need
to stimulate demand, not supply, and this is how you do it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, when I first came
here, I asked the question about the windows in this room, if they
opened up. And I was told by the county manager they don't. And I
says, why? He said, you'll find out.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So nobody can jump out.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You got it, right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, let me try to simplify this
a little bit because, I mean, what we're arguing about is $400,000.
We're in danger of losing $3,884,000 that could go to help deserving
people in Collier County in some way.
We worked on this thing; we reworked it over. Now, you know,
April 24, 2012
your motion would make a lot more sense if you broke it down into
two pieces.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I was going to suggest that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The first part would be to be
able to allow that 3,484 -- $3,484,165 would be alotticated (sic) to go
to Habitat --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- in the form of, you know, the
homes that are there.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no. You're confusing the two.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let me finish. And then you
could separate it out. You can word it however you want. Hopefully
within a couple paragraphs, and then the $400,000, which would be
the down payment assistance, could be the second thing that we could
bring up for discussion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's not my motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know it's not.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We've got a motion on the table
and a second, I believe. Who seconded her --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Fiala.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala seconded the
motion.
Okay. All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (No verbal response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
I'm going to make a motion we --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute, wait a minute. Let me
just make sure for the record. The motion failed by a vote of 3-2, with
Page 190
April 24, 2012
Commissioners Coyle, Coletta, and Henning voting against.
Okay. Commissioner Henning, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion to accept the
recommendations and the add -on recommendations.
Kim, can you put that up there?
MS. GRANT: I sure can.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just so that we encapsulate
those in the motion, which agreement language would change for the
NSP 3 program and the NSP 1 program, as presented by Kim Grant.
That's my motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Second the motion, but
I'm going to want one time to have it spelled out again exactly the way
it was. It sounds like it's everything we need to do to get to where we
need to be.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Would you spell it out one more
time?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. It's No. I. waive the
informal competitive bid requirements under the Section 5 purchasing
policy, authorize the chairman of the board to execute NSP 1, NSP 3
development agreements and direct the county manager and his
designee to proceed with conveyance of property associated with
NSP 1. Developer agreements to follow the appropriate closing
procedures and record statutory deeds, and any and all necessary
documents to clear the title for these properties in the public record,
and approve necessary administrative budget amendments to realign
with the existing budget, appropriate expenditures, categorize (sic),
and agreement language as on that screen. That's what it's all about.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Second.
Page 191
April 24, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. There are -- in Target Area 2
you've got five properties in the East Naples Bayshore /Gateway CRA,
and I would ask that the $750,000 that you're going to be using to
build housing for up to 120 percent be used on these properties.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're going to go around this
over and over and over.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You bet, because all the
concentration is in East Naples, and I've got to -- I've got to protect
them, because none of you give a hoot, and we have to live with it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala, that simply isn't
true.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yes, it is. You don't -- you have
no idea.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So just calm down, we'll get through it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I make a comment, please?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just a moment. There is something that
Kim is asking to answer a question that Commissioner Fiala had.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't have any feelings on this
issue.
MS. GRANT: I'll let Nick respond to that.
MR. KOULOHERAS: Commissioner, Nick Kouloheras, once
again. I understand your point completely.
Look, I will -- for whatever it's worth, I will give you my word
that we will do everything in our power to spend as much of that
$75000 if we purchase property -- even if we purchase property in
Gateway /Triangle area, that it will go to those people. I cannot sit
there and guarantee you. I cannot sit there and put it down in writing,
because there's too many unknowns out there. I wish I knew.
I don't know what the property costs, I don't know if I can qualify
families down in there. I don't know if those families will be qualified
by banks. There's -- at this particular moment there's too many
Page 192
April 24, 2012
questions. But we will do everything in our power to try to get
exactly what you want. That's all I've got.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I believe what you say --
MR. KOULOHERAS : Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- but we're trying so desperately to
build that area up, not continue with the same 'ole, same 'ole. And that
was targeted for our -- well, the CRA wanted to improve that
neighborhood rather than keep it as very low income. And you've got
five tracts right here that are mentioned.
MR. KOULOHERAS : Maybe we could get a good deal on some
of those CRA lots.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Wow. I can't believe you're
saying that. I'm about to gag.
MR. KOULOHERAS: They're out there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Commissioner Henning,
I'm astounded by your motion. I'm -- I cannot believe that you can't
see what Commissioner Fiala and what I'm saying. And it just -- it -- I
can't believe that you want to add to the glut of unsold homes that we
already have and that you wouldn't see the wisdom of using this
money for down payment assistance to stimulate sales and get people
into these unsold properties. I'm really disappointed, and that's all I
can say.
And, Commissioner Fiala, I completely understand where you're
coming from. And I applaud you for, you know, being diligent and
working so hard to help the people who really need help.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you have anything?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I do. I -- I understand
Commissioner Fiala's passion, and I've tried to insert language in here
Page 193
April 24, 2012
wherever we could. However, with that said, too, I've got to remind
everybody that I have a community of Immokalee that when you want
to talk about distressed houses, that's a place that could use some
upscale housing.
And if we're going to get to the point that everything that's going
to happen that's going to be housing upgrades is going to be limited to
East Naples, it puts --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. I just said earlier in the meeting
that I would -- that we needed to upgrade housing in Immokalee.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know you did.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But just the comments you
made and the promise you extracted did not include Immokalee. It
included East Naples. And, you know, I feel a little bit put out by it.
And I've got people here from Immokalee that have testified before
about the lack of middle -class housing in Immokalee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And they are right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And they are.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But, Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But just keep that in mind,
please, that's all. Meanwhile, keep that window free back there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just real quick. I mean, I don't
have a passion for this item. And this is a very -- obviously a very,
very passionate item. But the fact is, if we use NSP money for down
assistance -- down payment assistance, like Commissioner Hiller
wants, we would have more affordable housing because it would have
to stay affordable housing. Staff said that; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Till they pay it off.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Fifteen years.
Page 194
April 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If we want more affordable
housing in Commissioner Fiala's district, we should do exactly what
Commissioner Hiller wants to do.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's not correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's what they said they're
going to do.
Here's -- we've got a balance of it. We have middle income, low
income, and median income. It's not in Commissioner Fiala's district.
It's countywide. But this is a passionate issue for Commissioner Fiala,
and I just want to move on. I think it's a very good item. I think it's
going to be a 3 -2 vote, but we're still going to continue to discuss it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And my button is on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, it is. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, yes. It only has to stay
affordable until they pay it off, and what's been happening over in a
few of the Habitat villages here, they go down for the loan, they get
the mortgage, they get a new mortgage on there, pay the house off,
and then pay off the debt that they oive the county for impact fees, and
then they sell it.
And then people have been buying them -- one even sold for
$10,000. Couldn't believe that. But, anyway, selling the houses, then
they sell it to somebody who rents them out, and they don't have to
keep affordable once they've paid it off, is that correct?
Yes, that is, because I've already researched it.
And the thing that's concerning me is, they really already own
hundreds more acres in East Naples, not in any other community, but
East Naples. They own hundreds more acres that they're yet to build
on, and people are not even realizing -- oh, yes, I've got the rundown.
And so I'm really very concerned about that as well. And what's
going to happen?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, here's where we are. We started
out this discussion about three or four meetings ago. We said that we
Page 195
April 24, 2012
wanted to get more of the money allocated to the affordable housing
category, the middle income people, because Commissioner Fiala
wanted to deal with that. And we all supported that, and you came
back with a proposal to do that.
Okay. Now that's not enough. We want to do something
different. Please tell me what it is we want to do that makes sense,
and I'll go along with it. I would prefer to take all this money and just
send it right back to the government. That's my preference.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So let's make a motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, do it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We've got a motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Propose that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We've got a motion already.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's vote on this motion first.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. All in favor of the motion,
please signify by saying aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The motion passes with a vote of
3 -2, with Commissioner Hiller and Fiala dissenting.
Item #1 I C
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE PARKS AND
RECREATION DEPARTMENT TO BE A SPONSOR AND
OPERATE THE 2012 SUMMER FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM
AT DESIGNATED RECREATION CAMPS — APPROVED
Page 196
April 24, 2012
MR. OCHS: Item 11 C is a recommendation to approve the parks
and recreation department to be a sponsor and operate the 2012
Summer Food Service Program at designated recreation camps.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve by
Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala --
Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd just like to ask a side -note.
Steve, can you ever provide me with a list of the summer camps
where this food is going to be distributed?
MR. CARNELL: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MR. CARNELL: Absolutely.
Item #1 I D
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE COLLIER AREA
TRANSIT (CAT) PARATRANSIT FARE STUDY AND FARE
INCREASE OF $1 PER ONE -WAY TRIP FOR THE
TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED AND AMERICANS
Page 197
April 24, 2012
WITH DISABILITIES ACT PROGRAMS — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, 11D is a recommendation to
approve the Collier Area Transit Paratransit fare study and a fare
increase of $1 per one -way trip.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve by
Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item 91 1 E
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A WORK ORDER IN
THE AMOUNT OF $648,324.35 TO HASKINS, INC., FOR
CONSTRUCTION TASKS SET FORTH IN REQUEST FOR
QUOTATION #08- 5011 -605 DAVIS BOULEVARD FROM SANTA
BARBARA BOULEVARD TO RADIO ROAD — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 11 E was previously --
MS. ARNOLD: Thank you.
MR. OCHS: -- 16C 1 on your agenda. It's a recommendation to
approve a work order in the amount of $648,324.35 to Haskins,
Incorporated, for construction tasks set forth in Request For Quotation
Page 198
April 24, 2012
08- 5011 -60, Davis Boulevard from Santa Barbara Boulevard to Radio
Road. Commissioner Coyle had moved this item to the regular
agenda, and Mr. Chmelik can present.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why don't you, very briefly, summarize
the project and the reason for the project.
MR. CHMELIK: Okay, very good. Tom Chmelik, for the
record, public utilities.
This project is seeking approval for a work order with Haskins
for utility relocation tasks relative to a Davis Boulevard road project.
That's from Santa Barbara Boulevard roughly to Davis, and it involves
2000 feet of water main, 3,600 feet of wastewater main, six crossings
across Davis, and the relocations need to happen in order to coincide
with the schedule of FDOT six - laning of this area.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, it's my understanding that
we tried to get an agreement signed with FDOT to permit this to be
done at the time when they did their project so it could be integrated
into a single project; is that correct?
MR. CHMELIK: That's correct. We attempted to use a
Memorandum of Agreement to have that coordinated project with
FDOT in their $10 million road project and let the projects together.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. CHMELIK: And we weren't able to reach that agreement.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Why?
MR. CHMELIK: There was an issue -- we had made a couple of
attempts working with the Clerk's Office and, in the end, the Clerk's
Office had notified us they wouldn't be able to pay invoices for the
project because of the way the escrow account was structured and that
prepayment was required into that escrow account.
Crystal?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And, Crystal, do you want to
amplify on that?
MS. KINZEL: I believe this is the original agreement that FDOT
Page 199
April 24, 2012
actually entered into and signed, correct? This --
MR. CHMELIK: What's before the board?
MS. KINZEL: -- is the agreement that they signed and sent back
to the county as an executed document, and then the state reneged on
the clause that authorized the clerk to also review the payments; isn't
that correct?
MR. CHMELIK: That is correct. That hannened earlier in
January.
MS. KINZEL: Okay. So, Commissioner, we had an agreement
with the state. I have an example. It was signed by the Department of
Financial Services, it was signed by all parties and executed, then the
state reneged in the last hour.
So the -- we thought we had an agreement with the state, and
they backed out. We are -- so we're back to going for the AGO to try
to get the authorization for prepayment in the future.
So to expedite the project, we've worked with utilities and they're
taking this course of action so they can continue on this project until
we can get direction from the AGO.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. CHMELIK: That's correct, yes.
MR. OCHS: Just one point of clarification, just in the interest of
full disclosure, the standard way this is done is through a standard
Memorandum of Agreement with State Department of Transportation.
We have entered into those in the past on different projects. We were
unable to do that this time because, apparently, the Clerk's Office had
some problems with providing that escrow, so we had to go to an
alternative, which we all worked hard on together. Unfortunately, at
the eleventh hour, the State DOT CFO didn't approve of that, so now
we're left with a short window, and we've got to complete the project
ourselves.
MS. KINZEL: Commissioners, I do want to put this on record.
MR. SHEFFIELD: You need the mic, Crystal.
Page 200
Apri124, 2012
MS. KINZEL: For the record -- oh, wait. Here we go. Well, I
don't get up here, fortunately.
Commissioners, for the record, Crystal Kinzel. I want to put on
the record -- because the agreement with the clause that the county
manager is talking about, specifically providing for the Clerk's Office
to have review of the expenditures, that clause was in this agreement.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute. Leave the clause there.
MS. KINZEL: Sorry. I can make copies.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What does that clause require?
MS. KINZEL: It's No. 4, notwithstanding any prior written
agreement by the parties, FDOT's comptroller and designee
participant and the Collier County Clerk of Court shall be the
signatories on the escrow account with the treasury. Only with written
confirmation from all parties will there be the authority to authorize
withdrawals. So that was agreeable to both parties.
That agreement was executed by all parties, including the
Department of Financial Services and the State Department of
Transportation and this Board of County Commissioners. So we had a
fully executed agreement with that authorized clause. The state backed
out of the agreement.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do we know why the state backed out?
MS. KINZEL: Because Department of Financial Services
reviewed the contract and said that they should never have signed it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why?
MR. OCHS: Because it wasn't their standard agreement.
MS. KINZEL: Because it wasn't a standard agreement. But this
was also reviewed by their legal department.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. But I -- I guess the point I'm
trying to make is, it was a standard agreement from FDOT. What was
objectionable to the standard agreement from FDOT? Is there an
answer to that question?
MR. OCHS: Well, from the staffs perspective, nothing. I don't
Page 201
April 24, 2012
know about the county attorney's perspective. But, obviously, there
was a concern by the clerk. Maybe Jeff wants to weigh in from a legal
standpoint.
MR. KLATZKOW: My office didn't have an issue with the
transaction. It's a standard transaction. We've done it before.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So the clerk had a problem with the
transaction?
MR. KLATZKOW: It was the clerk's opinion that he couldn't
authorize payment based on that contract.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So it's a state FDOT contract, and the
clerk can't authorize payment on a standard FDOT contract?
MR. KLATZKOW: Apparently.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Are we getting an AGO opinion,
Crystal?
MS. KINZEL: Yes, sir. We're working on that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And if the AGO agrees, can we then sign
a standard FDOT contract and get these things done? Because we've
got three more of them coming up.
MS. KINZEL: The clerk is just looking for direction one way or
another from Department of Financial Services or the AGO's office
saying that we specifically can either prepay or that we can make
payment with FDOT to make these agreements --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. KINZEL: -- workable.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you have any idea what the timing
might be?
MS. KINZEL: We've been drafting it for the last several weeks,
and hopefully we'll have some resolution in a week or so as far as
submitting the AGO.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, we haven't asked him for that?
MS. KINZEL: No, we have not submitted the request at this
time.
Page 202
Apri124, 2012
MR. OCHS: We were just puzzled because we've done these
three other times in the not - too - distant past so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So this is a change in procedure?
MR. OCHS: All I can tell you is there's at least three separate
times where we've done these standard MOA's with escrow
agreements, and they've been executed, and everybody's moved out
and been paid.
So, unfortunately, with -- not being able to do that this time, we
had to go to an alternate agreement, and then the state finally, as
Crystal said, didn't execute that. So now we're left with -- the state's
project deadline has never moved, so now we've got to get in there in a
very short period of time, which drives our cost of the project up from
the contractor, so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And how much more expensive is it
going to be?
MR. OCHS: Tom, how much roughly?
MR. CHMELIK: Well, roughly, it's about 249,000 more than the
original engineer's estimate for the coordinated integrated MOA
project.
MR. OCHS: So, obviously, we want to avoid that in future
projects, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, yeah. Well, what can we do to
assist in the AGO thing, Crystal?
MS. KINZEL: I think we're moving ahead, Commissioner
Coyle. We'll have it, and we're working with the County Attorney's
Office. As soon as we've got it drafted, they've agreed to look over
the language, too, from the county's perspective, and then we'll be able
to submit it.
But it is a complicated issue because of both the prepayment and
then, if it isn't prepaid, how else can we accomplish this to satisfy the
clerk's audit function, and then we are also trying to resolve the issue
of competitively bidding, and that was a subsequent issue that came
Page 203
April 24, 2012
up. So we're trying to hit every issue in the request to get clarification.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. If it's likely to result in a
substantial increased cost to us, we need to get it resolved as quickly
as possible, so -- we've got -- when will we have another project of
this type coming up?
MR. CHMELIK: We would need resolution by September to be
able to handle the next two projects on their way.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Then I make a motion
that we approve --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- this item. Motion by me, second by
Commissioner Henning.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is approved.
MR. CHMELIK: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there anything else?
MR. OCHS : No, sir. We're on to staff and commission general
communication.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to make a motion to
approve 16 -- oh, is it -- did we already approve this on the consent,
16J6? I'm sorry.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, sorry about that.
Item #15
Page 204
April 24, 2012
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're into correspondence and
communications or --
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Do you have anything?
MR. OCHS: Just a quick reminder to the board. This is a busy
week. You have two more workshops scheduled. One at 9 a.m. on
Thursday to deal with several fire- related and EMS - related issues, and
then Friday afternoon at 1:30 with the Big Cypress Basin Board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And how long is that one expected to
last?
MR. OCHS: The Friday one?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. OCHS: I'm not sure, sir. That was put together by Mr.
Tears and the basin. I don't know how long they plan to go with that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. OCHS: They didn't publish an end date (sic) to the meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Isn't Fred Thomas on that?
MR. OCHS: I think so.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It will never end.
MR. OCHS: No, sir, that's all for me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I wanted to talk about this
TDC vote. You know, I didn't realize until after the vote that we will
Page 205
April 24, 2012
have no representation from Marco Island, and I was wondering if we
could just hold off till next meeting, just leave it as it is till next
meeting so at least we have representation.
I haven't even had a chance to call Marco to see what they have
to say about this. I would like to confer with them, too, but I haven't
had a chance. I've been busy here today. So --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- would that be okay?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- how do you feel?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can we do something like that?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. I mean, it's -- my understanding is
your next TDC is April 30th?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So Rick could be there, Rick or --
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, his term expired.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Rick MedwedefP
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, his term's expired.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's what -- can I --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, look. It's been represented to us
that there will be a request for a change --
MR. KLATZKOW: We're coming to you at the next board
meeting --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- for your consideration for --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Doing what?
MR. KLATZKOW: Change the language of the ordinance to
conform with more to what the statute requires.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. There -- is there any reason that
the fact someone from Immokalee or District 5 was appointed today --
MR. KLATZKOW: Everglades City.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Page 206
April 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Two are -- Doug House is on -- in
Everglades City, right?
MR. KLATZKOW: I have no idea.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Doug House is in District 5, and
he doesn't represent any specific seat. He's a non - owner /non - operator.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, no. We appointed the councilman
from the City of Everglades today.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but also --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- we appointed Doug House.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's correct.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Rick Medwedeff -- let me -- may I
explain? What happened was, was Rick Medwedeff s term expired.
The committee recommended Rick Medwedeff for reappointment.
Commissioner Coyle, Commissioner Coletta, and Commissioner
Fiala, instead of reappointing Rick Medwedeff, reappointed Mr.
House, who is a non - owner /non - operator from District 5, leaving
Marco with no representation at all.
MR. KLATZKOW: Do you want to -- you could extend his term
by --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you can change your vote --
you can extend -- you can change your vote and vote no, basically, the
motion fails, and it will have to come back, and you can make a
motion to have Mr. Medwedeff reappointed.
MR. KLATZKOW: May I?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, go ahead.
MR. KLATZKOW: You have one meeting of the TDC before
we come back to you with an ordinance change. I suppose you could,
if you want, extend Mr. Medwedeff s term up through May 1 st. That
will take care of that meeting. At that point in time, it expires. And
Page 207
April 24, 2012
we'll have a new ordinance, then you can decide what you want to do
with that seat, which would mean Mr. House would not be appointed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would you do that? Can I --
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, that's up to you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah, right.
MR. KLATZKOW: If that's what you want.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I'd like to make a motion that
we do just exactly that, extend Mr. Medwedeff s term --
MR. KLATZKOW: Term to May I st.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- until the I st of May, and right
now just set Doug House aside.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I second that.
MR. MITCHELL: His term's expired.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, but we're extending it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, we went effectively from
having two people from District 5 on this to removing both of them
with one stroke of a vote. So I -- we really want to go there?
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's not true, because
Councilman McBeth Collins from Everglades City was appointed, and
he's still on there, and all we're doing is we're --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So we're not talking
about taking Everglades City --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, we're -- no.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- and just turning it back over
to Marco?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no, absolutely not. All we're
doing is, instead of Mr. House, Mr. Medwedeff remains on. Mr.
House is not.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ian, how many people from
MIMS
April 24, 2012
District 5 are currently serving on the TDC?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Three -- two.
MR. MITCHELL: Two.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Those two are?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Mr. Ski Olesky, and I forgot the
name.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, you've got -- well, Mr. Sorey -- well,
you've got Mr. Councilman Sorey's District 4; you've got Rick
Medwedeff s, he's actually District l; Mr. Hill is District 2; Mr. Miller
District 2; Mr. Hendel District 4, Mr. Olesky's District 5. And that's it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Isn't Mr. Miller for Everglades City
for the restaurants --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- in Everglades City?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: He's District 5.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He's a business owner in District 5.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Exactly, and he represents from
that perspective.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we'll stack more.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you actually -- you already
have two from District 5 on there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. But we're not talking
about doing anything that changed the level of Everglades City --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- having an appointee on it?
Because I don't want to come back and find out that after --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- we got all through with this --
well --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You actually -- Commissioner
Coletta, you actually have three representatives from District 5. You
Page 209
April 24, 2012
have Councilman McBeth Collins, you have Mr. Miller, and you have
Mr. Olesky. So you have five representatives -- I mean, three
representatives from District 5 currently sitting on there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's why it works so well.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Marco right now has nobody,
okay. And if the vote remains as was decided today, your district
would actually have four representatives, okay, and Marco has zero.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand. And, once again,
I think it's the person on there rather than where they come from, and I
just want to make sure that we get a fair representation from District 5.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I think people also that offer
the money to it should have a vote, you know, at least --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure, no doubt about it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And Marco does offer at least 20
percent -- I think it's 23 percent.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. But the last thing I want
is Immokalee removed because they only put in a percent point or
something when -- all that Ski Olesky has to offer and contributed to
it. So I mean, I don't think we should get hung up in the dollar amount
so much as the contributions.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I'd just like one representative
on there, though, you know.
MR. KLATZKOW: Are we reconsidering our earlier motion
today?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you can change your vote and
just vote no and make a new motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We can make another motion to allow
Mr. Medwedeff -- extend his term until May.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, you made a decision today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
Item #I OA (Reconsidered from earlier in the meeting)
Page 210
April 24, 2012
MOTION TO RECONSIDER ITEM #I OA — APPROVED
MR. KLATZKOW: So my first question is, do you want to
reconsider that decision?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: Can you make a motion?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, somebody's got to make a motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to make the motion to
reconsider.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So motion to reconsider by
Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Henning.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then it passes 3 -2 with Coletta
and Coyle dissenting. So now we have -- we're going to reconsider it.
We can do it now.
MR. KLATZKOW: You can do it now if there's a motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Then —
Item #I OA
RESOLUTION 2012 -73: RE- APPOINTING MURRAY HENDEL
(DISTRICT 44 NON- OWNER/OPERATOR CATEGORY) AND
Page 211
April 24, 2012
RICK MEDWEDEFF (DISTRICT #3 OWNER/OPERATOR
CATEGORY, EXTENDING HIS TERM TO MAY 22, 2012)
AND CONFIRMING APPOINTMENTS OF CITY OF NAPLES
MAYOR JOHN SOREY & EVERGLADES CITY COUNCILMAN
MCBETH COLLINS (MUNICIPAL CATEGORY) — ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I'd like to make a motion to
extend Rick Medwedeff s reign on this.
MR. KLATZKOW: You want to extend his term through May
1st --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: His term.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- till May 1 st and keep Murray
Hendel and Mayor Sorey and Councilman McBeth Collins from
Everglades City on there. I don't know if I could do that or not.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, you can.
MR. KLATZKOW: So my understanding is this then: What
we're doing is Mr. Hendel's being reappointed for four years --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, no. Why don't you just do
this. Why don't you just, if I may, Commissioner Fiala, make your
motion to extend Rick Medwedeff, Murray Hendel, Sorey, and
Councilman McBeth Collins all through May 1 st. Then when the
ordinance is changed, we can get a new slate recommended by the
board in light of the new ordinance, and then it makes it really easy,
and then we'll just take a clean vote.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That sounds easy to me. What do
you say, Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: It's your motion, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'd like to restate my motion
and it says, I'd like to extend Rick Medwedeff, Murray Hendel, Mayor
John Sorey, Councilman McBeth. I realize she hasn't -- he hasn't been
on there yet, but -- till May 1 st, at which time we can then address the
issue of adding -- after we've -- do I have to put this all in the motion
Page 212
April 24, 2012
after we've --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. That's all I want to do then,
extend their motion -- or extend their term till May 1 st.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MITCHELL: But can I ask -- if you do that --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. The problem you have is that all
we're doing is certifying the appointment --
MR. MITCHELL: It's going to have to be readvertised.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. It does have to be
readvertised. You're changing the ordinance, and you're going to have
to, you know, readvertise based on the new ordinance.
MR. OCHS: What are we changing in the new ordinance that's
going to require all that?
MR. KLATZKOW: We're not. It's --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, we're not. The only question I
have is, look, we've got two municipalities who've said, these are our
people, we want them on here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, do we ignore them or do we --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Of course not. They're not -- they're
still on there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, what you said was they would be
extended to May -- to May is what the motion said.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but we still have to honor
that. And it would be nice if Marco had one on there, too.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, there's no question about that. But
the point is, that the way the motion was made it says they will serve
until May the 5th or so.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right, because isn't that when we're
going to be addressing adding that position for Marco on there?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: When are you going to do that?
Page 213
April 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: When are you going to do that,
Jeff? When are you going to bring back the ordinance with a
modification? How long -- how long will it take you --
MR. KLATZKOW: We're bringing it back for discussion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- to make the change?
MR. KLATZKOW: We're bringing it back for discussion, my
understanding, is the next meeting. I'm not Jack Wert. But my
understanding is that we're bringing it to the next meeting for
discussion. If the board approves it, at that point in time we will
advertise it and bring it back.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So how long do you think? How
MR. KLATZKOW: Two weeks.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The term should be extended to
what date? What do you say? If it's not May 4th, up to what date in
order to effectuate it?
MR. OCHS: May 23rd.
MR. KLATZKOW: Ma'am, you can do it to the 23rd, but you
may decide no change.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So at that point we can,
you know, make that motion. So basically then your motion would be
to extend the term until May 23rd?
MR. OCHS: May 22nd, that's the board meeting date in May, if
that's what we're targeting here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So then it's to extend the --
to basically --
MR. KLATZKOW: If the only issue here is you want a Marco
Island representative, if that's the only issue, then you don't change
your decision with respect to Mr. Hendel, Mr. Sorey, or Mr. Collins.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
Page 214
A pri124, 2012
MR. KLATZKOW: You change your decision with respect to
Mr. House and simply extend Mr. Medwedeff to an appropriate date.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So why not just reappoint Mr.
Medwedeff --
MR. KLATZKOW: Because that's four years.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- period? Yeah, just reappoint it
to -- and then if the ordinance changes, you change pursuant to
whatever the ordinance allows.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Jeff, can I help you out? It has
nothing to do with Rick Medwedeff. It --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon me?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It has nothing. So it's -- Mr.
House is -- that is -- because Commissioner Coletta wants more
people from District 5 on the TDC, and Mr. Medwedeff, who the TDC
recommended reappointment, didn't get reappointed.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But that's -- there's a problem with
what you're saying, because we need an owner /operator
representative.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's exactly what we did,
though.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, we didn't. We didn't. By not
reappointing Rick Medwedeff, we lost the owner /operator and they re-
-- they nominated Doug House instead of Rick Medwedeff, who's a
nonowner /non - operator. We need an owner /operator.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I understand that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And we don't have that right now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We don't have it, but still Mr.
Medwedeff was off; House came on.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: House is not an owner /operator.
Page 215
April 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No kidding --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- Commissioner Fiala -- or
Hiller. I know --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm glad you called me that,
because I take that as a compliment.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It is right here in front of my
eyes. I understand that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. We're deficient statutorily.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So why --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Hold on. Why are we talking
about Mr. Medwedeff, about having to reconsider his appointment?
A, he qualifies as an owner /operator, okay. We can extend it for four
years that --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The whole -- and Doug House
would go away; the Doug House issue would go away.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The only issue, boys and girls,
is the issue of the splitting from Marco Island to Everglades City.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what the motion did and
seconded and the majority supported did not even conform to state
statutes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Correct, which is why it has to be
reconsidered.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It has to be reconsidered in
several ways.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Which is what Commissioner
Fiala was doing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, then let's do it right,
Page 216
April 24, 2012
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You want to reappoint Rick
Medwedeff as owner /operator.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. You want to appoint
Murray Hendel as a nonowner /operator --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- if that's who you want,
Murray Hendel on there. You want to make municipal
recommendations of Mayor John Sorey, because that is not in
question. The only question is --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Here we go.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And, Commissioner
Coletta, you're going to have to hold onto your patience here, because
I'm going to tell the truth. The only question is, the TDC is going to
recommend, instead of having the person from Everglades City, city
council appointment, is to have a full -time from Marco Island, and
that would affect Councilman McBeth Collins.
So you form your motion to -- however you want to conform to,
A, the state statutes and, B, your wishes whether you want a city
council person on there from Marco Island.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Full cycle.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you put the statute up on the
overhead, please, with respect to who has to sit on it.
MR. KLATZKOW: If I can find it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My light's on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. We haven't gotten to you yet.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I know.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, but I need the statute. I
need the law. Where is the statute?
MR. MITCHELL: It's E.
Page 217
April 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I ask a question, Jeff? The
reason I would like to extend that for a month is we don't know how --
when we deliberate over a position for Marco Island, if we want one
that is appointed by the city or somebody on city council or not -- and
we have to make room for that person, so I thought if we just extended
Rick Medwedeff for, you know, till the 23rd or 22nd of May, or
whatever it is, until that time where we know if we need that space or
not for whomever is appointed from Marco Island. Should we do
that?
MR. KLATZKOW: That works. That's one approach.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm all for that. Just extend the term, and
then we'll take it up whenever we get all the so- called resolution and
recommendations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So if that's your motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, that is my motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You want me to call that motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That is my motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And then we'll be able to deal with
it at that time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor of the motion --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Wait. There is a light on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Alright Commissioner Coletta, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I've been waiting very patiently
to be able to speak.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I predicted when all this thing
started that I was going to end up with no one, and that's as far as it
goes. And I was told, no, no, no. It's going to stay that way.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm the only one that has no one.
Page 218
April 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, no. I'm telling you we
removed -- your removed Doug House. You got -- we've got, what's
his name, Med --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Medwedeff for one more month.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, extend him out for
wherever, I don't care. But the thing is, now you're talking about also --
just like I said, what we're heading for -- and this has been the direction
we've been going for a long time here. We're trying to remove that
representation totally, and I told you it was going to happen.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And it is.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What are you talking about?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, you're not -- you weren't
listening. I said -- and listen carefully. I said, leave everybody on here
but Rick Medwedeff, extend it one more month till we see if we need
a position from city council, then we would eliminate him --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So you're not talking
about eliminating Everglades City?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Of course. I've never -- I'm not
even talking about Everglades City, yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Because I was getting
the drift that that's the way we were going.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, you weren't listening, so I'm --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I apologize for not
listening, and I'm glad that you can explain it to me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Jeff, can I ask you a question?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, do you have
anything to say about this? Then let's have a final vote then.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Let's have a final vote.
I'm -- I can't support it. I think it's convoluted, but go ahead.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
Page 219
April 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Number one, Jeff, it says in
the statute that not less than three nor more than four shall be owners
or operators or motel, hotels, recreational vehicle parks, or other
tourist accommodations in the county.
Who are the three owner -- I know Hill, I know Medwedeff.
Who's the third -- who's owner /operator of a hotel /motel that sits on it?
MR. MITCHELL: Olesky.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And Olesky qualifies how?
MR. MITCHELL: He's an owner /operator --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Of what?
MR. MITCHELL: --in Immokalee.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: He owns a --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Lake Traffic Marina.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm an owner in Immokalee.
Can I sit on it?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But, oh, no, no. It has to be
owner /operator of a motel /hotel, RV park, or other tourist
accommodation; in other words, where people sleep. What does
Olesky own where people sleep?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: He does.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: He's got accommodation there
for trailers that he's had for years.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is it an RV park?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, it's an RV park right next
to the marina.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So Olesky -- okay. So Olesky
qualifies as the RV.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So Medwedeff is the -- because it's
very clear that it has to be not less than three. So Medwedeff has to be
Page 220
April 24, 2012
reappointed because he is the owner /operator. He's the third
owner /operator, and we're required by law to have that.
So, really, Commissioner Fiala, if you want, your motion can be
as simple as, you know, appointing Rick Medwedeff as the, you
know, third owner /operator, and you're done.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion's already been made.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. But for one month, because I
have to check with the people on Marco.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's still early.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: If you don't mind.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
he owns a restaurant, doesn't he?
COMMISSIONER HILLER:
Okay. And I think Bob Miller, but
Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah he's -- Everglades City, right?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He's a good guy.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Fiala, seconded by, I think, me.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The motion passes with
Commissioner Coletta and Henning dissenting.
Okay, are we finished with your concerns, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I don't have anything.
Commissioner Coletta?
Page 221
April 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I'll be very, very brief
You all received this, at least it indicates you have. This is the
Productivity Committee suggestions to the commission of what they
could do for this next year.
Now, the only thing I want to do is to -- I'm going to bring it back
at the next meeting as an agenda item to discuss. There's no sense in
getting into a detailed discussion of it now. I'm sure we've got at least
45 minutes to an hour and a half worth of discussion on these different
items on there. But I just wanted to give you a heads -up that it will be
on the next agenda.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Good. Shouldn't we be rotating
the representative to the Productivity Committee, or are we going to
do it like the chair of the county commission and have the same
person on there for three years going?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I like that three -year business.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Kingdom. I am king.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think you want to be chair in
perpetuity.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. Just three years; that's it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No more. After that it's all over.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, term limits.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: After that, what?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's term limits.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: After that I'm term limited.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So, again, you know, is that
going to be brought as well as who the liaison will be to the
Productivity Committee? Because there should be some rotation in that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Should be.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I've been getting good at
Page 222
April 24, 2012
it. Been at it for three years.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You haven't been on that for three years,
have you?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure. Ever since you took the
chair, I got the Productivity Committee.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, I didn't realize that.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, just as clarification, the
ordinance for the Productivity Committee stipulates that it's the
vice - chairman of the Board of County Commissioners that is the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. MITCHELL: -- liaison.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I know. It's just that time flies now, Ian.
I've forgotten that three years have passed.
Do you want a decision on this right now, Commissioner
Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I just --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just wanted to let them know I
did hand it out to you. It's going to be coming back at the next agenda
under County Commission business, and we'll get into a detailed
discussion then. Just a heads -up.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Got it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. The reason I didn't
support the motion to -- on the TDC appointments, we're going to
reconsider Rick Medwedeff in another month as an owner /operator,
all right, and Rick Medwedeff is the most productive member on the
TDC. I -- hope he is not embarrassed by our lack of knowledge of the
makeup of the TDC.
And I know all of you have worked with him before, and I really
enjoy working with him because it brings together a lot of
Page 223
April 24, 2012
information. He was the one who made the suggestion to change the
-- or use the emergency fund for advertising and promotion in Europe.
And from that, we've built on it. And it's -- and it's from somebody
who has a vast amount of knowledge in the industry, okay. That's
what you really need on that TDC.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. But you don't understand,
Commissioner Henning. He doesn't vote the way these other guys
want, so they're not going to support him. So it doesn't matter that he
brings knowledge to the table. If he doesn't go along with, you know,
the agenda supported by Sorey and Hendel, well, my goodness, he's
got to go, right?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There you go. Off to the races.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All political, right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's not political. It's a fact.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And -- but, anyways -- and he
hasn't been chair for three consecutive years or vice chair for three
consecutive years.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You talking about Coletta?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No I'm talking Rick Medwedeff,
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He's a real worker bee.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: He is a tremendously hard worker,
and he's probably the most valuable member in light of his hospitality
experience as general manager of the biggest hotel in Collier County- -
COMMISSIONER HENNING: On Marco Island.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- the number one employer in the
tourism industry, and probably the biggest contributor in tourist
development tax of any of the hotels out there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the Ritz is, I believe.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, the Ritz is also another one
of them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to be singing kumbaya here
Page 224
April 24, 2012
pretty soon.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'm going to make a motion
to adjourn.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: With that said --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Happy Birthday.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to adjourn.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, Happy Birthday, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm still younger than
Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Older.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Really?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just about everybody is younger than
Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Amen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're adjourned. Thank you very
much.
* * * *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 SEWER UTILITY FACILITY
FOR LIEBIG AUTO SALES, 3301 WESTVIEW DRIVE, AND
AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE,
TO RELEASE THE UTILITY PERFORMANCE SECURITY TO
THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED
Page 225
April 24, 2012
AGENT
Item #I 6A2
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF BRIGHTLING AT TALIS
PARK, APPROVING THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND THE AMOUNT OF
THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY — W /STIPULATIONS
Item #I 6A3
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF FAIRGROVE AT TALIS
PARK, APPROVING THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND THE AMOUNT OF
THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY — W /STIPULATIONS
Item #I 6A4
RESOLUTION 2012 -66: FINAL APPROVAL OF ROADWAY
(PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE
FINAL PLAT OF SANCTUARY POINTE AT STERLING OAKS
WITH THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
PRIVATELY MAINTAINED AND AUTHORIZE RELEASE OF
THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY AND ACCEPT THE PLAT
DEDICATIONS
Item #I 6A5
RELEASE OF A $46,200 LIEN FOR PAYMENT OF $1501.15,
IN CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION ENTITLED BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS VS. MARIA D. AND SERGIO
GOMEZ, CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CASE NUMBER
Page 226
April 24, 2012
CESD20100003695, RELATING TO PROPERTY AT 4983 17TH
AVENUE SW, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA — ACQUIRED BY
WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, FSB, IN AUGUST, 2011 AND
BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE ON JANUARY 31, 2012
Item #I 6A6
EXTENSION TO COMPLETE IMPROVEMENTS IN ISLA
DEL SOL SUBDIVISION IN FIDDLER'S CREEK PURSUANT
TO SECTION 10.02.05 B.I I OF COLLIER COUNTY'S LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE — THE DEVELOPER REQUESTS AN
EXTENSION THROUGH AUGUST 25, 2014 AND WILL PAY
$15500.00 FOR 10 -YEARS OF NOT HAVING APPLIED FOR
ANY EXTENSIONS. SEVENTEEN OF THESE THIRTY -FOUR
LOTS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED AND ARE OCCUPIED AND
A PERFORMANCE BOND IS IN PLACE TO GUARANTEE THE
REMAINING IMPROVEMENTS
Item #I 6A7
AWARD BID #12 -5872 FOR THE "PURCHASE AND DELIVERY
OF METAL AND POLYETHYLENE PIPE" TO FERGUSON
ENTERPRISES, INC. WITH $60,000 IN ESTIMATED ANNUAL
EXPENDITURES — FOR ON -GOING MAINTENANCE AND
REPAIR OF COLLIER COUNTY STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
Item #I 6A8
RELEASE OF A $91,000 LIEN FOR PAYMENT OF $562.56,
IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION ENTITLED BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS VS. FEDERAL NATIONAL
MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, CODE ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL
Page 227
April 24, 2012
MAGISTRATE CASE NUMBER CEPM20110003647, RELATING
TO PROPERTY AT 4973 21 ST PLACE SW, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA — FOR 364 DAYS OF ACCRUED FINES FOR THE
PROPERTY BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE JANUARY 6, 2012
Item #I 6A9
ACCEPTING THE ASSESSMENT OF LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
IN THE AMOUNT OF $51500 TO TECTRANS /KEOLIS TRANSIT
AMERICA FOR NON - COMPLIANCE OF THE DRUG AND
ALCOHOL PROGRAM REQUIRED BY COLLIER COUNTY
AND UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
(US DOT) AND FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (FTA)
REGULATIONS, DEFINED IN TITLE 49 CODE OF FEDERAL
REGULATIONS (CFR), PARTS 40 AND 655 — AS DETAILED IN
THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A10
PARTIAL RELEASE OF SIX LIENS IN CODE ENFORCEMENT
ACTIONS ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
VS. JEAN COHEN (AS TR USTEE) , FOR PROPERTY /PARCEL NO.
39440160005, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA — IN EXCHANGE FOR THIS PARCEL, LOCATED
OFF OF 9TH STREET SW AND IDENTIFIED BY THE COUNTY
AS A FUTURE PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY WELL SITE,
MULTIPLE CODE ENFORCEMENT LIENS FOR VIOLATIONS
ON UNRELATED PROPERTY OWNED BY JEAN COHEN AT
3132 VAN BUREN STREET WILL BE RELEASED
(COMPANION TO ITEM #16C5)
Item # 16A 11
Page 228
April 24, 2012
CONTRACT #10 -5342 CHANGE ORDER #3 AND REALIZING
NET COST SAVING OF $129,057.75 FOR 44SR84 ( DAVIS BLVD)
RADIO ROAD TO COLLIER BOULEVARD" PROJECT #60073;
"INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS, COLLIER BOULEVARD
NORTH TO MAGNOLIA POND DRIVE AND COLLIER
BOULEVARD NORTH TO GOLDEN GATE CANAL" PROJECT
#60092 — AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16Al2
ADVERTISE AN AMENDMENT TO COLLIER COUNTY
ORDINANCE NO. 2009 -44, THE RADIO ROAD, EAST OF
SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD TO THE INTERSECTION OF
RADIO ROAD AND DAVIS BOULEVARD MUNICIPAL
SERVICE TAXING UNIT (MSTU) ORDINANCE, TO REMOVE
THE SIX -YEAR SUNSET PROVISION AND PROVIDE FOR THE
DISSOLUTION OF THE MSTU UPON RECOMMENDATION BY
THE MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND APPROVAL BY
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Item # 16A 13
REJECT ITB #12 -5820 TO REPLACE WHITE BOULEVARD
BRIDGE #034021, "ACCELERATED BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION
PROJECTS: WHITE BOULEVARD AND 23RD STREET SW
AND 23RD ST. SW SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS" AND
AUTHORIZE RE- ADVERTISEMENT OF THE PROJECT — DUE
TO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT
AS DIRECTED BY THE BOARD
Item # 16B 1 — Moved to Item # 14B 1 (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Page 229
April 24, 2012
Item # 16C 1 — Moved to Item # 11 E (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16C2
WAIVE COMPETITION TO AUTHORIZE SOLE SOURCE
CONTRACT RENEWALS WITH GE INTELLIGENT
SOLUTIONS FOR AN ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $10000
AND GRAYMATTER SYSTEMS FOR AN ESTIMATED
$1955000 FOR EXISTING SOFTWARE LICENSING FOR
PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION'S SUPERVISORY CONTROL
AND DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEMS SCADA SOFTWARE
AND SUPPORT RENEWAL PROJECTS #71056 AND #72541 —
AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16C3
SATISFACTION AND RELEASE OF LIEN CONCERNING
RESOLUTION NO. 2009 -52, THAT ESTABLISHED THE
PAYMENT PLAN AND LIEN AGREEMENT BETWEEN
TAMIAMI SQUARE OF NAPLES, LLC AND THE COLLIER
COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT — FOR PAYMENT IN
FULL OF $1209904.00 IN WATER AND WASTEWATER
IMPACT FEES OWED FOR TAMAIMI SQUARE COMMERCIAL
CONDOMINIUM UNIT (BUILDING) 300
Item #16C4
BUDGET AMENDMENT OF $50000 TO MOVE FUNDS FROM
PROJECT #70050, THE MASTER PUMP STATION TECHNICAL
SUPPORT PROJECT, TO PROJECT 973969, SOUTH COUNTY
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY TECHNICAL SUPPORT
Page 230
April 24, 2012
PROJECT — TO COMPLETE TASKS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN
STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT AT THE FACILITY AND TO
MEET THE STATE OF FLORIDA'S DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PERMIT CONDITIONS
Item #16C5
A DONATION AGREEMENT WITH JEAN COHEN, TRUSTEE,
ACCEPTING THE DONATION, BY WARRANTY DEED, OF A
5.3 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND ON SHADY HOLLOW
BOULEVARD TO BE USED AS A FUTURE PUBLIC WATER
SUPPLY WELL SITE AND ASSOCIATED PUBLIC UTILITIES
PURPOSES AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $1,200 — PARCEL
NUMBER 39440160005 (COMPANION TO ITEM # 16A 10)
Item #16C6
CHANGE ORDER #3, UNDER FIXED TERM ENGINEERING
CONTRACT #09- 5262,TO MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC., IN THE
AMOUNT OF $291,746 FOR SUPPORT SERVICES FOR THE
SOUTH REVERSE OSMOSIS WELLFIELD RAW WATER
TRANSMISSION MAIN REPAIR, PROJECT #70030 AND FOR
THE ONGOING LITIGATION RELATED TO THE PROJECT,
ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V. JOHN REYNOLDS & SONS,
INC., ET AL., CASE NO. 10- 6658 -CA — AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item # 16D 1
REPROGRAMMING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $208,223, AND SIGNING
TWO SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENTS THAT PROVIDE $77,845
Page 231
April 24, 2012
IN CDBG GRANT FUNDS TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION OF SW FLORIDA, INC. FOR HOMEBUYER
EDUCATION AND COUNSELING AND A $91,122 CDBG
GRANT TO SHELTER FOR ABUSED WOMEN & CHILDREN,
INC. FOR THEIR LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAM. REMAINING
FUNDS OF $39,256 WILL BE HELD UNTIL ALLOCATED TO
FUTURE PROJECTS BROUGHT TO THE BOARD FOR
APPROVAL — IN ACCORDANCE W /HUD GUIDELINES AND
COLLIER COUNTY'S CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN
Item #I 6D2
AN AMENDMENT TO THE SUB - RECIPIENT AGREEMENT
WITH DAVID LAWRENCE MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, INC.
(DLC) WITH NO CHANGE TO THE FUNDING LEVEL THAT
ALLOWS ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR DESIGN, PERMITS,
INSURANCE AND MINOR ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES — AN
AGREEMENT LINKED TO HUD GRANT #B- 11 -UC -12 -0016
FOR THE INSTALLATION OF AN EMERGENCY GENERATOR
AT THEIR MAIN CAMPUS, 6075 BATHEY LANE, NAPLES
Item #I 6D3
AWARD CONTRACT #12 -5835, MUSEUM EXHIBIT DESIGN,
FABRICATION & INSTALLATION TO CREATIVE ARTS
UNLIMITED, INC. AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO
SIGN THE CONTRACT FOR THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF
$759957.44 IN FY12 — AN INITIAL ONE -YEAR CONTRACT
WITH THREE (3) OPTIONAL 1 -YEAR RENEWAL PERIODS
FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION EXHIBITS AT COLLIER COUNTY
MUSEUMS IN NAPLES, MARCO ISLAND, EVERGLADES
CITY, IMMOKALEE AS WELL AS COUNTY DEPARTMENTS
Page 232
April 24, 2012
THAT MAY NEED SPECIALIZED SERVICES
Item #16E 1
RATIFY MODIFICATION OF CLASSIFICATION
SPECIFICATION IN THE FY 2012 PAY AND CLASSIFICATION
PLAN MADE FROM JANUARY 1, 2012 THRU MARCH 31, 2012
Item #I 6E2
A REPORT CONCERNING SALE AND DONATION OF ITEMS
ASSOCIATED WITH A COUNTY SURPLUS AUCTION HELD
MARCH 24, 2012, RESULTING IN GROSS REVENUES OF
$361,505 — AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #I 6E3
BID #12 -5870, FOR THE PURCHASE AND DELIVERY OF
FERTILIZER TO MULTIPLE VENDORS (PROJECTED ANNUAL
EXPENDITURES: $150,000) — WITH FLORIDA VENDORS
THAT INCLUDE: UPSTART PRODUCTS, TITUSVILLE;
DIAMOND R FERTILIZER, FT. PIERCE; FLORIKAN ESA,
SARASOTA; GREEN TECHNOLOGIES, GAINESVILLE;
FORESTRY RESOURCES, FT MYERS AND JOHN DEERE
LANDSCAPES, NAPLES
Item #I 6E4
INVITATION TO BID #12 -5823, "MAINTENANCE MINOR
REPAIRS" TO BQ CONCRETE, LLC., AS PRIMARY; FA
REMODELING AND REPAIRS, INC., SECONDARY; AND WM.
J. VARIAN CONTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., AS TERTIARY
Page 233
April 24, 2012
WITH ANNUAL ESTIMATED COSTS OF APPROXIMATELY
$703000 — WORK INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO: DOOR
AND WINDOW REPAIR, REPLACEMENT & INSTALLATION;
CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION, REPAIR OF FURNITURE,
CABINETS, DRYWALL & GUTTERS; PRESSURE WASHING;
CONCRETE STUCCO, FASCIA & ALUMINUM SIDING WORK
AND OTHER VARIOUS REPAIRS AND /OR RENOVATION
Item # 16F 1
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND IMMOKALEE HELPING OUR PEOPLE IN
EMERGENCIES, INC. (D /B /A I HOPE, INC.) IN SUPPORT OF
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES RELATED TO
NATURAL & MANMADE HAZARD EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Item #I 6F2
SUBMISSION AND THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN A VOLUNTEER
FIRE ASSISTANCE GRANT APPLICATION TO FLORIDA
DIVISION OF FORESTRY FOR EQUIPMENT TO COMBAT
BRUSH FIRES — REQUIRES A 50% LOCAL MATCH OF $4900
WITH THE FUNDS USED TO PURCHASE A PORTABLE SKID
UNIT CONSISTING OF A TANK, PUMP & HOSE REEL THAT
WILL BE MOUNTED ON THE DEPARTMENT'S F -250 TO
HELP FIGHT BRUSH FIRES
Item #161`3
WAIVING FORMAL COMPETITION UNDER PURCHASING
POLICY SECTION V.A.4 TO APPROVE SARASOTA COUNTY'S
HOSTED APPLICATION SERVICE & LICENSE AGREEMENT
Page 234
April 24, 2012
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO GOVMAX V5 UNDER CONTRACT
411-5617 FOR AN AMOUNT UP TO $50,000 ANNUALLY FOR
MAINTENANCE, SUPPORT AND ENHANCEMENTS TO THE
GOVMAX BUDGET SOFTWARE
Item #I 6F4
RESOLUTION 2012 -67: APPROVING AMENDMENTS
(APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS
OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO FYI 1- 12 ADOPTED BUDGET
Item # 16H 1
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING MAY 3, 2012 AS THE
NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER THAT WILL BE PRESENTED
BY COMMISSIONER COLETTA ON MAY 39 2012 IN
EVERGLADES CITY AT THE NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER
EVENT. SPONSORED BY COMMISSIONER COLETTA —
ADOPTED
Item #161-12
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED A ROTARY CLUB OF MARCO
ISLAND SUNRISE BREAKFAST ON APRIL 2, 2012. $12 PAID
FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET — HELD
AT THE BISTRO SOLEIL RESTAURANT, 100 PALM STREET,
MARCO ISLAND. FLORIDA
Item #161-13
Page 235
April 24, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED A MARCO POLICE FOUNDATION
LUNCHEON APRIL 18, 2012. $20 PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET — HELD AT HIDEAWAY BEACH
CLUB, 250 SOUTH BEACH DRIVE, MARCO ISLAND. FL
Item #161-14
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE WILL ATTEND THE LOCAL CHAPTER OF
BUSINESS WOMEN'S LUNCHEON APRIL 25, 2012. $20 PAID
FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET — HELD
AT THE TOWN CENTER MALL'S ISLANDER RESTAURANT,
1093 N. COLLIER AVENUE, MARCO ISLAND, FLORIDA
Item #161-15
RESOLUTION 2012 -68: AMENDING RESOLUTION 2011 -235 AS
IT RELATES TO THE REAPPOINTMENT OF WILLIAM E.
ARTHUR. THIS WILL STAGGER APPOINTMENT TERMS FOR
MEMBERS OF THE GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER
ADVISORY COMMITTEE, APPROVED UNDER AGENDA
ITEM #I OD AT THE APRIL 10, 2012 BCC MEETING
Item #1611 & #1612
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH
ACTION AS DIRECTED — NOTHING SUBMITTED TO THE
BMR DEPARTMENT FOR FILING INTO THE BOARD'S
RECORD
Page 236
April 24, 2012
Item # 16J 1
AFTER - THE -FACT APPROVAL FOR THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE
TO SUBMIT A FY2012 COPS HIRING PROGRAM GRANT TO
THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE — A 3 -YEAR GRANT
APPLICATION REQUEST FOR $5005000 REQUIRING A LOCAL
MATCH OF $2981000 FOR FUNDS USED TO HIRE ENTRY -
LEVEL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR TO RE -HIRE
DEPUTIES LAID OFF AS A RESULT OF BUDGET CUTS AND
INCLUDES A REQUIREMENT THAT ALL NEW ENTRY LEVEL
OFFICERS HIRED ARE MILITARY VETERANS WHO HAVE
SERVED ON ACTIVE DUTY FOR A PERIOD OF ATLEAST 180
DAYS, ANY PART OF WHICH OCCURRED ON OR AFTER
SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 AND REQUIRES CCSO TO ADD FOUR
POSITIONS TO THEIR CURRENT BUDGETED POSITIONS
AND RETAIN THOSE POSITIONS BY PAYING 100% OF THE
SALARIES AND BENEFITS FOR THE MINIMUM OF 1 -YEAR
AFTER THE 3 -YEAR FEDERAL FUNDING ENDS
Item #I 6J2
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF MARCH 24, 2012
THROUGH MARCH 30, 2012 AND SUBMISSION INTO THE
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item # 16J3
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF MARCH 31, 2012
THROUGH APRIL 6, 2012 AND SUBMISSION INTO THE
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Page 237
April 24, 2012
Item #I 6J4
PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 318.18(13)(B) THE CLERK
OF THE CIRCUIT COURT'S REQUIRED REPORT OF TRAFFIC
INFRACTION SURCHARGES COLLECTED UNDER FLORIDA
STATUTE 318.18(13)(A)(1) TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS — COLLECTING REVENUE OF $330,405.94
Item # 16J5 — Moved to Item # 13A (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #I 6J6 — Added (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SERVE AS LOCAL
COORDINATING UNIT OF GOVERNMENT FOR FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT'S FEDERAL FY2012
EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL, JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT
(JAG) COUNTYWIDE PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE CERTIFICATION OF
PARTICIPATION, DESIGNATE THE SHERIFF THE OFFICIAL
APPLICANT, THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE STAFF AS THE GRANT
FINANCIAL AND PROGRAM MANAGERS, APPROVE THE
GRANT APPLICATION WHEN COMPLETED AND AUTHORIZE
ACCEPTANCE OF AWARDS AND ASSOCIATED BUDGET
AMENDMENTS (SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT REQUIRES BOARD
APPROVAL IN ORDER TO CONTINUE IN THE CAPACITY OF
LOCAL COORDINATING AGENCY RECEIVING THE EDWARD
BYRNE MEMORIAL JAG GRANT FUNDING)
Item # 16K 1 — Moved to Item # 12A (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #I 6K2 — Moved to Item # 12B (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Page 238
April 24, 2012
Item #I 7A
RESOLUTION 2012 -69: VAC- PL20120000308, TO DISCLAIM,
RENOUNCE AND VACATE COUNTY AND PUBLIC INTEREST
IN PART OF A 30 -FOOT WIDE PUBLIC ROAD RIGHT -OF -WAY
EASEMENT, ORIGINALLY RECORDED IN PUBLIC RECORDS
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LOCATED IN SECTION 26,
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY
FLORIDA AND MORE SPECIFICALLY SHOWN IN EXHIBIT A
Item #I 7B
THIS ITEM IS BEING CONTINUED TO THE MAY 8, 2012 BCC
MEETING. PETITION: VAC- PL20120000308, TO DISCLAIM,
RENOUNCE AND VACATE COUNTY AND PUBLIC INTEREST
IN TWO CONSERVATION EASEMENTS REPLACED WITH
TWO ALTERNATE CONSERVATION EASEMENTS LOCATED
IN THE SAME PARCEL OF LAND ON AN INTERIM BASIS,
ORIGINALLY RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LOCATED IN SECTION 26,
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA AND MORE SPECIFICALLY SHOWN IN EXHIBIT A
Item #17C
RESOLUTION 2012 -70: VA- PL2010 -2285, LOT 801
PLANTATION ISLAND, THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, GRANTS A VARIANCE
FROM SUBSECTION 4.02.14.C.4 OF THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE (MANGROVE TREES), ON PROPERTY
HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 53
SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA
Page 239
1
April 24, 2012
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:17 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS /EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
FRED COYLE,
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
j
c r rw i
These minutes app r ed by the Board on 2 2 1 Z ,
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT
REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.
Page 240