BCC Minutes 09/11-12/2012 R BCC
REGULAR
MEETING
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 11 -12, 2012
September 11-12, 2012
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, September 11-12, 2012
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as
the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such
special districts as have been created according to law and having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Fred Coyle
Jim Coletta
Donna Fiala
Tom Henning
Georgia Hiller
ALSO PRESENT:
Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Leo E. Ochs, Jr., County Manager
Ian Mitchell, Executive Manager to BCC
Crystal Kinzel, Office of the Clerk of Courts
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB)
Airport Authority
reu -�
(i( ∎..»�
AGENDA
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor
Naples FL 34112
September 11, 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 2007-24, 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
September 11,2012
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. Rabbi Adam Miller - Temple Shalom
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. June 28, 2012 - BCC/Budget Meeting
C. July 24, 2012 - BCC/Regular Meeting
Page 2
September 11,2012
3. SERVICE AWARDS
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation recognizing United Way of Collier County for its outstanding
contributions to the community and wishing continued success for the 2012-
2013 season. To be accepted by Steve Sanderson, President, United Way of
Collier County and committee members of Team Collier. Sponsored by the
Board of County Commissioners.
B. Proclamation designating September 2012 as "Hunger Action Month" in
Collier County. To be accepted by Katie Schweikhardt, Collier County Food
Coordinator and Joyce Jacobs, Associate Director, Harry Chapin Food Bank.
Sponsored by Commissioner Henning.
C. Proclamation recognizing the new NCH Healthcare System collaboration
with the Mayo Clinic Care Network and congratulating NCH Healthcare
System on being the first member of the network in Florida and the
Southeast region of the United States. To be accepted by Allen Weiss, M.D.,
President and CEO, NCH Healthcare System. Sponsored by Commissioner
Coletta.
D. Proclamation designating September 2012 as "Friends of the Library of
Collier County" month in honor of the 55th anniversary of the partnership
between Friends of the Library of Collier County, Inc. and the Collier
County Public Library System. To be accepted by Paul Chioffi, President,
Friends of the Library and Marilyn Matthes, Library Director. Sponsored by
Commissioner Fiala.
E. Proclamation designating September 17-21, 2012 as Industry Appreciation
Week in Collier County. To be accepted by Michael V. Reagan, President &
CEO, Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce; Michael Wynn, Chairman,
Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce and Co-Chair of the Partnership for
Collier's Future Economy; and Edward Morton, Co-Chair of the Partnership
for Collier's Future Economy. Sponsored by the Board of County
Commissioners.
5. PRESENTATIONS
Page 3
September 11, 2012
A. Presentation of the Collier County Business of the Month for September
2012 to the Hadinger Company. To be accepted by Don Williamson, CEO
and Annette Dati, Designer.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public Petition request from Jesse Olsovsky regarding road paving on 2nd
Street Northeast.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
Items 8 and 9 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 pm unless otherwise noted.
8. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item continued from the June 18, 2012 BCC Meeting.
Recommendation of Reconsideration of CP-2008-5, Petition requesting
amendments to the Immokalee Area Master Plan and Immokalee Area
Master Plan Future Land Use Map, to make revisions to the entire Master
Plan to include: increases to commercial acreage, industrial acreage, and
allowable residential density; elimination of some existing designations;
creation of a new designation for the Immokalee Regional Airport site; and,
re-designation of approximately 103 acres to Immokalee Urban Area from
Agricultural/Rural within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area as identified on
the countywide Future Land Use Map. Additionally, the petition requests an
amendment to Policy 6.2.5 of the Conservation and Coastal Management
Element to treat that portion of the Lake Trafford Camp Keais Strand
System which is within the Immokalee Urban Area as Neutral Lands for
vegetation retention, and to the Future Land Use Map and Map Series of the
Future Land Use Element to show the re-designation of the 103 acres to the
Immokalee Urban Area.
B. Recommendation to approve the Ordinance Establishing the Hacienda Lakes
Community Development District (CDD) pursuant to Section 190.005(2)(a)-
(f), Florida Statutes.
Page 4
September 11, 2012
C. Recommendation to consider an Ordinance of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance number 04-
41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which
includes the comprehensive land regulations for the unincorporated area of
Collier County, Florida, by providing for: Section One, Recitals; Section
Two, Findings of Fact; Section Three, Adoption of Amendments to the Land
Development Code, more specifically amending the following: Chapter 1 —
General Provisions, including Section 1.08.02 Definitions; Chapter 2 —
Zoning Districts and Uses, including Section 2.03.01 Agricultural Zoning
Districts, Section 2.03.07 Overlay Zoning Districts, Section 2.03.08 Rural
Fringe Zoning Districts; Chapter Three —Resource Protection, including
Section 3.05.02 Exemptions from Requirements for Vegetation Protection
and Preservation, Section 3.05.05 Criteria for Removal of Protected
Vegetation, Section 3.05.07 Preservation Standards, Section 3.06.06
Regulated Wellfields, Section 3.06.07 Unregulated Wellfields, Section
3.06.12 Regulated Development; Chapter Four— Site Design and
Development Standards, including Section 4.02.01 Dimensional Standards
for Principal Uses in Base Zoning Districts, Section 4.02.04 Standards for
Cluster Residential Design, Section 4.02.14 Design Standards for
Development in the ST and ACSC-ST Districts, Section 4.02.16 Design
Standards for Development in the BMUD-Neighborhood Commercial
Subdistrict, Section 4.02.17 Design Standards for Development in the
BMUD-Waterfront Subdistrict, Section 4.02.18 Design Standards for
Development in the BMUD-Residential Subdistrict (R1), Section 4.02.19
Design Standards for Development in the BMUD-Residential Subdistrict
(R2), Section 4.02.20 Design Standards for Development in the BMUD-
Residential Subdistrict (R3), Section 4.02.21 Design Standards for
Development in the BMUD-Residential Subdistrict (R4), Section 4.02.35
Design Standards for Development in the GTMUD-Mixed Use Subdistrict
(MXD), Section 4.02.36 Design Standards for Development in the GTMUD-
Residential Subdistrict (R), Section 4.05.02 Design Standards, Section
4.05.04 Parking Space Requirements, Section 4.06.02 Buffer Requirements,
Section 4.06.03 Landscaping Requirements for Vehicular Use Areas and
Rights-of-Way, Section 4.06.04 Trees and Vegetation Protection, Section
4.07.02 Design Requirements; Chapter Five — Supplemental Standards,
including Section 5.03.02 Fences and Walls, Section 5.03.06 Dock
Facilities, Adding Section 5.03.07 Portable Storage Containers, Section
5.05.08 Architectural and Site Design Standards, Section 5.06.00 Sign
Regulation and Standards by Land Use Classification, Section 5.06.02
Page 5
September 11,2012
Development Standards for Signs within Residential Districts, Section
5.06.03 Development Standards for Signs for Institutional Uses, Section
5.06.04 Development Standards for Signs in Nonresidential Districts,
Section 5.06.05 Exemptions from these Regulations; Chapter Six—
Infrastructure Improvements and Adequate Public Facilities Requirements,
including Section 6.02.01 Generally, Section 6.02.03 Transportation Level
of Service Requirements, Section 6.06.01 Street System Requirements,
Section 6.06.02 Sidewalks, Bike Lane and Pathway Requirements; Chapter
Nine — Variations from Code Requirements, including Section 9.03.02
Requirements of Continuation of Nonconformities, Section 9.04.02 Types of
Variances Authorized, Adding Section 9.04.08 Administrative Adjustment;
Chapter Ten—Application, Review, and Decision-making Procedures,
including Section 10.01.02 Development Orders Required, Section 10.02.00
Application Requirements, 10.02.03 Submittal Requirements for Site
Development Plans, Section 10.02.05 Submittal Requirements for
Improvements Plans, Section 10.02.06 Submittal Requirements for Permits,
Section 10.02.07 Submittal Requirements for Certificates of Public Facility
Adequacy, Section 10.02.13 Planned Unit Development (PUD) Procedures,
Section 10.03.05 Notice Requirements for Public Hearings Before the BCC,
The Planning Commission, the Board of Zoning Appeals, the EAC, and the
Historic Preservation Board, Section 10.08.00 Conditional Uses Procedures;
Appendix A— Standard Performance Security Documents for Required
Improvements; Section Four, Conflict and Severability; Section Five,
Inclusion in the Collier County Land Development Code; and Section Six,
Effective Date.
10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. The Board of County Commissioners to declare a vacant seat on the Airport
Authority Advisory Board.
B. Appointment of member to the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee.
C. Appointment of members to the All-Terrain Vehicle Park Ad Hoc
Committee.
D. Appointment of member to the Collier County Citizens Corps.
E. Appointment of members to the Collier County Public Safety Authority.
Page 6
September 11, 2012
F. Recommendation to suspend the activities of the County Government
Productivity Committee until a review date of January 22, 2013.
11. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to accept a staff report on the progress to date of the
RESTORE Act settlement between BP and the US Government, to designate
a representative to act on behalf of Collier County in future discussions on a
proposed Consortium and Interlocal Agreement and to approve funding of
up to $1,120 for this purpose. (Jack Wert, Tourism Director)
B. Recommendation to award a construction contract in the amount of
$1,803,986.74 to Zep Construction and reserve $178,080 on the purchase
order for funding allowances, for a total of$1,982,066.74 for ITB #12-
5820R - "Accelerated Bridge Construction Projects: White Boulevard
Bridge Replacement (#034021)", Project No. 66066. (Marlene Messam, P.E.
Sr. Project Manager, Growth Management, Transportation Engineering)
C. Recommendation to award Contract No. 12-5940 — LASIP US 41 Ditch and
Naples Manor Ditch Stormwater Improvements to Quality Enterprises USA,
Inc. in the amount of$2,385,787.65 plus a ten (10) percent contingency of
$238,578.77 totaling $2,624,366.42, Project No. 51101. (Margaret Bishop,
Project Manager, Senior, Growth Management, Transportation Engineering)
D. Recommendation to approve award of Request for Proposal (RFP) #12-5864
Annual Roadway Contractors to multiple firms for an annual "not to exceed"
expenditure of$1,500,000. (Nick Casalanguida, Administrator, Growth
Management)
E. Recommendation to approve Contract #11-5782 for three design contracts
for the "Wastewater Basin Program," Project Numbers 70043, 70044,
70046, 70050, 70051, and 70064, in the total amount of$5,730,468, with
AECOM Technical Services, Inc., CDM Smith Inc., and Hole Montes, Inc.
to perform professional engineering services; and authorize a budget
amendment in the amount of$1,648,267.31. (Craig Pajer, Public Utilities
Project Manager)
F. Recommendation to award Contract No. 12-5917, in the amount of
$1,042,050, to A.C. Schultes of Florida, Inc., and authorize a budget
Page 7
September 11, 2012
amendment in the amount of$350,000, for the Livingston Road Irrigation
Quality Water Aquifer Storage and Recovery Well below the underground
source of drinking water, Project#74030. (Tom Chmelik, Public Utilities
Engineering Director)
G. Recommendation for direction and approval to advertise an ordinance
superseding Ordinance 87-25, as amended by Ordinance 2000-54, revising
and establishing the Collier County Purchasing Policy; providing for duties
and authority for the County Manager or designee; providing for the
Administrative Purchasing Procedures; providing for Conflict and
Severability and Effective Date. (Len Golden Price, Administrative Services
Division Administrator)
H. This item to be heard at 11:30 a.m. Recommendation to direct the County
Manager to pursue the recovery of de-obligated Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) payments from Hurricanes Katrina and
Wilma and authorize expenditures up to $100,000 for technical, legal and
professional resources to support the recovery effort. (Nick Casalanguida,
Administrator, Growth Management Division)
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
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.
Page 8
September 11, 2012
A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
1) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway and drainage
improvements for the final plat of White Lake Corporate Park Phase
Three with the roadway and drainage improvements being privately
maintained and authorizing the release of the maintenance security.
2) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Greenway Road and to authorize the County
Manager, or his designee, to release any Utilities Performance
Security to the Project Engineer or the Developer's designated agent.
3) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Regal Acres and to authorize the County Manager,
or his designee, to release any Utilities Performance Security to the
Project Engineer or the Developer's designated agent.
4) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Sandalwood/Secoya and to authorize the County
Manager, or his designee, to release any Utilities Performance
Security to the Project Engineer or the Developer's designated agent.
5) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Bucks Run Access and to authorize the County
Manager, or his designee, to release any Utilities Performance
Security to the Project Engineer or the Developer's designated agent.
6) Recommendation to grant final approval of the private roadway and
drainage improvements for the final plat of IL Regalo Replat with the
roadway and drainage improvements being privately maintained and
authorizing the release of the maintenance security and acceptance of
the plat dedications.
7) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water utility
facility for The Players Club and Spa at Lely Resort and to authorize
the County Manager, or his designee, to release any Utilities
Performance Security to the Project Engineer or the Developer's
designated agent.
Page 9
September 11, 2012
8) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Lakoya and to authorize the County Manager, or
his designee, to release any Utilities Performance Security to the
Project Engineer or the Developer's designated agent.
9) Recommendation to ratify and approve Change Order No. 5 to
Contract #08-5130 in the amount of$46,034 with CME Associates,
Inc., for Design & Related Services for Development of Accelerated
Bridge Construction Standards and Pilot Bridge Construction; Project
#66066.
10) 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
accept a Construction, Maintenance and Escrow Agreement as
security for Excavation Permit No. 60.029 for the project known as
Faith Landing, Phase One.
11) Recommendation to authorize the County Manager, or his designee,
to release Utilities Performance Security Bonds to the Project
Engineer or the Developer's designated agent for Regency Autohaus,
601 Airport Pulling Road North.
12) 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 Esperanza Place, PPLA-
PL20120001151, approval of the standard form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
13) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a
Joint Participation Agreement with Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT) for CEI services on the FDOT resurfacing
project on SR951 from Fiddler's Creek Parkway to South of SR 90
(US41), along with the County's US-41 and SR/CR-951 intersection
project in the amount of$994,640; to execute a Resolution
memorializing the Board's action; and, to authorize the necessary
budget amendment.
Page 10
September 11, 2012
14) Recommendation to award Bid No. 12-5899 to Quality Enterprise
USA, Inc., in the amount of$75,455.31 for the construction contract
of the Golden Gate Community Park Boat Dock Facility Project No.
80031 and authorize a $72,700 budget amendment.
15) Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid (ITB) #12-5922, "Street
Name Sign Replacement," to Municipal Supply and Sign Company
for signage work in the amount of $106,050.50
16) Recommendation to award five contracts with identical terms and
conditions for Request For Proposal No. 12-5892, "Fixed Term
Landscape Architectural Services" to: McGee & Associates, Inc.;
Richard Tindell d/b/a Greenwork Studio; Johnson Engineering, Inc.,
Goetz & Stropes Landscape Architects, Inc. and Windham Studio, Inc
(collective annual limit for all firms: $200,000 without further
approval by the Board).
17) Recommendation to approve a Resolution of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida supporting the County's
applications to Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP) for Long Range Budget Plan Requests for Inlet Management
Plan and Beach Renourishment Projects for Fiscal Year 2013-2014
and authorization of any necessary budget amendments.
18) 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 Quarry Phase 4 Replat, Lots 42
through 75, PL20120000412 approval of a standard form
Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount
of the performance security.
19) Recommendation to award ITB #12-5928 for the Traffic Signal
Upgrade at the intersection of Airport Pulling Road (CR 31) and Pine
Ridge Crossing Shopping Center Entrance to Bonness, Inc. in the
amount of$347,314.87 for Project#60172.
20) Recommendation to award ITB #12-5929 for the Traffic Signal
Upgrade at the intersection of Pine Ridge Road and Pine Ridge
Page 11
September 11,2012
Crossing Shopping Center Entrance to TransCore ITS, LLC in the
amount of$329,006.03 for Project #60172.
21) Recommendation to award ITB #12-5930 for the Traffic Signal
Upgrade at the intersection of Pine Ridge Road & Naples Boulevard
to Highway Safety Devices, Inc. in the amount $287,110, Project
#60172.
22) Recommendation to allow Barefoot Beach Club Condominium
Owners Association, Inc. and the Conservancy of Southwest Florida,
Inc. to enter upon County property to begin exotic removal, data
collection and monitoring of the mangrove forest on County-owned
property in the vicinity of Lely Barefoot Beach.
23) Recommendation to direct the County Manager or his designee to
submit a grant application to the Gulf Tourism and Seafood
Promotional Fund to expand Collier County's artificial reefs.
24) 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 adopt
a Resolution to hold a public hearing to consider vacating a portion of
State Road 29 (Copeland Avenue South), Application No. VAC-
PL20120001606.
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
to approve and execute a Site Improvement Grant Agreement that is
financially assisted by a Fifth Third Bank grant award between the
CRA and a Grant Applicant within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle
area. (Fiscal impact: $3,243.90)
2) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
to approve and execute a Site Improvement Grant Agreement that is
financially assisted by a Fifth Third Bank grant award between the
CRA and a Grant Applicant within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle
area. (Fiscal Impact: $8,000)
Page 12
September 11,2012
3) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
to approve and execute a Site Improvement Grant Agreement that is
financially assisted by a Fifth Third Bank grant award between the
CRA and a Grant Applicant within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle
area. (Fiscal Impact: $221.07)
4) Recommendation that the Collier County Community Redevelopment
Agency (CRA) approve the application and recipient agreement for
the Immokalee CRA Commercial Facade Improvement Grant
Program for reimbursement of$20,000 for facade improvements to
Paralegal & Notary Multi Services, Inc. located at 1007 North 15th
Street (SR 29), Immokalee, Florida 34142.
5) Recommendation to approve the selection committee's short-list
ranking and authorize entering into negotiations with AIM
Engineering, for a contract related to Community Redevelopment
Agency (CRA) Request for Proposal Number 12-5855, "Immokalee
Crosswalk Improvement Project."
6) Recommendation that the Board approve three firms selected through
the Consultant's Competitive Negotiation Act (CCNA) Solicitation
RFP #12-5896, Design of the First Street Zocalo in Immokalee.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve a work order under Request for
Quotation #08-5011-68 in the amount of$255,747.25 to Mitchell &
Stark Construction, for Underground Utility Contracting Services for
the Wastewater Pump Station 103.03 Rehabilitation Project#70046.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve the purchase of a perpetual, non-
exclusive easement (Miscellaneous Parcel 99999-252BSE) for the
amount of$7,100 containing 120 square feet more or less for an
existing Collier Area Transit Bus Shelter located on Broward Street
approximately 135 feet from its intersection with Tamiami Trail East.
Page 13
September 11, 2012
2) Recommendation to authorize the Chairman to sign the FY2012-2013
State Aid to Libraries Grant Agreement, Technology Plan, and
Current Year Action Plan, permitting the Collier County Public
Library to apply for State Aid to Libraries. Fiscal Impact ($219,000).
3) Recommendation to approve budget amendments recognizing
$44,745.59 in additional State Aid to Libraries Grant funds awarded
to the Collier County Public Library for FY09/10 and FY10/11.
4) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment recognizing
$276,635.50 in program income revenue generated when conveying
properties acquired under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program
(NSP1).
5) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment recognizing
$785,293.43 of State Housing Initiative Partnership (SHIP) Grant
Revenue and Program Income.
6) Recommendation to approve and authorize the County Manager or his
designee to sign an agreement between the National Down Syndrome
Society and Collier County Parks and Recreation Department to
conduct the third annual Buddy Walk at North Collier Regional Park
on October 20, 2012.
7) Recommendation to approve the "Certification for Implementation of
Regulatory Reform Activities Required by S.H.I.P", 2009/2010
Program Annual Report, and authorize electronic submission to
Florida Housing Finance Corporation to ensure compliance with
program requirements.
8) Recommendation to approve a Budget Amendment for Sabal Palm
Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) reclassifying $103,185 from
capital improvements to operating expenditures.
9) Recommendation to request for authorization to advertise and bring
back an Ordinance amending Collier County Ordinance No. 91-107,
as amended (The Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage Municipal
Service Taxing Unit), to incorporate provisions to facilitate the
Page 14
September 11,2012
construction of roadways and roadway improvements within MSTU
boundaries.
10) Recommendation to approve the award of Contract#12-5923 in the
amount of$224,120 and authorize the Chairman to execute an
agreement with Victor J. Latavish, P.A., for "Professional Design
Services for the Eagle Lakes Community and Fitness Center" Project
Number 80184.
11) Recommendation to approve one (1) satisfaction of mortgage for State
Housing Initiatives Partnership Program (SHIP) for repayment in the
amount of$1,205,91 in accordance with the Board's Short Sale
Policy.
12) Recommendation to approve one (1) satisfaction of mortgage for State
Housing Initiatives Partnership Program (SHIP) for repayment in the
amount of$1,350 in accordance with the Board's Short Sale Policy.
13) Recommendation to approve one (1) satisfaction of mortgage in the
amount of$5,000 for payment received for the balance owed on a
State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) loan.
14) Recommendation to approve four (4) amendments for the FY12
agreements and attestation statements with the Area Agency on Aging
of Southwest Florida, Inc., dba, Senior Choices of Southwest Florida,
with fiscal impact of$9,000 (decrease in funding) for the Nutrition
Services Incentive Program.
15) Recommendation to approve the FY12 Program of Projects which
includes both Capital and Operating expenditures , authorize
submission of grant application to the Federal Transit Administration
(FTA) Urbanized Area Formula Program (49 U.S.C. § 5307 FY12),
accept the award of said grant in the amount of$2,543,557; and
authorize necessary budget amendments.
16) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving the expenditure of
funds not to exceed $1,500 for activities and incentive prizes
associated with county staff participation in the 2012 United Way of
Collier County Campaign.
Page 15
September 11, 2012
17) Recommendation to authorize staff to notify applicants of the
County's cancellation of two "As Is" Contract for Sale and Purchase
contracts for properties in the Neighborhood Stabilization Program
(NSP) for failure to obtain financing and notify the title company to
return the escrow deposits to the applicants.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve, and authorize the Chairman to sign, the
Assumption Agreement from Advanced Medical Center, LLC to
Advance Medical of Naples, LLC for medical director services by Dr.
Gregory E. Leach, M.D. and employment physicals and drug testing
services.
2) Recommendation to approve Agreement #13-CP-11-09-21-01-XXX
between the State of Florida, Division of Emergency Management and
Collier County accepting $8,355 for the preparation of Hazards
Analysis Reports for facilities storing extremely hazardous substances
within Collier County and approve the necessary budget amendment.
3) Recommendation to approve a Florida Emergency Medical Services
County Grant Application, Grant Distribution Form and Resolution
for the funding of Training and Medical/Rescue Equipment and
Supplies in the amount of$74,895 and to approve a Budget
Amendment.
4) Recommendation to adopt the Comprehensive Emergency
Management Plan for Collier County and its Municipalities.
5) Recommendation to provide after-the-fact approval for a Federal
Emergency Management Agency Staffing for Adequate Fire and
Emergency Response (SAFER) Grant application in the amount of
$610,720 to hire four firefighters for the Isles of Capri Fire Rescue
District.
6) Recommendation to ratify Property, Casualty, Workers'
Compensation and Subrogation Claims settled and/or closed by the
Risk Management Director pursuant to Resolution 2004-15 for the
third quarter of FY12.
Page 16
September 11,2012
7) Recommendation to recognize and appropriate the revenue for special
facility maintenance in the amount of$92,395.26 to the County
Security and Facilities Maintenance cost centers and approve all
necessary Fiscal Year 2011-2012 budget amendments.
8) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign the
Assumption Agreement from ADT Security Services, Inc. to ADT,
LLC as it relates to Invitation to Qualify 09-5227 Services for Seniors.
9) Recommendation to approve the Memorandum of Understanding
between Collier County and Collier County Housing Authority, Farm
Worker Village in support of Emergency Management activities
related to natural and manmade hazards emergency response.
10) Recommendation to provide after-the-fact approval of a Federal
Emergency Management Agency's Staffing for Adequate Fire and
Emergency Response (SAFER) Grant Application in the amount of
$916,080 to hire six Firefighters for the Ochopee Fire Control District
11) Recommendation to accept reports and ratify staff-approved change
orders and changes to work orders.
12) Recommendation to approve a purchase from the National
Intergovernmental Purchasing Alliance (IPA), Contract RFP #083052
in support of the Enhanced 911 emergency information display
system and associated minor equipment. The Board has previously
approved this grant and equipment.
13) Recommendation to waive competition and approve the purchase of a
microwave video downlink system for the Collier County Sheriff's
Office-Aviation Division from Department of Justice grant funds
previously approved by the Board.
F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS
1) Recommendation for Board ratification of Summary, Consent and
Emergency Agenda Items approved by the County Manager during
the Board's scheduled recess. (In Absentia Meeting dated August 14,
2012)
Page 17
September 11,2012
2) Recommend approval of FY13 Tourism Agreements for Category B
Grant Agreements totaling $63,000 and Category C-2 Grant
Agreements totaling $135,000 and waive the $25,000 funding limit
guideline in the Category B grant application for FY13.
3) Recommendation to approve the award of ITB #12-5893 for Tourism
International Representation Services for UK/Ireland to OMMAC,
Ltd. and for Europe to Diamonde and corresponding tourism
agreements at a combined total annual cost of$400,000 to include a
revised termination notification period of 60 days.
4) Recommendation to approve a report covering a budget amendment
impacting reserves in an amount up to and including $5,000 and
budget amendment moving funds.
5) Recommendation to authorize budget amendments appropriating
approximately $267,628,099.09 of unspent FY2012 grant and project
budgets into Fiscal Year 2013.
6) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
to the Fiscal Year 2011-12 Adopted Budget.
7) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners awards
Request for Proposal (RFP) #12-5903 for Grant Writing and Project
Management Oversight Services to Guardian Community Resource
Management, Inc., and authorize the Chairman to sign the county
attorney approved agreement (anticipated annual spend: $25,000).
8) Recommendation to approve a contract Request for Proposal No. 12-
5895 "Impact Fee Study and authorizes the chairman to sign the
county attorney approved agreement with Tindale-Oliver and
Associates, Inc. (Estimated contract value over four (4) years is
$950,000).
9) Recommendation to approve an Assumption Agreement with Naples
Community Hospital, Inc. in order to continue participation in the Fee
Payment Assistance Program, as originally approved for Anchor
Health Centers, P.A.; and amending certain provisions within the
Page 18
September 11, 2012
original agreement, related to job and wage requirements, for
consistency with requirements of the Fee Payment Assistance
Program.
10) Recommendation to approve an Amendment to the Job Creation
Investment Program Agreement between Collier County and Animal
Specialty Hospital of Florida, LLC due to a scrivener's error.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
1) Recommendation to approve an after-the-fact acceptance of the
attached Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) grant offer for
$713,565 for the design, permitting and bidding of Runway #9-27
pavement restoration at the Immokalee Regional Airport, and
associated budget amendments.
2) Recommendation to accept a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
grant offer for $635,625 for the design, permitting and bidding of
Runway #17-35 pavement restoration at the Marco Island Executive
Airport, and approve associated budget amendments.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Proclamation designating September 2012 as Childhood Cancer
Awareness Month in Collier County. To be accepted by Kids Cancer
Connection via mail delivery. Sponsored by the Board of County
Commissioners.
2) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the Collier County 100 Club Summer Speaker Event on July
26, 2012. The sum of$15 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 East Naples Civic Association Luncheon on July 19,
2012. The sum of$18 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel
budget.
Page 19
September 11,2012
4) Commissioner Hiller requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Commissioner will be attending the Florida Shore & Beach
Preservation Association 56th Annual Conference, September 26-28.
The sum of$260 to be paid from Commissioner Hiller's travel budget.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous correspondence to file with action as directed.
Document(s) have been routed to all Commissioners and are available
for review in the BCC office until approval.
2) Advisory Board Minutes and Agendas to file with action as directed.
Document(s) have been routed to all Commissioners and are available
for review in the BCC office until approval.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of July 07,
2012 through July 13, 2012 and for submission into the official
records of the Board.
2) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of July 14,
2012 through July 20, 2012 and for submission into the official
records of the Board.
3) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of July 21,
2012 through July 27, 2012 and for submission into the official
records of the Board.
4) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of July 28,
2012 through August 03, 2012 and for submission into the official
records of the Board.
5) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of August
04, 2012 through August 10, 2012 and for submission into the official
records of the Board.
Page 20
September 11,2012
6) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of August
11, 2012 through August 17, 2012 and for submission into the official
records of the Board.
7) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of August
18, 2012 through August 24, 2012 and for submission into the official
records of the Board.
8) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of August
25, 2012 through August 31, 2012 and for submission into the official
records of the Board.
9) Recommendation to authorize the Collier County Supervisor of
Elections to accept federal election activities funds with a 15%
matching contribution and that the Board direct its Chairman to sign
the Certificate Regarding Matching Funds.
10) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment recognizing carry
forward earned from previous year's interest and current interest
earned in Supervisor of Elections Grant Fund 44047.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to approve an Agreed Order awarding expert fees in
connection with the acquisition of Parcels #122 and #123 in the
lawsuit styled Collier County v. William Pilger, et al., Case No. 06-
1125-CA, County Barn Road Widening, Project No. 60101 (Fiscal
Impact $11,250).
2) Recommendation to approve a Mediated Settlement Agreement with
owner, A L Subs, Inc. and tenant, 951 Petroleum Corporation, and a
Stipulated Final Judgment to be drafted incorporating the same terms
and conditions as the Mediated Settlement Agreement awarding full
compensation, business damages, statutory interest, attorney fees and
expert fees and costs in the amount of$320,000 for Parcels #109FEE,
#109TCE and #109FEE2, #109TCE2 in the lawsuit styled Collier
County v. A. L. Subs, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-3562-CA (Collier
Boulevard Project#60092). (Fiscal Impact: $294,440).
Page 21
September 11,2012
3) Recommendation to approve a Mediated Settlement Agreement with
Respondent, Colombo Enterprises of Naples, Inc., and a Stipulated
Final Judgment to be drafted incorporating the same terms and
conditions as the Mediated Settlement Agreement in the Amount of
$525,000 for Parcels #131A, #131 B and #133 in the Lawsuits Styled
Collier County v. First National Bank of Naples, et al., Case No. 04-
3587-CA, and Collier County v. Stonebridge Country Club
Community Association, Inc., et al., Case No. 04-3588-CA, which
have been consolidated into one lawsuit, in the Immokalee Road
Project #66042 (Fiscal Impact: $346,970).
4) Recommendation to approve a settlement agreement prior to trial in
the lawsuit entitled Board of County Commissioners, Collier County,
Florida, v. Paul R. Pransky, filed in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in
and for Collier County, Florida, Case No. 10-3654-CC to settle a
property damage claim for the sum of$3,500 and authorize the
Chairman to execute the Release.
5) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a
mediated Settlement Agreement prior to trial in the lawsuit entitled
Jorge Magana, et al., v. and Collier County, filed in the Twentieth
Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida (Case No. 11-2441-
CA) for the sum of$7,500.
6) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute a
mediated Settlement Agreement prior to trial in the lawsuit entitled
Benjamin Groenewald v. Mary J. Wehrly, Jack Wehrly, and Collier
County, filed in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier
County, Florida (Case No. 11-01366-CA) for the sum of$15,000.
7) Recommendation to approve a Settlement Agreement prior to trial in
the lawsuit entitled Board of County Commissioners, Collier County,
Florida, v. Anderson Columbia Company, Inc., and AJAX Paving
Industries, Inc., d/b/a AJAX Paving Industries of Florida, LLC, all
d/b/a ACCI/API Joint Venture, filed in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit
in and for Collier County, Florida (Case No. 11-2087-CA) to settle for
the sum of$30,000 and authorize the Chairman to execute the
Settlement Agreement and Release.
Page 22
September 11, 2012
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS WHICH ARE QUASI-
JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
A. Recommendation to adopt resolutions approving the preliminary assessment
rolls as the final assessment rolls, and adopting same as the non-ad valorem
assessment rolls for purposes of utilizing the uniform method of collection
pursuant to Section 197.3632, Florida Statutes, for Solid Waste Municipal
Service Benefit Units, Service District Number I and Service District
Number II, Special Assessment levied against certain residential properties
within the unincorporated area of Collier County, the City of Marco Island,
and the City of Everglades City, pursuant to Collier County Ordinance 2005-
54, as amended. Revenues are anticipated to be $19,028,100. For FY2013,
the total special assessment proposed for Solid Waste Municipal Service
Benefit Units, Service District I is $173.49 and Service District II is $165.28
per residential unit. These assessment amounts are the same as those
approved by the Board of County Commissioners in FY2012.
B. Recommendation to adopt an Ordinance repealing an unnumbered ordinance
codified as Sec. 98-1 (Expenditures for lighting) in the Code of Laws and
Ordinances of Collier County.
C. Recommendation to adopt an Ordinance repealing an unnumbered ordinance
codified as Sec. 46-5 (Fee for alimony payments and collection) in the Code
of Laws and Ordinances of Collier County.
D. Recommendation to adopt an ordinance repealing an unnumbered ordinance
codified as Sec. 78-28 (Sale of canned goods) in the Code of Laws and
Ordinances of Collier County.
Page 23
September 11, 2012
E. Recommendation to adopt an Ordinance repealing an unnumbered ordinance
codified as Sec. 2-1 (Purchases from state division of corrections) in the
Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier County.
F. Recommendation to adopt an Ordinance repealing an unnumbered ordinance
codified as Sec. 2-26 (Franchises generally) in the Code of Laws and
Ordinances of Collier County.
G. 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. CU-PL20110001157: Ichthyo Park Conditional
Use, A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County,
Florida providing for the establishment of a Conditional Use to allow an
educational aquarium within an Agricultural (A) Zoning District pursuant to
Subsection 2.03.01.A.1.c.3 of the Collier County Land Development Code
for property located in Section 23, Township 50 South, Range 26 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 24
September 11,2012
September 11-12, 2012
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, Board of County
Commissioners meeting is now in session. Would you please stand
for the invocation by Rabbi Adam Miller of Temple Shalom.
Item #1A
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — GIVEN BY
RABBI ADAM MILLER FROM TEMPLE SHALOM, NAPLES
RABBI MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the members
of our Collier County Board of County Commissioners for inviting me
here to offer the invocation on this day, a day when our hearts and
thoughts are linked with individuals across our country to remember
the tragic events that took place on Tuesday, September 11th, 2001.
Today is a dark day in our hearts. I was studying to be a Rabbi in
New York City and I happened to witness the events of that day from
20 blocks away from those famed Twin Towers. We all remember
those who lost their lives on that day. In the words of one widower,
there's no value -- there's no value for my wife. If gold is the best we
have in this world, then she was gold. If there's something better than
gold, she was that too.
Each person lost that day was equally precious. Remember the
airline passengers, the people trapped in the Twin Towers, those who
lost their lives in the Pentagon. Remember the brave first responders
who continued to search inside buildings, courageously returning to
save anyone they could, even risking and giving their own lives.
Remember all the brave men and women who in the years after 9/11
have made the ultimate sacrifice in defending this nation as citizens in
war against terror that's taken them to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Our hearts go out to those whose lives were irrevocably altered
and shattered by the tragedy of 9/11 and the families impacted by war.
Page 2
September 11-12, 2012
In the days after 9/11 we heard many times the desire to return to
normal, as if one could rewind the clock and undo the tragic events
that traumatized our nation. We all understand that feeling. It was
like a surreal dream from which we could not wake up.
But while we want to go back to life before, we know that life is
not about returning to the past, it is a journey from one place to the
next. And we move ahead, never forgetting the experiences that made
us who we are and the lessons learned along the way.
I remember meeting a relief worker who shared his narrow
escape from the Pentagon as it collapsed around him, somehow
always being guided to make the right choices, avoiding danger and
death. Having survived, he came to New York to help search for
survivors.
Another woman I met talked about being stranded in Brooklyn
and being taken in by strangers for the night. She couldn't go back to
her home in Manhattan. But they welcomed her in, understanding that
we were all united as one family on that day.
Another gentleman told of a subway ride on September 12th
through an above-ground section where he could see into Ground Zero
with smoke still coming out. The entire train went silent. He felt
something touching his hand, and looking down saw that the person
next to him was holding his hand. And everyone on the train was
doing the same. Strangers who had never met were unified in the face
of tragedy.
Today does feel like a dark day, a day of pain, of loss and of
grief. Yet out of those depths came the experiences I just shared, only
three in countless examples of humanity in the face of tragedy.
May those feelings of brotherhood and unity experienced in the
aftermath of 9/11 be the bright light that shines out of that darkness
and guides us. May that light inspire us to work together with our
own neighbors for the well-being of our community. May the
memories of that day, now 11 years past, continue to invoke within us
Page 3
September 11-12, 2012
hope that we can again come together, that we can be one nation, not
only in word but indivisible in our purpose to make our country safe,
to help our neighbors through times of trouble, and to be partners with
one another to make our communities, our nation and our world a
better place. Amen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would you please join us in a moment of
silence in remembrance of those who lost their lives.
(Silence.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Now join us in the Pledge of Allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Rabbi Miller. Thank you.
Okay, County Manager, we have some changes to the agenda?
Item #2A
APPROVAL OF TODAY'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND
SUMMARY AGENDA AS AMENDED — APPROVED AND/OR
ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Good morning,
Commissioners.
These are the proposed agenda changes for the Board of County
Commissioners meeting of September 1 lth, 2012.
First proposed change is to withdraw Item 11.G. That's a
recommendation to advertise an ordinance revising the Collier County
purchasing policy. That withdrawal is made at staffs request.
Next proposed change is to move Item 16.A.17 from your
consent agenda to make that Item 11.1 on your regular agenda. It's a
recommendation to approve a resolution supporting the county's
application for state cost share funds for beach renourishment projects.
That item is moved at Commissioner Hiller's request.
Page 4
September 11-12, 2012
The next proposed change is to move Item 16.A.23 from your
consent agenda to become Item 11.J on your regular agenda. That's a
recommendation to direct the County Manager to submit a grant
application to expand the county's artificial reefs. That item is moved
at Commissioner Hiller's request.
Next proposed change is to withdraw Item 16.E.5. Ifs a
recommendation to provide after-the-fact approval for SAFER fire
grant to hire four firefighters at the Isle of Capri Fire District. That
item is withdrawn at the staffs request.
Next proposed change is to withdraw Item 16.E.10. It also was a
recommendation to provide after-the-fact approval for a SAFER Grant
to hire six firefighters at the Ochopee Control Fire District. That is
also withdrawn at the staffs request.
The next proposed change is to continue Item 16.F.8 to the
September 25th, 2012 BCC meeting. It was a recommendation to
approve a contract to perform impact fee studies. That is being
continued at the staffs request.
Next proposed change is to move Item 16.F.3 from your consent
agenda to become Item 11.K. It's a recommendation to award various
contracts for tourism promotion and advertising services in Ireland
and Europe. That is being moved to the regular agenda at
Commissioner Hiller's request.
The next proposed change is to move Item 16.G.1 from your
consent agenda to become Item 14.A.1 under your Airport Authority
regular agenda. It's a recommendation to approve an after-the-fact
acceptance of an FAA grant to allow for design, permitting and
bidding for payment restoration at the Immokalee Regional Airport.
That item is being moved at Commissioner Hiller's request.
Commissioners, you have one time certain item. It's Item 11.H.
That is to be heard at 11 :30 a.m.
Those are all the changes I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you very much.
Page 5
September 11-12, 2012
County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: No changes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we'll go to the commissioners.
We'll start with Commissioner Henning this morning for ex parte
disclosure for the agenda, as well as for any other changes to the
agenda.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The only -- I don't have any
changes. The only ex parte communication I have is on 17.G. I
received the planning commission's report.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, good morning. And no
changes to the agenda. And the only thing I have to declare is the
17.G summary agenda staff report. I viewed that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I have no further changes to the
agenda. And my only ex parte disclosure relates to Item 17.G, and
that includes the review of the staff report.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. First I'd like to thank the
Rabbi for such an inspirational message. It's just still in my heart and
I wanted to tell you how much I appreciated hearing that.
And just for the sake of taking a little bit longer, it just so
happens that 11 years ago today we were sitting in this same position,
Commissioner Henning, Commissioner Coletta and myself. And I
don't think you were here yet. It was still --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I was two months away.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. The chairman was Jim
Carter, and the other person on board was Pam Mac'Kie. We were all
sitting here and it was early in the morning, just like this. And we
could see that the manager who was Tom Oliff at the time, manager's
phone, you know, it never rings, but there's a light that goes on and
you could see him answer. And he was kind of oh, my goodness, isn't
that a shame. And he wrote us a note and he handed it to Chairman
Page 6
September 11-12, 2012
Carter at the time. And it said a plane had just hit the Twin Tower.
And we thought, oh, isn't that an awful thing. What a shame; a
moment in silence. But we didn't say anything to the audience, just
thinking about those people that had died.
And then his phone went on again about 20 minutes later and
now you could see the alarm on his face. And he handed another note
to us, and it said another plane had crashed, and it doesn't look like
this was an accident.
And then the third message. By this time we weren't able to
concentrate on what we were doing. All we could think about was
what was happening in our world. Meanwhile, he was already alerting
our security people to batten up the hatches here, because we didn't
know what was happening to New York or to our Country, and he
wanted to make sure everyone here was safe. And so he got that into
motion.
And then the fourth call came and by that time we couldn't sit
here anymore. We took a recess. Because we had to go back and see
what was happening on television. But as I think about this, here we
are sitting in the same seats today, and with the Rabbi's beautiful
message, well, you can't help but have it hit you, you know.
Anyway, I'll stop there and say I have nothing to disclose on the
consent and only on the summary agenda I did receive a staff report.
And I have no changes or corrections or additions to the agenda.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Fiala, those were
very touching words. Thank you for sharing.
I have no disclosures except for the staff report on 17.G, and no
changes to the agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, I'll accept motions to approve the
agenda as amended.
Page 7
September 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve the agenda
as amended.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Coletta,
seconded by Commissioner Hiller to approve the agenda as amended.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
Page 8
Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
September 11,2012
Withdraw Item 11G: Recommendation for direction and approval to advertise an ordinance
superseding Ordinance 87-25,as amended by Ordinance 2000-54, revising and establishing the
Collier County Purchasing Policy; providing for duties and authority for the County Manager or
designee; providing for the Administrative Purchasing Procedures; providing for Conflict and
Severability and Effective Date. (Staffs request)
Move Item 16A17 to Item 11I: Recommendation to approve a Resolution of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County,Florida supporting the County's applications to Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) for Long Range Budget Plan Requests for Inlet
Management Plan and Beach Renourishment Projects for Fiscal Year 2013-2014 and authorization
of any necessary budget amendments. (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Move Item 16A23 to Item 11J: Recommendation to direct the County Manager or his designee to
submit a grant application to the Gulf Tourism and Seafood Promotional Fund to expand Collier
County's artificial reefs. (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Withdraw Item 16E5: Recommendation to provide after-the-fact approval for a Federal
Emergency Management Agency Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response(SAFER)
Grant application in the amount of$610,720 to hire four firefighters for the Isles of Capri Fire
Rescue District. (Staffs request)
Withdraw Item 16E10: Recommendation to provide after-the-fact approval of a Federal
Emergency Management Agency's Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER)
Grant Application in the amount of$916,080 to hire six Firefighters for the Ochopee Fire Control
District. (Staffs request)
Continue Item 16F8 to the September 25,2012 BCC Meeting: Recommendation to approve a
contract Request for Proposal No. 12-5895 "Impact Fee Study and authorizes the chairman to sign
the county attorney approved agreement with Tindale-Oliver and Associates,Inc. (Estimated
contract value over four(4)years is $950,000). (Staffs request)
Move Item 16F3 to Item I1K: Recommendation to approve the award of ITB 12-5893 for Tourism
International Representation Services for UK/Ireland to OMMAC, Ltd. and for Europe to
Diamonde and corresponding tourism agreements at a combined total annual cost of$400,000 to
include a revised termination notification period of 60 days. (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Proposed Agenda,Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
September 11,2012
Page 2
Move Item 16G1 to Item 14A1: Recommendation to approve an after-the-fact acceptance of
the attached Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) grant offer for$713,565 for the design,
permitting and bidding of Runway 9-27 pavement restoration at the Immokalee Regional Airport,
and associated budget amendments. (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Time Certain Items:
Item 1111 to be heard at 11:30 a.m.
9/11/2012 8:26 AM
September 11-12, 2012
Item #2B and Item #2C
MINUTES OF THE JUNE 28, 2012 — BCC/BUDGET MEETING
AND THE JULY 24, 2012 BCC/REGULAR MEETING —
APPROVED AS PRESENTED
With respect to the minutes of the June 28th, 2012 BCC budget
meeting and the July 24th, 2012 BCC regular meeting, I will accept
any suggestions for correcting those minutes or for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve the minutes for
both meetings.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Fiala to
approve the minutes for both meetings. Seconded by?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The meeting minutes are approved.
That brings us to proclamations.
County Manager? And I have just received the proclamations,
thank you.
Item #4
PROCLAMATIONS — ONE MOTION WAS TAKEN TO ADOPT
ITEMS #4A THRU #4E — ADOPTED
Page 9
September 11-12, 2012
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING UNITED WAY OF COLLIER
COUNTY FOR ITS OUTSTANDING CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE
COMMUNITY AND WISHING CONTINUED SUCCESS FOR
THE 2012-2013 SEASON. ACCEPTED BY STEVE SANDERSON,
PRESIDENT, UNITED WAY OF COLLIER COUNTY AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS OF TEAM COLLIER — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. The first proclamation is Item 4.A on your
agenda this morning. It's a proclamation recognizing United Way of
Collier County for its outstanding contributions to the community and
wishing continued success for the 2012-2013 season. To be accepted
by Steve Sanderson, President, United Way of Collier County, and
committee members of Team Collier. This item is sponsored by the
entire Board of County Commissioners.
Please come forward.
(Applause.)
MR. SANDERSON: Team Collier and United Way
representatives, if you would come up, agencies and board members
that are present today, to show your support.
(Applause.)
MR. SANDERSON: First of all, thank you everybody for
coming today to show your support. My name is Steve Sanderson, I'm
president of the United Way, and I'm privileged to be a Collier citizen.
A sincere thank you to our United Way Board, the Board of
Commissioners here, Leo, Mike, who's on our board as well, for
sponsoring this proclamation and your commitment to the community.
As we know, this is a special day. I think what we remember
most about this day is how after that tragedy people came together to
work and help one another and build community back. And that's
Page 10
September 11-12, 2012
what we believe United Way is.
It's an honor to be here today. There are many great
proclamations that are going to follow us, and we're privileged that we
have the partnership with Harry Chapin, you'll hear from, NCH, the
Chamber, and maybe others, as we're a broad community
organization.
Clark Hill, our board chair, Brandon Box, Robert Britebard, the
campaign chairs this year, are doing a tremendous job in leadership
for us.
It's an aggressive but achievable goal that we have this year, and
we're committed to doing it because our community needs it. And
we're privileged to have one great organization among the many that's
going to be part of this year's campaign success.
And it's my privilege to introduce you to one of the staff
members of the great Team Collier. And here to talk about the Team
Collier campaign is Hailey Alonso.
Hailey, thank you for your leadership and support. We
appreciate it.
MS. ALONSO: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Hailey
Alonso, I'm the operations analyst for the Public Service Division. I
am the Team Collier chair person and I am also your walk captain.
The United Way was founded in 1957, and for the past 55 years
they've been serving the community by increasing awareness for those
in need.
One in three citizens in Collier County has been helped by the
United Way through the funded organizations that they help. These
citizens are parents, are brothers, are sisters and our own children.
And this year, the constitutional offices and the Health Department
have come together to be united as one for a common cause, and that's
to help raise funds for the United Way.
So I'm asking you please to support us, to come out. We're
having a bake sale today, we're having a dunk tank on Friday. A lot of
Page 11
September 11-12, 2012
your department directors are going to be there and administrators
from all the constitutional offices are going to be there as well.
And I want to just take one moment to thank our team members
and just to name them very quickly: I have Andrea Marsh, Tom
Whitecotton, Rachael Clise, Melissa Blazier, Suvilla Lowe, Patti
Hisler, Amanda Eberl, Ann Simpson, Brittney Mahon, Jodi Walters,
Susan Jacobs, Michael Stark, Lavah Hetzel, Pamela Lulich, Marlene
Serrano, and of course Mike Sheffield.
And I want to thank all of them for the hard work. You have an
amazing team that's gotten together. We don't care where we work or
what we do, we're just here to help the citizens of Collier County.
And thank you for your support.
(Applause.)
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING SEPTEMBER, 2012 AS
"HUNGER ACTION MONTH" IN COLLIER COUNTY.
ACCEPTED BY KATIE SCHWEIKHARDT, COLLIER COUNTY
FOOD COORDINATOR AND JOYCE JACOBS, ASSOCIATE
DIRECTOR, HARRY CHAPIN FOOD BANK — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item 4.B is a proclamation
designating September, 2012 as Hunger Action Month in Collier
County. To be accepted by Katie Schweikhardt, Collier County Food
Coordinator, and Joyce Jacobs, Associate Director, Harry Chapin
Food Bank. And Connie Boyt as well, I'm sorry. And this item is
sponsored by Commissioner Henning.
Would you please come forward and accept your award?
(Applause.)
MS. SCHWEIKHARDT: Commissioners, thank you for this
proclamation. My name is Katie Schweikhardt, I'm the Collier
Page 12
September 11-12, 2012
County Food Coordinator and Director of Programs for the Harry
Chapin Food Bank. I'm also born and bred from Naples, Florida.
Many of you know my family. And hunger in Collier County and
hunger in general is something that is dear to my family's heart. So
also on behalf of my family I'd like to thank you for this proclamation.
On behalf of the board of directors of the Harry Chapin Food
Bank and all of our staff, all of our 23 partner agencies and all of the
citizens of Collier County who help us, especially the United Way of
which we are a very strong and proud partner.
There are -- we always talk about the millions of hungry
Americans, but sometimes we forget that hunger exists even in Collier
County. Over 63 percent of the school children in the public schools
receive free lunch. And every school has at least a quarter of its
students receiving free lunch.
Hunger knows no boundaries of age. We have very hungry older
people and very hungry younger people. The Harry Chapin Food
Bank has served Collier County for over 20 years. And last year we
distributed over two million pounds of food just in Collier County.
We will be opening a warehouse specifically for Collier County
at the end of this month. We invite all of you to that warehouse
opening on September 25th.
We appreciate all of your work in helping us feed the hungry
people of Southwest Florida, and especially of Collier County. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think we have a commission
meeting that day, don't we?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, we do.
Item #4C
Page 13
September 11-12, 2012
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE NEW NCH
HEALTHCARE SYSTEM COLLABORATION WITH THE MAYO
CLINIC CARE NETWORK AND CONGRATULATING THE NCH
HEALTHCARE SYSTEM ON BEING THE FIRST MEMBER OF
THE NETWORK IN FLORIDA AND THE SOUTHEAST REGION
OF THE UNITED STATES TO BE ACCEPTED BY ALLEN
WEISS, M.D., PRESIDENT AND CEO, NCH HEALTHCARE
SYSTEM — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4.0 is a proclamation recognizing the new
NCH Healthcare System collaboration with the Mayo Clinic Care
Network, and congratulating NCH Healthcare System on being the
first member of the network in Florida and in the southeast region of
the United States.
To be accepted by Allen Weiss, M.D., President and CEO, NCH
Healthcare System.
This item is sponsored by Commissioner Coletta.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You can't speak until you take a picture.
(Applause.)
DR. WEISS: Thank you for this opportunity.
On behalf of my 4,000 colleagues, 600 physicians, 1,200
volunteers and 21-member board members, we all think healthcare is
the single most important attribute of our county.
When we look through the economic ups and downs that we've
had for the past 35 years, having a steady economic engine as we
improve our healthcare will be best long term.
I had the pleasure of sharing this information a couple of weeks
ago in Minnesota, last week in New York, tomorrow I'll be in Chicago
and next week I'll be in northern Michigan sharing with our colleagues
who come back and forth. And they are as equally excited as the
community has been.
This will -- the Mayo affiliation will take our community to the
Page 14
September 11-12, 2012
next level. When we think about the monumental changes in the last
35 years that my family and I have had the pleasure of living here,
between the building of I-75, Ritz-Carlton coming to town, Florida
Gulf Coast University, Edison expanding and other monumental
events, I think the Mayo affiliation will be right up there when we
look back three to five years from now.
Right now we have one out of eight patients coming from outside
of our five-county area. There's just so much market share here. But if
we increase the market and increase our attractiveness by being a
medical tourist destination, that will add another economic boost to
what has been an up and down economy, which could be very steady.
All of-- we at NCH, along with the hospitality industry, has
excess capacity for about two-thirds of the year. As we fill in that
capacity, it will be healthier for everyone in all industries, and I think
that's one of the big initiatives going forward.
I'll tell one quick story about what has happened already with our
affiliation. We had a patient who had a switch in physicians because
another physician had a professional opportunity. The new physician
came on, took a history from the patient, realized the patient's mother
also had a similar illness. Called up to Canada to get the old medical
records, and the family up there said, you know, the strangest thing is
that this patient's mother's physician's last name was the same as
yours.
It turns out, it was our physician's father that took care of the
older generation, of all things. Turns out that this patient's child also
has similar symptoms, and one of the children is pregnant. So we
have a four-generation degenerative disease, very serious, very
unusual. We took the patient's records and all the family members
electronically, shared them with our colleagues at Mayo Clinic on a
Tuesday. By Thursday we had an answer from one of the few world
experts as to what we should be doing next.
Normally that patient would have had to wait months to get into
Page 15
September 11-12, 2012
Rochester, would've had to travel out of the area, which would have
been hard for her. And it's just the perfect example. It happened to be
the first one we did. But really, it's just the beginning of change where
we'll really have access to Mayo, the court of last resort in terms of
their information.
So I think this is a monumental change for all of us for the better.
Thank you for this opportunity.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4D
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING SEPTEMBER, 2012 AS
"FRIENDS OF THE LIBRARY OF COLLIER COUNTY" MONTH
IN HONOR OF THE 55TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE
PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN FRIENDS OF THE LIBRARY OF
COLLIER COUNTY, INC. AND THE COLLIER COUNTY
PUBLIC LIBRARY SYSTEM. TO BE ACCEPTED BY PAUL
CHIOFFI, PRESIDENT, FRIENDS OF THE LIBRARY AND
MARILYN MATTHES, LIBRARY DIRECTOR — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4.D is a proclamation designating September,
2012 as Friends of the Library of Collier County Month in honor of
the 55th anniversary of a partnership between Friends of the Library
of Collier County, Incorporated and the Collier County public library
system. To be accepted by Bill Pappalardo, Executive Director of the
Friends of the Library, Mrs. Jane Parks, and Marilyn Matthes, your
Library Director. This item is sponsored by Commissioner Fiala.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who is going to accept this? Someone
going to say something?
MR. PAPPALARDO: Thank you, Commissioners. I'm Bill
Page 16
September 11-12, 2012
Pappalardo, Executive Director of the Friends.
And I'd like to acknowledge the groups that went before us for
their good work.
And this is an important day. I used to work in the Trade Center
at one point, in Trade Center One, so this is a solemn day.
And we're also with Mrs. Parks from the Friends, who was here
back in 1955 when the Friends was formed to form a free library
system. So she was one of the families that started the library system
here in Collier with the idea to form a system. So we're grateful for
her to be here today.
Thank you for your proclamation. On behalf of Paul Chioffi, our
board president and all of our board members, we thank you for this
proclamation, and we thank you for your continued support for the
branches. We have 4,000 paid members in Collier and we have
300,000 cardholders. Our mission is to promote literacy throughout
the county, so your support is critical, and we thank you for that. And
we thank you for this proclamation. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4E
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING SEPTEMBER 17-21, 2012 AS
INDUSTRY APPRECIATION WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY.
ACCEPTED BY MICHAEL V. REAGAN, PRESIDENT & CEO,
GREATER NAPLES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE; MICHAEL
WYNN, CHAIRMAN, GREATER NAPLES CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE AND CO-CHAIR OF THE PARTNERSHIP FOR
COLLIER'S FUTURE ECONOMY AND EDWARD MORTON,
CO-CHAIR OF THE PARTNERSHIP FOR COLLIER'S FUTURE
ECONOMY — ADOPTED
Page 17
September 11-12, 2012
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item 4.E this morning is a
proclamation designating September 17th through the 21st, 2012, as
Industry Appreciate Week in Collier County. To be accepted by Mike
Reagen, President and CEO, Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce,
Michael Wynn, Chairman, Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce and
co-chair of the partnership for Collier's future economy, and Cotrenia
Hood, Chamber of Commerce.
And this is sponsored by the entire Board of County
Commissioners.
(Applause.)
MR. WYNN: Good morning. My name is Michael Wynn. I'm
President of Sunshine Ace Hardware, Chairman of the Greater Naples
Chamber, and co-chair of the Partnership for Collier's Future
Economy.
And I'm here this morning to talk about the importance of
Industry Appreciation Month. Industry Appreciation proclamations
have been made for many years in Collier County, but this year I think
the proclamation holds special meaning. And it holds special meaning
for two reasons: First, the business leaders of Collier County have
recently joined together to privately fund and support an effort to grow
jobs in Collier County through the partnership of Collier's Future
Economy.
And second, thanks to all of your unanimous support, the county
is now also in the process of creating the Office of Economic and
Business Development, which will share many of the same goals as
the partnership.
So in addition to making a proclamation that rightfully brings
attention to businesses and industry and the value that they bring to
our community, the private and public sector are working together to
make real progress toward creating a business climate that will
promote business and industry every day.
So really, when we think about this, this is good news. It's
Page 18
September 11-12, 2012
important that we highlight businesses and industry, because a
successful business climate enhances all of our lives. Successful
businesses are able to grow jobs, they're able to pay higher wages, that
income is going to reinvest in our community through growing
families, new homes, donations to charities and just bringing better
lives to many. So in the end successful business, successful industry
means a stronger community.
And in our community we're fortunate to have many examples of
success and innovation that we can point to. Just a few examples of
which: Arthrex. Not only do they grow high-wage jobs, but their
medical devices are used by our local surgeons and complex surgeries
to improve the success rate of those surgeries which in the end
enhances the lives of residents.
Another example we heard just previously about the NCH
healthcare system and their recent partnership with Mayo Clinic,
which will allow their doctors to have access to the clinical expertise
of Mayo Clinic, as well as getting access to future medical discoveries
that again will benefit Collier citizens.
And then there's Didrick Medical, a small business chosen by
Chase Bank recently from over 70,000 businesses across the country
to receive a $250,000 grant for their innovative medical devices that
create active, functioning artificial fingers for amputees.
Those are just three examples of many businesses in our
community that are not only supporting our economy but making our
lives better.
But that's just one part of the equation though. As I mentioned
before, it's important that we have a culture in our community that
supports and promotes success for business and industry. And
fortunately we've seen progress in county government recently on that
as well. For example, in addition to the creation of the Office For
Economic and Business Development, there's been continued efforts
to streamline the permitting process, there's been efforts made to
Page 19
September 11-12, 2012
improve the Land Development Code, and steps taken to implement
electronic permitting.
So for all those reasons I believe this proclamation is different
than ones before it, because both private and public sectors are
working on common goals to create a healthy business climate.
So I want to thank all of you for making this proclamation today,
recognizing how important our business and industry are to making
Collier County the greatest place to live and work. Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And we want to thank you and
the Chamber of Commerce for all you're doing to stimulate this
progress and to move us forward. We've needed a catalyst, we're so
happy that you're there and that we're all working together. Thank
you very much for all you're doing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve the
proclamations.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve the proclamations by
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion carries unanimously.
And that takes us to presentations for the Collier County
Business of the Month.
Page 20
September 11-12, 2012
Item #5A
PRESENTATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BUSINESS OF
THE MONTH FOR SEPTEMBER, 2012 TO THE HADINGER
COMPANY. ACCEPTED BY DON WILLIAMSON, CEO AND
ANNETTE DATI, DESIGNER — PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Item 5.A is a presentation of the Collier
County Business of the Month for September, 2012 to the Hadinger
Company. To be accepted by Don Williamson, CEO, and Annette
Dati, designer.
(Applause.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: On behalf of Mr. Hadinger and all the
employees of Hadinger Flooring, we'd like to thank you very much for
this wonderful honor. Mr. Hadinger had to be out of town, otherwise
he would want to be here and speak for about 45 minutes.
A lot of you, and even a couple of people on the board mentioned
the type of work we do at Hadinger. We want to continue to try to do
excellence in flooring installation for everyone in Collier County.
And Mr. Hadinger started his business selling carpet out of a
basement in Ft. Atkinson, Wisconsin, and built it into the mansion that
we have at J&C and Airport. And we'd just like to invite everybody in
and we'll treat you fair and do a wonderful job for you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST FROM JESSE OLSOVSKY
REGARDING ROAD PAVING ON 2ND STREET NORTHEAST —
PETITIONER WAS NOT PRESENT
Page 21
September 11-12, 2012
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item 6.A is public petition request
by Jesse Olsovsky regarding road paving on Second Street Northeast.
I don't see him here this morning, Mr. Chairman.
Item #7
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
That takes us to your next item, Item 7 on your agenda, public
comments on general topics.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we've one registered speaker. That's Stan
Chrzanowski.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's a familiar name. Where have we
heard that before?
MR. MITCHELL: Well, I could pronounce it so we must have
said it before.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No tie?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners. Stan
Chrzanowski, Stan no tie Chrzanowski.
I understand I have three minutes. I'm here to talk about that
abomination that we call the digital flood insurance rate maps. I plan
on saying a lot so I'm going to be saying it over the next few months,
three minutes at a time.
I was recently appointed to DSAC. I'm on a committee, a
sub-committee having to do with FEMA because of what's going on in
Golden Gate Estates, and apparently some kind of rumor that you can't
build anything in a floodplain from now on in Collier County.
But that's not why I'm here. I'm here to talk about Lakeside
where I live. I'm a little like a one-armed paper hangar here so Leo,
any chance I could --
MR. OCHS: Sure.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I've got a few exhibits just to get us
Page 22
September 11-12, 2012
oriented.
What you're looking at here first is the panel map. You had a
little discussion about flood panels the other day. That's the flood
panel of map of Collier County. And this is a different version of it.
That's the version from the website. It's a little clearer.
You look along the coast, you see the smaller panels, they're four
square miles, roughly about the size of Golden Gate City. And they
get bigger as you go inland, eight, 16, 32, 64. And if you look up in
Hendry County they're about 128 square miles.
So when they talk about full panel amendments, they're talking
different size areas. And I don't know why they do this, because this
is -- thanks, Leo. This is what a flood panel really looks like. This is
the one for Lakeside. Very complicated.
If you zoom in and -- well, I have a zoom-in. That's the zoom-in
for Lakeside. You can't hardly read what's in any area. The lines are
about the size of a building. So you can't tell if anything's hitting a
building or not. You can't even see the buildings.
So what you guys have set up is a very nice website where you
can get in and zoom in on the buildings.
And when you zoom in, this is the part of Lakeside on the south
side of the lake toward the east side. And that one with the question
mark is one that I think may have an encroachment.
This is the next one, and I think that one might have an
encroachment.
This one here has no encroachment.
And this is the letter from IRMS telling our property
management company that these three here way on the east side,
they're the ones that encroach. Well, two of those, the one on the left
you can see has no encroachment.
I don't know where this stuff is coming from, but CoreLogic out
of Austin, Texas, this is the typical sheet we get from them saying that
we're under -- those units -- now, I don't have a mortgage, you know,
Page 23
September 11-12, 2012
thank God. I'm in an X-Zone. I have flood insurance anyway. None
of this is any of my business. But I'm getting phone calls from people
I know all over Collier County that are just -- they're flummoxed by
this. They don't know what to do.
Everybody -- I was at my doctor yesterday, and he lives in Pine
Ridge, not too far from one of your commissioners. And he's
basically getting screwed for a few thousand dollars. He's going to
have to go out and get some kind of survey and a LOMA. Everybody
has to do that.
The problem is you can look at these units and you can tell --
unless somebody took your map and took the base map and moved the
flood zone from one side to the other, I don't know. You know, these
things are hitting the unit by a foot or missing the unit by a foot. Well,
how -- you look at the appraiser's website and you see property lines,
and sometimes those property lines are not right in the middle of the
units because I think it's a term called register. One layer doesn't sit
exactly right on the other layer.
And you might have a lot of that with this, because from what I
see the people in Texas are looking at a different map than we are.
The whole thing is just bizarre.
Now, Tomasello, the guy that did the study, I got nothing but
praise for him. Your staff is working as hard as they can with this
abomination. They're trying their hardest to get people corrected.
We got a letter from Jim VonRenthal (phonetic) saying that those
three units are in an X-Zone. The people in Texas ignored it.
So what do you do? About the only thing I'm doing is I'm telling
them next time there's a national election, you know, don't vote that
person back in, because these people have a chance to control FEMA
and they're not doing it.
I know I've overrun my time. And, you know -- like I say, I've
got a whole lot to say and I'm coming back next meeting and the
meeting after and the meeting after.
Page 24
September 11-12, 2012
Somehow you have to get everybody in the room, the bankers,
the insurance companies -- the only politician that was helpful last
time was Dudley Goodlette -- and maybe staff, you know, and talk
about this. Because I -- from talking to staff, they're as confused as I
am, and as helpless as we are. All your constituents are up against this
nebulous bureaucracy and you can't deal with them. That's -- I'll see
you --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're not telling us anything we don't
already know, Stan. I have personally been working on this problem
since 1998 when I was on the City Council in Naples. Nobody has
understood the significance of FEMA's action until now. And we've
been trying to warn them for 14 years. We even had a joint effort
between the City of Naples and Collier County until we ran out of
money and were frustrated with FEMA's inability to get things done
properly.
We're faced with a problem now with FEMA where they're
demanding money back, $11 million back that they gave us for
Hurricane Wilma that's already been spent. It is crazy.
And that's -- you're absolutely right, we've got a federal agency
that is completely out of control. But those people are not elected, of
course, as you know. And we just have to fight the fights one at a
time. And it's going to take us a long, long time to get this done.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, back in September, 2002 I was in
a meeting with Commissioner Coletta and Dick Tomasello up in
Atlanta. And I got kicked out of the meeting because I just blew my
cork. Because I'm dealing with engineers and they're talking
bureaucracy.
And I know what you mean. But somebody has to do something.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The FEMA executive who is demanding
a return of$11 million --
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Craig Fugate.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- is the same person who in Florida
Page 25
September 11-12, 2012
approved the $11 million for Collier County. So it's very, very
strange. But we've got some commissioners who want to speak.
Commissioner Coletta was first.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
Stan, I remember that meeting well. Right after you left, I
chastised both the county group and the FEMA group over what took
place. I kind of had a meltdown at that time and told them that the
only thing we wanted to do was come up with something that was
based upon real science. And that led to the 11 years it took to get to
where we are today.
There has been some improvements, but I went through
something similar that you're talking about. I was told that I was not
in a flood zone. I felt very fortunate. And the next thing I know I get
a letter from my bank telling me that I had to get flood insurance
within 45 days or they were going to purchase it for me, undoubtedly
for a much higher cost.
Well, come to find out, what it was, is I wasn't in a flood zone but
my house was within a foot of what was considered a flood zone, and
they were using that for the reason to be able to reinterpret the maps
that were already issued.
So what I did is I hired a surveyor and he did an eLOMA, which
enabled us to be able to file and get back a determination the fact that
we weren't in a flood zone and we were able to opt out of the
insurance issue.
But it still was -- it was very concerning with the fact that it
looked like for a while we might have to purchase it for a year and
then wait for the process to go forward. But there's something called
an eLOMA for those people that would like to move on it quicker than
not to be able to bring it to some sort of conclusion.
It's a terrible thing that you have to go out and spend all this
money after the county spent, what, a million some dollars to be able
to set benchmarks out there and to be able to pay for the enhanced
Page 26
September 11-12, 2012
mapping that was done to get us to the point that we're at today? And
we still have the insurance companies coming back and trying to find
a way to be able to make some money on this.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: And most of these people are being
given 45 days to do this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know that.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: That's wrong. It ought to be six
months, it ought to be a year. Forty-five days is insane.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But meanwhile we got to deal
with what we have to work with. And so at this point in time if
somebody does get a letter from their bank claiming that they have to
have insurance, the best way to go would be find a surveyor that can
do an eLOMA and get it done one, two, three. The total cost is like
$125, $150, I can't remember what we spent. Well worth it. We're
done with it now.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The people that call me are spending a
lot more than that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
I also have been working on this issue for a very long time. In
fact, I've been working with you, Stan, on this issue for a very long
time. And I really appreciate your continued involvement and
concern about what's going on.
Very clearly an injustice is being done against the taxpayers of
Collier County.
And what I'd like to ask Jeff is, is there any legal action that can
be taken in light of FEMA's erroneous conclusions that are hurting the
taxpayers as they are?
MR. KLATZKOW: We could look into that, if you direct me to
do that. I could come back to you at another meeting.
I would suggest, however, this is not just a county problem, it's a
state-wide problem. Perhaps when we're at FAC --
Page 27
September 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We did address that. In fact, I
could bring that up at the next meeting.
MR. KLATZKOW: I think it would be more effective.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Have the state file suit --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- and be part of that.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Could we explore it at both levels
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- just to see, if the state were not
to proceed, if we could proceed on behalf of the residents as an
alternative --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- if we don't succeed?
Would that be acceptable to the board to give direction to the
County Attorney to research that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do we have three nods?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Well, Stan, you were saying
something about you're going to continue to come back. And I was
just thinking if there's something that we can do. But I think
Commissioner Hiller already hit it, because we need to know
everything we can do to help our citizens, to encourage you to keep on
going, and really to educate ourselves as to what is happening and
what we can do about it.
But you kind of answered the whole thing right there. So I was
going to ask that you keep coming back and maybe even have a --
Page 28
September 11-12, 2012
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- whole session just on flood.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I'm going to give you a reminder of
what happened for the last -- since 1999 I've been on the Clerk's --
Clerk's got a great website. I can look up board minutes and records
using the term FEMA from since we started this. And some of the
minutes are just -- you know, you sit there and you shake your head.
But I'll be back in two weeks. You've got a busy agenda today, I
don't want to take up a lot of time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But is it a good idea for us to maybe
have a whole -- rather than just three minutes, although I'm delighted
that --
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, you might want to talk to staff.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- Commissioner Coyle -- pardon
me?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: You might want to talk to staff.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, that's what I was just going to
say to Leo, is there a way that we could just allow a whole subject
right on the agenda to be on this subject? I mean, a whole agenda
item on this subject.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. Frankly, I don't know that there's any
new information. As the Chair said earlier, we're all kind of aware of
the horror story. But if the Board would like to schedule another item
for more discussion, I'm happy to do that.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Could I bring up something might be a
new issue? I'm hearing rumors that in Golden Gate Estates they're not
going to let you do any impact at all within a flood zone, which is an
AH Zone. Which means if you want a lot in an AH Zone, which is
maybe 10,000 -- five to 10,000 un-built lots, you won't be able to even
-- because you have to put in a drain field to percolate. That's
automatically an impact. You're not going to be able to build, it's a
moratorium, period. Maybe something like that could be discussed.
Page 29
September 11-12, 2012
There's a bunch of stuff out there.
MR. OCHS: Would you like the staff to comment, or not?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, we don't want to turn this into a
full-blown hearing today, because it hasn't been advertised and we'd
like to get full participation by the public. But go ahead, if you can be
brief.
MR. OCHS: Just that one question, Jack.
Mr. McKENNA: Relative to that question -- for the record, Jack
McKenna, your county engineer.
Yes, we're looking into FEMA's requirement that there is no
impact to the floodplain. And we're working with a firm right now
trying to get a proposal for modeling that impact. As you've put
bricks in the bathtub, your -- the water in the bathtub's coming up.
And that's essentially what we're talking about here. And FEMA's
indicated no, you will not have any impact.
Previously staff had come forward with a proposal of what they
considered de minimis where it would be a single lane driveway
coming up to the house, fill only under the house, living floor space,
no pool, no accessory structure, and a septic system, and proposed this
to FEMA as being a de minimis impact in the spring of this year.
FEMA came back and said no, that's not acceptable. We said no
impact.
We've got to work through this. Because obviously no impact is
not a feasible solution. And so we're -- staff is working with Atkins to
look at modeling for some impact to see what the effects of that would
be, how big are the bricks that we're putting in the bathtub, how much
is the water going to come up.
And so yes, this is a concerning issue that we really need to
pursue. And I'm not going to minimize it and say it's nothing, because
I believe we have to pursue it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, it's -- I'll emphasize one more
time, this is not a local problem. Not just a local problem. FEMA is
Page 30
September 11-12, 2012
doing exactly what they set out to do 10 to 15 years ago, and that is to
drive people out of areas that are prone to flooding or storm surges.
They do not want us living in those areas. And everything they have
done is oriented to achieve that goal.
And whether it is along the Mississippi River or other low areas
in our country or along the coast, the intent is clear, they do not want
to pay for rebuilding or repairing homes that get flooded periodically.
They want to drive us out of those areas.
For us that is clearly unacceptable. It requires a national policy
change. That isn't likely to happen unless we bring some legislative
pressure to bear on FEMA.
And it's -- and Collier County will be unable to do that alone.
We need to marshal support on a much broader basis. And that is
going to be a very hard thing to do because, and we've had this debate
with them before, the people who live in the higher elevations love
this policy because it reduces their cost. So we're going to be fighting
against a lot of people who don't have flood problems that are more
than happy to see our people lose their property, lose their right to
build, and so that's the big problem here.
And once you start dealing with national policies, it becomes a
very, very difficult and long-term solution. We'll get through this.
Mr. McKENNA: Sir, I agree with everything you said there. I
agree without a doubt.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. And that's the way it's been now
for 14 years or longer, and we haven't been able to change the path at
all.
MR. McKENNA: We are a bit unique here in Florida, I think.
You know, maybe Lehigh might have similar situations. But as soon
as you get further north, there's a little bit more topography. So we are
a bit unique for Florida. But I think in the Mississippi Delta there's
probably a lot of land there similar. I haven't worked up in that area --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There is.
Page 31
September 11-12, 2012
MR. McKENNA: -- but I would imagine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, it's a problem.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If this last piece of information
that you're bringing forward is by way of regulation, or new
regulation, I should say, doesn't that rise to the level of a takings if
now all of a sudden as a consequence of FEMA's new rulings these
people are being deprived of their development rights?
And I was thinking back to an earlier meeting where I brought up
another issue related to development rights with respect to what's
going on. I received a phone call several months back from a real
estate agent who lost a sale because a property which was previously
not in the flood zone now found itself in a flood zone and could not
be redeveloped to the extent that it could be otherwise without taking
the entire building down and raising the pad. So it was a real problem
and as a consequence it's directly affecting the construction industry
and directly affecting sales of real estate in Collier County.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. McKENNA: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right, thank you very much.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 2012-155: DECLARING A VACANT SEAT ON
THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY ADVISORY BOARD — MOTION
TO APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 10 on your
agenda. Board of County Commissioners.
Item 10.A is a recommendation from the Board of County
Commissioners to declare a vacant seat on the Airport Authority
Advisory Board.
Page 32
September 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Henning,
seconded by Commissioner Fiala to approve staffs recommendation.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion passes unanimously.
Item #1 OB
RESOLUTION 2012-156: REAPPOINTING RANDOLPH MOITY,
SR. (TERM EXPIRING MAY 22, 2016) TO THE COLLIER
COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 10(B) is appointment of member to the Collier
County Coastal Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- Randolph Moity.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve Mr. Moity by
Commissioner Fiala, seconded by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
Page 33
September 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
Item #10C
RESOLUTION 2012-157: APPOINTING WILLIAM COMBS AND
BARBARA C. PINX TO THE ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLE PARK
AD HOC COMMITTEE — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 10.0 is appointment of members to the all terrain
vehicle park ad hoc committee.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve staff
recommendations of William Combs and Barbara C. Pinks.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion carries unanimously.
Item #10D
RESOLUTION 2012-158: APPOINTING LEE H. HENDERSON
TO THE COLLIER COUNTY CITIZENS CORPS — ADOPTED
Page 34
September 11-12, 2012
MR. OCHS: 10.D is appointment of member to the Collier
County Citizens Corps.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let's see. And these are all of the
people that we're asking to be on the Citizen Corps, correct?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, it's just appointing one member to
serve. A term expired.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There's only one applicant --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's talking public safety, excuse me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Lee H. Henderson is the only applicant.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve Mr. Lee
Henderson.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala makes a motion to
approve the appointment of Lee H. Henderson.
A second, is there?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Hiller.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion carries unanimously.
Item #10E
RESOLUTION 2012-159: APPOINTING PHILLIP DUTCHER,
Page 35
September 11-12, 2012
NCH COO (ADOPTING A RESIDENCY WAIVER), COLLIER
COUNTY MEDICAL DIRECTOR DR. ROBERT TOBER,
MEDICAL DIRECTOR DR. JEFFREY PANOZZO, PHYSICIAN'S
REGIONAL ER DR. JOHN ZELAHY, NCH'S DR. TODD
BETHEL, CCSO CHIEF JIM BLOOM, NAPLES POLICE
CAPTAIN MONTAGANO, MARCO ISLAND FIRE CHIEF MIKE
MURPHY, EMS CHIEF WALTER KOPKA, EMT JOSE
SANTANA, EMT DAVID MENNINI, PARAMEDIC JUSTIN
GIBSON, PARAMEDIC BOBBY ALLEN AND PHYSICIAN'S
REGIONAL CEO TODD LUPTON — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 10.E is appointment of members to the Collier
County Public Safety Authority.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve all of the
members mentioned in our agenda item to the Public Safety Authority.
Do you want me to name them all?
MR. OCHS: No, ma'am, it's not necessary.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, a motion to approve all --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Leo, could you refresh our
memory with respect to Marco and the City of Naples and how that's
going to work with representation? Do we have a representative from
Marco there?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, Chief Mike Murphy.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. With regard to municipal law
enforcement, the two municipalities have agreed to appoint a single
member on a rotating basis, so the City of Naples law enforcement rep
will be the initial appointment. Next on rotation will be City of Marco
Island. I've already communicated with both Mr. Rivera -- Dr. Rivera,
and Mr. Moss and they're in agreement with that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And it will rotate?
Page 36
September 11-12, 2012
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And they're agreeable?
MR. OCHS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we have a motion by
Commissioner Fiala to approve all of the nominees. And seconded by
whom?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Myself.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion carries unanimously.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners just a quick footnote on that, we
have three more citizen members to be appointed, and that will
complete the composition of the board. And we're hoping to have
their first meeting scheduled for late October.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good.
Item #10F
RESOLUTION 2012-161 : SUSPENDING ACTIVITIES OF THE
COUNTY GOVERNMENT PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE
UNTIL A REVIEW DATE OF JANUARY 22, 2013 — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: And Item 10.F is a recommendation to suspend the
activities of the county government Productivity Committee until a
Page 37
September 11-12, 2012
review date of January 22nd, 2013.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion passes unanimously.
Item #11A
RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT A STAFF REPORT ON
PROGRESS TO DATE OF THE RESTORE ACT SETTLEMENT
BETWEEN BP AND THE US GOVERNMENT, DESIGNATE
A REPRESENTATIVE TO ACT ON BEHALF OF COLLIER
COUNTY IN FUTURE DISCUSSIONS ON A PROPOSED
CONSORTIUM AND INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AND TO
APPROVE FUNDING OF UP TO $1,120 FOR THIS PURPOSE —
MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
APPOINTING COMMISSIONER FIALA TO REPRESENT
COLLIER COUNTY AT THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2012 MEETING —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Takes us to Item 11 on your agenda, County
Manager's report.
Page 38
September 11-12, 2012
11.A is a recommendation to accept the staff report on the
progress to date of the Restore Act settlement between British
Petroleum and the U.S. Government, to designate a representative to
act on behalf of Collier County in future discussions at a proposed
consortium and interlocal agreement and to approve funding up to
$1,120 for this purpose.
Mr. Jack Wert, your Tourism Director, will present.
MR. WERT: Commissioners, good morning. And we've
provided you an overview of a meeting that I attended to represent
Collier County that the County Manager asked me to attend up in
Panama City Beach.
This was a meeting of pulling together all of the counties that
were affected either directly or indirectly by the BP oil spill in the
Gulf of Mexico.
Good representation from the Panhandle communities because
they have been most active and have really put together quite a good
working group, working together to try and get as much of the
settlement dollars as they could.
Now they're bringing in the other 15 counties that includes
Collier County that was not directly affected by the oil spill. In other
words, we didn't actually have oil on the beach, but we certainly had
economic impacts and we certainly talked about those in past
meetings, the loss of tourist tax revenue, the dollars that we had to
spend to overcome the negative publicity that so much of the national
media had.
So this meeting was really the first opportunity for all 23 counties
to get together. And we had a good overview.
And Commissioner Hiller, you did ask for a copy of that agenda.
I did send it out. Sorry I didn't get it to you -- you do have it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
MR. WERT: Great. You're quite welcome. Yes, that is the --
was the agenda.
Page 39
September 11-12, 2012
It was a half-day meeting. Most of the other counties were
represented by county staff members, either county manager's office,
number of them had tourism officials, because obviously we have
quite a stake in this, and there is part of the settlement that could go
directly toward future marketing funds that would certainly help us in
the future.
The outline that I gave you shows the three as they call them pots
of money. There is a county allocation that's 35 percent of what all
five states will have a share of.
And our share, as I indicated in the executive summary,
depending on what the final settlement -- and this settlement is the
federal government making a settlement with BP. And the amount of
that settlement will really depend on how much the government
attorneys can really indicate the massive impact that the oil spill will
have. The larger that impact is, the bigger impact on the ecosystem,
the more that settlement could be.
I indicated that it could be anywhere from five billion to $20
billion. And our share of that, based on a formula that has been
worked out by federal staff to -- takes into account the 2010 census, it
takes into effect (sic) how far each of the counties was directly from
the oil rig, and then our per capita tax collections. That formula could
generate in that county allocation anywhere from $4.9 million to $19.6
million.
There is another section of that that is called federal allocation
that's 30 percent of the total. This is going to be on a competitive
basis, and will be based on a set of criteria of the types of projects that
the federal government feels are certainly worthy of--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Jack, do you have something you can put
on the overhead?
MR. WERT: I do, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And of course we have a lot of
information in the executive summary, so I suspect you're anxious to
Page 40
September 11-12, 2012
get a vote on the issue.
MR. WERT: Yes, sir.
Let me put -- and I apologize, I've got some writing on this
myself because there was an awful lot of information.
But this diagram really shows the breakdown of the three pots of
money, if you will, the federal, the county and then what they call the
state allocation.
So what we're talking about here is the first pot of money, that
federal -- excuse me, the county allocation will come directly to us,
regardless of whether or not we join this consortium or not.
The second, the federal allocation and what is called the state
allocation representing 60 percent of the money, that is going to be
based on a set of criteria that the counties decide on, which is the real
purpose of this consortium and the interlocal agreement that I also
attached for you to look at.
That interlocal agreement has been looked at by the County
Attorney's Office. I don't know if they have an opinion at this point
on it. The consortium is asking obviously for all 23 counties to join in
this interlocal agreement. And that interlocal agreement simply points
out how the consortium operates and gives it power to work among
the 23 counties to come up with the criteria that each of the counties
will then find projects that meet that criteria and apply for funding.
These will all be pretty much reimbursement grants,
reimbursement projects, so we're going to have to spend the money to
get the money. We've certainly been through that before with our
FEMA reimbursements and so forth.
But it does give us a wonderful opportunity to a share in the
settlement dollars.
So if we don't be a part -- if we aren't a part of the consortium, if
we don't agree to the interlocal agreement, then we still have the
opportunity to apply for funding. But we won't really have a say so in
what those projects might be, what the guidelines of those projects
Page 41
September 11-12, 2012
might be. And I think it's important for us. We certainly have a
unique ecosystem here, especially in Southwest Florida.
And a quick addendum: All of the Southwest Florida counties
have met, we're going to meet again very shortly to talk about this so
that Southwest Florida, an ecosystem that we all kind of share from
Sarasota south, will come up with a similar set of projects that we'll be
applying for. Which I think will make it much easier and much -- and
certainly improve our chances of getting those dollars for Southwest
Florida. And I think we all know Southwest Florida often gets
shortchanged on a lot of these projects. The funds don't seem to flow
to us, they don't seem to think we need it, but we certainly do. And
we've got some projects related to our inland water systems and so
forth that really could qualify. So could some of our beach
renourishment projects.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, bottom line is if the $5 billion -- if
the settlement is $5 billion, we get roughly 4.9 million. If the
settlement is --
MR. WERT: Twenty billion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- $20 billion, we got 19.7 million. And
you're asking for $1,120 --
MR. WERT: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- to participate in a consortium.
MR. WERT: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That sounds like a pretty good
investment.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I was looking for a
representative, and I would love to throw my hat in the ring for that,
being that I work pretty closely with FAC anyway.
MR. OCHS: There is a meeting, sir, in St. Petersburg that
corresponds with the FAC legislative policy committee meetings on
the 19th of September.
And what the staff is suggesting is perhaps the Board could
Page 42
September 11-12, 2012
appoint a representative to represent the county in further discussions
about this consortium. I'm not sure that we're ready to recommend
that it should be adopted or not at this point, but we're still gathering
facts.
And the important point of this executive summary is to get
direction to have a county representative attend that meeting on the
19th so that we can learn more about the consortium and bring that
information back and get a final decision.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, what is it you're not asking for?
You're not asking for the $1,120?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. I think that we ought to sit through that
meeting first on the 19th and then come back and report one more
time to the Board about whether the consortium is the way to go or
whether we ought to go on our own based on what we're hearing in
those meetings. And this is just for the 30 percent of the state money
that's out there for competitive grant opportunities.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't understand. What is it you're
asking for?
MR. WERT: I think there are --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What motion do you want the Board to
make?
MR. WERT: It would be first to appoint a representative to
attend that meeting on the 19th of September, either from staff or a
representative from the Board, to go and speak on behalf of Collier
County. At least, as County Manager indicates, let's gather more data
and so forth.
The final thing is that we would like a commitment from the
Board that we would support this dollar amount to support the
consortium if in fact we move forward. I think that would be a
positive step in our direction that we are a player in the discussion.
So asking for the money and an appointee to go or staff member
Page 43
September 11-12, 2012
to go to the meeting on the 19th.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, the only thing that confuses me is
you're saying if we decide to go forward. It looks to me like we're
going forward by sending someone to a meeting to discuss it.
MR. WERT: We would still have to come back to you with an
approval on the consortium agreement though, that interlocal agree --
MR. OCHS: Yeah, the interlocal itself needs to come back.
MR. WERT: We would come back with that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So the only thing that's going to
be withheld is an approval of the consortium agreement, which will be
developed and presented to the Board at some time in the future.
MR. WERT: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But right now you're asking for us to say
we want you to go ahead, we want you to attend the meeting, we want
you to identify a person to represent us and authorize an expenditure
of$1,120; is that correct?
MR. WERT: That is correct, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Commissioner Henning, you were first.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, looking at the articles for
this consortium, and the powers and duties, it's like setting up its own
government agency. And really, it has the same powers as an elected
Board of Commissioners. You know, and that's just way too much.
I mean, it sounds like somebody -- I don't know who this consortium
-- who's trying to set this up, but it sounds like a typical bureaucrat
trying to grab ahold of funds to control and have a job. You know,
that really concerns me that somebody's trying to do that because of an
event. You know, that's -- this is just way out of line, in my opinion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, can I ask a clarifying question?
The consortium agreement will come back to us later when it is
finalized for approval. We can have that debate at that time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. Well, the message that we
Page 44
September 11-12, 2012
need to convey at the September 19th meeting is, in my opinion, we
don't want to set up an agency, another in the State of Florida that has
no oversight. It has tons of money and it has no -- who are they? You
know?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, the danger is that they just say
well, we'll go without you and you won't get any say at all.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's not true.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who's saying that a consortium
needs to be set up?
MR. OCHS: Commissioners --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is it a Federal Government
saying this?
MR. OCHS: No, sir, I believe this is an initiative from the
Florida Association of Counties. They know that there's 23 counties
that can potentially compete for this 30 percent state share of the BP
settlement dollars. I believe they were simply trying to set up some
kind of a forum to vet these projects and to discuss these projects so
that there was some rhyme and reason to the process by which they
came forward.
I will agree with you that my first read of the interlocal was that
it was quite broad in its powers and its duties. And perhaps the
message when we go up there, and I hope we do, is that we see if
there's a way to maintain the intent of the consortium without perhaps
having quite the extent of powers and duties that it has in the current
draft agreement.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Absolutely.
MR. OCHS: That might be a good possibility.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner --
MR. OCHS: That's essentially what we're asking for, Mr.
Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You're just wanting to go up
there and see what happens.
Page 45
September 11-12, 2012
MR. OCHS: Well, yeah, we want to go up and see how we can
collaborate and be, as Jack said, a player in the process. But we also
want to convey that -- I think what I'm hearing from the Board is that
we don't want to create a separate animal that supersedes the -- you
know, the home rule powers of our own county commission.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Of course.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, of course. That's why it's coming
back to us for approval.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, you took the words out of
my mouth. Home rule. This is nothing more than an attempt to divest
us of the home rule that we would otherwise have.
And I agree with you, Commissioner Henning, it is just a
proposal to create another expensive layer of bureaucracy to
administer something that could be directly administered by the state
and the respective local governments when they receive the funds.
We are not approving that any representative act on our behalf.
We are not delegating discretionary decision-making to any person
going to this meeting. What we are doing is sending someone to get
the information and bring it back. And that $1,120 is to fund that
participation at that meeting. And it's limited to that.
Now, Commissioner Fiala and I are both heavily involved with
FAC. We sit on respective boards. Now, I would like to recommend
that at a point in time that a representative is sent to speak on our
behalf, that it be Commissioner Henning as Chair of the Tourist
Development Council, with all due respect to your involvement,
which is like mine. But I really feel that we need someone who is
right now directly involved with the tourism industry and with what's
going on with the beaches. And so if there is anyone who should be a
spokesperson if the decision is made to move forward, which quite
Page 46
September 11-12, 2012
frankly based on the current proposal and everything I read in the
backup would be an emphatic no, then I would recommend
Commissioner Henning to do that.
My understanding also is that Debbie Wight is already going up
there and will be at that meeting as part of her duties. So I would like
to suggest that she be the one to gather the information. We don't
need two representatives from the county there. So the allocation of
these funds could go to Debbie's presence, because I do know that
she's going to be attending the meeting on the 19th specifically with
respect to this issue. And let her gather the information. I mean, and
that's all we're doing at this point.
But I have very serious concerns about what's being proposed.
And it is being proposed by FAC and is not part of the litigation
settlement or any direction by the federal government or the state
government.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Everything is perceived out of
one's own perception. And it sounds to me as if, and I don't mean to
be unkind about this, but it sounds like Commissioner Henning's
already made up his mind. But I think we ought to -- and that's fine if
he goes up, but I would like to also go, because I'm going with a clear
mind. You know, I don't have an opinion one way or another. And I
would like to take notes and bring back all of the information on all
sides of this thing, because I would hate to see us decide to close the
door without at least opening it to see what there is for us as a county.
And if there's nothing, fine. If it's a good thing, fine. But we
should not just turn our backs on information that we can receive that
other counties are also going to be receiving, and also possibly the
money, if there is any, that would be had.
How many times we're left holding the bag. We are a donor
county, other people get money before we do, and I wouldn't want to
see us decide we're not going to do this before we listen to all sides of
Page 47
September 11-12, 2012
the issue. And that's why I would like to go. And if Commissioner
Henning is the person selected, I would -- on my own dime, I would
like to go up to hear it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let Commissioner Henning go
first.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, I was
looking up the backup material in our agenda and the powers and
duties. And if you look at Statute 125, there's very similar powers and
duties issued under Board of Commissioners. And this consortium is
not an elected body.
Did you read the backup material?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, as a matter of fact, I did not.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I base my comments on
that. And the powers and duties of this non-elected body is similar to
powers and duties of an elected body. And --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So what is your point? I'm not quite
sure what you're saying. Because this is only a one-time thing. This is
about the BP oil spill, it's not like we're creating a whole new
department or a whole new government entity. It's just about this
particular item. Tell me what you're really trying to say.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, well, let me -- you want
me to read you what's in our agenda of the powers of and duties of this
consortium?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I read that already.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, you have read that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I've read that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, my comments
were based upon the backup material on this item. I don't want to set
up a government agency that has very broad powers. County Manager
agrees with me. I'm sorry that you --
Page 48
September 11-12, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait
a minute. That has nothing to do with what we're voting on, okay?
What you're saying has absolutely nothing to do with what we're being
asked to authorize. It's been made very clear that this board is not
approving any agreement with anybody to set up anything until it
comes back to us at a future meeting for debate and approval or
rejection.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I understand that,
Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then what we're voting on is
whether or not we will have a representative go to the meeting to see
what's going on and whether or not they will have $1,120 to spend.
That's it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And my comments were based
upon Commissioner Fiala's comments. And I'm not objected to going
up there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then let's deal with that issue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right, now, Commissioner -- Ian, do
we have public speakers?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have one public speaker, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You want to hear the public speaker
before you speak?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I'll hear the public
speaker, then I'll speak.
MR. MITCHELL: Bob Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners. Bob
Krasowski for the record.
I appreciate your discussion. I really think it's very valuable on
all the positions.
When I read this material in the backup material, I as well was
alarmed that wow, here's the blossoming of this entire entity that at
Page 49
September 11-12, 2012
one point would become independent and have all this money and
then they would be making decisions on how it would be spent. So
I'm sensitized in that direction, okay.
And so I appreciate the County Manager's perspective. And I
think you all kind of agree, we should get involved, check it out and
before there's any final decision to participate, you'll discuss it again,
you know. So that sounds great.
Another issue I have, though, is the impact of BP. And I hate
mentioning them, because I see all these ads on TV. And there used
to be a law that if you did a crime, you were not allowed to benefit
from it by making a movie about your crime or writing a book. But,
you know, they never got to the point. I think the settlement is kind of
letting them off the hook as far as whether either they or the other
people involved were criminally liable and negligent. And there's
some evidence for that.
So it just kind of bothers me that they continue to encroach and
spread the money around and kind of buy their way out of the thing
after what they -- 11 guys died there, you know, 11 people.
So I just hope that whoever you have handle whatever money we
do get, certainly it's appropriate that some of it would go to tourist
development for the economic and ecological impact.
But also, we had a whole bunch of people in this county that
were working at that time. And we could identify who they were.
And they suffered the consequences of the -- to the extent that's going
to be determined by the feds and the state -- they suffered a loss in
regards to that. So I think we should remember them as well and think
of a way to appropriately distribute whatever windfall or whatever
corrective resources we get to correct the damages. Thanks a lot for
the time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Boy, this has been a real
interesting discussion. The whole thing boils down simply to one fact
Page 50
September 11-12, 2012
and that's money that's on the table. And will we be able to be able to
get our fair share when the time does come.
And I'm concerned that if we don't take a proactive position on
this and at least be there for the first initial talks that we're putting
ourselves at a tremendous disadvantage. And I do recognize the fact
that Commissioner Henning is presently serving on the TDC as a
commission representative, and I thank him for doing that, but I also
recognize the fact that every one of us have served there at one time or
another and are equally versed in what are the needs of Collier County
and the tourist industry and what we're looking for, for money.
With that, I'm going to make a motion to approve this item and to
have Donna Fiala be the commission representative.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Coletta to
approve staffs recommendations and to have Commissioner Fiala be
the representative at that meeting.
Commissioner -- is there a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The future discussion on the reefs
and the proposed funding for the reefs project is coming from this pot
as well?
MR. WERT: No, it's a separate piece.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. I just wanted to verify if--
MR. WERT: Yes, that is separate.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- there was any relationship.
Thanks.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, I'll call the motion. All in favor,
please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Page 51
September 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, the motion passes 4-1 with
Commissioner Hiller dissenting.
MR. WERT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And we'll emphasize one more time, that
agreement -- any agreement that comes out of this group must come
back to us for debate and final approval if we wish to approve it at all.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll take really good notes and
bring it back. And at the following meeting, which is the 25th of this
month, I'll make a full and complete report to all of the
commissioners. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: If you want to come up with me you
can, Jack.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we're going to take a 10-minute
break. We'll be back here at 10:40.
(Recess.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, Board of County
Commissioners meeting is back in session one minute late.
Item #11B
RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD A CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,803,986.74 TO ZEP
CONSTRUCTION AND RESERVE $178,080 ON A PURCHASE
ORDER FOR FUNDING ALLOWANCES, FOR A TOTAL
$1,982,066.74 FOR ITB #12-5820R - "ACCELERATED BRIDGE
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS: WHITE BOULEVARD BRIDGE
Page 52
September 11-12, 2012
REPLACEMENT — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 11.B on your
agenda this morning. It's a recommendation to award a construction
contract in the amount of$1,803,986.74 to Zep Construction and
reserve $178,080 on the purchase order for funding allowances for a
total of$1,982,066.74 for invitation to bid 12-5820R. This is the
accelerated bridge construction project for the White Boulevard
Bridge replacement.
Ms. Marlene Messam, your Senior Project Manager for Growth
Management/Transportation Engineering, will present.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. MESSAM: Good morning, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning.
MS. MESSAM: For the record, Marlene Messam, Growth
Management Division.
I have a very brief presentation, five slides, or I can answer some
questions. If you want to see the presentation --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What does very brief mean?
MS. MESSAM: Five slides. It can't be that long.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You can take an hour with each slide.
MS. MESSAM: I promise --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I mean, Jack Wert can do that.
MS. MESSAM: I'm not that eloquent.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I say go for the slides.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right, go ahead.
MS. MESSAM: All right. Well, this project of course has seen
quite a few changes. But there is a light at the end of the tunnel. And
what I'd like to do is to just reacquaint you with some of the history
and to just bring us up to date with where we are now.
So as you can see on the screen what I've done is I've kind of put
the project in perspective in terms of the area. The project, of course
Page 53
September 11-12, 2012
replacing the White Boulevard Bridge, is located in the East Golden
Gate Estates. It is between 25th Street Southwest and 23rd Street
Southwest, and it's about two miles east of Collier Boulevard.
And of course the existing White Boulevard Bridge crosses the
Golden Gate main canal.
One of the things that -- some of the things that have led us to
this point, just giving you a little bit of history on the bridge, the
existing bridge has structural and functional deficiencies that needed
to be addressed. The design plans were prepared and bids were sought
back in December of 2011. At that time the project also included
constructing a new bridge at 23rd Street Southwest and along with
roadway improvements.
Staff evaluated the needs of the project versus available funding,
and the decision was made to scale back the project.
So the modified project now excludes the new bridge at 23rd
Street Southwest. The modified project also exclude any roadway
improvement beyond the bridge approaches. And so with that in mind
we went out and rebidded (sic) this project. And on August 21st the
bids came in. We received three bids. The low bidder was $1.98
million.
Now, the previous project, when we had the bids before, and we
had a bid of 4.98 million. So right now we're looking at a savings, a
difference of$3 million.
And I'll show you the breakdown of the bids that we received.
We received three bids. Zep Construction of course is the low bidder,
1.98. You can see that the other bidders weren't too far off. And of
course in relation to the engineer's estimate, they were 1.01 percent
above that engineer's estimate.
What we would like to recommend at this point is that we award
the contract to replace the White Boulevard Bridge and also to execute
that agreement with the Zep Construction.
I'd like to answer any questions that you may have.
Page 54
September 11-12, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. First of all I want to
commend you for finding a lesser cost solution in these hard economic
times. It's absolutely essential that we focus on seeing where we can
achieve savings.
This project came before us on numerous occasions, and we had
a community advocate, I believe it was a Mrs. Sadler who repeatedly
said that this project did not have to be of the size and scope as was
originally proposed. So I am glad to see that Mrs. Sadler's voice was
heard and staff took into consideration that the modified less
expensive approach is the reasonable one. So I'm going to make a
motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Hiller to
approve, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor of the motion, please signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously. Thank
you very much.
MS. MESSAM: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That was brief and to the point. Thank
you.
Page 55
September 11-12, 2012
Item #11C
RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD CONTRACT NO. 12-5940 —
LASIP US 41 DITCH AND NAPLES MANOR DITCH
STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS TO QUALITY
ENTERPRISES USA, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,385,787.65
PLUS A TEN (10) PERCENT CONTINGENCY OF $238,578.77
TOTALING $2,624,366.42 — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Item 11.0 is a recommendation to award contract
number 12-5940. It's a LASIP U.S. 41 ditch and Naples Manor ditch
stormwater improvements to Quality Enterprises USA, Incorporated in
the amount of$2,385,787.65 plus a 10 percent contingency of
$238,778.77 (sic).
Ms. Margaret Bishop, Project Manager from Growth
Management/Transportation Engineering will present. Let's see if she
can be as brief as Ms. Messam.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many slides do you have?
MS. BISHOP: I have five slides.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Five slides? Ten seconds for each slide?
Is that the new standard now, five slides? Is that the way it's going to
work?
MS. BISHOP: We want to be brief.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good, thank you.
MS. BISHOP: So did you want the slide presentation?
MR. OCHS: Sure.
MS. BISHOP: Okay. And again, this is the Lely Area
Stormwater Improvement Project, which is a regional project that
we've been working on since -- for many years.
The project that we're talking about today is called Naples Manor
ditch enclosure and U.S. 41 ditch enclosure. And you can see it down
here on the screen. It's this area right here.
Page 56
September 11-12, 2012
To date we've constructed about 16 of these individual projects.
There's a total of 30 segments to the regional LASIP project. So we're
more than half complete with our construction.
And again, this is on U.S. 41. It's basically culvert improvements,
swale improvements, and there's an existing ditch here, we're going to
enclose that.
We had a public information meeting on October 13th of 2010.
We've also sent letters to individual property owners to tell them about
the construction project.
Again, it's a drainage project. We have 7,200 linear feet of open
and closed swales that we're dealing with, and 5,000 linear feet within
Naples Manor itself.
We received seven bids and the low qualified bidder was Quality
Enterprises, USA. And the project is for $2.38 million, which is 24
percent lower than the engineer's estimate.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, this is very exciting to see us
move forward.
This year, surprisingly enough or greatly enough we haven't had
anybody talking about flooding in their homes this year. And that's a
welcome relief. Because we've had so much in previous years. So I
want to say first of all you're doing a good job with the LASIP project.
And so I'd like to make a motion to approve Quality Enterprises,
the lowest bidder on this project, this LASIP project.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Coletta.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Margaret, what -- replacement
of driveway, is that going to be like kind replacement or have you set
a standard?
MS. BISHOP: The majority of the driveways on U.S. 41 will not
Page 57
September 11-12, 2012
be replaced. We're going to be improving culverts, the head walls, a
driveway that does have to be replaced. Then the county's going to
replace it to upgrade it to the correct size.
I don't know if I answered your question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, in Naples Manor, is that --
MS. BISHOP: In Naples Manor it's an existing ditch. So what
we're going to do is enclose that area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that next to the street or is it --
MS. BISHOP: It's behind people's houses.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I see. So there's no enclosure --
there's no driveway access.
MS. BISHOP: Correct, there's no driveways.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And there's an easement --
MS. BISHOP: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- existing easement.
MS. BISHOP: There's an existing county easement there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor of the motion, please signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion passes unanimously.
Item #11D
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AWARD OF REQUEST
FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) #12-5864, ANNUAL ROADWAY
Page 58
September 11-12, 2012
CONTRACTORS TO MULTIPLE FIRMS FOR ANNUAL "NOT
TO EXCEED" EXPENDITURES OF $1,500,000 — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Item 11.D is a recommendation to approve the
award of request for proposal 12-5864 annual roadway contractors to
multiple firms for an annual not to exceed expenditure of$1,500,000.
Mr. Casalanguida, your Growth Management Administrator, will
present.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning, Commissioners, for
the record, Nick Casalanguida. I don't have five slides, so that's the
good thing.
You've given us direction to put a cap on this. We've looked at
the three-year expenditure. It's within a couple hundred thousand
dollars of that average expenditure, meeting Board direction, and I'll
answer any question that you have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We debated this at length last
time, didn't we?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, we did.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- by Commissioner Coletta, second by
Commissioner Fiala.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I want to thank you, Nick,
for bringing this back, as was recommended. It's always essential to
have caps. I'm glad you did it. And this cap relates to all of the firms
in totality.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
Page 59
September 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes.
Item #1 l E
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE CONTRACT #11-5782 FOR
THREE DESIGN CONTRACTS FOR THE "WASTEWATER
BASIN PROGRAM," PROJECT NUMBERS 70043, 70044, 70046,
70050, 70051, & 70064 FORA TOTAL AMOUNT OF $5,730,468
WITH AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., CDM SMITH
INC., AND HOLE MONTES, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERING SERVICES; AND AUTHORIZE A BUDGET
AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT $1,648,267.31 — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 11.E is a recommendation to approve contract
11-5782 for three design contracts for the wastewater basin program to
award in the total amount of$5,730,468 with AECOM Technical
Services, Incorporated, CDM Smith, Incorporated and Hole-Montes,
Incorporated to perform professional engineering services and
authorize a budget amendment in the amount of$1,648,267.31.
Mr. Craig Pajer, Project Manager for Public Utilities Division,
will present.
MR. PAJER: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Craig
Pajer, I --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And how many slides do you have?
MR. PAJER: I have nine.
Page 60
September 11-12, 2012
MR. OCHS: He's over the limit.
MR. PAJER: I can either just answer your questions or go
through the very brief presentation. I'll make it brief.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, what's your
preference?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Could I have some questions first
before?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is this the same project? And I
asked Leo and unfortunately I have not gotten the information back
when I had my conference with him reviewing this information.
Is this the same project that was brought to the Board earlier
where the estimated construction -- I'm sorry, engineering cost for
each basin was 12 million and the total construction cost for each
basin was approximately 20 million? In other words, 36 million in
engineering cost or 60 million in construction cost? Is that the same
project that we're talking about?
MR. PAJER: The RFP for this project is the same. However,
based on the feedback that we received from the Board on March
27th, we've gone back and stepped back and decided to begin with the
end in mind and just focus on the needs of those basins. So what we
have is a program that is not -- it's $5.7 million in engineering fees,
with an estimated construction cost of$39 million.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. But what you say in your
executive summary is that it is an initial cost of 5.7.
And the other thing that I'm very concerned about is, you know,
as a function of a number of questions I asked again through Leo and
information he provided back to me is that you already have three
camera trucks and that you have the ability in-house and already had
the ability in-house to inspect these pipes with these camera trucks.
So I'm not really sure I understand why we're going out and having
this work done when we have the means to do it ourselves. And why
Page 61
September 11-12, 2012
aren't we taking advantage of the savings we can achieve through the
equipment that we have that we've paid for?
MR. PAJER: We are doing all of that TV inspection in-house. It
was included in the RFP for consulting services in case some of that
needed to be supplemented. But that's not included in the contracts
that we have before you today.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I want to go back then to my
first question. You're now talking about 5.7 million initially. I want
to know what the total is. And you have revised the project
downwards by 20 million, from 60 million to 40 million. That is a
material adjustment just by virtue of our discussion here at the Board
at the last meeting.
I need an explanation as to what's going on. I mean, how can
you drop from 12 million to seven million and, you know, 60 million
to 40 million? And why wasn't that done in the first place?
MR. PAJER: The approach that we're taking is to look at the
worst first as far as our wastewater infrastructure is concerned. So
we're focusing on those facilities that could potentially fail in the near
future. So we're focusing on those worst facilities first and updating
the entire collection system in each of the three basins.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do they have the potential to fail
or do we know they're failing?
MR. PAJER: They have the potential for failure. We would do
our best not to allow anything to fail, and we are proactive in updating
assets before they fail.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I have a real concern. I
mean, I'm not sure that the scope of what we're proposing is the right
first step. I think there really needs to be an evaluation of, you know,
what we've got out there, what has the potential to fail and at what
point in time, and basically make a decision accordingly, which goes
back to the asset management plan which should be approved and
finalized before we go forward and approve what now would be based
Page 62
September 11-12, 2012
on these totals almost a $50 million project.
MR. PAJER: We've done an internal condition assessment of
our wastewater facilities in each of these basins. And we know from
just visiting these pump stations and these facilities on a weekly basis
which ones need to be rehabilitated. So there's really no need to go
and study the systems again, because we know from our daily
operations that they're in need of repair.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So this is not potential, we know
for a fact that they're in a state that they need repair immediately?
MR. PAJER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, I just have a real concern
with a project which in effect is a $50 million project and having been
as materially changed coming forward in this manner.
MR. PAJER: Let me add something else. We have eight master
pump stations in these three basins, and these master pump stations are
25 years old and older. And we're having a difficult time getting spare
parts for the pumps that are currently installed. Normally these pumps
have a useful life of about 12 years, and they've been in the pump
stations for 25 years.
So when we get to the point where we can't buy spare parts for
our pumps that are essential for operations, it's time to do something
and we need to update them so that we can use pumps that are
available today and that are more efficient in their operation.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, perhaps it would be instructive if
Mr. Pajer went briefly through his slides. That might answer some of
the questions that the Board is anticipating.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I would appreciate that. I did
want to ask these questions ahead to make sure they are addressed.
In short, last meeting you came forward asking for in effect what
would be 96 million. Now you're coming forward and you're asking
for what is in effect 50 million. And so I'm looking at a $46 million
change as a consequence of this Board's objection to your last
Page 63
September 11-12, 2012
proposal. That's material. So I'd like to hear your presentation.
Thank you.
MR. PAJER: The objective today is to obtain your approval for
engineering services to rehabilitate our mission critical wastewater
infrastructure. And we're using an industry standard basin approach.
Our wastewater system is being addressed based on the highest
priority of facilities that we have and we're looking at worst first,
based again on our internal condition assessment.
And we've received feedback from you on March 27th and we're
addressing those issues.
The three basins that are included in these contracts are the 101
basin which consists mainly of Naples Park and the Vanderbilt area.
Master pump station 305 which consists of the Gateway
Triangle; the old Glade wastewater system that we purchased, it's one
of the oldest wastewater areas in the county; as well as the Naples
Industrial Park, Flamingo Estates and River Reach.
The 306 Basin is located along the Bayshore Boulevard corridor
and along Thomasson Avenue, and that's the area south of U.S. 41.
And again, the pumps, the master, all these facilities were built
about 25 years ago.
These are some samples of field conditions of our existing
infrastructure on the upper left-hand corner. You have a broken clay
pipe which allows infiltration to our system.
The lower left corner is a picture of the piping and the
complexity of the piping associated with our master pump stations that
require very sound engineering to complete these renovations.
And to the right we have a corroded wastewater force main that
was going into one of our master pump stations. You can see there's a
hole in the pipe, and that's just not acceptable for our infrastructure.
The results, based on the outcome of these contracts, are tangible
complete engineering design and construction documents to fully
rehabilitate eight aging master pump stations, fully rehabilitate 20
Page 64
September 11-12, 2012
aging duplex wastewater pump stations, updating 91 other pump
stations in these three areas. We'll be eliminating the potential for
sewer system overflows in the Naples Park area, we'll be replacing a
subaqueous force main underneath the 111th Street Bridge, and we'll
be replacing almost 23,000 feet of gravity sewer pipe in the Vanderbilt
finger street area, along with 660 clay correction.
We'll be extending and/or replacing about 14,000 feet of force
main and we'll be providing an alternative force main path to the south
wastewater treatment plant.
Based on historical engineering fees that we've been paying for
infrastructure improvements, our estimate of the engineering cost is
$8.1 million to do this work. The contract before you today totals
$5.7 million, which results in about a $2.4 million savings in
engineering costs.
We've estimated the construction cost to be $39 million, and we
anticipate at least a 10 percent cost savings by bundling up the
construction projects into multiple projects into one to get some
economies of scale.
Staff recommends that you approve the contracts as stipulated in
the executive summary, we ask the Chairman to execute these
contracts, and we request the budget amendment that's included in
your executive summary.
I'm available for additional questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, the slides answered my
question. Thanks, Leo.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I know that during our
recession we were very careful about not spending any money to
maintain anything unless it was a dire need to do so. And I was also
concerned at the time thinking I hope that we can get back to a point
Page 65
September 11-12, 2012
where we can rehabilitate some of these things before they burst on us
and it cost us a heck of a lot more money. And although you could
never guess how much more we have saved by -- or we would save by
not waiting till a break completely, I think this is an excellent project,
I think you've cut back remarkably, you've done a great job and I
make a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, motion to approve by
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seconded by Commissioner Coletta.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, you've materially changed
the scope of this project. Again, before when you presented this to us
it wasn't the numbers you've got here. You said it was going to be a
total of 96 million, now we're down to 50 million, and I'm combining
the engineering and the construction.
As a consequence, shouldn't this be rebid? You've got a very
different project here than what you had before. I understand that you
applied the CCNA to the other project, but this is not the same project.
And I'm not sure that under the circumstances selecting the same firms
for a project that is reduced in scope by almost 50 percent is
appropriate. And I'd like Mrs. Kinzel to weigh in on that.
MS. KINZEL: Sorry. Commissioner, I'd have to review it from
each of those. And obviously originally it was posted. I don't know
what purchasing has done or legal on that, but I think it's a legal
question that Jeff may want to answer as to the scope. It's obviously a
reduction in the scope and it was handled under the fixed term to
select the vendors and ranked. And so the reduction I think you're
okay, but I'd like to go back and look at that legally. I had not
reviewed it for that question. Maybe purchasing and legal can answer
it more --
MS. MARKOWITZ: Joanne Markowitz, your Interim
Page 66
September 11-12, 2012
Purchasing Director.
Commissioners, all of the scope of work that Mr. Pajer spoke
about and several other items were included in the original
specification. It's at this point at the last meeting that you requested
that we refine that scope. But all of the tasks that he has addressed
have been included in that scope originally.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Were they individually priced?
MS. MARKOWITZ: They were not. Remember, this was --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Then you have a problem.
MS. MARKOWITZ: -- this was CCNA.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand.
MS. MARKOWITZ: -- so we competitively solicited it based on
qualifications.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, if you -- well then -- okay,
now, let me restate my point then. If you based it on qualifications
and the scope has changed, there might be other firms better suited to
the revised scope than they might have been to the overall project. So
we may have made selections for the overall project based on a certain
set of qualifications. Now you're looking at completely different
parameters.
I'd be very concerned about approving such a different project
without rebidding it. And we're looking at -- like I said, we're not
talking about a small dollar amount, we're not talking about small
changes, we're talking about almost $50 million.
DR. YILMAZ: For the record, George Yilmaz, Public Utilities
Administrator.
Your comments are well taken. We went through that process
and went through the due diligence and worked with our county chief
financial officer, Clerk of Court's financial officer and office to make
sure that, working with Bonnie, and went through the review of the
new scope and negotiated scope. And -- but furthermore, we went
through working with our purchasing department very closely.
Page 67
September 11-12, 2012
So what we have is we have engineering contracts competitively
procured and awarded by the Board. Now, we could negotiate set of
scope for the engineering work with tangible results. In this case
yourself, Commissioners, along with other commissioners provided
feedback to the staff
We took that back. And what you have before you is tangible
deliverables. Everything we could do in-house we will do. Everything
we cannot do in-house we will outsource. What we have also, it is the
prerequisite to five-year CIP program.
We're looking at close to, if I might, on basin-by-basin studies,
we're looking at -- we're looking at 18 to 25 years in terms of
construction rehab cycle and replacement cycle. Currently, given the
pace we have.
We know what we have in the field that is subject to fail any time
under our watch. What that means is that we do not want to have any
wastewater nor water infrastructure fail and be subject to consent
order under this Board's and leadership watch.
So your question was right on the target, Commissioner Hiller.
Are we dealing with things that will fail? Those are the things we go
home and we are concerned that they will fail. They are at level 3-F.
That means red subject to fail.
One example, master pump station 107. We have external diesel
pump station to handle peak flows. We're not able to handle peak
flows. And that's a walk-around. That's not a reliable sustainable
Board-desired infrastructure that our customer base deserves.
So we're doing everything we can operationally. However, we
need to get to the point that we have a robust good competitively
procured engineering firms coming in with experts on board, three of
them, designing what needs to be designed so that we can move the
construction.
We will come back to you with construction bids and lets. They
are competitive. They will be competitive. This is simply prerequisite
Page 68
September 11-12, 2012
to engineering design. The engineering design is based on what we
know. They will not be out there telling us what to do. We are telling
them, here is the scope, this is what you need to do in terms of gap
analysis we have done. Gap analysis based on our current utility
standards.
And what we have in the ground has a gap between what is there
and what we need to have if we had to build them now. And
engineers will design -- as you have seen some of the pictures, we
have many of them, we have chosen just two pictures -- for us to be
able to come back to you and say here is the gap analysis, here is the
engineering design. This is the shovel ready. We can now move the
construction. As we can move and as fast as we can move, financial
(sic) feasible and also operational feasible and also industry standards.
At least four if not five industry standard leading associations
organizations. More and more recently suggesting this is the way we
need to do it, bundle it. Otherwise we would have, for instance,
instead of working on one master pump stations (sic), we will be
working on these three basins, eight master pump stations. When we
bundle eight master pump stations, then we can synchronize our
operations, minimize the impact to our customer base.
Along with one other example, without taking more valuable
time of our board members. Force mains. Under this program we're
only designing or reengineering 7.6 percent of our force mains. This
is just the start. In our replacement cycle under the schedule was 66
years. That means if you go with the pace we're going, we will get to
all of our force main, which is about over 400 miles. Sixty years -- 66
years, maybe 70 years.
And one more example I want to give you. In terms of pump
station other than master pump stations, we're looking at 35 years
replacement cycle. And those are bare minimums for us to have a
good start, address what we know potentially might fail under our
watch. Which we will do everything we can 24/7. That's not going to
Page 69
September 11-12, 2012
happen. That's my commitment to my chief executive.
But we do need your help. Have the engineering design based on
the gap analysis and our assessment, what is worse, which is level
three red F, that every week in all these systems has a potential and
chances are will fail.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Jeff, are you concerned about the
legal aspects of the procurement?
MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, I guess I have a very simple
question, George.
You put out an RFP?
DR. YILMAZ: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: You're now getting to a contract.
MR. OCHS: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: Your contract ties into your RFP?
DR. YILMAZ: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: Has the scope changed?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Materially.
MR. OCHS: No, the scope of engineering services, all tasks, as
Ms. Markowitz mentioned a minute ago were in the original
specification. Obviously the scope of the projects that will be
constructed has been narrowed, but again, these are engineering --
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, that's the construction cost, that
comes later.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
MR. KLATZKOW: I understand that.
My question is the RFP you put out is tied into your contract.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
DR. YILMAZ: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: So you have not changed the engineering
scope?
MR. OCHS: No.
DR. YILMAZ: No, we have not.
Page 70
September 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The scope has changed.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The scope has changed. The
engineering scope has changed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: George?
DR. YILMAZ: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We went from -- they're
engineering something completely different than what was originally
proposed to be engineered. That is a change in scope.
MS. MARKOWITZ: Commissioner, our RFP was inclusive of
all of the potential engineering tasks that we may have used. We
moved from the short list to the negotiations and we are bringing back
to you a narrowing or a selection of those tasks from the RFP.
As Dr. Yilmaz mentioned, we went back and reevaluated what
we could do in-house and what we could do in an outsource sort of
way. All of the tasks were included in the original RFP as potentially
the tasks we would need to use in the resultant contract.
We now have taken the contract and refined it based on feedback
from all of you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This is for a design contract, it's not for
construction.
Now, Jeff, does that answer your question?
MR. PAJER: That's correct.
MR. KLATZKOW: Sort of.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I --
MR. KLATZKOW: There's a lack of clarity, I've got to tell you.
My understanding then is that the RFP went out for 10 things but
you're coming back to the Board saying we'll do five; is that
essentially it?
MR. PAJER: Essentially, yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: Did your RFP mention that the scope might
be reduced?
Page 71
September 11-12, 2012
MR. PAJER: Pardon?
MR. KLATZKOW: Did the RFP state that the scope might be
reduced?
MR. PAJER: It says that it includes but it is not -- well, that they
may be used but not necessarily will be used.
MR. KLATZKOW: So when this R -- okay, I'm okay with it
then.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: When you say it -- they might not be
used, what are you talking about?
MR. PAJER: The tasks. The scope of work. It was a very
complete scope of work so that we could pick and choose what we
needed. We only chose those tasks that we needed.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to make a motion to
continue this to allow the Clerk of Courts to review this. They have
not reviewed this in light of this information that was brought forward
today.
And while I appreciate what Jeff is saying for the benefit of our
Board, Jeff doesn't represent the Clerk. And what I don't want to see
happen is either that there is a bid protest that comes as a consequence
of this or that B, the Clerk does not make payment because a
determination is made after the fact that the CCNA was not respected.
At the end of the day it may turn out to be, you know, perfectly
fine and the Clerk may say yes, it's good, we can go for it.
So I'd like to continue this to the next meeting and then have
confirmation from the Clerk's Office at the next meeting that there is
no problem from the clerk's perspective.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think we already have a motion on the
table.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And a second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And a second.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I didn't hear it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And being that Crystal's been
Page 72
September 11-12, 2012
talking with you privately, why don't we just hear what she has to say.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Exactly what I just said, that they
have not had time to review it.
MR. OCHS: Well, Commissioner --
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner Fiala, I'll confirm that that's
exactly -- she asked me if we had reviewed it in detail based on the
information that's come forward today. And I told her we have not.
You know, we rely first and foremost on purchasing and county
legal on the agenda items. We've not been presented with a pay
request. But in light of these items, if you wanted us to further review
and work with staff, we certainly can do that. It is apparently more of
a legal question, first for the Board staff and then when the pay
request comes to the Clerk to evaluate.
But we certainly would look at any of these in light of--
obviously some on the fly from the County Attorney and us, we'd be
willing to review it for you further if that's necessary.
MR. OCHS: Again, Commissioners, if I might, this is an item
that was submitted as part of the agenda package, went through the
same review window as all the other items. The Clerk and your staff
all have the same opportunity to review those things and question
them before they go on the agenda. In fact, we have a meeting the
prior Wednesday that includes Ms. Kinzel. I hadn't heard any
concerns at that point. I don't know that I heard anything from your
County Attorney that changes the recommendation from staff at this
point.
MS. KINZEL: But Leo, excuse me. Just on the record, simply
because we don't raise an issue at that time, if additional information
comes forward to the Board that places a question in our minds, we
certainly reserve the right to review it further. But that can be done
before or after a decision is made here and we can communicate that.
It is up to you.
But I would like to say, you know, when we do those review
Page 73
September 11-12, 2012
meetings, it is not a blessing of every agenda item. There still may be
additional information that would come forward that we would be
glad to either consider, look at or review based on the Board's
direction and request.
MR. OCHS: Sure. I understand. I don't know what the
additional questions were that haven't been answered is all I'm saying.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Attorney is still okay?
MR. KLATZKOW: I asked staff whether or not the RFP
exclusively said that the work could be reduced. They're telling me on
the record that the RFP did say that. I don't have a chance right now
to go through this in detail. If you'd like the detail, that would require
a continuance.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, would the original motion maker
be willing to add a condition to approval and that is the legal basis for
taking this action will be reviewed before the award of the contract?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're asking me, and I -- but I have
my button on anyway.
So just to rephrase everything we've just said very simply, what
we said is initially we had this entire scope of work that we want
designed. We went out and we sought the engineering firms that
could do this, this complete design, each and every different item in
here. We established the firms. The one was selected. And they
could do every single thing.
MR. OCHS: Three were recommended, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry, three.
We also said that we might not use everything.
We've now talked to the County Attorney. And as long as it's
been said and these same companies have said yes, we can do each
project, I don't understand why we would have to delay this when
they've already said they could do it all, when we've said we'll just cut
it back. We're going to save ourselves $45 million in the end, because
of course this doesn't include construction right now. And I don't
Page 74
September 11-12, 2012
understand why we would want to delay it any further.
Now, if you can tell me why I should pull that back when they've
already said they can do every single facet of this, we've just chosen to
do less, what is the holdup?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I can't tell you why you should
delay it. I can only tell you that interpretations by the Clerk are
sometimes totally unpredictable and you don't have any idea where it's
going to go. You might award the contract and start the work and then
find the Clerk isn't going to pay it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Crystal just said they could review it
until the next one. I mean, so if we pass it now and being that it's been
everything -- there's nothing new added, absolutely nothing new added
to this at all. So if we pass it right now you could still review it, right?
MS. KINZEL: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that wouldn't -- I mean, being
that it's not -- we're not talking about anything new or different.
MS. KINZEL: Well, the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead. Go ahead, staff.
MS. KINZEL: We'd be glad to review it.
MS. MARKOWITZ: Commissioners, if I could, I'd like to quote
task 1.1. For example, identify, analyze, prioritize and recommend
the rehabilitation program for the basin region. Tasks may include but
are not limited to.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I can't hear. Okay, go ahead.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Read it again.
MS. MARKOWITZ: One example in the solicitation document:
Identify, analyze, prioritize and recommend the rehabilitation program
for the basin region. Tasks may include but are not limited to. And
then it lists the tasks.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, that's good. And that says it
all.
And we clearly remember when back in the Nineties when they
Page 75
September 11-12, 2012
kept delaying and delaying and then we had a wastewater treatment
plant seeping at the seams, and then the state came in and shut us
down and said you're not responsible to handle your own wastewater
treatment plant repairs anymore, you have to get a consent from us,
and from here on in we're going to tell you what to do.
And I would hate to get into that position again when everything
has already been cleared, everything has been approved and we're just
choosing to do less of a project that was already approved. I cannot
see -- if somebody can tell me why I should withdraw this motion, but
not just because it's somebody's idea to do it but, you know, give me a
valid reason. Nothing's changed except that it's reduced.
MR. PAJER: I'd like to add that two county attorneys have
reviewed the contract before it got placed on the agenda. Scott Teach
and Emily Pepin have reviewed the contracts.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Commissioner Hiller, one last
time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Including but not limited to, is the
opposite of what Jeff is asking. It's not that it can be less, it means that
it can be more. So I'm sorry the wording isn't what you represented to
MR. OCHS: Commissioners --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- County Attorney Klatzkow.
MR. OCHS: -- excuse me, it said may include but not limited to.
So it's permissive on both ends as I understand it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Not me. But that's okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, I'll call the motion. 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.
Page 76
September 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, the motion passes 3-2 with
Commissioners Hiller and Henning dissenting.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I just want to add as a
postscript to this that from the last time this was presented the
engineering cost as a consequence of the challenge that I raised went
from 36 million to 6 million. A $30 million change that had I not
raised this back then would have been approved.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, I know you have an 11 :30 time
certain, and I'm looking for an item that wouldn't have to be stopped in
the middle here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You want to take a break for four
minutes?
MR. OCHS: I'm not seeing anything on here that we're going to
get through in three or --
MR. KLATZKOW: I have a shade session to announce, we
could do that right now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have?
MR. KLATZKOW: A shade session.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead.
MR. KLATZKOW: Notice is hereby given that pursuant to
Section 286.011(8), Florida Statutes, the County Attorney desires
advice from Board of County Commissioners in closed attorney-client
session on Tuesday, September 25th, 2012. The session will be held
at time certain of 12:00 noon at the Commissioner's office conference
room, third floor, W. Harmon Turner administration building, Collier
County Government Center.
In addition to the Board members, County Manager Leo Ochs
and County Attorney Jeff Klatzkow will be in attendance.
The Board in closed executive session will discuss: Strategy
session related to settlement negotiations and litigation expenditures in
the pending cases of Francis D. Hussey, Jr., et al, versus Collier
Page 77
i
September 11-12, 2012
County, et al, Second District Court of Appeals, Case No. 2D11-1224;
Shawn Hussey, et al versus Collier County, et al, Second District
Court of Appeal, Case No. 2D11-1223.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have two minutes, right?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Turn your pages to 11.H and smile.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What is this?
MR. OCHS: Take a two-minute stretch break?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, we can take a two-minute break.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
(Recess.)
Item #11H
RECOMMENDATION TO DIRECT THE COUNTY MANAGER
TO PURSUE THE RECOVERY OF DE-OBLIGATED FEDERAL
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) PAYMENTS
FROM HURRICANES KATRINA & WILMA AND AUTHORIZE
EXPENDITURES UP TO $100,000 FOR TECHNICAL, LEGAL
AND PROFESSIONAL RESOURCES TO SUPPORT THE
RECOVERY EFFORT— MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF'S
RECOMMENDATIONS — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners, I appreciate your
indulgence.
That takes us to your 11 :30 a.m. time certain hearing. It's Item
11.H on your agenda. Recommendation to direct the County Manager
to pursue recovery of de-obligated Federal Emergency Management
Agency payments from Hurricanes Katrina and Wilma and authorize
expenditures up to $100,000 for technical, legal and professional
resources to support the recovery effort. Mr. Casalanguida will
present.
Page 78
September 11-12, 2012
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you, County Manager.
For the record, Nick Casalanguida.
Commissioners, over the summer County Manager implemented
the reorganization plan and coastal zone moved into natural resources
to get a dedicated budget team, prepare team and a support staff.
Over that summer we started to receive information from the
Federal Depart -- Florida Department of Emergency Management, as
well as FEMA, regarding the disallowed cost initiative that started in
November of last year. That initiative was referencing $800 million
nationwide in terms of money they'd like to get back into their coffers.
The state was notified in June. State passed the invoices to us at
the end of July, and direction from the County Manager was to run
this down and research the item prepare a brief and an action plan
before he brought this item to the Board.
We are not alone in the State of Florida. As Mr. Bob Seibert from
the state will tell you, there's anywhere from 80 to $110 million of
disallowance through other agencies.
In speaking to one of the board members from the water
management district, they're facing a $24 million de-obligation.
The methodology is based on Florida Department of Emergency
Management consultation, FEMA guidance, it was done through state
coordination with consultants, your staff, and FEMA. Many, many
times they approved it at the state level, they approved it at the Atlanta
level and at the Washington D.C. level.
The irony here, as we discussed earlier, is Mr. Fugate was the
Florida Department of Emergency Management Director, now he's the
FEMA director.
I've read some of the past memos and appeal responses, and I
believe that the qualifying statements are mostly subjective. They're
not objective. I look at some of the comments "may," I look at some
of the comments, prefer estimates over engineered drawings, and it
makes me a little worried when I start going through these documents
Page 79
September 11-12, 2012
and I don't see them specifically referencing one document.
So I'm going to go recap a couple of the key points and I'll let
Mr. Seibert speak.
All the work and expenditures that was done were Board
approved. And you would have had to do them anyway. This is a
reimbursement that we're arguing about. So the expenditures for
beach renourishment were budgeted projects that you were going to
do. The storm came through.
We're fighting to get money through the code and federal
regulations we're supposed to get. But it's money you would have had
to spend anyway.
We requested $31 million; we received 20. And with this
pending de-obligation, we still have $9 million that we'd receive from
FEMA.
Our action plan, and as discussed this morning under the item
under public comment I think is prudent to go through the federal
lobbying avenue. We need to get state support from the Governor,
because the Governor's agencies are also facing this de-obligation.
And I fully intend to prepare a technical response to FEMA.
In talking about it with our staff, I said this is pretty
straightforward. We're going to go back to 2000, we're going to
prepare some maps. Every time we had accretion and erosion we're
going to update those maps with a table. Every event, every time we
did renourishment that was part of maintenance or any project that we
have. In talking to our staff, I think that's going to be pretty foolproof
to be able to put that forward.
Now, in managing expectations, what I've seen in researching
this in other municipalities and other agencies is FEMA tends to settle.
Because a lot of their criteria can be subjective. So I don't know if
we'll get any of the 11 million back, I don't know if we'll get all of the
11 million back. I know that we have to go forward and put together a
technical response, I know that we need to bring some of the
Page 80
September 11-12, 2012
consultants forward, and I know that we have to get the lobbyists
involved as well.
So with that, I'd like to bring up Mr. Seibert from the state and
echo some of the comments he's given us on the quality of our
submittal and if we have done everything proper in terms of being
able to get money back.
Mr. Seibert?
MR. SEIBERT: Good morning, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning.
MR. SEIBERT: What you've heard is --
MR. OCHS: Would you identify yourself for the record.
MR. SEIBERT: I'm Bob Seibert, I'm the Deputy Public
Assistance Officer of the Lead for the state, and we handle all of the
infrastructure issues.
So I thought I'd let you know what the format was and the
process was of how the funding went so that you know how it could
come back.
The -- when there's a disaster it's declared, PW, project officers
go out, come out to Collier, inspect everything, all the damages,
estimate the damages and the cost and submit a project. Project equals
a grant, federal grant.
And that comes in to the state. We review and approve or
disapprove or add and then give it back to FEMA, it goes into their
system, it goes through a series of approvals. The money is obligated.
And that money comes into the state's SmartLink account. And at that
point in time we make payment out to the grantees, so -- actually it's
sub-grantees at that time. So that's the way it works.
And then when they take it back, when they de-obligate the
money, they, FEMA, for whatever reason, whether it's considered
ineligible or something else, they de-obligate, process the paperwork
in the system and then automatically take the money out of
SmartLink. So they're not taking your $11 million out, they're taking
Page 81
I
September 11-12, 2012
$11 million out of the SmartLink account that was due other
sub-grantees and maybe even the state's shares. So that's where the
money flow is.
Let's get back to why we're here and why we're working with
Gary and his crew.
We've been working together for quite some time. We come
over here to write the projects with my counterpart who was the
Director of Public Assistance for the FEMA.
And we met and decided that this was -- all the beach
renourishment were valid eligible projects. We outlined the process
where that was going to occur. And for the -- PW2700 is the number.
There were 463 pages of documentation in that one grant. And that
came from -- all but 23 pages came from Gary and his crew. And
what it did, all of the money was exact down to the penny. We had
everything cured according to and copied over according to the
various contracts. And there were quite a few.
It all balanced. And the money was obligated, paid in 2010,
August of 2010. It was paid to us at the state, we paid it back to
Collier, and everything was fine.
Then FEMA got hit with a -- their DRF, Disaster Relief Fund,
was almost defunct for -- on two different occurrences from 2010 on.
They were only processing very few projects and grants because they
didn't have the money there. Part of that was because of Katrina and
California and other flooding in other states in addition to Florida.
So that happened. Then FEMA took a look at what was going on
and they decided to do a disallowed cost initiative. And that's coming
from HRS. HRS is the cabinet seat, FEMA is the sub-department to
DHS federally.
The CFO of DHS decided FEMA was going to have to take some
money back because there was some money sitting out there for
maybe a couple of years in various states, and if the applicants were
not going to do the work in a timely manner, they wanted their money
Page 82
September 11-12, 2012
back. As a result, that started a de-obligation of many, many grants
throughout the country.
Now, for Florida, there were 1,334 de-obligations on projects.
$275 million went out of the State of Florida back to the fed.
During that same period obligations which are plus money
coming back to the state was only 182 million. How that money
flowed was -- that was in 2011, 2012. In 2012 there was $131 million
of de-obligations and 33 million of obligations.
So you can see where the emphasis has been. And that's one of
the reasons you all got caught up in that. It got to the point where
when we did the appeal for DR1393, which was Gabriel, FEMA
decided to open up all the beach projects. And someone had an
opinion that 2700 was ineligible, ineligible work.
To somewhat belay that this project was obligated and approved,
went all the way up from here in Florida to Atlanta, to headquarters
through the million dollar queue, before the money was paid out. So it
went through all those queues and all those approvals at one time, I
find it very difficult to understand why they would change their mind
two years after the fact. Because the de-obligation occurred in June of
this year. So that's just the history of things.
The complexity of the project was significant. There was a lot of
environmental issues with FEMA, as well as state. We had turtle
monitoring. And this all started with Gabriel in 2001 where that
project was written and it was sand renourishment and replacement,
and it was denied totally. Just flat out denied by FEMA. And it was
appealed. The first appeal was denied by FEMA. And then a second
appeal. Now, when a second appeal goes -- first appeal goes to
Atlanta, second appeal goes to headquarters in DC. And it was
upheld. So you got the money for the Gabriel renourishment.
So just give you that history to let you know that there always
seems to be with FEMA issues with sand renourishment. And since
this was quite a large obligation, it was seen by many, many eyes.
Page 83
September 11-12, 2012
The state fully supports Collier, and we will walk
shoulder-to-shoulder all the way up through to DC with the appeals,
first and second. Because what we're doing, FEMA kind of pulled a
little end around on us where they de-obligated the 2700, which is
Wilma, as part of the Gabriel appeal. So we're going back and saying,
you know, you really can't do that. We're going to appeal the
de-obligation of 2700 separate from Gabriel. And that's why we're in
the process of developing all the legal and programmatic issues of that
right now.
I think our key is we're in this together.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Seibert, I'd like to express my
appreciation for your support and for your being here today.
Can you tell us very briefly, under what authority has FEMA
taken this action, and are they in conformance with that authority?
MR. SEIBERT: We have had legal minds look at it. I've got
three issues where we're ready to contest from a legal standpoint. You
have 44 CFR, which is part of the Stafford Act, and we're going to tear
that apart, as well as all of the working documentation that we have to
back it up here from Collier.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right, thank you.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. Thank you very much
for being here, Mr. Seibert, I appreciate it.
MR. SEIBERT: You're welcome.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I've read the emails you sent to the
county, and I saw where you made reference to how PW2700 is being
deemed ineligible. And I'll read exactly what you say in your email.
What is being used to make PW2700 ineligible is opinion
regarding storms that were not named as disaster events.
Now, if you take out the storm events which were not named as
disasters and separate it from the Wilma, what is the amount that you
believe should be de-obligated?
Page 84
September 11-12, 2012
MR. SEIBERT: I think the amount as written stays pat. The
unnamed storms are covered in your annual renourishment of 50,000
cubic yards. It stems from your DEP from 19 I think 95 where you
redo the 50,000 cubic yards every year to account for annual erosion,
et cetera. Those would be covered in that. And that's our position.
The renourishment of 50,000 cubic yards every year was totally
ignored and passed over in FEMA's de-obligation and denial of the
appeal. That's one of the things that we're going to hang one of our
hats on.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So are you saying the entire 11
million -- and just also to clarify one point, you said that the feds
would pull the money from the state coffers, not the county coffers.
But then in turn what would happen is prospectively the state would
de-obligate us for whatever amount the state is remitting back to
FEMA, if any is remitted; isn't that correct?
MR. SEIBERT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So in the end it still comes out of
our coffers.
MR. SEIBERT: It does.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Going back to clarify, are you
suggesting the entire 11 million is challengeable?
MR. SEIBERT: Yes. We were -- excuse me for just a second.
We were very positive in the total and that it was complete, accurate
and eligible when submitted. FEMA backed that up because they
approved it and gave us the money two years before it was
de-obligated. So there was a separate or a change of venue that had a
different set of-- pair of eyes looking at it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Following up, the other statement
you made is that FEMA was de-obligating because there were
counties that had not made the expenditures and the money was still
sitting there and so they said well, you know, if you didn't need to
make these expenditures and it's been so long, you don't really need
Page 85
September 11-12, 2012
this money so we're taking it back.
Has all the money actually been expended by the county, and
was everything given to the county on a reimbursement basis?
MR. SEIBERT: Yes, it was.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How does that affect the other non,
well, let's call them named disaster events like Fay. What is the
expectancy that we will receive monies for Tropical Storm Fay? And
how does this affect Tropical Storm Isaac? I heard -- and I haven't
been briefed by staff, but I heard it on the news that the county is
expecting to make a claim for some $5 million related to Tropical
Storm Isaac.
How does that all play into this de-obligation claim being made
by FEMA? And is that something we can expect with respect to Fay
possibly, and does that mean that Isaac is not a realistic request?
MR. SEIBERT: Those separate storms are supposed to keep
their own identity money-wise and obligation-wise. So there should
be no effect from Wilma on Isaac, Debbie and --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I'm not concerned about
Wilma's effect. I'm concerned about FEMA's position with respect to
now going back and de-obligating what hasn't been spent. To give you
an example, we haven't spent the funds on Tropical Storm Fay for the
damage caused by Fay, and it's been years. I believe that was in 2008.
Isaac now has just occurred and that's a claim we're making for what
just happened, so that's a little bit different.
But I want to know what we're looking at here in terms of a
potential trend.
MR. SEIBERT: FEMA has been paid the 11 million. So the
state doesn't owe them anything. The money default right now or
deficiency right now is between the state and Collier.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, I see. So the state has already
given the feds the $11 million?
MR. SEIBERT: Well, we didn't give it, they took it.
Page 86
September 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So they already took it.
MR. SEIBERT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I see.
MR. SEIBERT: It's an automatic. As soon as it's de-obligated
they subtract the money --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: They just take it off from future
funds.
MR. SEIBERT: They take it off of existing funds that are in
there for projects that are due other sub-grantees in the state.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What about Collier's money
coming from the state, has it been -- has that been reduced now by that
11 million and until this is settled that money is not coming down to
Collier?
MR. SEIBERT: We will hold money until that 11 million is
paid, just like any business would.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So Gary, how much were we
expecting to get from the state towards this upcoming beach
renourishment that you had proposed?
MR. McALPIN: We -- for this upcoming beach renourishment,
we were not planning -- when we look at our funding, we were not
planning on receiving any money from the government on that for
Tropical Storm Fay, Isaac or Debbie. So that's still an open book. We
will apply for funds if that's the direction the Board gives us.
But when we bring the renourishment program back to the Board
on the 25th, we'll have some discussion about how much funds we
have. And we've always said we're going to scope manage that
project.
So at this point in time we're not planning on using any FEMA
funds for that project.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: State funds.
MR. McALPIN: State funds. Now, state funds is Florida
Department of Environmental Protection. Part of this would be a cost
Page 87
September 11-12, 2012
share program that we would apply for.
As far as I know, Commissioner, that is completely separate and
distinct from that. Again, that goes into the how we organize this
project, how much money that we have accrued in the county for
beach renourishment. We've been accruing funds for beach
renourishment. So that's part of this whole funding mechanism that
we need to look at in total.
But I believe DEP's money is distinct and separate. I can't -- I am
not the one to talk about that at this point in time. We will have that
information for you when we bring our beach renourishment program,
as far as what we're going to do, the next major beach renourishment
to you in a couple of weeks.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I thought we were going to get
money, for example, from Marco for Tropical Storm Fay. We had a
discussion about that. We said the bulk of the damage there was
attributable to that and that we were going to get monies from the state
for Tropical Storm Fay to pay for that Marco project. And that's just a
small example, you know, pulling the information from memory.
MR. McALPIN: There's -- you know, for Tropical Storm Fay for
Marco, we have said at one point in time there could be $1 million
coming for that. But that would be from federal funding for Marco.
We would make that in terms of timing and sequencing for Marco
with that, Commissioner.
But what we would prefer to do in terms of this moving forward
is look at -- we have totally funded the Marco program from existing
funds that we have with TDC. So we could bring all that information
back to you at the next Board meeting when we're talking about
funding for the beach renourishment programs.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Mr. Seibert, are those funds going
to come out of the DEP beach renourishment cost share?
MR. SEIBERT: My understanding is that we would not be
crossing over grants from different accounts, if you will, and sources.
Page 88
September 11-12, 2012
We are just now starting to cross over FEMA grants. If we have
something that somebody owes in Wilma and we have money in Fay
or whatever and we can offset the Wilma deficiency with the Fay
money, we're going to start doing that.
And that will all be done with a lot of documentation back and
forth with the various sub-grantees in the state.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So basically any money that we
expected to get from FEMA for beach renourishment that we have not
gotten, we can now expect not to get until this matter is resolved.
MR. SEIBERT: That would be correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we have public speakers, Ian?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have one speaker. Bob Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Hello again, Commissioners. Bob
Krasowski, for the record.
This is pretty mind boggling when I read this on the agenda that
-- you know, I empathize with your searching to try to better
understand this. It might take a little time. I appreciate the man from
the state being here who helped. I wish there was somebody here
from FEMA.
And I still don't understand. Somewhere I thought I heard we
had maybe in account 195 $25 million, and I got the impression that
11 million would be taken out of that, reducing the amount of money
we'd have for beach renourishment. Which entirely isn't necessarily a
bad thing.
But, you know, I just -- I guess I'm just frustrated with not being
able to understand more.
And I saw in the backup packet that there were letters written in
July indicating that this was going to happen. And I wish that -- you
know, I understand your staff has to adjust to things and understand it
before they come screaming fire to the commission.
But, you know, I wish some indication of this would have been
Page 89
September 11-12, 2012
brought forward then. Because there have been Coastal Advisory
Council meetings, Tourist Development Council and they're all
talking about beach renourishment and funds they have. And this
certainly throws -- it seems to throw a kink in it, I don't know.
But the 11 million can't just disappear, be there and then not be
there and not have some kind of impact, you know, at least in a way --
maybe there's the magic of the ruling class that knows how that works.
I haven't figured that out.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We just print more money.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Oh, that's very democratic of you, yes.
Glad to see you're getting on board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, it's your own fault, Bob.
MR. KRASOWSKI: I know, it's all my fault. I'll agree, I'll take
it.
So I have that question. You know, is there a 25 million aside
that we're going to lose 11 million of?
And let's see, maybe one other thing. Yeah, last question. You
know, I wonder if on these applications that went forward, was there a
provision that said okay, in the eventuality that FEMA wants to
reconsider, like hold off on spending this money until we go through
the entire process, was that in there? Was it like okay, you might have
this money but later on we might be able to take it back if things don't
work? Was that in there? And that would be a question I'd have for
whoever, you know.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I comment on that last
question? I think that is a very significant question. Was there any
provision that said that this was subject to audit, you know,
subsequently by the state and that we were always at risk of
de-obligation?
MR. KRASOWSKI: Or the feds.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm sorry, not -- I didn't mean by
the state, I mean by, you know, the Auditor General or the Inspector
Page 90
September 11-12, 2012
General, as the case may be.
MR. SEIBERT: There are statements in there. And there are
also -- in the contract that you have with the state there's statements
that they're subject to audit. And we've had some of them where the
audit occurred five, six, seven years after the fact. And that's where a
lot of the de-obligation is coming from, from the auditors.
And understand that the OIG audits are as much an audit of
FEMA itself than it is the sub-grantees and the grantee, being the state.
The state's responsible to make sure that all of the programmatic
issues are processed in the correct way, according to the law and
regulations, so —
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
I'd like to make a motion that we allocate the $100,000 by way of
budget amendment to a separate line item and that staff come back to
us, you know, as needed to keep us apprised of what's going on with
this and, you know, how these $100,000 are being expended in order
to protect our position.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, the staff is recommending five
other actions for approval too. How about those?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you pull those out? Sony.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I can read them.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I was just focusing on the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, number one is to retain the
services of a nationally recognized law firm that specializes in
FEMA-related issues to consult and lobby on the Board's behalf.
Number two, continue to retain the services of Mr. Bruce French
of York Corporation to provide technical consulting on the FEMA and
DEP rules, policies and regulations.
Develop and implement a federal representative lobbying plan
through the Ferguson Group supporting our efforts.
Draft a letter to the Governor for their Chairman's signature
asking for his support and FDEM's assistance in our recovery efforts.
Page 91
September 11-12, 2012
And work with the County Attorney's Office to review legal
remedies.
And then of course the $100,000 in professional support services
that you did mention for approval.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. And those professional
support services are to pay for the aforementioned listed professionals.
MR. OCHS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I incorporate what
Commissioner Coyle has just listed as the details supporting the
$100,000 allocation for this issue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And second by Commissioner Henning.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor of the motion, please signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. And we are now
COMMISSIONER FIALA: On our way to the United Way
lunch.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, that's right, I'm going down to get a
hot dog. Okay. Good. We'll be back at 1 :01.
(Luncheon recess.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Turn the mic on.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chair you have a live mic.
Page 92
September 11-12, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This item that will be coming up before
us requires four votes. One of the commissioners will not be here for
several more minutes because of traffic so I'm going to ask your
indulgence. We will continue taking our lunch hour recess until
Commissioner Henning arrives and then we will call the meeting to
order. Okay. So we will continue our recess.
(Recess.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Manager, do I have a live mic?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Manager, can you find me
something that we can do in a very short period of time?
MR. OCHS: You want to sing a song or something?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Something productive.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Here's Commissioner Henning.
MR. OCHS: Is Mr. Curry still here?
Chris, are you ready?
MR. CURRY: Sure.
MR. OCHS: Why don't we try that item, sir. That was an item
for your airport authority portion of the agenda that was moved from
the consent to the regular agenda.
Item #14A1
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AN AFTER-THE-FACT
ACCEPTANCE OF A FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
(FAA) GRANT OFFER OF $713,565 FOR DESIGN, PERMITTING
& BIDDING OF RUNWAY #9-27 PAVEMENT RESTORATION
AT IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT AND ASSOCIATED
BUDGET AMENDMENTS — APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right.
MR. OCHS: It was previously Item 16.G.1, now 14.A.1. It's a
Page 93
September 11-12, 2012
recommendation to approve an after-the-fact acceptance of a Federal
Aviation Administration grant offer of$713,565 for design, permitting
and bidding of runway 9-27 pavement restoration at the Immokalee
Regional Airport, and approve associated budget amendments.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It was pulled by Commissioner
Hiller. Commissioner Hiller, would you like to ask some questions?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, I would.
You know, this engineering design fee is for a $10 million
project. And this $10 million project as I can see is predicated on
assumptions which don't reflect the current reality.
And what I would like to know is exactly what is the expected
traffic on this runway and how is a $10 million improvement of the
runway justified based on the very low usage of the runways in
Immokalee?
And for the record, I have asked Mr. Curry's staff to provide the
monthly activity of touchdowns and take-offs on the Immokalee
runways. And we have that information. And my staff will submit it
as an exhibit to this agenda item at the conclusion of the meeting.
MR. CURRY: Chris Curry, Executive Director, Collier County
Airport Authority.
First of all, we expect the estimated cost for the runway
rehabilitation to be approximately $5 million. What you have in front
of you is the cost for the design work associated with that runway that
was put out by RFP and a company was selected based on the RFP
process.
The amount of activity for runway 9-27 is approximately 18,000
operations per year, which is very similar to the other runway, runway
1-8 and 3-6. However, based on the recent pavement inspection
conducted by the State of Florida, runway 9-27 is in worse condition
and is also your primary runway for that airport.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So when I was looking over your
numbers, you had about approximately, and we're looking at peak
Page 94
September 11-12, 2012
months, about three planes a day on average. It was about, you know,
200 incidents, in other words, either take-off or landing in the course
of a month. And you say there's 18,000?
MR. CURRY: That's correct. And for general aviation airports
without a tower, those numbers are estimated numbers.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: On that runway? That's not what I
saw on the backup.
MR. CURRY: Typically for most general aviation airports you
do not evaluate operations by runway. In the case of Immokalee, we
do have some data for runway use.
The normal procedure is that you evaluate operation by airport.
Again, runway 9-27 is a primary runway at that airport that serves 95
percent of wind coverage, which is recommended criteria by the FAA.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So if I look at the activity at the
airport based on the information that I was provided, I'm looking at
about 3,000. You say 18,000. I mean, that's a very large discrepancy.
Also, for purposes of the federal grant application, are you
applying for five million or 10 million for the paving for this project?
MR. CURRY: Well, once we have the design work done
associated with the runway where they can determine how much work
actually needs to be done, then out of that design work to be done we
will have a better cost of the sub-base and how much work actually
needs to be done. So $10 million was just a figure that was put into the
criteria for funding. However, we expect it to be somewhere around
$5 million.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So the JACIPs that you submitted
to the feds included a false estimate?
MR. CURRY: No, it didn't include a false estimate. It included
an estimate because you'd rather be over in your analysis.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: By 100 percent?
MR. CURRY: Well, the numbers really don't matter. What's
going to matter is when they do the design work, we're going to be
Page 95
September 11-12, 2012
able to determine the necessary amount of work that needs to be done
for the airport. So again, you never want to go in under the amount.
And again, it's just an estimated number that may also include some
taxiway work as well. So, you know, it's just an estimated number,
that's all I can tell you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, now I'm concerned about
the engineering estimate, because if you're saying the project is not
10 million, as reflected on the JACIP, which is the application to the
federal government for funding, you're saying it is more reasonably
five million, now you're talking about engineering costs which almost
approximate 20 percent of the total costs, which seems high.
MR. CURRY: Well, the JACIP is not an application. I mean,
that's what you mentioned. The JACIP is not an application.
Initially when we looked at costs for the runway design, it was
estimated at a million dollars. But once it went through the RFP
process, it came back to, I believe, 700 and something odd thousand
dollars for the Immokalee Airport. So the numbers are just estimates.
What will determine the cost is when we go through the RFP process.
That will determine the cost of work that needs to be done.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the work that is needed is
predicated not on the trips but rather just on the condition. No matter
how many planes would use that runway, you're saying that that
runway needs paving based on an evaluation done by whom, again?
MR. CURRY: It was done by the Florida Department of
Transportation. They went around to all the airports in Florida and
they did a pavement analysis. The pavement at the Immokalee
Airport has not had any major renovation done since the 1940's. The
average lifespan of a runway is approximately 40 years at best. So the
pavement condition is rated as very poor. That's the primary criteria
to determine where FDOT and FAA puts its money as far as funding
runway rehabilitation.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So are you going to revise the
Page 96
September 11-12, 2012
JACIP to change the $10 million estimate to five since you say now
five is more realistic?
MR. CURRY: Well, I could revise it to say probably $7 million.
But, again, I don't want to be under. I would rather be over in my
estimate rather than being under.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the reason for that is?
MR. CURRY: Well, I think it's a whole lot easier for planning
purposes for them to assume that the amount is slightly more than it
would be less.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously. Thank
you.
MR. CURRY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, let's go to the Immokalee Master
Plan item, County Manager.
Item #9A
RECOMMENDATION OF RECONSIDERATION OF CP-2008-5,
PETITION REQUESTING AMENDMENTS TO IMMOKALEE
Page 97
September 11-12, 2012
AREA MASTER PLAN AND IMMOKALEE AREA MASTER
PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP, TO MAKE REVISIONS TO
THE ENTIRE MASTER PLAN TO INCLUDE: INCREASES TO
COMMERCIAL ACREAGE, INDUSTRIAL ACREAGE, AND
ALLOWABLE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY; ELIMINATION OF
SOME EXISTING DESIGNATIONS; CREATION OF A NEW
DESIGNATION FOR IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT SITE;
AND RE-DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 103 ACRES TO
IMMOKALEE URBAN AREA FROM AGRICULTURAL/RURAL
WITHIN THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA
IDENTIFIED ON THE COUNTYWIDE FUTURE LAND USE
MAP. ADDITIONALLY, THE PETITION REQUESTS AN
AMENDMENT TO POLICY 6.2.5 OF THE CONSERVATION
AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT TO TREAT THAT
PORTION OF THE LAKE TRAFFORD CAMP KEAIS STRAND
SYSTEM WHICH IS WITHIN THE IMMOKALEE URBAN AREA
AS NEUTRAL LAND FOR VEGETATION RETENTION, AND
TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES OF THE
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT TO SHOW RE-DESIGNATION
OF THE 103 ACRES TO THE IMMOKALEE URBAN AREA —
MOTION TO ADOPT W/CHANGES — FAILED; MOTION TO
CONTINUE TO THE SEPTEMBER 27, 2012 BCC MEETING —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. That's Item 9.A on your
agenda. This item is continued from the June 18th, 2012 Board of
County Commissioner meeting. Recommendation of reconsideration
of CP-2008-5, petition requesting amendments to the Immokalee Area
Master Plan and Immokalee Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map.
Ms. Penny Phillippi will present.
MS. PHILLIPPI: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Penny
Phillippi, Executive Director of the Immokalee Community
Page 98
September 11-12, 2012
Redevelopment Agency.
We're here today to once again discuss the Immokalee Area
Master Plan. And what I'd like to do is just give you an overview
from my perspective of a brief history of this.
As you know, I came to Immokalee and received my contract
with this Board of County Commissioners in December of 2007. And
at that -- the first task that we received orders for were to complete the
master plan, get the Immokalee Master Plan done. We retained RWA
to help us pull that together as professional planners. And December
of that same year we submitted our Immokalee Area Master Plan to
CDES at that time, the department representing planning in Collier
County.
Then in June of 2009, this Board promulgated a timeline to get
the master plan done and gave us a deadline to get that done.
In June of 2010 it was approved by the Board of County
Commissioners and forwarded to Department of Community Affairs.
Then December -- or September of that same year we received
our ORC, which was the recommendations and comments and
objections from the Department of Community Affairs. We
responded to that. The response was heard by the EAC and the
CCPC. And the Immokalee CRA advisory committee had a final
public meeting on April 20th. And at that meeting they developed a
recommended -- three recommended changes for the IMAP and
recommended that it be forwarded to the Board.
We submitted it to the Board May 24th, 2011 and the item was
continued indefinitely.
The CRA submitted it again December 13th, 2011 and it was not
approved at that meeting. An extension until September of 2012 was
granted by the DEO.
I'm not sure if another extension is available to us. But we could
certainly request that, if necessary.
On June 12th of 2012, the Board of County Commissioners
Page 99
September 11-12, 2012
directed the Supervisor of Elections to place a straw ballot, August
14th, 2012, in the primary election to try to get a handle on the
sentiment of the community toward the master plan, and the IMAP
received support of 67 percent of the voters.
During this current year, five public meetings were held,
advertised and held. January 13th, March 12th, May 9th, May 23rd
and May 30th. And we received public input. The most salient issues
voiced by the public from those meetings were density, the Highway
29 State Road bypass, airport runway extension, and mobile homes.
Draft language was provided by two citizens, and those two are
included in your package.
In addition, as I mentioned earlier, the CRA advisory committee
had three recommendations for your consideration.
As the CRA and the Board of County Commissioners, as you
know, you have complete authority to add to or take away anything in
this draft Comprehensive Plan Amendment. It's the hope of the
advisory board that the plan will move forward with whatever
adjustments you might need to make today, and that as the plan is
implemented further adjustments can be made, if necessary.
As staff, it's our responsibility to alert you to the fact that should
the amendment fail, it will be three or four years before the CRA will
be able to accrue enough funds to readdress a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment.
So with us today are professional planners with RWA and Bob
Mulhere and Associates and your professional staff planners with the
county. And we are here to address any of your concerns or
questions, or you can have public comment first, whatever you prefer.
That's the extent of my presentation today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Commissioners, we have 15 public speakers. Would you prefer
to listen to the public speakers before you ask your own questions?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have questions.
Page 100
September 11-12, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Henning, go
ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I want to refer to the existing
map, future map, the existing plan and you said draft plan?
MS. PHILLIPPI: Yes, it hasn't been promulgated yet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Also I want to refer to the same
day in December we had another issue dealing with the Immokalee
mobile homes.
You want me to get started?
MS. PHILLIPPI: I would prefer to defer that to Nick
Casalanguida, who's been working on that issue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Maybe -- I sent -- I
apologize, I sent a bunch of information to your consultant, Bob
Mulhere.
MS. PHILLIPPI: Okay. Bob is here and available.
MR. MULHERE: Good afternoon. For the record, Bob Mulhere
with Mulhere and Associates.
I have both the proposed future land use map and the existing
future land use map here in a larger version that we can put up on the
wall there --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I had a larger one. I don't know
if you have a larger one than what is there now. Looks like you do.
MR. MULHERE: And I have that executive summary, though I
may have to defer also to Nick, I don't know, depending on what your
questions are, because I didn't know what your specific questions were
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we start with the existing
master plan first?
MR. MULHERE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: On Page 6.
MR. MULHERE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We have Policy 1.5.2, where it
Page 101
September 11-12, 2012
talks about transient housing and migrant labor camps defined in the
Land Development Code and Florida Administrative Code can also be
developed in areas designated as commercial land use in the
Immokalee Area Future Land Use Map.
Do you see that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you have the page here,
Commissioner Henning, that we can refer to in our agenda?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Packet page?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I don't. It's in your -- the
old one, the existing -- I shouldn't say the old one, the existing plan is
in the packet, but it is a strike-through, so it would be hard for you to
read.
Do you see where that is, Bob?
MR. MULHERE: I'm looking for it. But I did hear what you
said.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Page 6.
MR. MULHERE: I don't have my hands on the existing
Immokalee Area Master Plan. I'm looking for it right now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, essentially the --
MR. MULHERE: I did hear what you said about farmworker
housing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Essentially that use
today as presented, is allowed within the commercial designations of
C-1 through C-4 -- no, it's allowed through all of the commercial
designations. However, it was taken out of the language of the
proposed master plan. Why is that?
MR. MULHERE: There was discussion about farmworker
housing at several meetings. Several representatives of the agricultural
industry came to the meetings and their request or concern was that
the county defer to -- the federal government really regulates
farmworker housing. We can also regulate it through zoning, and we
do -- was that it largely be left up to the federal government to
Page 102
September 11-12, 2012
regulate the location.
We did revise the language somewhat, and I'm looking for that
language right now. 6.1.4, yeah. And so what it reads now is: Collier
County recognized the need for farm labor to support the county's
agricultural industry. Collier County will encourage the provision of
housing for seasonal, temporary or migrant farmworkers, provided
such housing is consistent with migrant labor housing provisions of
Section 64.E.14 of the Florida Administrative Code, and does not
conflict with existing zoning districts or the Immokalee Area Future
Land Use Map.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that language is in the
existing plan now.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It further identifies it as allowed
in commercial use by right. A right of property owners that have
mobile home -- or this transient housing within the commercial
districts.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I don't -- Commissioner Henning, to be
honest with you, I don't recall any particular reason why that express
allowance was removed. I do not recall any reason why that would
have been removed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I sent you the executive
summary on the Board's discussion in December of 2011 on the
mobile home issue.
MR. MULHERE: Yes, I have that right here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would you turn to Page 2,
please.
MR. MULHERE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you count how many
mobile home -- yeah, these mobile homes -- are within the
commercial district in Immokalee?
MR. MULHERE: Or non-residential ones in industrial, so count
Page 103
September 11-12, 2012
that one too, I assume? Yeah. Looks like one -- looks like there's one
in C-5 and one in industrial. I didn't prepare this so I'm looking at it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, on the map location,
number one is a mixed use, C-4. Number three is a mixed use, C-4.
Number four is in C-5. And number five is in industrial --
MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- number six is in C-4.
MR. MULHERE: I see what you're saying. Okay, number two is
mobile home and C-4, yes, you're correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, without this language,
these mobile home parks would either become nonconforming or
more nonconforming; is that a true statement?
MR. MULHERE: Well, we're actually separating two issues.
Migrant farmworker housing has nothing to do with this language
unless they are recognized migrant farmworker housing developments
through the state process. I don't know that these are. I would have to
defer to perhaps somebody on staff who has done this research.
I doubt most of these are migrant farmworker housing
development. They're mobile home parks, but they are probably not
migrant farmworker housing regulated by the state and federal
government.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did you see in our existing
Land Development Code that I sent you provisions 5.0 --
MR. MULHERE: I have that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And you can see --
because it says in language that it be provided in the Land
Development Code 5.05 --
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- .03.
And you can see that mobile homes are allowed --
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- along with other districts.
Page 104
September 11-12, 2012
MR. MULHERE: Yes. And that wouldn't change. Mobile
homes would -- mobile homes could be used in the urban area under
the new plan for farm labor housing camps, provided they were
located in those designations where mobile home parks are allowed in
that plan, and that --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But it's not allowed --
MR. MULHERE: It's not allowed in commercial.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's not allowed in commercial.
MR. MULHERE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. On the existing plan --
MR. MULHERE: And if I could -- I'm sorry, I didn't mean to
interrupt. But just one other -- something just caught me as well. I
just want to also reiterate that although these uses -- the zoning, the
commercial zoning doesn't allow mobile homes. But you're right, if
you go back to the existing Comp. Plan, it clearly plates for migrant
farmworker housing camps, those may be permitted in commercial
districts. In commercial districts --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So that's not allowed in the
proposed plan.
MR. MULHERE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The map, existing map provides
for a district -- and I'll read the existing plan. It's called a commercial
center industrial subdistrict. You can find that on Page 18 of the
existing plan.
Allowed within -- that subdistrict is uses described in the Land
Development Code for commercial C-1 through C-5 industrial and
business park.
MR. MULHERE: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you know where that is on
the future land use map today?
MR. MULHERE: The existing future land use map?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
Page 105
September 11-12, 2012
MR. MULHERE: Yeah. The commerce center industrial
subdistrict is this purple color.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that straddles State Road
29?
MR. MULHERE: Yes, State Road 29 runs right here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And goes up to New Market
Road?
MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I don't know exactly -- yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's a large section.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, New Market, right here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And what are you proposing
that be today?
MR. MULHERE: This area right here that's again State Road 29,
and that's New Market right there, is designated IMU, industrial mixed
use.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Now, reading your plan
on Page 34, those uses, subdistricts allow for higher intensity
commercial described in Land Development Code, Ordinance 04-41.
MR. MULHERE: That's the LDC.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. For C-1 through C-5.
And research and technology parks and business districts.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
So your question is what's the difference, or --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you're losing C-1, C-2,
C-3. Why?
MR. MULHERE: Because those districts are hierarchical in the
Land Development Code, so the C-4 and the C-5 district -- the C-4
district allows every use that's allowed in the C-3 district, and the C-3
allows every use that's allowed in the C-2 district, and so on. So by
allowing C-4 and C-5, you are allowing all of those uses.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It allows -- maybe staff can
correct me if I'm wrong. If it allows C-4, it will allow C-3.
Page 106
September 11-12, 2012
MR. MULHERE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It doesn't go down to C-2.
MR. MULHERE: C-3 allows C-2. So, I mean, I would --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That isn't how I read it.
MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Interim Planning Director.
The way that the zoning districts do work is C-1 would be
permitted in C-2, C-2 is permitted in C-3, C-3 is permitted in C-4. So
you have everything underneath those individual classifications of
commercial that are permitted uses. That's the practice that we always
had allocated uses and allowed uses within the various zoning
districts.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So if you designate within the
proposed plan, when you say that uses of-- I'm sorry, let me get to
that page -- uses of commercial C-4 and C-5, but you don't allow C-1
through C-3.
MR. MULHERE: Well, the position that --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know what you just said.
MR. MULHERE: You know what, we can make that -- we can
-- I certainly wouldn't object. I don't think staff would. If you want to
make it clear, we'll say C-1 through C-5.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you know how many
transient housing's within that subdistrict today?
MR. MULHERE: Transient housing?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, migrant farmworker
housing.
MR. MULHERE: No, I don't.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm aware there's two.
MR. MULHERE: That could be. I don't.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: One was denied its use today.
MR. MULHERE: Today?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
MR. MULHERE: I don't know anything about that.
Page 107
September 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I won't mention any
names.
Is there any way that we can separate those, keep the commercial
-- commerce district, industrial district the way it is?
MR. MULHERE: Well, I mean, we really have largely done
that. The addition -- what you're getting there is really more -- you
know, more uses in the way we've written it. It's more liberal the way
we've written it, less restrictive.
I can see that you would have some confusion when you read the
C-4 to C-5, thinking it would be restricted to that. I mean, certainly
that could be clarified by saying C-1 through C-5.
Beyond that, I don't see that there's any loss of-- by comparison,
if anything there's a gain.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it allows for business
parks.
MR. MULHERE: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So where is the gain?
MR. MULHERE: The light industrial, the light industrial uses
that you would be also permitted to have.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You mean the light industrial,
meaning C-5?
MR. MULHERE: And other uses as they're described. Let's see
what -- the purpose is to provide a transition from the industrial
subdistrict to the adjacent commercial and residential uses.
Let's see. Some of-- the subdistrict allows for higher intensity
commercial uses and research and technology parks and business
parks. It also allows for light manufacturing, processing and
packaging in fully enclosed buildings, research and design, product
development, printing, lithographing, publishing, similar industrial
uses, ag. and ag. related uses such as packing houses, warehousing and
target industries. All of those are more liberal than the previous
designation.
Page 108
September 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the present designation is
industrial subdistrict and --
MR. MULHERE: And mixed use.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. So you've got a whole
gamut. You've got all your commercial zonings within there and
industrial.
MR. MULHERE: But it didn't allow all the industrial uses.
That's why it was designated differently than pure industrial.
Industrial district allows for more uses than the IMU did, the industrial
mixed use district.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, this is a commercial center
industrial.
MR. MULHERE: Commercial center, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. But they're one and the
same. They're one and the same.
MR. MULHERE: This is -- this is the industrial district. That
allows for different uses than the -- under the existing plan than the
commercial center industrial district does, which is right here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you go to the zoning map, it
says -- it says industrial. Where the --
MR. MULHERE: There could be some zoned industrial lands in
there. No argument there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And, you know, I've learned not
to go strictly by the zoning maps. They're dangerous.
MR. MULHERE: Well, they're different. Zoning is different
than the land use designation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, so you have no problem
with including language allowing transient and farmworker housing
within the commercial zoning as prescribed under the existing 1.5.2.
MR. MULHERE: What you're suggesting is that we change the
language on Page 34 to specifically state for commercial C-1 through
C-5, and under the farmworker housing policy, that we expressly state
Page 109
September 11-12, 2012
that that may be allowed in commercial designations as it previously
did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. MULHERE: Yes. I'm just checking to see if staff had any
concerns. I don't think they do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What was the -- now, the
downtown district, I don't have that proper phrase, that presently
allows for 12 units per acre?
MR. MULHERE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And what is being proposed?
MR. MULHERE: Let me turn to that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I should say that's a mixed use.
MR. MULHERE: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's commercial.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Predominantly retail.
MR. MULHERE: Office retail.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: I'm getting to the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You tell me what page that is.
MR. MULHERE: Page 28.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The --
MR. MULHERE: Paragraph four. Commercial mixed use
district, C-MU.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that allows for -- is that the
downtown district? No. Isn't there a -- where Main Street is.
MR. MULHERE: Yes, commercial mixed use district.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that allows for C-1 through
C-4? Residential uses allowed within the -- no, that's Camp Keais.
MR. MULHERE: Well, I might have cited the wrong page.
What I'm looking at is on Page 28 of the proposed master plan.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's what I have.
Page 110
September 11-12, 2012
MR. MULHERE: Paragraph four is commercial mixed use
subdistrict, C-MU.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. MULHERE: Yes, that base density proposed is 16 units per
acre.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the maximum is 20 units --
MR. MULHERE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- per acre.
Has any of that been built to 12 units per acre?
MR. MULHERE: You know, I'm not sure. I'm sure it has on a
net basis. I don't know on a gross basis.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I haven't seen it as of last
week when I was there.
MR. MULHERE: I mean, I don't know. It was permitted at 12
units per acre.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
So you think incentivizing it by giving it more would give more?
MR. MULHERE: The concept is to -- and remember, this is a
plan that obviously this would not happen unless the market attraction
occurred that would create the demand for that kind of density.
But the idea was to have a dense urban core supporting the retail
uses, supporting the office uses, supporting the tourism uses with
some of the residential uses that you would have, and to also promote
transient. You need pretty good density to really drive transient. And
there's no area in the county where more people use transit than the
Immokalee area. I mean, there's fewer cars per household. A lot of
people walk, bicycle, and use buses. So it's an appropriate location to
have that higher level density. People will only build that if the
market begins to demand it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And 12 units per acre is not
high?
MR. MULHERE: It's -- relatively speaking, it's high for Collier
Page 111
September 11-12, 2012
County. But there are many places throughout the state that have
higher density than that. In the urban core.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We have Fifth Avenue, we have
Mercato, we have Bayfront.
MR. MULHERE: Well, probably the highest density in Collier
County is probably the high-rise condominiums on the beach that
happen probably to be also the most expensive. But those are
probably the highest densities, some of which is at 16 and higher. But
we're not really talking about that kind of condition here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. And you don't have the
commercial mixed in with it.
MR. MULHERE: Correct. Well, in some cases you do, but
most not, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you realize that Immokalee
Road and State Road 29 is designated an evacuation route?
MR. MULHERE: Yes, I do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that would not be a conflict
of having that much density?
MR. MULHERE: It's not, because the overall achievable density
in the Immokalee future land use -- the urban area of Immokalee is
decreased in the proposed plan versus the existing plan. And that's
achieved by reducing the amount of density bonuses that folks can
achieve in other parts of the Immokalee Master Plan.
And so if you will, what we've done is we've eliminated or
reduced the bonuses that can occur -- this is a very big urban area. If
you look at that yellow area, that's all pretty low density. It's all ag.
zone and it's all spread out. We've increased the density in the urban
core, generally considered good planning. And we've reduced the
achievable density in those areas on the outside that would be harder
to serve, harder to evacuate and so on and so forth.
No, I mean, I don't think that that's really an issue, and DCA
didn't think it was an issue.
Page 112
September 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The information sent to DCA
did not show that it was an evacuation route.
MR. MULHERE: I'm sure they know that. That's their business,
they're a state planning agency.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're also reducing the
allowable parking within the downtown area?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So where are the people
supposed to park?
MR. MULHERE: There is less need for parking in a dense urban
core, and in particular in Immokalee. Part of the problem in
Immokalee is the need for parking standards applied in a suburban
setting in a coastal setting that simply the demand is not there for that
amount of parking out there. So by reducing the parking, you are
going to create a much easier redevelopment scenario in the
downtown area.
Now, I do agree with you, there could come a time if things were
successful and redevelopment started to occur, just like happened on
Fifth Avenue there may have to be a decision at some time in the
future to create some public parking areas, whether there were surface
or structures. But, boy, if that's the problem we have 10 or 15 years
from now, I think we'll all be jumping up and down saying great, let's
figure out a way to make it happen.
There isn't the demand for the parking out there presently that is
the same demand here. And I would even question some of the
parking standards we have in the urban area presently as well.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know how many events
you have been down at Fifth Avenue and try to find a parking spot.
But that's neither here nor there.
Part of your response to the CRA, it said staff, it's in our back-up
material, and it was your response, you stated about the parking that
you would take along Main Street, State Road 29 from a four-lane --
Page 113
September 11-12, 2012
and it is an arterial, to a two-lane.
MR. MULHERE: Uh-huh, uh-huh. As a future condition -- if
you want to have the -- and this is just those like First Avenue to
Ninth. So we're talking about again the downtown area of Immokalee.
To have the success, attract folks from who are maybe going to the
casino or going for some eco-tourism event or something, to be able to
walk around Immokalee and enjoy Immokalee and eat in the
restaurants and shop in the stores, then you've got to slow down the
traffic.
And the way that you will slow down the traffic is by creating
some on-street parking and reducing the speed by making it one lane
for those six or seven blocks. You can't do that unless you have an
alternative route for that traffic. And New Market may be one option
and State Road 29 is another option.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I agree with that. But today it's
an existing evacuation route.
MR. MULHERE: Understood.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And nothing is planned for a
different evacuation route for the coastal citizens to get out of harm's
way.
MR. MULHERE: Commissioner Henning, we wouldn't be able
to change that. The State has told us you cannot change that until the
alternatives have been identified and are functional. So that wouldn't
happen until there was an alternative. And if there isn't any
alternative, then it won't happen.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, shouldn't we provide
language in there for parking, just in case it doesn't materialize?
Understanding this is a state road, Collier County has no ability
to designate it as a two-lane arterial versus a four-lane.
MR. MULHERE: My opinion is that the reduction in parking is
not achieved because we're taking that from four lanes to two lanes.
And if I implied that that was the only reason for the reduction in
Page 114
September 11-12, 2012
parking in that response, that wasn't the intent of my response.
I believe that the Immokalee area -- the community believes that
the studies show the car ownership, the level of private, the owned
cars per household is much less than the urban area. I just believe that
there is not as much parking required in the Immokalee urban area and
that the reductions that we've provided for are appropriate, whether or
not that nine-block segment of State Road 29 is reduced too. Because
there's on-street parking right now. There's on-street parking.
But what we proposed was, you know, you could get more
parking by doing head-on parking. So there is already some parking
out there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But it's a four-lane arterial
roadway today.
MR. MULHERE: Yes, it is. And I think it's even an emerging
SIS roadway, a strategic intermodal system roadway. So it's
important. And you wouldn't be able to resolve that without some
reasonable alternative for through traffic, truck traffic.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do the citizens realize that a
transportation exception will be created for the Immokalee area and --
MR. MULHERE: Yes. Do they realize? They realize it's an
option. At least those that were informed. And I can't speak for every
citizen when you ask that question. But it's only an option. We
haven't said that that would happen. We've said that should be one of
the options that should be studied.
And Commissioner Henning, the reason that that's suggested as
an option is because there are failing roadways in Immokalee. The
State Road 29 -- I mean, it's not failing right now, and probably
because of the economic downturn there's probably maybe a little bit
more life there. But at the time that we started this master plan, it was
close to failing.
And so there's the chicken and the egg question. If you're
successful in bringing in new business to the downtown Immokalee
Page 115
September 11-12, 2012
area, to the urban area, and you're able to bring in some new business
and then you can't go ahead and build it because the road is failing,
you've lost all of those new jobs, you've lost all of that tax revenue, all
because the road's failing and there's no money to rebuild the road. So
it's a chicken and an egg.
Well, if you allow the economic development by calculating the
traffic impacts in a broader geographic area instead of on a
segment-by-segment basis, you may be able to generate some new tax
revenue, create some new jobs, and then you can figure out how to
improve those roadways that are failing.
And that's why it's only an option, it's just something to study.
It's what many urbanized areas are doing to move away from a
segment-by-segment count.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think -- personally I
think the Immokalee citizens deserve more, not less. I think we
should achieve both. And we all remember a time when roads wasn't
built within the urban coastal urban area and how difficult it was. I
would hate to see the Immokalee citizens have to go through the same
thing.
MR. MULHERE: And that certainly isn't the intent of studying a
tool that might be an appropriate tool to advance -- I mean, the roads
are still going to have to be improved.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We should have transportation
concurrency.
MR. MULHERE: And you would, but you would just be
counting it differently. You'd be looking at them differently. I'm not
trying to be argumentative, I'm just suggesting to you that you would
still have concurrency but you would calculate it in a larger geography
so that a segment, one segment failing would not stop new
improvements from coming in.
And if I'm wrong, I would defer to your staff to confirm what I'm
saying. I don't want to make a mistake and say something that isn't
Page 116
September 11-12, 2012
accurate.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If the focus is the downtown
and you're spreading the downtown area further to the north -- I think
further to the south --
MR. MULHERE: You could define it any way you want. It
could be the entire Immokalee urban area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's the existing.
MR. MULHERE: Okay. Well, either way. I mean, it's --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Your downtown area is now
along all of Main Street, your density and intensity.
MR. MULHERE: What we're talking about though was right in
this area here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, but you're taking that
purple and expanding it out for the same uses and same residential
density.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, when you look at the land uses, they
were highly mixed uses anyway, so it made more sense to create a
land use designation that covered the existing development pattern out
there and also provide for what we were looking for in the future. And
that's why we did that. There are far fewer land use designations now
than there were before. You can see the patchwork; pull up the land
use designations there.
But the point that I was trying to make on the exception area, and
there's other tools that that policy also talks about looking at that as
one of the possible tools. It may not include the industrial -- let me
give you an example.
One of the discussions we had with staff was, if we were going to
exclude certain uses from trip calculation, we would not exclude
residential uses but only new employment generating uses. So that
might be a way to accomplish both and not be as forgiving, if you
will, with concurrency.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: On the existing plan, on Main
Page 117
September 11-12, 2012
Street you have the ability to have mixed use because you have purely
residential. And now you're proposing residential and commercial,
more density and intensity.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, in some places it's just residential now
and it could go mixed use in a redevelopment scenario, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. MULHERE: That's the proposal.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, the bypass, that is a -- that
would be a state project.
MR. MULHERE: It is. And I'm -- yeah. The policy in the plan,
I think there's one, maybe two that refer to it, basically says that the
county will support that project. It doesn't provide any funding or
suggest that the county would provide any funding for that project.
That's what the folks that expressed an interest -- at that time
expressed a strong support for that project that were in our public
meetings. Now, if that's something that there isn't support for, that
policy by and of itself doesn't do a whole lot. All it says is the county
will support it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, and I don't think that this
plan is going to kill the bypass if it does happen, if this is removed.
MR. MULHERE: I agree with you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But I would hate to count on
roadways of the future that we're not even sure it's going to happen.
MR. MULHERE: I agree with that too.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, well, I'll give it a break a
while. I do have some more questions, but I'll give it a break.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You want to listen to the public
speakers?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to ask a few questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thanks. Mr. Mulhere, the state
characterized this document that we have before us today, this
Page 118
September 11-12, 2012
proposed amendment as effectively rewriting the Immokalee Area
Master Plan that currently exists; is that correct?
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I mean, if you're quoting from some --
yeah, I believe it's correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I am. That's what the state said. I
just want to confirm that. And the reason I bring that up is because
there is some confusion among the public that if we don't approve this
plan today that Immokalee does not have a plan.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, that's --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Immokalee -- exactly, that isn't
true. Immokalee has a plan, and that plan was last amended I believe
in 2008.
MR. MULHERE: I think there was a minor amendment and
there was a major amendment in '97.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: There were quite a few
amendments I think in between then, so -- but the last amendment was
in 2008.
The letter from the state granting the extension on December
27th, 2011 came with a condition. And the condition in the letter was
that DCA, which is now DEO, Department of Economic Opportunity,
said that the two objections raised to this proposed amendment would
have to be addressed and the plan would have to be modified to reflect
the criticisms that the state provided.
MR. MULHERE: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Now, those criticisms provided by
the state in the ORC are twofold. A lack of meaningful and
predictable guidelines and standards in some of the proposed text
language. And number two, the lack of supporting data and analysis
demonstrating coordination of land use planning with public facility
planning for the proposed revisions to the land use map.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: DOT said that the transportation
Page 119
September 11-12, 2012
analysis was insufficient to determine the extent of the impact that the
changes being proposed would have on the roadway system, both
internal and external to the Immokalee area master plan area.
MR. MULHERE: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Those are very, very significant
criticisms of the amendment that was transmitted.
Has the plan been modified to reflect changes to correct the
criticisms by the state, by the two agencies, DEO and the Department
of Transportation?
MR. MULHERE: Yes. The plan was -- actually, originally there
was several other objections as well in the ORC, the objection,
recommendation and comment report.
The plan was modified to address all of those objections,
recommendations -- the objections. You're not really required to
address a recommendation, though it's probably advisable. And a
comment is just -- you know.
So there were some objections. And I have that. I can --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: In other words, we transmitted a
version of the plan to the state and the state came back and listed
significant objections, which we have, and I'm going to introduce
them on the record, as did the Department of Transportation. And
then you went back and you amended the plan.
Has that amendment -- have those changes to your transmittal
been brought back before this Board?
MR. MULHERE: Well, they were brought -- that's what has
been continued and continued. They're in -- the changes that we made
were in the version that was brought back to you months ago that
wasn't heard, and they're still in the same version right now. It was
heard by the Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what was brought before the
Board in December of 2011, which was turned down by the Board,
was a version different from what was submitted to the state originally
Page 120
September 11-12, 2012
in transmittal?
MR. MULHERE: The transmittal document, upon receipt of the
objection, recommendation, comment report, a new draft was created,
as is always the case because you have to deal with the objections. So
we dealt with the objections.
By the way, while we dealt with those objections, we continued
to have an ongoing conference call with DCA and they agreed to the
remedies that we provided.
So those changes were reflected in that document, which then
went before the EAC for an adoption hearing and the CCPC for an
adoption hearing, and ultimately was scheduled to go before the Board
of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And did it come before the Board
of County Commissioners?
MR. MULHERE: It came before you but my knowledge is that
there was no action taken. It was continued. Didn't have enough
votes, so it was continued.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, it was voted on. It was voted
on and it was turned down.
MR. MULHERE: I don't exactly remember what happened. I'll
have to defer to maybe staff. The point is you're saying that there was
an action taken, if there's action taken, then why are we here today?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The action that was taken was that
it was turned down and then the request was made to bring it back.
MR. MULHERE: Okay, okay. That's fine.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what was presented in
December was not the same thing that was transmitted to the state.
MR. MULHERE: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what was presented before the
public for this referendum, which in of itself is a problem, was what
was transmitted to the state or what was transmitted -- or what was
modified as a consequence of the ORC? Because now we have two
Page 121
September 11-12, 2012
versions of this amendment.
MR. MULHERE: You know, I didn't prepare the document. I
didn't prepare the ballot. But I believe, and somebody will have to
correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't want to put you on the spot
MR. MULHERE: Well, I believe what it said was the version
that the Board was considering. So I believe it was with the changes in
it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So let me get the County Attorney
to answer that, since the County Attorney -- since this is obviously a
legal issue.
What was presented -- which document was presented to be
voted on?
Because we have two versions. We have the modified version
and the transmitted version --
MR. KLATZKOW: You have the version that you voted on.
That was the one that was on the ballot, the one that was voted 3-1.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Was that the modified version or
was that the transmitted version?
MR. MULHERE: It was the adoption version.
MR. KLATZKOW: It was the adoption version.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So the adoption version was
different than the transmittal version.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what was left by not adopting
the modified version was the transmittal version, that was left
standing.
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
MR. MULHERE: No, because it was --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, yes, because we turned
down the modified version.
Page 122
September 11-12, 2012
MR. KLATZKOW: No. I mean --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We did.
MR. KLATZKOW: But that's not the procedure. You transmit,
you get an ORC report, all right? There are changes made. Then you
vote on it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We vote on the changes.
MR. KLATZKOW: You transmit. The state has comments.
The comments were addressed. There were modifications made. That
is taken to you for adoption. You voted 3-1 with one abstention on the
adoption.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, we voted to turn it down.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, you didn't.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We voted against -- we didn't
adopt a modification.
MR. KLATZKOW: From a factual standpoint, the vote was 3-1
with one abstention. All right?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, I'm sorry, forgive me, I
misunderstood. Okay, I know what you are saying, yeah. The
abstention being --
MR. KLATZKOW: That was the vote, okay. And then we went
through the process of bringing it back to the point we got to here.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But again, I just want to
understand, by virtue of the fact that there was a 3-1 vote on the
document that came before us, that modified version of what was
submitted was not accepted.
MR. KLATZKOW: It was not adopted.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It was not adopted.
MR. KLATZKOW: Because you require four votes for
adoption.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So the document that's left on the
table is which document, the original transmittal or the one with the
Page 123
September 11-12, 2012
modifications?
MR. MULHERE: It's the adoption version.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The adoption version, which is
with the modifications?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want to clarify that. Because
it certainly wasn't clear to me. And I'm not sure it was clear to
anybody else.
MR. MULHERE: So you had asked me if we had responded to
those, and we did. And there was an explanation contained of those
responses in your executive summary as well as in the CCPC staff
report.
We spent a lot of time, as I said, on conference calls with DCA.
There was additional data and analysis prepared, and that dealt with
the question of whether or not there would be adequate public
facilities. There is no requirement that you quantify the costs to
improve adequate public facilities. Those improvements occur as
development occurs and impact fees are paid. That's how that
happens.
So we did do some additional analysis, and we had to do that
anyway because we went in and reduced the bonuses, as I already
indicated, and that reduced the maximum achievable density by about
25 percent. As a result, the question of trips was actually -- the
potential question of trips, which is what the DOT, the Department of
Transportation was talking about, was actually reduced. So that
addressed their concern.
And the last one was about the levels of intensity and density.
And we actually went in and put a policy in that identified the
maximum amount of dwelling units and the maximum amount of
commercial and development that could occur in the Immokalee urban
area, and that addressed that. The statute said at the time, and I don't
think it even exists anymore, I think it was repealed since then, but at
Page 124
September 11-12, 2012
the time the statute said you had to identify the maximum intensity
and density. And they felt we hadn't done that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What demographics did you use?
What years, numbers were you using to do your analysis? Were you
using the most current when you updated it based on the qualifications
established by ORC?
MR. MULHERE: I'm going to have to defer. Perhaps Pat can
give you a specific answer. I'd have to look that up and find out
because I don't know right now as you asked that question. I know we
would have used the most recent census data that was available to us
when we did the calculation.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Did you use the 2010 census?
MR. MULHERE: And we used county demographic information
provided to us at that time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Did you use the most current
available demographic information? And as for the presentation for
today, have you updated everything for current available information?
MR. MULHERE: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: My next question is to staff. Did
staff validate that the information used, which is not current, was
correct at the time of the use?
MR. BOSI: Again, Mike Bosi, Interim Planning Director.
At the time of the modifications evaluation related to the
objections contained in the ORC report, the data that was utilized was
provided by the county. It was the best available data that was
available.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So the information that you used
was the historical data that you had available then and you have not
used the most current available data to come up with a conclusion in
this analysis.
MR. BOSI: County staff did not go back and reanalyze the
modified master -- the Immokalee Area Master Plan. We relied upon
Page 125
September 11-12, 2012
the data that's available.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So staff has not gone back to
analyze and validate what the consultant has done in this latest
modified version being presented here today?
MR. BOSI: Yes, we have.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, you have?
MR. BOSI: The demographic analysis. The updating to the
2010 census information is specific. Some of that information is still
not -- it's just becoming available. We haven't incorporated within
into our data set, so he could not perform a demographic comparison.
But the analysis for density, intensity of the land use categories, it was
an effort that we took part with the consultant team in coordination
with the Department of Community Affairs.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Did you review it all? You
reviewed everything the consultant did and validated it?
MR. BOSI: We reviewed the information that was related to the
objection --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Not what you -- I don't -- I want to
know, did you review -- did David Weeks review the information as it
was incorporated and the conclusions derived from the information
incorporated in this version of the plan that we're looking at today?
MR. BOSI: The information related to the demographics and the
population was reviewed by county staff.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: As to what we're seeing here
today. And you made sure that --
MR. BOSI: The modifications that have been made between
transmittal and the adoption to me were not and are not material to the
changes that were requested related to demographics.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you didn't verify that because
you thought it wasn't material?
MR. BOSI: No, there's not a direct relationship to the changes
that were made that would have any relationship to updated
Page 126
September 11-12, 2012
demographic information.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I see. So like for example, if I
look at the Airport Master Plan, which is incorporated in this
document, the information that it uses goes back to 2008. That hasn't
been updated to the present to use, you know, the most current
available data. But that's okay?
MR. BOSI: I couldn't speak to that. I'm not aware of what the
current demographic data information is related to the Immokalee area
airport.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You didn't -- because it's
incorporated in the plan, so growth management didn't look --
MR. BOSI: I know it's referenced by the transportation element
of the Growth Management Plan --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, it's incorporated specifically
into this adoption, because it was only adopted as part of the consent
agenda into the transportation element. Now it's being incorporated as
part of an overall amendment to the plan.
MR. BOSI: And I'm still failing to see the relevancy.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, the data is not current. I
mean, it's a transportation -- I mean, it's one of the transportation
components of this plan. Just like the loop road is one of the
components and that is also a problem.
MR. BOSI: As a professional planner I'm having a hard time
understanding the connection between updated demographic
information and the changes that were made between transmittal and
the adoption, based upon the changes that were made. We did a
further analysis in terms of the changes for zoning and density.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let me help you. Let me help you,
you know. And I know that you're new to your position and maybe
that's the reason.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: New to his position?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He's a lot more senior than you are.
Page 127
September 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: He was just made -- isn't he just
newly appointed interim planning --
MR. BOSI: Just interim, yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But you're the new interim
planning, right?
MR. BOSI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you're new to the position.
MR. BOSI: To the position, correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Because what it says in the
transportation component is that there was insufficient -- the analysis
was insufficient to determine the extent of the impact of the changes
on the roadway system internal and external. And when you go back
into the details of the Department of Transportation's criticisms, one of
-- that's one of the things they talk about.
MR. BOSI: One of the things when we did the analysis to
address that objection, we had to look at the densities, the densities
that were changed and how that would have a material effect upon the
overall system -- the transportation system network. So we had to
update the trip counts if there were any that were associated with
increased density. So in that regard that type of information was
updated.
When you say -- and maybe it's just my incorrect assumption,
when I hear demographics I think of socioeconomic demographics, the
racial composition, the economic levels of the individuals that are
living within a specific area. Those (sic) type of information was not
updated between the transmitted and adoption because we found no
relevance or connection to the changes that were being requested.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What I'm talking about is
population, which translates into trips. So if the population is not
projected to grow as much as was expected in 2008, that has a direct
impact on trips.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida.
Page 128
September 11-12, 2012
Ma'am, I was the Transportation Planning Director at the time we
reviewed this. As Commissioner Henning pointed out, we had the
same objection as staff, that DCA and FDOT had. We wanted more
certainty as to how much trips would impact the roadways.
I talked to Lawrence Massey, who signed the rejection letter, and
Lawrence and I discussed and requested Bob and his consultants to
provide the traffic analysis. And we worked with Tindale Oliver who
was their traffic analysis person, and finally they came back and said
to both DOT and county staff, we're actually reducing the overall
density. We're moving it.
As Commissioner Henning pointed out the valid point that we
had concerns about, you're putting more density in the core but you're
reducing it outside. So overall, measuring traffic reduced. So both
Lawrence and I dropped our objection.
Now, Bob referenced the transportation concurrency exception
area, and he's not -- didn't have it exactly right. You have a TCMA,
which is a management area, and a TCEA, which is an exception area.
And Bob, correct me if I'm wrong, I said have you told the people in
Immokalee that there's going to be congestion? And they said we've
discussed it at the public meeting.
And there were three alternatives: Accept congestion, go down
to two lanes, which we knew the state would never sign off on, you're
correct. New Market bypass, which was the initial bypass, so you
kind of phase it out. And then the state initiated the PD&E for the loop
road around Immokalee, recognizing that, as Mr. Mulhere pointed out,
the chicken or the egg concept. Do you allow development to achieve
a certain level and, you know, go back and forth. Because that was
the same concern staff had. But both county transportation staff and
FDOT staff dropped their objection because they came back and said
overall we're reducing the density.
So we knew that you have concurrency, so at some point in time
you're going to tell the people in Immokalee, just like we've done in
Page 129
September 11-12, 2012
the urban area, unless you change your policy you're going to have to
stop developing when you hit that concurrency wall. So that's why
DCA, FDOT and county transportation staff said all right, we have no
objection with regard to transportation.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I have concerns. I have
concerns based on the information that was presented to me. I don't
know what you have presented to the state in the interim, and I can
only deal with what's before me.
And I see that, you know, the most reliable current available data
is not what was used to come to the conclusions that are presented
before us today.
And going to the issue of the finances, well, you say that we don't
have to worry about finances today and we should just adopt and then
worry about money down the road. Well, just on two of the
transportation projects we're looking at an astronomical amount of
money. Like the loop road is projected to be 150 million, the airport
is projected to be 150 million. These are massive expenditures.
And I would like to have a better understanding of the fiscal
impact of what's being proposed in this plan.
MR. MULHERE: Commissioner, may I ask a question about
those two projects?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
MR. MULHERE: Where does the plan call for funding for either
of those two projects?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, it's by saying that we wanted
that --
MR. MULHERE: We should support that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- that we will have to go out and
find the funding. I mean, that's the whole purpose of a plan. If I know
today that a particular project will never be financially feasible, why
would I adopt it in a plan?
In other words, if I know that we don't have $300 million just for
Page 130
September 11-12, 2012
two small components of this much larger plan, why would I accept
this?
MR. MULHERE: Well, let's look at the airport. The reason that
the land was added to this plan was that the airport director at that
time, not the current airport director but Theresa Cook, came to Penny
and asked if while we're amending the plan we would include those
new pieces of land that would allow for the extension of the runway
that would have a positive -- you know, ultimately a positive impact
on the operations of the airport, and save them the money of having to
go through their own master plan change.
And they were negotiating with the landowners to buy it. And
we said well, we're going to have to change all of the maps to reflect
this new acreage, who's going to pay for that? They said, oh, come
on, you'll do that for us. And we did. We changed all the maps and
we went through that process.
Now, the land never changed hands. If the county at some point
in the future wants to extend the runway, that's the only place they're
going to extend the runway, they'll have to have some way the right to
use that land, either buy it or have some other way to use that land.
So I don't know what the future is. I don't know if the county is
going to have the funds to do that or not. But I do know that
extending that runway, at least while we worked on this master plan,
was deemed to be an enhancement to the airport operation that would
have a positive economic impact. That's why it's there.
There's no funding allocated in the plan. Just like the
Comprehensive Plan for the rest of the county has a whole bunch of
goals, objectives and policies. There's no specific funding for them.
But they're deemed to be positive, and hopefully they'll be achieved at
some point in the future.
So when the current airport director or the current CRA director
or somebody else in Collier County wants to go out and secure
funding for extending that runway or for the loop road, if we want to
Page 131
September 11-12, 2012
try to help the state advance that and they're able to find some grants,
they can pick up the master plan and say the master plan supports this.
That's the benefit of that. There's no funding associated with it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand exactly how a plan
works. However, the numbers don't support what's being proposed,
and why support a plan that isn't supported by current available data,
and secondly which is not financially feasible?
We have to be realistic --
MR. MULHERE: Well, the only thing I can say on the data, the
data is always going to be somewhat old. We're always catching up
on data. And the data that we used was the best available data when
we prepared it. Have we updated it since then? No, we haven't.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. And we're talking about years
and material change in what has happened in --
MR. MULHERE: Couple of years.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: There's a lot that has happened in
that time. And we have accurate information now that shows us the
population growth trends, and quite frankly the development trends
are not what --
MR. MULHERE: I understand.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- was contemplated when you
designed this amendment.
MR. MULHERE: But every plan is required to be reviewed
every five to seven years, and this one would be too.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Did you do any sort of urban
sprawl analysis?
MR. MULHERE: Urban sprawl does not apply to an urban area.
It's inapplicable. There's no connection.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it's not -- you're looking at
more than an urban area, aren't you?
MR. MULHERE: No, we're not. We're looking at only the
Immokalee urban area. That's it. Nothing outside the Immokalee
Page 132
September 11-12, 2012
urban area.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: So urban sprawl in not applicable.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Not applicable.
MR. MULHERE: By definition.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So this is not considered, there's no
way that this could be perceived as urban sprawl, because when you
look at it in the context of the rest of the county developing out here
and we have Golden Gate Estates over here. And so when I look at it
from the standpoint of the county, and for me looking at an
amendment to the Growth Management Plan is an overall analysis.
I'm not looking at urban sprawl within that small 30 square miles, I'm
looking at it from the standpoint of the overall county. And I think
you've got a serious concern with respect to both leapfrog
development and urban sprawl. And I'm very concerned about Golden
Gate Estates.
And just if I may, Golden Gate Estates has a master plan. And
do you know what it cost in terms of outside consulting fees? Would
you like to know what it cost? Would you like to know what it cost?
MR. MULHERE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Nothing. It was all done by
county staff. So when you talk about how much it will cost us to redo
this amendment down the road and how much money, tax money
would have to be saved to be able to pay for a future amendment --
MR. MULHERE: I didn't say anything like that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Penny did. I was concerned to
hear that, because poor Golden Gate Estates didn't have the luxury of
a million dollar plan like Immokalee does. And I'm very concerned
about that.
MR. MULHERE: Well, they are different areas. I mean, you
had basically one use at the time out there, single-family development.
It is a very large area, I grant you that, with a lot of resources. But this
Page 133
September 11-12, 2012
is a little bit different. It's economically challenged, there's a
multitude of uses, there are a lot of issues.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Golden Gate Estates has economic
challenges also.
MR. MULHERE: Okay. I did want to get your sprawl question,
because I do understand your question, and I thing you un -- absent a
couple of circumstances your point would be very valid about sprawl.
Leapfrog development sprawl occurs when you allow urbanized
development, suburban or urban development far removed from the
existing infrastructure.
But this has been urban and urban designated for, well, at least
since we adopted the plan. Let's just say longer than that. But let's just
say since 1989. And that boundary has changed a little bit but pretty
much been the same since that point in time. So you lost your chance
to call this anything other than urban when it became urban. It has
sewer and water, it has municipal services, and it is an urban area, so
therefore there is no sprawl.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, there is, though, because let
me explain, and it's semantics, and I want to talk in practical terms.
You basically have 15,000 adults living in that 30 square mile radius.
I understand that we have infrastructure supporting those individuals.
But what you're proposing by this plan is density and intensity, which
takes it into the hundreds of thousands of people. And the
infrastructure that would be required to support the level of density
and intensity that you're proposing makes it urban sprawl because you
are so removing it from where we have that infrastructure developed
and what we intend to support with that existing infrastructure.
So if you want to use, you know, technical definitions, I
understand your point. But practically that isn't the case at all, and
that is the difficulty with this plan. The cost of the infrastructure to
support the proposed density and intensity is astronomical.
MR. MULHERE: Would you agree that the population'
Page 134
September 11-12, 2012
projections have gone down over the last few years?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes.
MR. MULHERE: Okay. When we did this plan, we projected --
we used the then current demographics. And the population
projection through 2020 at peak for Immokalee, using those
projections, which we've already admitted have not been updated
since two years ago, was 48,636 people.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: 50,000.
MR. MULHERE: But I think you said hundreds of thousands.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Correct. Because here's the issue.
The population projection is 50,000, and you yourself in your public
comment, when you were basically extrapolating what the meaning of
the density and intensity you were applying for represented, you said
350,000.
So what can that geographical area support is 50,000 people. But
if you built it out to the maximum density and intensity, you're
looking at units that support 350,000 people. So look at the
infrastructure that's corresponding, which is basically what we have in
Collier County today. And -- let me just finish. And this will be my
last comment. Because this concerns me to no end.
In my opinion, this makes Jackson Labs look like nothing. It
looks like it was a cheap deal compared to how this will cost the
taxpayers of Collier County. And that hasn't been demonstrated. It's a
very significant issue.
MR. MULHERE: But the build-out and the population
projections are not -- they're not related. It's just a question of timing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Then we don't need it.
MR. MULHERE: We looked at the population projections, and
in 2025 the projection is 50,000. So yeah, this area is a very big urban
area. And we actually reduce the density that you could achieve in the
peripheries and we moved higher density into the urban core because
it's more efficient in terms of the delivery of urban services. That's
Page 135
September 11-12, 2012
why we did it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You just made my point. If
50,000 is the build-out and we don't need all the density and intensity
that you're proposing, then ratchet it back to what's more reasonable.
MR. MULHERE: I didn't say it was the build-out, I said it was
the population projections.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm talking about the amount of
density and intensity that you're proposing and how many people it
could serve. Ratchet it back to a reasonable number, the infrastructure
is proportionately decreased. Make it realistic. This is not a realistic
plan based on the population figures. And you're absolutely right, it is
50,000. But that is not the density and intensity that you're proposing
to support.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to take a 10 minute break.
When we come back, we're going to hear from the public.
(A recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and Gentlemen, the Board of
County Commission meeting is back in session. We're now going to
take the first public speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: For the public speakers, we'll use both
podiums, so I'll call two names. If you could be prepared to speak.
We have 15 speakers registered.
The first speaker is Randall Cohen, and he'll be followed by Fred
Thomas.
Mr. Cohen?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think he might still be out in the
hallway.
MR. MITCHELL: Okay, then we'll start with Mr. Thomas, and
he'll be followed by Cherryle Thomas.
MRS. THOMAS: I will give my time to Fred Thomas.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, no. Come on, please, come up and
speak, will you?
Page 136
September 11-12, 2012
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Thomas --
MR. THOMAS: My name is Fred Thomas and I'm representing
the chamber of commerce and several other organizations in
Immokalee. I have this shirt on today because my high school is
within eight blocks of the World Trade Center, and that's why I got
this on today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good.
MR. THOMAS: If you live in a community where you can
develop, produce everything you want, desire or need, the heck with
the rest of the world. If you can't, you've got to produce something
that the rest of the world needs, so you can swap with them to get
what you need.
Now, Immokalee has been in transition, that you all seem to
forget, since 1990. Because prior to 1990, between November and
March, we provided vegetables for the rest of United States by local
farmers with money staying in our local communities to build
playgrounds, parks and things like that.
But we lost that, because right now we're just a pass-through
community. We don't keep any money in agriculture in our
community. In fact, one of our recent big boys was going down to
Mexico to get their crops done. So we've got to find ways to get
industry here so that we can trade with the rest of the world.
What is a master plan? A master plan is a sense of direction.
This is where we want to go. Do we want to be a tourist zone, do we
want to be an industrial zone, do we want to be a business area? What
do we want to be, okay?
We can do two things here in Immokalee because of the nature of
our population, just like the nature of the population in New York
City. Many dialects are spoken. Many different people that represent
the Caribbean. We are a microcosm of the Caribbean. A microcosm.
So that we can communicate with the rest of the world, we need
to get some industry in. So what they need, especially if we can give
Page 137
September 11-12, 2012
them what they need, we can get what we want, would be a tourist
zone. The casino's getting ready to build a four-story hotel right
across the street. And if I have my way, I'm going to work with Lee
County, because they seem to listen to us better than Collier County,
to get a bus hub in Immokalee right across the street from the casino
where the Lee transit bus can come in from Lehigh, the CAT bus can
come in, so our people can go to jobs in Lee County because there are
no more jobs here.
Farm Worker Village is half empty. You're worrying about farm
labor housing, we haven't got the farm labor families anymore because
they haven't got the agriculture here.
So folks on the coast, if you all want to be able to get what you
need, you need to help us get some industry here because we don't
mind tractor trailer rigs coming around the loop road to bring products
in, reproduce and repackage them and send products out. We need to
get back to that kind of a place.
We also need to be addressing the tourist zone. Now, I'm not
happy with everything in that master plan, because if I had my
druthers, any industrially zoned land has no codes, no architectural
standards, no landscape standards, all they've got to do is have the
proper roads and whatnot, worry about the noise factor, period. That's
why we lost a lot of industry to Hendry County, because Hendry
County ain't got to go through all those steps.
You have that big, I can't remember the name of the private
industrial park right across from the airport, they can't afford to
compete with Hendry County because the amount of money they have
to pay to replace the trees, mess with the trees and whatnot, because
the tractor trailer rigs are going in there. Oh, but we had to have that
pretty. And Collier County had to have that pretty. Not an industrial
park that's not on a major highway. Does not make sense.
We need to get rid of those kinds of codes and make it possible
for people to develop. What's wrong with residential over commercial
Page 138
September 11-12, 2012
down Main Street? Nothing's wrong with residential over commercial
down Main Street. It's happening in Ave Maria and working. It can
happen in Immokalee too. Because Immokalee is a great place.
I'm not from Immokalee, but I adopted it as my home. And I'm
telling you, it's a great place. We need to get the loop road in. We
need to get a strong industrial park. We need to get this plan
approved. Because you all could change the plan in the future. You
can amend it whenever you want. But as long as we tie it to that plan
that goes back to 1980 or something, way back --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: 2008.
MR. THOMAS: Excuse me, we've been trying since 2008 to
change the plan. We might have had some minor changes but the
major plan, because I was on the Planning Commission for many
years, was way back in the Eighties, early Eighties.
Staff, am I saying something wrong? I don't think I am.
That's why we asked to have a CRA. That's why we asked to
have an airport board, because we knew we lost our agriculture.
That's why we wanted to get those things moving so we can get
industry back here so we can help.
Jackson Labs came here only because they were working in a
whole new genetic approach. If they could have found a plant, an
herb, and we can grow all of them that are grown anywhere in the
world right around the Immokalee area because of our rainy season or
what have you, we could have planted 10,000 acres of that herb.
Because the rest of the world needs that herb to solve diabetes or
whatever other disease that it works on.
Do we need police protection out there, no. Fire protection, no.
Parks and Recreation, no. That money goes back in the coffers to do
the other things that worry about the intensity issues and changing that
roadway and whatnot. But until you get a solid industrial base in your
community, you're going to die. If it could be an ag. industry, that's
even better, because with ag., like I said, you'll need fire and police.
Page 139
September 11-12, 2012
Industry you need fire and police.
We've got to get off this deadline, folks, move ahead. And we
can change it any time you want to change it. Change it any time as
the new need grows. As a company said, we'll come here because we
like this, this, and we'll make these things that the rest of the world
would beg to get. Then you can make some changes so it can
accommodate it. Thank you all very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Randall Cohen. No, so he's not -- Bob
Murray, and he'll be followed by Jeffrey Randall.
MR. MURRAY: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Bob Murray
is the name, and I'm here on behalf of East Naples Civic Association.
And I'm the vice president there, and chair of their economic
development committee.
I want to extend my appreciation to Commissioner Henning, who
asked some very pertinent questions and sought to get the answers that
would enlighten and give opportunity for modifications. I believe
that's an appropriate process of vetting.
When I was privileged to be on the Planning Commission, I spent
my time vetting various proposals, and among them was this plan.
And it may have been the fourth iteration or whatever, but the point
was it was working toward achievement. And I can say I'm proud of
the work that was done there, even though I didn't participate in the
actual work, except the evaluation.
But I want to mention that we don't talk about today's numbers
except as a base point for tomorrow's realities. We plan with the
notion that we're going to succeed and we do everything in our power
to make success happen. When the Panama Canal in 2013 is finally
widened adequately to allow the massive ships to come in, the entire
Eastern seaboard will change in terms of potential industrialization
and commercialization. Opportunities will be incredible.
We have an airport that can provide cargo opportunities, that
Page 140
September 11-12, 2012
undoubtedly, because of Miami being really choked at this point,
some of that just by the nature would have to come forward. Around
that airport there are opportunities for growth, whether they be
organizations that will package or they will be organizations that --
whatever. I'm not talking about industrialization in the sense of noise,
I'm talking about items, products that can be put together, packaged,
put on cargo planes and sent elsewhere. That makes money. Produce
can still be an opportunity for us if the nature of things change.
The whole idea here is to give the people in Immokalee an
opportunity for growth. There are landowners who are happy the way
things are. There are people who are not. I know that the plan is
effective. I know it will be achievable with inevitable modifications.
But I will tell you that it deserves your attention. I sincerely hope that
you will have a four vote, I would hope for a five, but I doubt that will
happen. But I certainly hope for a four vote to go forward.
Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Randall will be followed by Bill Spinelli.
MR. RANDALL: My name is Jeffrey Randall. I'm a member of
the CRA.
Rather than saying to everybody on the Board you're not doing
your job, I'm going to thank you all for doing the job you've done over
the last several years with regard to the Immokalee Area Master Plan.
I'm going to thank the CRA. I'm going to thank the people that
are in favor of the plan. I'm going to thank the people that are in
opposition of the plan. This shows that a community, if it is willing to
listen, can work together.
I have a suggestion. You've all spent a lot of time and effort and
money trying to put this together. You are on the cusp of adopting a
plan. Obviously there are issues that have to be resolved. My
suggestion is adopt the plan. Then before implementation of the plan,
impose a reasonable moratorium for a reasonable period of time to
work out and resolve the remaining issues. Because if you don't and
Page 141
September 11-12, 2012
this plan dies today, it will be another three or four years before there
is anything back before you that will be as worthwhile as this.
Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Spinelli will be followed by Gloria
Padilla.
MR. SPINELLI: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commission,
my name is Bill Spinelli, for the record.
I want to make four simple points I hope the Commission will
consider today. First, the master plan is a very long-range planning
type document. Amendments to a master plan are one of the very few
actions this Commission takes all year that require a super majority of
four of the five commissioners. It's clear that by an overwhelming
majority of the people in District 5, they don't believe they are
currently being served and represented by their existing commissioner.
The rush to pass this amendment at this time seems inappropriate
until the people are represented by the new commissioner who is
elected in the November general election.
Second, this amendment makes certain significant changes in
services to be provided inside of certain time frames. The cost of
providing these services is not detailed. The practice of committing
expenditures inside of certain time frames outside of the budget
process in master plan amendments is not sound. The county has
decreased resources caused by the recession, budgets are very tight. I
ask what services will be cut to provide these mandates in the
amendment.
Third, the county is in the process of starting a new business
development division. The strategy of this effort is in its early stages.
The master mobility plan is not complete. The resources available to
fund these activities have not been finalized. To act on a master plan
amendment without knowing how it fits into the bigger picture of job
creation and fiscal stability is not sound.
Fourth, there seems to be considerable weight given to how about
Page 142
September 11-12, 2012
300 people voted in the straw poll. A master plan requires a super
majority of countywide support, as the financial costs can be
significant to all of the residents of the county.
Fifth, please revise the plan for density and intensity for 50,000,
not the 350,000 people that are currently in the plan. I urge you to
take a step back and address the master plan when the community of
335,000 in Collier County are comfortable with the plan and how it
will be funded. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Ms. Padilla will be followed by Robert
Davenport.
MS. PADILLA: Good afternoon. My name is Gloria Padilla,
and I'm a resident of Immokalee for the past 47 years. I am trying to
get away from all of these maps and just talk to you from the heart.
Because when I was young, I always used to question why are we
different than Naples? Why is Immokalee always second class
citizens? Why can't we never have the good parks, the good things
that happen in Naples.
And then here we have this master plan that we have been --
you're right Mr. Thomas, since the Eighties that we've been discussing
this. And since 2008 we've had it in place. And yet every time we
come back here it's always another question that we have to go back
and fix, another question that we have to go back and fix, or more
addendums, or more referenda, or more this. Everything it's more,
more, more that we have to go back, and the stress that it's putting on
staff and Immokalee people is getting to be a little bit overwhelming.
Now, are we going to give up? No. You told us that if it got on
the ballot, 67 percent of the people in Immokalee voted. Now, please,
a lot of people -- you might -- I insinuated earlier that a lot of people
didn't know what they were voting for. I feel that was an insult,
because a lot of us did know what we were voting for. We're voting
for a plan that yes, can be amended, can be changed. But if you never,
never approve it, how can that happen?
Page 143
September 11-12, 2012
We need change in Immokalee. We need your support. You are
people that have been voted in and we trust in you to make the
difference in Immokalee, and it's about time that you set our goals for
Immokalee and listen to the people here. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Davenport will be followed by Max
Griffin.
MR. DAVENPORT: For the record, my name is Robert
Davenport, and I would encourage you to turn this master plan down.
The mobile home park issue has been my livelihood. There's
been more discussion about resolving the mobile home park issue
today, other than Nick Casalanguida following your direction in
December. But the direction he got was very different. And at the
Planning Commission the other day they were talking about the plan
for Collier County. And that was new to me, because a lot of issues
have come up that I don't understand. And I've been in business a
long time in Collier County. But I would urge you to vote no today.
Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Griffin will be followed by Pam Brown.
MR. GRIFFIN: Hello, my name is Max Griffin, and I'm against
the plan. I don't know, there's a lot of sweeping changes, and how
much it's going to change the community, I don't know. And I don't
think it's going to benefit me either personally. And as far as the jobs
it's supposed to bring in, I don't see it yet.
So if you all wanted just to lower the landscaping standards or
something like that or get a tread tran so people can go work in Lee
County, that's fine with me. But I don't see why we need to pass this
plan to do that. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Commissioner Brown will be followed by
Floyd Crews.
MS. BROWN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record,
my name is Pam Brown. I'm also president of the Immokalee Civic
Association and a lifelong member of Immokalee.
Page 144
September 11-12, 2012
For the record, I want to enter into the plaintiffs summary
judgment for declaratory relief about the straw poll ballot, the
Immokalee Master Plan. What this entails is that we feel that the
ballot measure was misleading, improper and inaccurate, and violates
Section 101.161 Florida Statues (sic).
The language is ambiguous and unclear and misleading.
I understand Ms. Padilla thinks this is an insult. And Ms. Padilla,
I was a part of the visioning committee and I didn't understand
everything until I really started looking at it.
As far as funding for what we need in Immokalee, it is all in
1.1.1 of the Immokalee Area Master Plan amendment and that is to the
discretion of the Board of County Commissioners. So even if this
amendment passes today, that does not mean that we have funding,
and you can put the projects in priority the way you want to do them.
The bypass road. The bypass road will kill Immokalee. I don't
agree with Mr. Thomas. I've been there all my life and I've traveled
around the country and I've seen what bypass roads do. The $150
million fee that Commissioner Hiller mentioned, that doesn't include
the $101 million in panther mitigation credits that the FDOT told us
that will be needed also.
The farmworkers housing is sitting in Immokalee empty now.
There's presently a $3 million men's dorm that was built with federal
funding that has been vacant for one year.
The Immokalee Master Plan amendment will lower property
values in Immokalee. If we're looking at a commercial corridor for
tourism, maybe we should look on the same street that the Seminole
casino's on instead of Main Street.
The property owners of Immokalee never asked for this
amendment, neither were they sent out notices that there was going to
be changes in the zoning of their property.
I know that the beeper's going off, so I would like to ask you to
please put this off until the new administration is in place. Thank you.
Page 145
September 11-12, 2012
MR. MITCHELL: No, you still have time.
MS. BROWN: I do? Okay.
Also, there is no -- we have a lot of nonprofits in our area that
pay no property taxes, which also hurts the town infrastructure, and it
will deteriorate if we do not have the proper funding in order to keep
the infrastructure in place in Immokalee.
Also, like I said, the public realm plan was not adopted by the
people that own the property in downtown Immokalee. When you
talk about the pedestrian crosswalks that are coming into the area, that
is also causing the road to fail.
And what I also noticed is the county didn't mind charging the
property owners and the taxpayers of Collier County to include the
Airport Master Plan in this master plan also. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Crews will be followed by Magda Ayala.
MR. CREWS: I'm Floyd Crews and I do live in Immokalee.
And I'm talking about me and things that pertain to me as a person
living there.
I know there's a lot of them want to get this thing passed, but they
don't want to get it quite correct before they pass it. We have a lot of
things that need to be deleted and we have a lot of things that need to
be added.
Mr. Henning and Ms. Hiller both talked about some of them right
there. I'm not going to speak about specific things, because if we do,
we'll be here all day long. But we definitely need to make a few
changes in it, whether it's done now or later. But we're going to have
to have some changes to make it fit Immokalee.
I don't know if you all realize that Immokalee is in trouble. Our
agriculture entity is hurting. Our tomato boys have not made any
money. They -- and if they don't make any money this year, it can
become a ghost town.
The Collier County Housing Authority is turning half of the
Farmworker Village into regular rentals because we do not have the
Page 146
September 11-12, 2012
farm labor there to rent it. And this is happening all over Immokalee.
I imagine you could look around and see a lot of people here that are
property owners, because we do not have what it takes to get
everything moving again.
Now, whether we get industrial in there like Fred was talking
about, but somehow we've got to make some changes, whether the
master plan is the answer to it today or tomorrow. That's up to you all.
Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Jerry Blocker, and we'll
be followed by Brandy Johns -- Randy Johns.
MR. BLOCKER: Jerry Blocker for the record.
It's hard to repeat or fill in for what Pam had talked about there.
But talking about cutting it down, Main Street down to two-lane
highway would be devastating for the Immokalee citizens. There's a
lot of issues in this plan that I have a problem with.
Without vetting this plan with most of the property owners in
Immokalee, this plan is a failure before it gets started. It never was
vetted. I suggest we fail the plan. We have a plan, we amend the plan
that we have to make adjustments, and move forward with the land
development codes to deregulate what we already have. And that's --
you do that through the land development codes. Thank you very
much.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Randy Johns, and he'll be
followed by Marjorie Student-Sterling.
MR. JOHNS: My name is Randy Johns for the record.
Immokalee has an existing master plan. I think we need to stay
with that one. I'd ask you today to turn down this amended plan as a
strike through.
We just went through the largest growth that Collier County's
ever seen, and Immokalee got none of their parts. No other reason
that we didn't get that stuff was from the leadership. We had the
money there. It got transferred and moved around.
Page 147
September 11-12, 2012
We need to take the plan that we have, it's worked all this time.
We could amend the things that's there. We can't afford -- Collier
County, like I am, it's broke. It can't afford to go forward with this
master plan. There's nowhere in the future where we're going to be
able to pay for it. It's just too much money.
I think the people have spoken. This plan was only allowed to be
addressed in Immokalee. It's going to affect Collier County in its
entirety. On August 14th, the people spoke and we now are going to
have a new commissioner. And I think that's the way we need to go.
I'm asking you to turn this plan down. Thank you.
MS. STUDENT-STERLING: I'm just going to go ahead and
withdraw my request. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Henning, you've
been waiting for a while.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In our back-up material, Mr.
Davenport submitted language. I don't know if anybody has seen it.
It address nonconforming mobile home and mobile home parks,
inserting the language, the purpose of these provisions is to recognize
that there are nonconforming mobile home parks within the
Immokalee area, to provide incentives to upgrade these parks while
requiring the element of substandard units to eliminate -- elimination
of substandard units and allow the park owners to take advantage of
alternative development standards in order to cause an upgrade in
conditions that would normally require by conforming mobile home
parks.
Nonconforming mobile home parks, mobile home
developments/parks that are in the existing -- existence before
November 13th, 1991, no site plan revision or agreement will be
necessary between Collier County and the property owner.
Bob, have you have an opinion on that, inserting that?
Mr. Mulhere.
Page 148
September 11-12, 2012
MR. MULHERE: I'm reading it right now. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've seen it? Nobody else seems to
have seen it, so we can't read it either.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's in your back-up material.
MR. MULHERE: I just saw it just now. I can put it on the
visualizer if that would help. It's just a paragraph.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, please. I didn't see it.
When did we get this?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In your agenda, when everyone
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't see that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: When did you get your agenda?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thursday. No, actually, Friday.
MR. MULHERE: So I'll just give you a chance to read through
it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
MR. MULHERE: So, I mean, I think what that says is that for
mobile home parks that are in existence and are nonconforming after
-- came into existence after November 13th, 1991 --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Before.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Before.
MR. MULHERE: No. I know it says that. Okay, I'll rephrase
what I'm saying. In part it says for mobile home parks that came in
before that, there will be no regulations whatsoever, no site plan
improve, they can just continue to exist as a legal nonconforming use.
But that implies, I think, if it only applies to those prior to 1991
that don't have to do anything, that those that were approved after
1991, which is where I was going, would have to go through some sort
of a process to get the incentives that are referred to in the beginning
of that paragraph, which I assume would be the Site Improvement
Plan process. And that it would be very flexible for them, which I
think is the intent. And that was the intent that the Board directed to
Page 149
September 11-12, 2012
staff.
All of which from my perspective really doesn't really have
anything to do with the master plan. But if you're asking me if
providing that language as a policy to the master plan would be -- it's
well within your authority to do that, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's packet page 379.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I -- basically what
you want to create downtown is a walkable urban area, a highly dense
walkable urban area to where you can get groceries --
MR. MULHERE: Mixed use, yes. There would be employment,
there would be safety, more safety, because there would be uses, you
know, open and operating at night, and there'd be residential uses,
people kind of keep an eye on each other.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Walkways, lighting.
MR. MULHERE: Uh-huh. And the idea would be eventually to
connect -- it's a very short distance from the casino and improvements
proposed at the casino to the intersection there at First and 29 there.
So, you know, that would be -- that would be ultimately the goal.
I mean, that would be a great thing to have that sort of-- but that was
envisioned as a slightly more of an entertainment area because of the
casino being there. And the land use, there are some landowners that
have larger parcels, so there could be some very innovative
improvements made there because of the larger parcels on that
roadway leading from the casino to downtown.
But in downtown you have smaller lots, a lot of challenges, a lot
of issues with redevelopment, so you want to be able to incentivize
and promote that redevelopment. So yes, that was the objective.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Kind of like a Fifth Avenue.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Probably not quite as affluent,
obviously, but -- yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Somewhere where you get a
Page 150
September 11-12, 2012
Haitian hot dog.
MR. MULHERE: Or we could get Fred up here to do his thing,
you know.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: However, there's a provision in
the Land Development Code for the downtown district now, removing
some specific uses. I don't know how it happened. That's something I
think that we need to address. But it has to do with the downtown
district, and it doesn't allow some of the C-4 uses.
You know, what is wrong with trying to identify before we
entitle property, try to identify a different route for evacuation, for
movement of traffic, for people that don't want to have that continuing
stop, stopping?
MR. MULHERE: Well, I understand that. I mean, I really think
practically that's exactly what's going to happen. Because as Nick
indicated and as we know, we're not going to be able to change that
State Road 29 configuration, because it is an emerging SIS roadway, it
is a hurricane evacuation route and also a significant truck route,
which I think is probably what makes it an SIS, emerging SIS route.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's an SIS because of the
location of the airport.
MR. MULHERE: Okay. Goods -- moving of goods and services
is very important. And I know that the state is not going to acquiesce
to a change and design. If we look at 20 or 25 years, which is how
long it may take for some of these improvements to occur, this is a
long-range plan.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I understand.
MR. MULHERE: We can look towards doing exactly what
you're talking about.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's keep the whole area the
same until we identify -- and it could be First street, to where we to go
First street, New Market, north and south on State Road 29. Or it
could be a new road before you come to the casino, going over to
Page 151
September 11-12, 2012
completely bypassing Immokalee. But it gives a way for a surety of
safety in case of a coastal hurricane event.
MR. MULHERE: But, again, you won't be -- we won't be
changing that condition, we won't be changing that condition unless
that alternative exists, so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, you're giving entitlements,
property rights entitlements.
MR. MULHERE: What you're saying is the additional density in
the downtown area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
MR. MULHERE: But that in and of itself doesn't have,
necessarily have a negative impact on evacuation routes. I mean --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It will when they build it.
MR. MULHERE: Well, maybe and maybe not. Because again,
the overall density that we're allowing is actually lower, it's just
relocating it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're concentrating it all in --
MR. MULHERE: Which makes it easier to evacuate.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I finish?
MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're concentrating it all in an
area of evacuation route. Instead of having it spread out, if it's a
coastal event, the people in Immokalee might not be required to
evacuate. They may stay at home. They'll be at home. Now, is that
home going to be right on the evacuation route or is it going to be in
the Immokalee urban area?
MR. MULHERE: No, I understand what you're saying,
Commissioner Henning, I just -- I mean, I'm not trying to be
argumentative, that's certainly -- I don't know how you would
accomplish that. The only way to accomplish that would be to say
that you couldn't increase the density.
One option you have as a board is to take the density back down
Page 152
September 11-12, 2012
to what it was before. Just go back to 12 units per acre in the urban
area, go beck to eight in the medium density, and go back to four in
the other one. I mean, you can just do that. No harm, no foul,
everything stays the same as far as density goes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You already have a mixed use
within the downtown area, even though that parcels are commercial,
existing commercial, and some of them are residential.
MR. MULHERE: What I'm saying, Commissioner Henning, is
leave the mixed use plan designation the way we have it, just bring the
density back down to what it was before, if that's what the concern is.
If the concern is the increased density in the urban core of 16 to 20
units per acre, I mean, right now you can say one item, reduce that
density back down to what it was before, 12 units per acre maximum,
I think. I would have to look it up.
I mean, you have that -- that takes that whole issue of increased
potential hurricane evacuation impact and increased density and
increased trips are all gone.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What about the Lake Trafford
Camp Keais Strand overlay system?
MR. MULHERE: Okay, let's --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That was recommended -- I
think it was recommended by the Environmental Advisory Board and
the Planning Commission not to include that?
MR. MULHERE: No, I don't think so. It already exists. See,
that's -- what we were dealing with here was a defined area that is
already identified in your conservation coastal management plan
before we started working on the plan. It already exist, it's already
identified. And there were some language in there to create some
additional water quality standards within this very high quality flow
way here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was the preservation
standards, I apologize.
Page 153
September 11-12, 2012
MR. MULHERE: Yes. So we were asked to include that, by
staff to include that, which is an appropriate location as a mapped
entity, as a designation or an overlay, in some way to identify that on
the future land use map, which is what we did. But it already was
addressed as needing special protection in the conservation coastal
management plan, correct?
I said something wrong, okay.
MS. VALERA: No, you didn't. Carolina Valera, comprehensive
planning section.
The preservation standards are being reviewed as part of the
Evaluation and Appraisal Report, the EAR. That is the Planning
Commission recommended that those preservation standards, the
specifics of the preservation standards be studied further in a separate
amendment, GMP amendment, Growth Management Plan
amendment. So they are being reviewed. Actually, it was just, I think
-- I believe was heard by the Environmental Advisory Council last
week. And so you will be looking at those recommendations pretty
soon as part of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report.
So it will not -- it shouldn't be part of this amendment. Except
for the mapping, of course. Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the map hasn't changed.
MS. VALERA: Correct. Well, part of this plan amendment is to
change the boundaries, the configuration of that overlay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That was the issue back
last year with the Planning Commission and the Board of
Commissioners, where you're taking some of the RLSA and bringing
it into the urban area?
MS. VALERA: That's a different matter. Separate issue, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that -- that's not being
proposed anymore, right?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Heidi
Ashton-Cicko for the record.
Page 154
September 11-12, 2012
What you have before you, the proposed ordinance, is the draft
from December, because we wanted to bring back what you had seen
in December. There are I believe two changes that if you do decide
you want to go forward with the plan that would be removed.
One is the last page of your ordinance, which is the change to the
text to the coastal -- the conservation and coastal management
element. That's being handled through the EAR-based amendment.
So should you desire to go forward, that element will not be changed
and we'd have to modify the final ordinance that goes to the state.
And is there one other change, Carolina? I thought there was one
other thing that was changed. No? Okay.
Thank you.
MR. MULHERE: Commissioner Henning, the density blending
provisions that you referenced, which would allow a landowner --
they're just criteria in there, but a landowner, certain landowners could
meet that criteria who owned land both within -- I'm going to step over
to this map -- who owned land both within this overlay and within the
RLSA. You can see there's -- there is -- I think there may only be one
landowner, there may be two.
They could -- if the quality of the land they own in the urban area
is of higher environmental qualities, is more ecologically valuable
wetlands in this flow way, they can transfer -- it's the same provision
we allowed for others in the RLSA -- they can transfer those
development rights to the same land that they own in the RLSA, to
the, you know, the land that's under the same ownership in the RLSA.
And that was vetted by the Planning Commission. They wanted
to have supporting data and analysis done on the dime of the
landowner who raised the issue. And they did go out and do that, they
reviewed it, they recommended approval of it. So it is in the plan.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, thank you.
Page 155
September 11-12, 2012
Boy, I had so many questions, but I don't want to take too, too
long.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why not join the crowd.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We've heard that farming has been
diminishing. And we've also heard the need to encourage economic
growth for the area as farming diminishes. Have we taken into
consideration housing to encourage economic development?
Because right now we're only talking about low income,
affordable housing, farmworkers housing, migrant housing. But what
about housing, year around housing for people -- if we want to
encourage business to come into the area, whether you earn a nominal
wage or a very substantial wage, there's really housing -- there isn't
really housing there to support that effort right now. So it's difficult
for businesses to begin and draw employees without the housing to
support that effort. And so I was wondering where in this plan does it
state anything like that?
MR. MULHERE: It does. The plan has, in a couple of different
policies talks about providing housing across the spectrum of
affordability. I will tell you that that was part of the rationale and the
basis for providing for some increased density in the urban core area.
You know, Immokalee urban area is a little bit unique because it
does have a lot of land that is lower density, it's zoned ag. and it
allows one per five and a lot of it's developed with a single-family
home. So it's got that low density on the outskirts and it's kind of
under different ownership, so it's not large parcels that somebody
could come in, acquire and rezone and develop. They'd have to
aggregate to do that. That's always harder to do.
But there are opportunities within the more urban core for those
types of things, and the plan does promote those types of things. I'm
not going to tell you though that the existing density under today's
market conditions is insufficient to drive a spectrum of affordable
different types of housing, you know, lower middle class, upper
Page 156
September 11-12, 2012
middle class, affordable, the whole range of housing. We have to
create economic opportunity in Immokalee. When we create the
economic opportunity, someone will choose to live there for a job.
And then there will be a market for the types of housing across the
spectrum. You can't build the housing first, because it doesn't work
that way.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, but I thought that there could be
some kind of-- I understand that. They're just going to sit there empty
until you have it. And yet, even the teachers and the sheriffs deputies
and firemen have to go elsewhere for housing --
MR. MULHERE: Lehigh, they're living in Lehigh or living in
Hendry County or --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: There isn't housing there. And I
thought that should be an important part of this economic development
plan.
And somebody was saying something about how the plans would
be changing. And that's true. They say that the plan isn't perfect now.
Well, it's never going to be perfect. I don't know what plan is when
you create it, you constantly go back and change it and change it. As
times change, as residents change, as situations change, you change
your plan. And so, you know, obviously the plan isn't perfect. But
you've got to start. You've got to have a starting spot.
And I just thought that at least we could move forward. And
that's an important thing, understanding that this is a moving, moving,
growing plan that will constantly be changed.
Let's see --
MR. MULHERE: There's some policies, I can share a couple.
But we use the term affordable work force. And if you remember,
work force would allow for a pretty high, relatively high sales prices,
but for lower middle class and medium middle class purchase. And so
there's some policies that talk about the county will periodically
update the program for repair, removal or replacement of substandard
Page 157
September 11-12, 2012
housing. The county will coordinate with the CRA in the pursuit of
government grants and loans for affordable and work force housing.
Those would be incentive based policies.
And then we have a policy that says Collier County will review
its affordable work force housing, including gap, which, remember
that was even the higher level.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't see the gap part. I knew that
the -- I know it kept mentioning affordable and work force, but I was
wondering what it gave to you for the next step up. Okay.
MR. MULHERE: And that's to provide incentives, you know, to
determine whether or not we're driving -- because if people are living
in Lehigh and there's a reason why they're -- and they're working in
Immokalee, there's a reason why, because they can afford to do that,
or there's no options, there's no choices for them, perhaps.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And then also, it was
mentioned that migrant housing is allowed in commercial zoning?
MR. MULHERE: Well, it has been traditionally. I think what
Commissioner Henning correctly raised was that the plan previously
allowed for approved migrant farm labor housing in commercial
districts.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But then is commercial --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Present today.
MR. MULHERE: Present, yeah, present.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But is commercial zoning then
allowed in mobile home zoning?
MR. MULHERE: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, so it goes one way but not the
other.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah. It's a greater relief. The reason that
was in the plan was that it provided for -- because migrant farmworker
housing was so important at the time in Immokalee because
agriculture was the primary industry, and still is, but, you know,
Page 158
September 11-12, 2012
unless -- but it's weakening. That they allowed for migrant
farmworker housing where they typically would not allow for mobile
home housing in commercial districts. That's why it was spelled out
there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Randy Johns also made a comment,
something about that no growth would take place -- or something
about no growth is taking place in the current plan so why would you
move to a new plan? But if no growth is taking place in the present
plan, wouldn't you want to then fix the problem and go on to a better
plan?
MR. MULHERE: Well, I mean, I guess -- I assume that the
reason that the plan came -- the effort to try to develop a new plan
came about is because people wanted to create a newer, more vibrant
vision in light of the fact that they could see that certain industries
were unlikely to sustain that community moving forward.
And if we think about even Collier County and we talk about the
three-legged economic stool of development, tourism and agriculture,
well, all three of them have taken a hit at various points, with an
economic downturn, with the hurricane and with NAFTA and CAFTA
and greening and all kinds of bugs and all kinds of other things and
labor costs in the global economy.
So it seems to me that almost anybody could reasonably reach a
conclusion that it would be important to try to enhance the economy
by diversifying it. And that I think was the driving basis or rationale
behind looking at a plan that was 20 years old.
Yes, it was amended, it was amended several times during that
period of time. And, you know, again, I'm standing here as the
messenger, because the community wanted to amend its plan and
that's where we are.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you think that the community
was also hoping to improve substandard housing and making a better
quality home yet affordable.
Page 159
September 11-12, 2012
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I've been very quiet because I
wanted to listen to everything that was being said to see what we
might be able to do to be able to make a compromise to get where we
need to be.
The one thing we need to keep in mind at all times, this isn't our
plan, it belongs to the people of Immokalee. They put a lot of time
into it. Now there's a lot of holes being punched into it. It's
problematic to say the least. It's still got a lot of support in
Immokalee. There's been a lot of efforts to try to keep this thing alive,
the extension of time before the deadline would take place was
extended nine months. We're here today to be able to try to come to
some sort of agreement.
Every time this came up in Immokalee, and I was at the meeting,
and I was there for most of the meetings, I always told everyone,
whatever you want, I'll support. It doesn't matter if I agree with it, I
said I'll support it when it comes down to the end. And I've done that.
Now I come to the dilemma where I'm going to possibly be -- I'm
trying to think of the right expression. I'm going to be bargaining with
forces that are on the other side of the equation to try to get some
product going forward. I'm concerned. If we don't have something in
the way of a master plan, and some of the improvements have been
worked on. And there's a lot of good stuff, even with some of these
revisions that we're talking about, there's still a lot of good things in
the master plan.
If we lose all that and we have to start from ground zero, what's
going to happen is it's going to be two, three years before the CRA can
come up with enough capital to be able to go forward to the next step.
Everything that's been put into this point in time can be chalked up as
a learning experience. Very little will be gained from it.
Page 160
September 11-12, 2012
So I'm still trying to salvage what I can. And I'd like to go
through this list of conditions. Let's be honest, there's one swing vote
here if we can meet the right kind of understanding. I hear
Commissioner Henning trying very hard to come up with some
revisions to this that might be able to meet his needs. So when we get
down to the end, we have to be able to balance it all out.
If Commissioner Henning can come up with something that's still
acceptable at the end and get this reasonably close where we need to
be, then I'm going to go ahead and move it forward. I'm not extremely
excited about some of these revisions, other ones I have no problems
with. I think that they were problematic from day one and they
probably never would have happened.
But the change of the uses from C-1 to C-2, where you're allowed
to take C-1 and put it C-2, from what I understand, Commissioner
Henning, you're talking about allowing everything that's in C-5 to
include everything all the way down to C-1; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm talking about existing
property rights in the CCI where it allows C-1, all the commercial
districts -- or commercial uses, C-1 through C-5, and industrial. That's
an existing industrial area. Nowhere else in the county can you do
that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I hear that. I'm repeating
this back to you for that benefit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think that's a really valuable
piece of land for your constituents in Immokalee.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, but changing it so that
anything from -- that's allowed even industrial to be able to go all the
way down to C-1?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, keep the existing map and
keep that CCI designation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Farm working housing
allowed in the commercial district as presently permitted.
Page 161
September 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Recognizing property rights of
today.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Well, I guess the
question is, is it permitted or does it have to become permitted to make
it legal?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, it's permitted today.
MR. MULHERE: The migrant --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, then I was correct, it is
permitted today. Okay.
Language that would be able to cover the parking element. Bob
Mulhere made sense, but then again too, if you can include the
language, if we can come up with some sort of language to include in
this that would have some tipping point whereby when traffic reached
a certain point or density reached a certain point there would have to
be adequate parking before you would be able to go forward.
Is that what you're talking about, Commissioner Henning, that
you would have to be able to make provisions for it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I'm saying keep the existing
map, identify future road corridors to handle the traffic --
MR. MULHERE: The parking. I think you were more
concerned about loss of parking if you changed that roadway, right?
And that they might need more parking.
And that could be accomplished. This is -- the parking reduction
is not going to happen through the master plan, it's going to happen in
the LDC. That's where you actually have your parking standards. I
mean, maybe one way to do it would be to have a review of those
parking standards every couple years, two or three years.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't want -- and again, I think
that the Immokalee citizens deserve better than creating a
transportation concurrency. I believe that the county through the
MPO needs to take a look at if you're going to create that Fifth
Avenue in density and intensity and the feeling when they're walking
Page 162
September 11-12, 2012
across the street --
MR. MULHERE: I understand.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- that needs to be done first
before the map is changed.
MR. MULHERE: I understand that, but I think we're talking two
separate issues, I think. I thought what Commissioner Coletta brought
up is there was a proposal to -- there is a proposal to look at
development standards, right? One of the development standards is
parking. In Immokalee you don't need as much parking.
So there's a separate amendment coming before you that has
nothing to do with this that would reduce the parking standards in
Immokalee. If we're not talking about that, if we're talking about the
possible transportation management, concurrency management area or
transportation concurrency exception area or some other alternative, if
that's what you're talking about, then I think we can handle that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Knowing that, then I'm going to
enter -- I misunderstood, Commissioner Henning, if that's what you're
saying. Because I think he was trying to make sure there would be
sufficient parking opportunities in Immokalee in the future.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, one doesn't really have anything to do
with the other. Parking is different from the trans -- from concurrency
management.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
MR. MULHERE: They're not even remotely connected.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's go to that last item that we
got in a discussion with, Mr. Davenport's --
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- suggested wording.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Recognize that there are
nonconforming mobile home parks in the Immokalee urban area. To
provide incentives to upgrade these properties while requiring the
Page 163
September 11-12, 2012
elimination of-- I'm sorry, would you read it? I don't think I took
everything.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I have some suggested additional
language, if you're inclined to. Because what I'm trying to say is that
there's two classes created in this paragraph. There's actually three.
Conforming and not subject to anything in here; nonconforming prior
to 1991, and those that came after 1991 that are also nonconforming.
Okay? So you're creating three classes of mobile homes from this
language.
So I have some language to add. Would be: The purpose of these
provisions is to recognize that there are nonconforming mobile home
parks in the Immokalee urban area, to provide incentives to upgrade
these parks while requiring the elimination of substandard units, and
to allow park owners to take advantage of alternative development
standards in order to cause some upgrading of conditions that would
normally be required of conforming mobile home parks. That's
exactly the same.
Add a sentence that says: This will be accomplished through an
updated mobile home Site Improvement Plan process that will be set
forth in the LDC and maintained for a minimum period of no less than
three years.
Which is the process that staff is working on for those mobile
homes that were built after 1991 that are nonconforming that are
referenced to incentives and so on, so forth.
The last sentence would remain the same: Nonconforming
mobile home development parks that were in existence before
November 13th, 1991, and I don't know where that date came from so,
you know, I don't know why that date is --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's my birthday.
MR. MULHERE: Okay.
No site plan revision or -- I think it should say no SIP or
agreement will be necessary between Collier County and the property
Page 164
September 11-12, 2012
owner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, would
you comment on that? Recognizing I still have the floor.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I mean, I think that the
Board -- I think Commissioner Coyle's comment back when was just
go out there and take a picture of it and that's what you have. And let
these people move forward.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So in other words, we wouldn't
have to include the language needed, the mobile home rental park
boundaries nor the number of units located therein may be increased?
MR. MULHERE: Well, that was a separate alternative.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I mean that, to try to give
some assurity (sic) we're not going to have something that's growing
outside its boundaries.
MR. MULHERE: Well, if you're nonconforming you really can't
expand, but you continue to exist. That's already handled by the non
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, that's already --
MR. MULHERE: -- conforming language in the code.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, does
that language sound acceptable?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's what Mr. Davenport
recommended. I know that he's been working on that for quite a
while.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What about you though?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I want what the people in
Immokalee have existing and not give new entitlements. But, you
know, they -- these hard economic times, these things will transform
by itself.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I guess we've got a conference
taking place in the back of the room for a moment.
Was there anything I missed on this that you were looking for?
Page 165
September 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, adopt an existing map
instead of the proposed map until we address the transportation issues.
Let me tell you what you're gaining. If we keep the proposed
language -- or keep the existing language and include the new
language of financial incentives -- and let me go down the list. On
Object 2.2. 2.2.1, expedited reviews. 2.2.2, precertified commercial
industrial sites. Expanded home occupation on 2.3. More financial
incentives on 2.4. Agricultural related businesses use, which has been
revised but it's in the existing plan, that's 2.5.
2.3, to promote/expand tourism and recreation, that exists.
The policies go on. If we keep the entitlements that landowners
have today and further expand the entitlements such as parks,
pathways and prioritize that in future --
MR. MULHERE: Annually.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Annually.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's such a gain. And there's one
in here about a government center that expands government out there
when needed.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, eventually --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But keep our densities and our
maps the same and our uses the same. Identify future roadways.
MR. MULHERE: Well, that's a --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And then come back and take
that downtown area and create a Fifth Avenue, then you have
something.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, one more time just to
make sure I understand. You're saying don't change the map, leave
the map as it was?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: As it is.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: As it is today, and not go with
the new map?
Page 166
September 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that's where all the work
went into was everybody just pouring their heart and soul into that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, the new map takes away
property rights.
MR. MULHERE: It only -- Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The new map gives property
rights to the biggest -- one of the biggest landowners in Collier
County, Collier Enterprises. And this map provides an expansion of
the airport to Collier Enterprises that we don't own, that we would like
to own. So we are giving Collier Enterprises an uptake on land that we
want to buy and it's going to cost us quite a bit of money in the future.
Yes, sir, it is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's absolutely ridiculous.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I'm talking about the map,
okay?
MR. MULHERE: You can take the airport --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's the airport, right? And
it's expanding. Who owns that property, Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Colliers own the property.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Collier Enterprises owns the
property.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We don't own that property, do
we?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But it's in the Immokalee Area
Master Plan to purchase that property, correct?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are they going to sell it to us at
today's price?
MR. MULHERE: It's not in the plan to purchase that property.
Page 167
September 11-12, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, that's right, we would have to
purchase it.
MR. MULHERE: The plan designation changes to allow the
airport runway expansion. You all approved the airport PUD which
already recognizes that land in the future as being able to expand the
runway out.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: As long as it's in --
MR. MULHERE: As long as it's in the comp. plan.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: As long as it's in the comp. plan.
And once it's in the comp. plan, there goes the price.
MR. MULHERE: Well, that could be -- it seems to me,
Commissioner Henning, that if you took that land out of the master
plan, again as I've said time and time again, we put it in there because
we were asked to. The situation has changed. Take it out. Take it
out. Then that issue goes away, it's no longer there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that issue doesn't exist at all, okay?
All of the discussions with the Colliers have included purchasing it as
it is currently zoned, not through up-zoning. That has been made
very, very clear in all the discussions that have gone on. There is no --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we ask Mr. Curry about
that discussion?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, you can ask Mr. Curry, but I've sat
in on the discussions, I know exactly what went on there.
Mr. Curry, you want to come up and address that issue?
MR. MULHERE: While he's coming up, I just wanted to make a
case for -- if you want to roll the density back because you have
concerns about the impacts of the density, you certainly have the right
to do that. But to change work that's been done on these designations,
I believe that is really important work.
We're not taking away anybody's rights.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
MR. MULHERE: Because anybody that -- where there's a
Page 168
September 11-12, 2012
conflict in the master plan between the existing right, they can
continue that use forever. They can even rezone their property. And
that language is provided in the plan and I can show it to you. It's the
same language we have in our other plan for conflicts.
MR. CURRY: What Commissioner Coyle said is correct. And
I've expressed to the CRA on several occasions, if that was a big issue
to moving the master plan forward, just take it out of the master plan.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Your discussions with him, and
I think you relayed to me, is they're not willing to sell it at today's
price.
MR. CURRY: No, no, I never said that. The discussions that
we've had was based on selling the property as to what is zoned for
today. And actually appraisals that we've done within the past year
are reflective of prices done based on the usage of the property today
and nothing that has to do with any zoning changes that would, you
know, in any way change the value of the property.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are they willing to sell it at
today's appraised value?
MR. CURRY: They would be willing. But again, the county as
I know it to be does not have the money to buy it. And I'm not sure
whether the justification exists for us to purchase it today anyway.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And just so that there's clarity, they have
even offered to give us an option to purchase under certain
circumstances. We'd have to make some commitment that we're
actually going to purchase it ultimately. And I don't think any of us
are in a position to make that commitment at the present time. But I
just want to make sure that that has been explored with them to make
sure that we can get it whenever we want it at a reasonable price. But
nothing has been decided about that so far.
But there is absolutely no circumstance when I would vote to
purchase that property after it was upgraded or up-zoned. That is
Page 169
September 11-12, 2012
entirely out of the question as far as I am concerned personally. And
it's my understanding that the Colliers have been very clear about that
too. They're willing to sell it at their current zoning, whatever zoning
we attach to it through this process.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I could, do I still have the
floor?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, you do. I'm sorry, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But I have some comments when you
finish.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir.
Bob, I'm just trying to find a direction to go. I thought I
narrowed down what Commissioner Henning's concerns were. Maybe
I did, maybe I didn't.
If it's this whole zoning map as it exists today rather than some
modifications to it, then that's undoing all the work that the Planning
Commission and the Immokalee Area Master Plan and the CRA have
done over the last eight years. I couldn't go along with that. I could
go along with modifications.
MR. MULHERE: That map there is a vast improvement. And I
think that the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree too.
MR. MULHERE: -- if those changes weren't made.
I understand the issue that you've made over density, and that's
easily resolved.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Exactly. But now the airport
itself, once again too, I think the airport's important. We're going to
lose probably about six to nine months if we remove it from this plan
and have to insert it back in either here or in the airport plan when we
get ready to move forward. But so be it. If that's an item of
contention still, I'd be willing to concede that and have it removed
from the plan.
Page 170
September 11-12, 2012
But I need some clarification exactly about the zoning maps in
Immokalee. I mean, we talked about the trailers, we talked about
business rights of zoning and all that. And to all of a sudden say
revert back to the original master plan map totally is something that I
don't see how it can be done and have any semblance of any kind of
improvements at all.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think it was a
misunderstanding. Until we recognize an alternative evacuation route
before we entitle property such as the downtown area, you know. And
if we can do that, then I think not only are we helping the county as a
whole, but the community of Immokalee.
Because right now one of the proposals that is being proposed is
a transportation exception.
MR. MULHERE: It's only an option. We're not proposing that,
we're saying look at that as an option.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know. This is one of the
options.
MR. MULHERE: You have concurrency management in place
in Immokalee. And unless and until you replace that concurrency
management, that is your check. That is what --just like you have in
the rest of Collier County.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. MULHERE: And so you would have the final say so, the
Board, of whether or not you adopt some alternative method, either a
TCA or TCMA. You would have public hearings. Everyone would
have a chance to weigh in. The research has to be done on that.
So we're only looking at that as a potential way of looking at
traffic differently in the Immokalee urban area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, FDOT had a concern.
MR. MULHERE: They did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's when the language of
potential transportation concurrency was --
Page 171
September 11-12, 2012
MR. MULHERE: I didn't put that in there, anything related to
FDOT. I put it in there because I see a conflict between economic
development and one segment of a roadway.
State Road 29 was failing. Nick brought it to my attention. And
I said, well, we can't let one segment of a roadway failing stop
improvements in Immokalee, can we? And that's why I said let's look
at some other alternatives.
And so I put in -- I put in let's adopt a transportation management
area. And Nick said no, let's look at all the options. And that's why
we put it in as looking at all the options. And that's how it -- and I
think that was a good suggestion. Because that may not be the right
conclusion. We have to look at all of the information to determine if
in fact any of them are appropriate or we stay with concurrency
management the way it is and when the road fails the road fails. And
until we improve it, it stays that way. And that may -- that would
drive that alternative route.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I think this is -- please don't
take offense, it's the potential of a lazy way to not make
improvements.
MR. MULHERE: I understand what you're saying.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And let's identify those
improvements. There is talk about a road from Immokalee Road to --
MR. MULHERE: -- Little League Road?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- Little League Road, thank
you. That could be one alternative.
MR. MULHERE: It would be.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or it could be from First Street
MR. MULHERE: It would be.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- to New Market, four-lane
New Market and First Street.
MR. MULHERE: But that system's in place. That's exactly what
Page 172
September 11-12, 2012
would happen. If one segment is failing and you make an
improvement, a lateral improvement or parallel improvement and that
relieves traffic on that failing segment, all of a sudden you're free to
go. That's the process --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that way we can reroute the
evacuation route away from that downtown area.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, Commissioner, for the record,
Nick Casalanguida again.
I don't think DOT would ever approve the TCA, which is an
exception area. First of all, you have one on 41 because you have
small turn of routes around there. That's the only one you have in the
county is that east trail right by the four corners.
I think even if you don't change the land use at all, downtown is
eventually going to fail. And what Mr. Mulhere pointed out is you
have your concurrency rules right now. So development would stop.
And at that point in time the Board is responsible, even without --
if you change nothing today. Assume the Immokalee Area Master
Plan is not in front of you at all today. When that trigger gets hit, the
Board becomes responsible to take action to do something about it.
And we start to implement long-range plans. That's why DOT is
doing that PD&E bypass alternative analysis right now.
So if you said to Mr. Mulhere take the TCA language out of the
master plan amendment, you'd be in the same shape as you are before
the plan, land use changes notwithstanding. Because either way you're
going to be stopped when you hit a certain level. And at that point in
time you have to look at alternatives.
So I told Bob the TCA was a stretch. He put it in there. DOT
said fine, just wink wink, we're never going to approve it because it's a
major route for us. You can put the language in there but it's not
going to go. They would never sign off on it, and they would have to
sign off as a state agency.
So if that helps a little bit, hopefully.
Page 173
September 11-12, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, let me take just a few minutes.
We're going to take a break at 4:00 again. And then I would hope
we'd be in a position for someone to make a motion to do something,
either approve it or not approve it.
But as in all of these situations, the devil is in the details. Now,
we've had a lot of discussion about zoning issues and we've talked
about farmworker migrant housing and trailer park housing as if they
were interchangeable. And they're not.
We've talked about nonconforming structures without addressing
the issue of whether or not they're legally nonconforming or illegally
nonconforming. And it makes a really big difference.
We've talked about planning concepts that are absolutely crazy
and contradict everything that we've learned through our own
experience and the experience of other communities about how to
build an effective urban area and create a master plan.
But I haven't yet heard a coherent recommendation about what
we do to improve this thing that deals with the real facts. And much
of it seems to revolve around one piece of property where there is
currently a legal dispute and an attempt to resolve that particular issue,
and as if you resolve that particular issue then everything else is okay.
But I would -- you know, we've been talking about this now for
almost three hours. It's time to bring it to a close. And so I would
encourage Commissioners to think about a motion to make right after
this break and we'll break now and come back at 4:05, and hopefully
we can deal with a motion to resolve this.
(Recess.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, I am now
accepting motions. Make one.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Make a motion to approve.
MEMBER FROM THE AUDIENCE: I make a motion we
Page 174
September 11-12, 2012
approve it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who wants to join us up here and make
the fourth commissioner?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: If there are only three present?
MR. MITCHELL: You have four now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, now we have four.
Okay, did you make a motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I'm going to leave that up to Jim
Coletta.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if I could, I'd like to leave
it up to Commissioner Henning. He's the power to be on this dais at
the moment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I will be in the future.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any luck?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- Mr. Mulhere and I had a
conversation about keeping the IMU to the same zoning and --
MR. MULHERE: Land use designation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- same land use designation and
the same map.
MR. MULHERE: And same name. So if I could, let me step
over so everybody else understands.
Commissioner Henning had asked why we couldn't just use the
existing nomenclature for what we call the IMU. And just so
everybody understands, the reason that we created that was based on a
conversation we had with staff to create a transitional zone between
the heavier intensity of use in the industrial and the airport and the
surrounding lower residential lands. So that we created this industrial
mixed use district which allowed for more commercial.
But this area here was CMU. And so the idea is to go back to
Page 175
September 11-12, 2012
that designation that was in the existing plan and to eliminate this
portion of proposed IMU which would restore that to its existing
condition. So this piece that is like sort of an inverted L or V would
go back to LR. And this area here would be -- I'm sorry, CCI. I think
I said CMU, but CCI, Commerce Center Industrial.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: CCI/Industrial.
MR. MULHERE: Right. What it was.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's what it is.
MR. MULHERE: What it is.
And then I had some language that I think would address the
concern over hurricane evacuation and concurrency related issues.
We would add a policy that says there will be no change in State Road
29 in the Immokalee urban area that will result in a reduction of
capacity until an alternative route is identified, and funding -- an
alternative route and funding for said route is identified.
State Road 29 shall remain subject to concurrency until such
alternative route and funding is identified. That will address your
concern that we allow people to go forward and be entitled with
certain things before we have a way to address the traffic.
And I don't think that's really a problem, because I don't see the
state allowing that to happen anyway until we find that alternative
route and funding. So if the policy makes you feel more comfortable,
I think that would address those issues.
We talked about bringing the density back down in the CMU to
the same level of density that was presently allowed in the plan.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
MR. MULHERE: And we talked about adopting language
submitted by Mr. Davenport with the changes I proposed which would
be just providing that those projects approved after '91 that are still
nonconforming that haven't gone through an SIP go through an SIP.
And the removal of the airport property from the master plan.
That was the list that I believe you all had, and I don't have anything
Page 176
September 11-12, 2012
else. And my head hurts.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the existing Policy 1.5.2.
MR. MULHERE: 1.5.2. Oh, yes, I'm sorry, for migrant
farmworkers. And revising that to indicate that farm labor camps
would be allowed in commercial districts and then also revising the
C-1 through C-5 in the CCI designation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Put the CCI language back in
the plan.
MR. MULHERE: That allowed C-1 through C-5.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I please make a comment?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, ma'am, but let me see if we're going
to get a motion here.
Is that a motion, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, we're still having
conversation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well, converse. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Go ahead.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm looking for a motion. We've
conversed for three hours.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Hiller wants --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to comment on some of
Commissioner Henning's suggestions and also on some of the
comments made by the public.
One of the gentlemen made a comment and said, you know, let's
just adopt this and then come back and change it. Well, we really
can't do that. And the reason is is it would result in a taking. If we
approve the density and intensity as proposed and then come back and
say no, we really don't need it or we don't want it because the cost is
going to, you know, be financially prohibitive and furthermore the
Page 177
September 11-12, 2012
demand isn't there, that would result in a takings to any property
owner to whom we grant a change in use and a change in, you know,
density awards or intensity awards resulting from that change in use.
So I really think that's a very important point that we need to
keep in mind. The state has changed the way these comp. plan
amendments can be done now. They can actually be done every
single year without a problem. That wasn't the case before. Before
we had to wait how many years was it, four years?
MR. MULHERE: No, you could do an amendment every year
but only once a year.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, every year but once a year.
That's basically -- before it had -- I believe there was an extended
cycle. What was the cycle before, four years?
MR. MULHERE: Well, the EAR process, I think you're
referring to the evaluation and appraisal process, which is every seven
years. You can amend the plan every year, but it always took two
years or two and a half years.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So that hasn't changed?
MR. MULHERE: No, now there's --
MR. OCHS: What's changed, ma'am, is you can amend it more
than once a year.
MR. MULHERE: Any time.
MR. OCHS: Any time you want.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, that's even better. My
misunderstanding. That makes it even more positive.
So now we can amend it multiple times in the course of one year.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, so that's even a stronger
argument for waiting to adopt this. We don't want to do anything that
would subsequently result in a taking if we make a change to diminish
the level of density and intensity.
Now, with respect to what's being proposed here is obviously just
Page 178
September 11-12, 2012
looking at these maps and the maps that you have on the overhead is
something that proposes a very accelerated conversion of farmland.
What we need to do, and I agree with Mr. Thomas, we want to help
economic development in Immokalee, but the way we do that is by
looking to attract industries that are compatible with agriculture. That
is the type of labor force we have out there. And in fact that is the
direction that the state wants us to take. This plan doesn't propose to
do that. We want to follow the direction of the state, as I just
described.
So addressing your concerns, Commissioner Henning, if you
leave the residential density as is and ignore the commercial intensity,
we actually have a very big problem. Because this plan amendment is
proposing an increase in commercial intensity to the tune of 60
percent. The existing plan proposes five million square feet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where's that at?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's in the existing plan.
Well, the new plan, we're talking about feet, okay; in other
words, how much nonresidential development is being proposed. The
new plan is proposing eight million square feet of non-commercial.
And in effect what we're doing by approving that at this time when the
population will never be there to support it -- to put it in perspective,
that is the equivalent of eight Coastland Square -- is it Coastland
Square Shopping.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Coastland Mall.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Coastland Mall Shopping Center,
sorry.
-- Coastland Mall Shopping Centers in this Immokalee area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where's the commercial at?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's the nonresidential. It's
commercial and industrial.
MR. MULHERE: We were required to address the state's
concern about -- the Immokalee Area Master Plan, the existing one,
Page 179
September 11-12, 2012
doesn't have any intensity cap whatsoever. Doesn't tell you how much
intensity you can build.
And the state saw that and said that's not consistent with state
statutes. And they said you have to have a cap. And they wanted us
to adopt a floor area ratio. But we don't use a floor area ratio
throughout Collier County and we really didn't want to do that. And
so what we did was we adopted a maximum commercial square
footage. And we set it pretty high. We did set it pretty high.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How much commercial is
allowed today?
MR. MULHERE: The maximum commercial in the Immokalee
urban area is I think identified at eight million square feet.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, today it's five million.
MR. MULHERE: Oh, today. I'm sorry, today --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's proposed is eight million.
MR. MULHERE: Today there is no cap. There's no cap. There
is no cap.
I'm not sure, there may be some reference to an assumption of
five million. There's no cap in the existing plan. That's why the state
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, what was described in the
documents produced was that it was five million currently and that
you were increasing it to eight million, which is a 60 percent increase.
And again, when you have these --
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, that was probably a projection.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- when you have this very
material change in density and intensity, you have to factor that
without anything else that you are going to have a very material cost
to the community in providing the infrastructure to support what's
being proposed. The financial impact is huge.
And let me just read what the Regional Planning Council said
about that. It says: Counsel staff does have concerns about the future
Page 180
September 11-12, 2012
funding of the changes proposed in the plan with respect to
infrastructure costs that will be necessary to support the new
development pattern.
Then it goes on to say: Council staff believes that the plan needs
to be more specific as to how future funding will be achieved and
what the time frames for actual implementation of the future
improvements will be maintained.
MR. MULHERE: But it was approved unanimously by the RPC.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where's the three million being
allocated at? I know down Main Street is some of it.
MR. MULHERE: No, it's throughout the entire plan.
Everywhere where commercial is allowed. So everywhere where
commercial is allowed, industrial, everything, nonresidential, all the
industrial park, the airport, everything, it's nonresidential.
Residential development is identified as, you know, by density,
but nonresidential is measured by intensity. So they wanted us to cap
it. And we didn't even want to have a cap because there isn't one
existing today in the plan. But in order to appease the DCA we
provided a cap. And, you know, you can certainly reduce that cap we
provided.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it's very significant, if I may
continue, because in effect we have for the county -- and you have to
look at it from the perspective of the overall county -- a checkbook, if
you will, with respect to density and intensity. And if we give so
much to an area which doesn't and will not have the population to
support it, then we are taking out of that checkbook and getting no
return. And it's a big, big problem.
MR. MULHERE: Also --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You said it's okay to reduce it?
MR. MULHERE: I also just wanted to say, David Weeks just
reminded me, and I think it is significant, that that includes all
residential. So that includes schools; high schools, middle schools,
Page 181
September 11-12, 2012
elementary schools, colleges. Any kind of non-residential uses under
that square footage cap.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But isn't -- aren't schools usually
included within residential? I mean --
MR. MULHERE: No, not for calculating density and intensity,
no.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Because usually for zoning
purposes schooling is under residential.
MR. MULHERE: It was all nonresidential.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, that wouldn't really make a
material difference, I don't think, in an increase of three million square
feet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what should the cap be?
MR. MULHERE: I'm trying to find the policy.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why not just leave it the way it is?
Why not leave both the density and the intensity as exists in the
current plan?
MR. MULHERE: There is no cap on intensity. We'd be fine
with having no cap. DCA was forcing us to put a cap on it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, somewhere in your writings,
and I'd have to find the exact document --
MR. MULHERE: No, I think what you're probably referring --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- it said five million.
MR. MULHERE: -- is a projection. But the plan has no cap on
commercial. I know, because that's why DCA raised the issue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What's confusing to me is first we
heard that the residential will be over 300,000 people. Wasn't that the
accusation? And now we're hearing the population will never be
there. So which way is it?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no, that's not an accusation,
that was a representation by Mr. Mulhere in response to public
question.
Page 182
September 11-12, 2012
MR. MULHERE: Looking at the data and analysis, and Pat just
provided me with it, there's a substantial -- pages and pages and pages.
On Page 54 of the data and analysis, there's a nonresidential
development potential based on an economic studies table, Table 5-14.
That identifies based on peak population projection, based on retail
space square footage need, based on office space square footage need,
based on industrial space square footage need, and total nonresidential
square footage needs.
And those numbers, in 2010 the number -- the projected need is
8,285,335 square feet. In 2025 that number is 9,784,237 square feet.
That table has footnotes and tells you what the data that was used to
base those projections on was.
So there are a number of different ways of looking at these
issues. For example, there's another table, Table 5-15 which says
nonresidential development through the planning horizon, and it uses a
floor area ratio analysis, a TAZ, Traffic Analysis/Zone Analysis, and
an economic studies analysis, and those projections vary from four
million to nine, almost 10 million.
We chose a cap of eight million. We didn't want to have a cap
that was too restrictive. And DCA was okay with that cap. You know,
there's -- I mean, could you lower it? Yes. But I wouldn't suggest you
lower it too much, because you don't want to artificially have a cap
that causes a problem.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you saying there's a need --
you said there's a need today of--
MR. MULHERE: Today?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Didn't you say something,
there's a need today of so many?
MR. MULHERE: What I said was that if you look at it, the
projections show a need from between seven and almost 10 million in
the year 2025. Different -- if you use different ways of calculating
that need.
Page 183
September 11-12, 2012
What we said in the plan is nonresidential development in the
Immokalee area will be limited to no more than 8.45 million square
feet through 2025, the planning horizon.
And that includes commercial, retail, office, industrial, institution
and government buildings. Which I forgot to mention, government
buildings as well.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So if the need in 2025 is --
MR. MULHERE: Is greater, then you would have to raise the
cap --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. MULHERE: -- prior to getting there. You'd have -- there's
going to be a lot of analysis between now and 2025.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it's on target?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, this -- what were you
reading from again?
MR. MULHERE: I was reading from the data and analysis that
is the backup supporting documentation for the plan.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. And I'm pulling it from
your response to the state, and it was in the response to ORC under
Policy 6.1.10, nonresidential development to 8.45 million square feet
through the 2025 planning horizon.
MR. MULHERE: Yes, that came -- that recommendation came
from this data and analysis.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that is what you submitted to
the state. So in effect that is what you are approving. You are
basically allowing intensity up to that figure. And again, there is -- the
maximum population in that area through 2025 is 50,000. And, I
mean, that is a tremendous amount of--
MR. MULHERE: That's not the maximum. That is the projected
population.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, I'm sorry, it's correct.
Page 184
September 11-12, 2012
You're absolutely correct. I stand corrected. It is not the maximum, it
is the projected population.
So you're basically suggesting, you know, eight to nine million
square feet of nonresidential for 50,000 people.
MR. MULHERE: We're not suggesting it, we're just giving it a
cap, that's all. We're just giving it a cap.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, but the cap is a function of
what we are approving by these uses and these intensity --
MR. MULHERE: No, it's not, it's a function of population proj --
there's a table in here that I just referenced. There are a number of
different ways to calculate commercial needs.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand.
MR. MULHERE: And that may be high. I'm not saying -- I
mean, it very well may be high. You have to have some kind of a cap
and you don't want a cap that's too low.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, the cap needs to be in line
with the expected population in 2025 which is 50,000 people. And the
residential should be in line with the expected cap in 2025 which is
50,000 people. And to give away from the density/intensity
checkbook of the county --
MR. MULHERE: We're not giving away anything. How are we
giving away anything? If you build it, you've got to pay your fees,
right? What are we giving away?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We're giving away because we
have only so many units that we can actually develop, residentially
and non-residentially within the county. We have a maximum
potential build-out here.
MR. MULHERE: You can build. And we've identified that.
We've identified the maximum commercial square footage and we've
identified the maximum residential density in the Immokalee urban
area. We're talking now about lowering the residential density. And
you certainly -- it's within your --
Page 185
September 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I realize that you've identified it,
but it's not in line with what we know --
MR. MULHERE: Fine, I don't want to --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- to be the future population.
MR. MULHERE: You can lower that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- growth.
MR. MULHERE: You can lower it. I mean, I don't see that as
being, you know, a critical --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it's very difficult to lower it on
the fly sitting up here on the dais. It definitely --
MR. MULHERE: Well, you don't have to.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- needs to be lowered.
MR. MULHERE: You don't have to. You can use the data and
analysis to support a lower number. It doesn't --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, that's why --
MR. MULHERE: -- have to be on the fly.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- this should be brought back. I
mean, this should be brought back, it should be vetted with the
community. The impact of the amount of residential and commercial
should be addressed with the businesses in the community with the
residents of the community because it's going to directly affect the
values of the properties and will directly affect the nature of
businesses that develop out there and the nature of competition with
respect to those businesses.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And possibly they'll pay for that.
So Commissioner Coletta, go ahead. Let's get this thing over
with.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Bob, I'm confused now. We got
before us the old master plan map that's on our visualizer, right?
MR. MULHERE: No, that's the new one.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is that the old one?
MR. MULHERE: No, that's proposed.
Page 186
September 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's the proposed map.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But through that map, the
changes you're going to make, outline them one more time.
MR. MULHERE: Okay. The -- when Commissioner Henning
and I discussed some changes during the break, it was to rename this
back to its previous name, which is CCI/I. And to eliminate this extra
new piece of what we called industrial mixed use here, which we had
put in place as a -- to create some new industrial land and to buffer the
heavier intensity airport and industrial uses from these lower density
residential out here. But if we take that away, we go back to what it
previously was.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the reason we're doing that
again? Just so --
MR. MULHERE: So we're not taking anybody's rights away.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, so that doesn't give them
more rights, that gives them less rights if we kept --
MR. MULHERE: This gives them more rights in my view,
because it creates -- some of this property would now have industrial
mixed use designation. But if we eliminate it we haven't taken away
any of their rights, they're back to where they were.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That land is owned by King
Ranch, isn't it?
MR. MULHERE: I don't know.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just a minute, Commissioner Hiller.
MR. MULHERE: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, I guess right at this point
in time, Commissioner Henning, we've heard all these different
suggestions you've made. If you could put that in the form of a
motion, we could get this thing moving forward or at least get more
discussion that would be able to get us going in a positive direction.
Page 187
September 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to make a motion that we
not approve this and that we allow this to be brought back when
Commissioner Nance's -- or when the next commissioner for the Fifth
District is seated. Because at this point in time we don't have enough
information to make modifications and it's very clear modifications
are necessary.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a second?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, the motion dies for lack of a
second.
Somebody please give me another motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- what can we do about the
commercial cap?
MR. MULHERE: Did we ever find that? Okay, so let me put
this on the visualizer so you can -- I don't want -- this is a table.
Let me take it out and get it on there. This is not the right page.
Let me find it. That's -- I want to find the table that has commercial
allocation.
Nonresidential -- this is a table that identifies nonresidential
development potential based on economic studies. And can you see
it? The year 2010 through '25, the peak population projection through
'25. And then it identifies retail space, office space, industrial space
and total nonresidential space.
And you can see that in this analysis in every single case it's eight
million, nine million, almost 10 million, again almost 10 million.
There was another calculation done. Table 5-15 also looked at
nonresidential development potential, averaging floor area ratios.
That's where you saw the existing five million there. That's based on
calculating all the commercial square footage and using a floor area
ratio.
And there's a couple of different projections here. There's the
existing development and then the 2025 projection. And then there's
Page 188
September 11-12, 2012
one other table right here. This is nonresidential development based
on TAZ analysis. And that one at build-out projected 10,866,460
square feet.
So if we presume that we're somewhere at the present time
assuming about five million and we're looking to provide more
because this plan is going into the future, we need to be somewhere --
in my view, if eight million is too much, seven million is probably,
you know, a good number. You want to allow some growth. So, you
know --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But isn't it true that the population
projection for the area has decreased from the time that you develop
those numbers? So it makes sense to leave it where it is, because it's
not that the population --
MR. MULHERE: There is no cap in there. I'm happy -- again,
we didn't want to put a cap. And it was DCA that asked us to. We
might get away with not having any cap. You want to take out that
policy? I'm worth giving that a shot. Take out the entire policy -- let
me find the policy.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it's not just the question -- the
cap is not the issue. The cap is that by virtue of the other sections of
this plan, you are awarding all this intensity. The cap just limits it.
MR. MULHERE: We're not awarding anything. We're creating
an opportunity for people to go through a significant public hearing
process to try to get approved to do some things that will improve the
Immokalee community. They still have to go through significant
public hearings. We haven't given them anything except the right to
ask you for a super majority vote to do what they've got to do it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're capping it by the amount
of land that is either zoned or can be zoned for commercial.
MR. MULHERE: No, this is capping -- well, in a sense I think,
yeah, you're right. What this says is that of all the areas that allow
non-residential use in the land use designations in the proposed future
Page 189
September 11-12, 2012
land use, no more than 8.45 million square feet can be built of those
nonresidential lands.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And quite frankly, the --
MR. MULHERE: Doesn't say you've got to build it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- inverted L of industrial next
to industrial, then propose residential, that doesn't make sense to me
anyways.
MR. MULHERE: Well, that would warrant -- if you're
suggesting -- if you take that out, that would warrant some reduction
in that 8.45 million. And, you know, again, I mean, this is not a
science. You're putting a cap -- you want to put a cap that doesn't
damage your community from growing because there's some artificial
cap there. There's no commitment for any, any public dollars to
support this. If the development comes, then you will have -- and isn't
that what we want in Immokalee? We want growth. We want
economic diversity.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coyle wants
something else.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I want a motion. I don't care what it is.
Let's get a motion and get this thing decided. So if you know what
you want to do, let's hear it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll make a motion that we
amend the proposal, remove the IMU designation, go back to the
CCI/I designation within the map. Add -- remove the IMU language
and replace it with the CCI and industrial language.
The transportation policy that you read.
MR. MULHERE: Yes. I can read it again if you want me to for
the record. It's up to you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think it is on the record.
MR. MULHERE: I read it once, yeah, okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- Mr. Davenport's
amendment with your suggested additions to it.
Page 190
September 11-12, 2012
Keep the downtown area to 16 units per acre.
Include policy -- what? Is it 1.5.2? Yes. So you got the
industrial subdistrict and the CCI industrial subdistrict.
MR. MULHERE: Got that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And a cap of seven million.
MR. MULHERE: Yep.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Remove the bypass language.
Remove the airport expansion.
MR. MULHERE: Yep.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You mean the Airport Master
Plan?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's a master plan in here?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, the airport -- yeah, there's a
full master plan. The Airport Master Plan is included by reference,
the whole thing.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I mean, it's the current master plan.
You would want it to be incorporated by reference.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if you ever want to
change the master plan, though --
MR. MULHERE: You only have to change the plan. This is
incorporated by reference.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. I mean, it should go through a
public vetting process. I mean, it was approved on consent, a $150
million project.
MR. MULHERE: I would assume the existing master plan
would reference the airport.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I didn't see that, Bob.
MR. MULHERE: Can we find that where the Immokalee
Airport and master plan is? Because, I mean, it's just included by
reference. I guess it --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, that's how it gets adopted by
the state. Because as of right now it's not adopted. It hasn't gone
Page 191
September 11-12, 2012
through the adoption process. It was merely approved by the Board
on the consent agenda.
MR. MULHERE: But I just want to make sure I understand,
because I know that what we did was create a new designation for the
Immokalee Airport that matches what the PUD allows. I know we did
that. But I don't know that we incorporated the Immokalee Master
Plan, you know, by reference.
I don't know if that's me. It's off.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's the mic.
What policy?
MR. MULHERE: Page 35.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's not in the old one -- it's not
in the present one.
MR. MULHERE: We have the Immokalee Regional Airport
subdistrict. The purpose of the subdistrict is to allow the Collier
County Airport Authority and leaseholders to develop the Immokalee
Regional Airport and surrounding lands for the economic health and
development of the greater Immokalee area and Collier County as a
whole.
And then there's some more language. But it just generally
allows for the uses that are allowed for the PUD in this plan. So I'm
not being argumentative, I'm just not understanding what the issue
would be. If there's an issue with the master plan zone zoning, it's in
place. You'll have to have an opportunity to somehow revisit that
somewhere, because it's already approved.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, it's a PUD, not the master
plan.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, it's a PUD master -- yeah, PUD. And
all this does is identify that that exists and allow those uses. I mean,
we don't want a conflict between the comp. plan and the approved
airport PUD.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We haven't because we're
Page 192
September 11-12, 2012
putting back the CCI.
MR. MULHERE: Well, that won't matter. This is a different
area. I mean, this area here. The Immokalee Airport is the subject of
an approved PUD. And what we did in here was we recognized all of
the uses that were contained in that PUD in that Immokalee Airport
subdistrict.
I can't -- I mean, it's not like we're creating -- there's no problem,
it's just a consistency issue. I don't understand what the issue could
be.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure you do.
MR. MULHERE: Unless I'm misunderstanding.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think you can take the master plan.
We can deal with the other. But you already through public hearing
process heard the PUD. So if you just get rid of the piece that that's
little nub-out because you want to deal with that later, that's fine, we
can always deal with that later.
But you don't want the PUD language to be inconsistent with the
comp. plan language changes they made for that consistency.
The airport's different. The master plan didn't go through a PUD
process.
MR. MULHERE: We're talking about different documents.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're talking about two different
things.
MR. MULHERE: That's not by reference in here. This comp.
plan does not reference -- if we're talking about two different
documents, this comp. plan only talks about the Immokalee land uses.
Doesn't talk about some other master plan that's required for airports
that I'm unaware of and know nothing about.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The master plan for the airport
referenced the uses. That's how those uses were adopted for that
airport.
MR. MULHERE: Are we talking about a zoning document or
Page 193
September 11-12, 2012
are we talking about something else?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Ask staff. It was approved. I
mean, we had this discussion before.
MR. MULHERE: I know that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It wasn't on the consent.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It was approved on consent and it
was told to us that it had to be incorporated in this to get approved by
the state so it wouldn't have to go through a separate independent
approval process.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think we're talking two different
documents. And Mr. Curry, if he's still here -- he may be gone.
But your PUD document went through the public hearing
process. They did an airport rezone for the airport PUD. So don't take
that out of the master plan, because you'll develop a conflict. And that
did go through the public hearing process. It went to the Planning
Commission, neighborhood information meeting and the Board of
County Commissioners.
What, Commissioner Hiller, I believe you're referencing is the
Airport Master Plan. The airport PUD and the Airport Master Plan are
two different documents. The airport PUD talks about the land uses
and development standards within the airport property. The Airport
Master Plan talks about when they're going to build the runway, when
they're going to do different things. Those (sic) of those nature. So if
you wanted to take out the Airport Master Plan by reference in here --
MR. MULHERE: It's not referenced.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- then you have no conflict. But keep
the PUD because you don't want to set up a conflict between already
approved land use and this comp. plan.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, how was the airport PUD
approved ahead of the revisions to the comp. plan to allow for these
changes? I mean, obviously that doesn't make sense.
MR. MULHERE: No, I can answer that, or David can.
Page 194
September 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: There's no way.
MR. MULHERE: Well, yeah, actually, there is. Because there's
a condition in there, in the PUD in the zoning that says that they can't
use that for expansion of the runway or any other use other than the
RLSA use. Because right now that land is in the RLSA. It's like
white. I don't know if any of these things work. Let's try this one.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're getting way off track here. We're
trying to constitute a motion based on Commissioner Henning's
preferences. Can we stick with that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think it's the Board's
preferences. Is -- the airport expansion is removed, right, part of the --
MR. MULHERE: Yes, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, you understand the significance of
that, don't you?
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, the airport will have to pay
probably $40,000 to go through a comp. plan amendment process. So
you just increased the cost of the airport, which it means increasing
the cost to us and probably taking a delay for at least until we have the
next cycle.
MR. MULHERE: I think the county fees are all of about 40,000.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Couldn't that be a part of the
EAR-based amendments? Well, we're going to save in the land costs
because there is no agreement set price between Collier Enterprises
and the Board of Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, there's no commitment to pay any
money, so you're not saving anything by avoiding it.
The point is that you are -- if the airport wishes to proceed with
that airport runway expansion, you just hit them with a $40,000 bill
minimum and, you know, I mean, that's a good way to keep costs
down around here, isn't it? So just so you know that.
Page 195
September 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Vote no on it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I would be happy to as soon as you
give me a motion to vote on.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I did.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you finished with your motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, is there a second for
Commissioner Henning's motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: With discussion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, discussion. Commissioner
Coletta, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, thank you.
Bob, if you would, please, go through the changes that we're
making to the suggested plan we got from the master plan committee
and tell us what the differences are before we take the vote, if you
would, please. We've had a tremendous amount of discussion, we
danced over a lot of subject material, so if we can just narrow it down
to what took place.
MR. MULHERE: David was taking notes so he can maybe help
me if I --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And don't get sidetracked with any
questions.
MR. MULHERE: I'm not getting sidetracked. I promise, Mr.
Chairman. I'm going to stay focused on this.
Okay. Reduce the density to -- back to 16 units in the commerce
mixed use district.
Remove the airport expansion acreage from the future land use
map.
Revert back to the old nomenclature language and for the CCI/I
commerce center industrial district. Oh, just CCI. So just go back to
the CCI district.
Page 196
September 11-12, 2012
And remove the inverted V-shaped portion along the airport
edges north and west.
Add some language to the plan -- add a policy to the plan that
says that there will be no changes to State Road 29 that will result in a
reduction of capacity until an alternative route is identified and
funding for said route is also identified. State Road 29 shall remain
subject to concurrency management provisions until such alternative
route and funding is identified.
Reduce the Robert Davenport language dealing with Policy 6.1.7
in mobile homes, as amended by yours truly.
Reduce the cap for nonresidential intensity from 8.45 million to 7
million.
Remove the policy as referring to the bypass, bypass language.
That's all I have. Did I miss something?
MR. WEEKS: The farmworker housing.
MR. MULHERE: Oh, yeah, I'm sorry, I've missed that twice.
I'm sorry.
Reverse the language or put the language back in under farm
labor housing that makes it clear that farm labor housing is allowed in
the commercial districts, and also amend the -- I'm just trying to
identify the -- the commercial mixed use district, the C-1 through C-5
uses are permitted.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Henning you had
also --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we had a motion by
Commissioner Henning, seconded --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Henning?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- by Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- you had earlier said about --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- reducing the residential --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I just wanted to ask a
Page 197
September 11-12, 2012
question about we've talked a number of times about nonconforming
housing, you know, to just leave it as it is. Does that -- does
nonconforming housing also refer to substandard housing?
MR. MULHERE: Well, no. Substandard housing can be
regulated by other agencies or it can be regulated by the county. But
no, the two are not the same.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I just wanted to clear that up
for my own sake.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, the -- as far as discussion is
concerned, I strongly object to removing the airport property from the
overlay. And I think that the changes are so significant here that the
only reasonable solution is to bring it back through the whole chain of
approval processes. I mean, you spent years formulating the things
that you now are taking out. I think it's crazy to proceed on that basis
and make these kinds of changes on the fly. We really do not have
any understanding of the overall impact on the process.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm okay with that too.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right. So -- well, I'll call the
question. So -- you have something else? Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I want to say, I wrote a
memo to the Board of Commissioners about my property in
Immokalee at the time, the night before December 11th, 14th,
whatever it was. I reviewed the zoning maps in Immokalee, which
was different than what was proposed. However, I've learned through
staff that the language would still have to go through a zoning process.
I know there's two Florida statutes that deal with conflict of
interest. One is a perception and one is a reality. Staff has
demonstrated there is no reality. There may be a perception. So that's
what the difference is. And I apologize.
And you had a question about the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I'd like to ask one question.
Well, one was that you had earlier said to reduce the residential back
Page 198
September 11-12, 2012
to what exists currently.
But secondly, since Commissioner Coyle I think makes a proper
point, are you amending your position, since you said you agreed with
him, to say that this ought to be continued?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think he's saying it
should go back to the Planning Commission and CRA advisory board?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the Immokalee Master Plan
committee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'm okay with that, with the
proposed changes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So allow for these proposed
changes to go back for review by the Planning Commission and the
CRA, so we're not voting to adopt.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, you've got a motion and it's got a
second. So it's --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What is the motion?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've got to take action on --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Was the motion to adopt what was
proposed as amended?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to hear from the
commissioner of that district.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I've been dealing with the devil
here too long. I'm really dismayed over how this thing comes
together. And every time we seem to be on the edge of trying to figure
out what to do, there's another obstacle that gets thrown in front of us.
I'm really beginning to wonder if this is all worth the trouble. I
mean, this thing has been amended a dozen times over without the will
of the people of Immokalee entering into this. Eight years in the
process, half million dollars, and you've been sold down the river by a
couple of commissioners.
And I'm not going to be polite anymore. There's no way I can
Page 199
September 11-12, 2012
support this motion. It sells you short. And all for the interest of
business in Immokalee, a small -- 67 percent doesn't mean anything to
these people.
You people here, what they're telling you is that you're in
Immokalee, you can go away.
And as far as Commissioner Henning's involvement in
Immokalee, remember all the different meetings he attended in
Immokalee and the ones he didn't show up and the ones he left early?
That's his interest in Immokalee. His interest was because he's trying
to pay back a debt.
I will not support this in any shape, form or manner. It's going to
have to go back through the process. You people are going to have to
stick to your guns. I'll help you any way I can.
And Fred, I know you're dismayed, but there's nothing left here
to work with. There is nothing left.
MR. THOMAS: You all don't understand. And you all can lock
me up. Because I'd just be just as good in jail. If we change (sic) it
now we can make any changes we want in the future easily.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You can't.
MR. THOMAS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But we still haven't reached an
agreement. They want to still send it all back to everybody, even after
it's done. The 27th is when the date of this thing has to be done or you
have to get another extension and that extension can't help -- can't
happen now.
MR. THOMAS: If you have to wait four years --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My contacts in Tallahassee have
moved on. I no longer have Senator Bennett to be able to call and be
able to make this happen again. Haridopolos is gone. So you're down
to it. And unless we want to bring it back to the next meeting with
some way to salvage something, it's about the only thing I can think of
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all in favor of the motion, please
Page 200
September 11-12, 2012
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, the motion fails.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sadly, I know how mad you are. I
just want to add something I heard and it dismayed me as well, and
that is rumors around Immokalee that some people said we'll win this
because we own them. We bought them and paid for them.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Lock, stock and barrel.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's right. That's what they said.
We bought 'em and paid for it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let's talk about rumors.
We'll sit around here as policy makers --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you know --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and talk about rumors. That's
real leadership.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, so the motion fails. That still
provides us room form another motion. Is anybody interested?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I'd love to make another
motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That we continue this all to the
next meeting and see if we can get guidance from the Immokalee
CRA. They can hold an emergency meeting, come back. They seen
what was suggested, they can see if they want to buy into it. Once
again, whatever the will of the people of Immokalee is, I'll support.
We got so far off track, I don't know if we're even near your will
anymore with what was left of the proposal. So that would be my
proposal is that we continue it for two weeks. We have time if I'm not
mistaken, Jeff, you looked it up, we got the meeting -- we got the dead
-- cut-off is, the 27th, the meeting is 25th? I hope I haven't got those
dates reversed.
MR. KLATZKOW: Your extension through September 27th,
Page 201
September 11-12, 2012
yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So we've got time for one more
meeting. I suggest we send it to the CRA, let them work it out. I want
you to be able to express your will one more time. If it makes me or
some other commissioners uncomfortable, so be it. I'd love to see this
thing come to an end favorably for the people of Immokalee, not one
or two people dictating how Immokalee should be put together, and
what the true will of Immokalee is.
Remember, you've got 67 percent of your people supporting you.
Stick by that. I'll be there to help you wherever I can, now and after
the time I finish my term on this commission. I've been involved in
Immokalee way before I was a commissioner and I'll be involved long
after I'm the commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we have a motion by
Commissioner Coletta to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- continue it for two weeks.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, on the motion, what
would that resolve? What -- how -- what do you think that they're
going to recommend?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, hopefully you'll listen to
the will of the people. You know the CRA will come back with their
recommendations. Maybe they'll make some changes to it that will
meet your needs and it will come before us one more time. And then
it's over with.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I don't know why
everybody's so hot under the collar. There was a motion formed by
the Board of Commissioners at the last minute and it exploded. It
hasn't changed. You seconded the motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I did not second --
Page 202
September 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I did.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- the motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You did. You seconded the
motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, for whatever reason it failed.
Now, we've -- I'd like to at least address Commissioner Henning's
question about what will change.
I keep waiting -- every time we have one of these meetings, I
keep waiting for the people of Immokalee to turn out in force to show
that there is overwhelming support, and it doesn't happen. The only
people who show up mostly, except for a few fighters like Fred who
wants this thing --
MR. THOMAS: I'm a former Barron County. I don't have to
worry about this no more.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. All right, whatever.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll support you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But the issue is if the people of
Immokalee want to fight for it, I don't see them fighting for it. And
Commissioner Coletta has led that fight and it probably cost him
dearly, but -- and I know how passionately he wants to get this plan
moved through, because he, like I believe, it is the right thing to do.
The reality is I don't see anybody changing their minds up here
on this dais. The same two commissioners will oppose it, we'll never
get the four votes we need, and so Commissioner Coletta, as much as
I'd like to support you on this, I simply cannot justify wasting another
day debating this issue. As far as I'm concerned, it is -- it's finished,
unless somebody wants to bring it back for rehearing sometime in the
future. But that's where I think it is and probably where it should be.
So anybody else have any comments?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's so sad.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It is so sad. But okay, let's go to
the CDD issue.
Page 203
September 11-12, 2012
MR. OCHS: Did you call the vote on that one?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We still gotta vote.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's the motion?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion --
MR. OCHS: To continue till the next meeting.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor of Commissioner Coletta's
motion to continue this -- for two weeks, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So it passes 3-2. So it will come back
and we'll do this all over again, folks, so --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We don't have to have as many
speakers and we don't have to have --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have to have this many speakers if
they're going to show up and register. You have no control over it.
You're going to have commissioners who will go through the same
discussion we had today and we'll do it all over again. We'll spend
four hours at our next meeting doing the same thing.
So it passes 3-2, and it will come back in two weeks.
And by the way, we're going to leave here at 5:30 p.m. because
our court reporter has urgent business at 5:31 . And so we're going to
get this done and we're going to get it done quickly.
Okay, Mr. Yovanovich.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Say that again, what do we have?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're leaving at 5:30, because our court
Page 204
September 11-12, 2012
reporter has to leave.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, my goodness.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can I go with you?
Item #9B
ORDINANCE 2012-36: RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE HACIENDA LAKES
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (CDD) PURSUANT
TO SECTION 190.005(2)(A)-(F), FLORIDA STATUTES —
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, this is Item 9.B on
your agenda. It's a recommendation to approve the ordinance
establishing the Hacienda Lakes Community Development District
pursuant to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I'd like to make a motion to
approve. They've added the stipulation that I always need and that is
that one member of the community is on to the CDD Board. So I
make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'll second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, motion by Commissioner Fiala,
seconded by Commissioner Coletta.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I just would like to have the
representative explain how they intend to actually sell the bond.
We've had so many problems with CDD's in the community with so
many of them failing. You know, what assurances are we going to
have that this CDD will be able to sell its bonds and not default where
other communities have?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, for the record Rich Yovanovich on
behalf of the petitioner.
Page 205
September 11-12, 2012
I brought with me Mr. Brett Sealy who will be responsible for
selling bonds, and he's got a lot of experience in the area, and I'll let
him quickly address that question.
MR. SEALY: Brett Sealy, Managing Partner, MBS Capital
Markets.
You asked a couple of questions in there. First, over the course of
the last about 18 months there's been about 400 million CDD bonds
issued, most locally for you all. We completed a $30 million
refinancing for Ave Maria.
In terms of assurances, your guess is as good as mine is whether
or not we're going to have a -- fall into another recession or have any
additional global economy issues, so there is no assurances that this
real estate project, whether it is a CDD or a non-CDD project is going
to be successful. There just can't be assurances.
Having said that, the -- we have a great deal of comfort based
upon our experience over the course of the last 18 months selling
bonds, as well as the course over the last 15 years in the CDD business
that we will be able to successfully sell the bonds, and based upon our
knowledge the project will be successful.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And it was Ave Maria I was
thinking of. Because in the case of Ave Maria it was my
understanding those bonds were becoming due in a few months and
there were real problems. And quite frankly, had you not refinanced
those bonds, the principals who I understand are primarily the Colliers
themselves would not have gotten their money back.
MR. SEALY: Actually --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Or is that incorrect?
MR. SEALY: That's slightly incorrect.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, great. Could you help me?
MR. SEALY: The bonds were originally structured as short-term
notes. They were structured with a five-year maturity. So there was
always an expectation after the fifth year that the bonds would either
Page 206
September 11-12, 2012
be repaid by virtue of the landowners prepaying their assessments or
they would be refinanced.
So we had taken initiative well before the maturity date of those
what were known as bond anticipation bonds, took the initiative prior
to that maturity date in order to refinance those securities. Those --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I thought -- so the 28 million that
was coming due was just a portion? You're saying that there were
other bonds that were coming --
MR. SEALY: No, there's actually two series of bonds that are
outstanding for Ave Maria. The structure was originally done so that
there was a 30-year series of bonds issued and that a shorter term
series of bonds issued. That shorter term series of bonds was always
expected to be taken out either by one of two sources.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, by the assessments based on
the sale of the properties which didn't happen because they didn't have
the sales --
MR. SEALY: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- or through a refinance, right.
MR. SEALY: Or through a refinance. And that refinance
successfully closed in May. The bonds were purchased by a very
sophisticated multi-billion dollar institution, which is Nuveen. Many
of you may be surprised, you may own Nuveen family funds in your
personal portfolios. But that refinancing was successfully completed
in May.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: At a rate of what, six percent?
MR. SEALY: A little bit more than that. There's a state cap
currently that any non-rated security has got to -- municipal security
has got to be bound by. Today that would be about a six and
three-quarters or 680. At the time that -- back in May the rate was very
similar so the bonds were done at about a 680 or a 685.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The reason I ask these questions is
I don't want to see the homeowners who potentially will buy at
Page 207
September 11-12, 2012
Hacienda facing the problems that so many of these other
communities are facing when these CDD's are defaulting. So I want
to make sure that, you know, there are mechanisms in place to protect
against that happening.
And you're right, you never know what the future holds but, you
know, I'm relying on your representation that there won't be an issue.
The other question I have is for Rich and that is what are these
bonds -- what is this CDD going to pay for? If you can list that out for
the benefit of the public so it's on the record.
And I understand it's in the backup, but I want you to list it
publicly so everybody knows what is going to be covered by the
CDD.
MR. YOVANOVICH: The CDD pays for infrastructure to serve
the development which will include water, water lines, sewer lines,
roads and bridges, water management, cleaning up the preserve areas
and those types of infrastructure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do you have a comprehensive list?
Can you --
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's in the backup material. That's the
list in the backup material that also has the ability to provide security
if it wants to and parks and rec. But as far as backup materials go --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Just put it on the overhead so
everyone can see it.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, it's multi-pages. It's --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You don't have a summary?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I could put the executive summary on.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
MR. YOVANOVICH: If that's what you're intending, sure. I
didn't know if you wanted the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, just the list. So everybody
knows specifically what's covered.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Over there you should see the list of
Page 208
September 11-12, 2012
proposed improvements for what they'll fund.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So the general development of the
approved uses within the district, roadways, bridges, culverts,
transportation, facilities, parking improvements, streetlights,
landscaping, signage, stormwater management and control, water
supplies, sewer/wastewater management, waste collection, disposal --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Those are all potential expenditures that
the CDD could do. It doesn't mean that they will do all of those but
they have the right or the authority to do that.
The major ones I told you about, water, sewer, water
management, roads and bridges, cleaning out preserves, you know, are
pretty certain. The others they have the ability to do under the
legislation. Doesn't mean they'll exercise those rights, but they --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And you're referring to the fire
prevention control, mosquito control, security --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's in the first paragraph, actually.
Under where it says $44 million.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, if you want to look -
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It lists them there.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Roads, transit, utilities, stormwater. All
the things I just summarized. With the budget number. That's what I
thought you originally wanted was actual budgets.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right but this I just -- I understand
that. What I want is assurances that the people who will be burdened
by the assessment from the CDD understand what the CDD will be
covering by way of expenditure.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And statutorily they're required to make
disclosures. And your ordinance --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- requires us to record a public notice
whenever we sell bonds as to what that's going for.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand. But you listed here
Page 209
September 11-12, 2012
what you're going to take responsibility for. I want it on record that's
all.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we have a motion on the floor?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all in favor --
MR. MITCHELL: No, sir, we have a public speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MITCHELL: Bob Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I waive, because I was in favor.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. All in favor, please signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion passes 4-1, Commissioner
Henning dissenting.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, would you like to take some of the
staff items?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you can do them in 18 minutes.
Item #11I
RESOLUTION 2012-160: RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
SUPPORTING THE COUNTY'S APPLICATIONS TO FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (FDEP)
FOR LONG RANGE BUDGET PLAN REQUESTS FOR INLET
MANAGEMENT PLAN AND BEACH RENOURISHMENT
Page 210
September 11-12, 2012
PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013-2014 AND AUTHORIZING
ANY NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Let's go to 11.I, which was previously 16.A.17. It's
a recommendation to approve a resolution of the commissioners
supporting the Board's application of Florida Department of
Environmental Protection for long-range budget plan request for fiscal
year 2013 and '14 and authorize necessary budget amendments. Mr. --
this item was moved off the agenda by Commissioner Hiller. We can
either present or respond to questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Hang on, hang on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, could you ask
your question about this item, please.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you tell me what number it is
again?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's 11.I.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but what was it before?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 16.A.17.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Gary, I'd like you to present
exactly what you are applying for with respect to these beach
renourishment projects. What you are expecting to get back from --
I'm sorry, can you hear me? I'm sorry, I didn't have my mic in front of
me. Let me just restate that. I'm sorry, I didn't have my mic in front
of me.
You are applying to the state for funding. And that funding is
based on the budgets that you have before us, right? Is my
understanding correct?
MR. McALPIN: Let me -- Commissioner, what we're doing is
this is a requirement that we have to do to apply for --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The state matching.
MR. McALPIN: -- local funding the grant request.
Page 211
September 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: For the state matching, right?
MR. McALPIN: For the state matching. We do this every year.
This is an appli -- we're still working on the application so we
haven't completed it yet. But it's important that the application will be
for a six-year beach renourishment. It will be --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So how much specifically are you
asking for and what basis are you using to come up with that number?
What specific study has been done? Are you relying on Atkins study
of the current level of erosion to make a determination of how much is
needed and then you've quantified that for purposes of this --
MR. McALPIN: We have done that, Commissioner. We will be
placing approximately 420,000 cubic yards of material on the beaches.
This will be for the Vanderbilt, Park Shore and Naples Beach.
When we did the beach renourishment in 2005, 2006 it was a
six-year design, similar to what we have right now. That was over
670,000 yards of cubic material. We believe the six-year design is
correct because a better performance of the sand and we will have
gaps in the beach where we will not renourish the beaches completely
all the way through, there will be gaps. The gaps will be where the
beach does not need to be renourished at this point in time.
Once we have the application complete, Commissioner, we will
distribute it and show it to the commissioners. But at this point in
time the due date from Florida Department of Environmental
Protection is the 18th of this month. So we need to get our application
in at that point in time.
And part of that application is a resolution by the Board
indicating that the Board would support the cost share efforts. And this
is similar to what we have done every year.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And you have -- do you already
have Atkins' report for the current monitoring?
MR. McALPIN: I have the current monitoring report. That
current monitoring report has served as the basis, the jumping off
Page 212
September 11-12, 2012
point, the bench mark, if you would, for our studies.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Based on the current --
MR. McALPIN: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Could I have a copy of that,
please?
MR. McALPIN: Yes, ma'am, you can.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And so what you are doing right
now is not asking for any matching based on the 10-year template?
MR. McALPIN: I am not looking at a 10-year template, I am
looking at a six-year design, which -- and that's what our basis is,
ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And in that six-year design, did
you take the inlet management plan contributions into account? Like
for example, take Clam Pass. Whereas a consequence of that
management plan we're going to draw about 85,000 cubic yards out of
sand -- of sand out of that pass. Have you used that as an offset for the
needs of the Vanderbilt Beach --
MR. McALPIN: No, ma'am, no inlet contribution is anticipated
on this. Because remember, this beach renourishment will be done in
the next 12 months. And that we will -- we don't have any plan to
renour -- inlet bypassing projects that are planned during that period of
time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So at this point in time this is the
first the state is going to see of any budget that they're going to use for
matching?
MR. McALPIN: For this year. Now, last year we submitted a
plan request for this. It was based on -- and we did not qualify
because our point score was too low. We have worked on our point
score at this point in time. We've met with the agency throughout the
year. We have asked them and they have changed some of their rules
and point schedules, so we believe we'll make the money this year,
Commissioner.
Page 213
September 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And how much is that?
MR. McALPIN: Well, if we look at a project that's in the range
of 15 to $17 million that we -- we're looking at a 30 percent cost share
match by DEP.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So right now what we had
talked about in the past as going forward with that 10-year design
template and a possible cost of 32 million is not on the table?
MR. McALPIN: That's not on the table at all, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And we are ratcheting back and
going back to the six-year design template with the funding that we
know we have available in the existing budget?
MR. McALPIN: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve.
MR. MITCHELL: Bob Kras --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I believe we have a public speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: We have one public speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Bob Krasowski.
MR. MITCHELL: Bob Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Hello. Good afternoon. So nice to see you
again.
I stand and address these issues because they're relevant to the
overall beach nourishment project, the issues throughout the day.
I had similar questions, Commissioner Hiller. And I was curious
to know how we might submit this application on the 18th when a
final decision on exactly what strategy is going to be used won't be
reached until the 25th meeting. But from what I've just heard, many
of these issues are going to be resolved and you're customizing the
plan according to what you're finding most favorable.
I guess my final question is, given the lesser amount of sand and
the fact that the Captiva project is very open and flexible, not
requiring us to be so open and flexible, will there still be an interest in
Page 214
September 11-12, 2012
encroaching on turtle nesting season? You know, and there are
various environmental and project issues that surround that. I won't go
into those now.
But so to Gary, are you still going to try -- or Commissioners,
well, I guess it would be to Gary. That's my big question, is there still
an intent, and that would be represented in maybe trying to get an
extra $160,000 from the state or their portion to pay for the monitoring
of the turtles when the renourishment project would be ongoing during
turtle nesting season.
But as I said, if we're going to bring it down a whole bunch and
we have the flexibility of working if we're going to even do that with
other places, then there's no need. There's no real need to go into that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If I may, I just want to say I think
it's a valid question because the scope of the project is now being
revised to what I had recommended when we had these discussions
prior on the design templates and the amount of sand that was really
needed. If the scope is being reduced to what's actually needed based
on the six-year design template, then the amount of time that we need
to renourish these beaches is significantly shorter. So why wouldn't
we be able to do it without encroaching all through turtle nesting
season?
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that's one option that we're going
to bring back to you on the 25th. Quite frankly, the staff is meeting
with your Coastal Advisory Committee on Thursday and we want to
go through those options, get their recommendation. We're coming
back to you at your next meeting to formalize the things that we just
talked about, and I would hope you'd give us that much time to look at
the options in terms of the sequencing and timing of the project itself.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I want to thank both you and
Gary for bringing this project back in line and reducing it from 32
million back to, you know, 16 or 17, as is being proposed now. I
mean, that is the reasonable prudent approach to getting it done. So
Page 215
September 11-12, 2012
thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, I didn't get a second on
that.
MR. McALPIN: Thank you, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right, it passes unanimously
then.
And rather than take up another one, which might take us over,
we're going to -- no, no. You have to be back here tomorrow morning
at 9:00.
MR. KRASOWSKI: You're going to miss me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which one more?
MR. KRASOWSKI: It's 11.J.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, no. You have to come back
tomorrow morning at 9:00. We will recess until that time and then
we'll take up that plus our Land Development Code. And you'll have
a lot of opportunities to talk about that too, Bob. Okay?
MR. OCHS: Adjourn, sir?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What are you --
MEMBER FROM THE AUDIENCE: Peter needs four minutes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute, what is the item?
MEMBER FROM THE AUDIENCE: We just need approval for
a grant.
Page 216
September 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Don't you know that that takes hours of
conversation here? It's impossible for us to do anything in seven
minutes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Grant application to the golf tourism
and seafood promotional fund?
MEMBER FROM THE AUDIENCE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It was pulled by Commissioner Hiller.
You know when that happens you have no idea how long it's going to
take.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But there was a motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, there's a motion by Commissioner
Coletta for approval --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And a second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and a second by Commissioner Fiala.
MR. OCHS: Hold on, hold on, hold on.
Item #11J
RECOMMENDATION TO DIRECT THE COUNTY MANAGER
OR HIS DESIGNEE TO SUBMIT A GRANT APPLICATION TO
THE GULF TOURISM AND SEAFOOD PROMOTIONAL FUND
TO EXPAND COLLIER COUNTY'S ARTIFICIAL REEFS —
APPROVED WITH VOTE COUNT CLARIFIED WEDNESDAY,
SEPTEMBER 12, 2012
Mr. Chairman, if you're going to take this up, it's item 10.J on
your agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
Page 217
September 11-12, 2012
MR. OCHS: It was 16.A.23, moved to the regular agenda at
Commissioner -- I'm sorry, 11.J, and it was moved at Commissioner
Hiller's request.
Are you going to hear the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, we're going to hear it if we can do it
in five -- six minutes.
MR. OCHS: Okay. Mr. Lorenz is able to answer questions,
Commissioner, if you have them.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Given that this is -- my
understanding is that the grant funds that we're applying for are a
discretionary pool of funds from which source?
MR. LORENZ: From the Gulf tourism and seafood plant
promotional fund.
For the record, Bill Lorenz, Natural Resources --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that fund was created for
what reason?
MR. LORENZ: It's associated with the deep water horizon
incident.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Exactly. In other words, the oil
spill.
MR. LORENZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Now, my concern is that we have
not evaluated other alternative investments that we could make with
that money. And one of them that's very important is the ability to get
planes to land directly here at Fort Myers. We need direct flights. We
don't have them and the industry is desperate.
Now, we have a lot of artificial reefs. And from speaking to
many fishermen in the area, the fishing here is very ripe.
Now, I don't believe that we would actually generate 35 million a
year in additional revenue as a consequence of adding more reefs to
what we've already got. There's a limited pool of fishermen out there,
and so we're dealing with a lot of competition, not only from the local
Page 218
September 11-12, 2012
coast but also from the other coast. I think fishing is great. I think
promoting fishing tournaments is really great. I can see where it is an
economic driver and I support it wholeheartedly. I think it's a very
good tourism attraction. But I feel that we for -- looking for this
limited amount of money, and I understand it's 500,000 for Marco,
Naples and Collier County; is that correct? Like a million and a half
available in total?
MR. LORENZ: Well, just reading the literature, you can get no
more than $500,000 per year.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Per jurisdiction.
MR. LORENZ: Per applicant.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Now, just so you know, to get a
franchise with an airline to directly land in Collier County costs about
500,000. So imagine if we could get three airlines to directly land
here and do that annually, the impact would be enormous.
And I've heard the industry complain that is the single biggest
problem we have is that we don't have direct flights by these airlines.
Jack Wert did an outstanding job. He went to a conference
where he researched this, brought back information, we had a
workshop with the tourism industry and everyone had a unanimous
position on that.
If we could find some alternative funding for the artificial reefs,
and I've heard that there will be private matching to go with that, I
would prefer that. But I think we need to reserve this limited pool
which comes as a function of that oil spill to what we really, really
need here in Collier and that is direct flights.
So while I don't think it's a bad idea, I think it's a good idea, it's
not the best idea for this particular grant. So I'd make a motion to
deny and ask that Jack bring --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We already have a motion on the floor.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Well.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir?
Page 219
September 11-12, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going -- yes.
MR. MITCHELL: We've got two public speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Two speakers?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right, let's do it.
MR. MITCHELL: Peter?
MR. FLOOD: Real quick. I don't want to take up a lot of time,
it's been a long day.
The reason we came to the committee --
MR. MITCHELL: Could you identify yourself?
MR. FLOOD: My name is Peter Flood. I'm a local citizen; I'm
also an attorney.
The reason that the funds came to my attention is I do a lot of BP
claim work. In talking to the administer of the Deep Horizon Water
Fund, he suggested what I discussed with him the program that I
wanted to promote is to apply for the funds because no one from
Collier had applied for the funding. The funding is due October 5th.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you just repeat that last --
MR. FLOOD: No one from Collier had applied. It is due
October 5th. Contrary -- and I don't mean to argue with you, I fish
quite a bit, more extensively probably than anybody here. One of the
largest complaints is that the artificial reefs, what they call artificial
reefs, are structures that are deteriorated and are not in existence, even
though they are on the maps.
I've done research with the experts in the field on this, I've talked
to Fish and Wildlife. They have programs. Everybody has programs.
The only reason that I'm here today, because private funding is
being raised as we speak, is to take advantage of this grant. That's the
only reason I'm here, is that I found this grant, I brought it to the
attention of the individuals that I'm working with. They suggested we
come to the county because the county can apply for the grant, private
citizens can't apply for the grant. It's a tourism grant. I think we have
Page 220
September 11-12, 2012
a good opportunity to get it.
I'd like to take the grant, get the money, couple that with the
private funding, go out and build these artificial reefs and increase our
tourism. It has an economic and ecological benefit beyond anything
that you can imagine. It's a great thing for the community at no cost.
And again, it's private. We're going to do private. The money's going
to come from BP, the money's going to come matching funds from the
private citizens. Minimal cost to the county, if any. Okay?
In Pinellas County there are 460 reefs. They spend approximately
$36,000 in county funds to maintain those reefs. Now, can you
imagine that? We're talking about 36 reefs. And we will take -- most
of the reefs don't need maintenance, all they have is people, volunteers
to go out and take the hooks and all the things off.
Real quick, our plan calls for six reefs that are non-fished, strictly
recreational diving. We have Dr. Matthews coming down from
Pinellas who's a -- they call him Dr. Reef. He was very excited that
Collier get this program going, we get it going here in Collier. It's a
win for everybody. And I wish I had more time to talk about it and
take your --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I think you're preaching to the
choir for the most part here, okay.
MR. FLOOD: And I appreciate everybody's patience. Ms.
Hiller, everybody's patience, because it's been a long day.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, tell me about it.
MR. FLOOD: And we're talking about the sea finally, we're
getting off the land.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And we've got to do it again tomorrow.
Commissioner Henning?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, the next speaker is Bob Krasowski.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Well, let me end the day on a pleasant note,
okay?
Page 221
September 11-12, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're finished?
MR. KRASOWSKI: Thank you very much, Ian.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: When is your evaluation due? Next
meeting.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Good going, Ian.
Bob Krasowski for the record. I really like reefs. I like the
whole idea. But that's sort of like just a general first impression. I
realize that if you were to move forward with this program, it would
probably go by the Coastal Advisory Commission and the Tourist
Development Council, but then maybe not. They're meeting Thursday,
you could probably have them look at it.
But I really appreciate what Mr. Flood's talking about, you know.
And he seems to know something about it, so maybe the reefs are of
value.
I appreciate what Commissioner Hiller is thinking of doing as
well. Although that's to Fort Myers, doesn't guarantee people are
going to come to Collier unless we set something up at the Naples
Airport.
But when I read the material it said that private citizens could
apply for the grant. And the first page, right at the heading, it's like the
first or second paragraph, and non-government organizations can
apply for the grant. So Mr. Flood could go that route too. Especially if
he has matching money, which is usually magic to the -- but you're
shaking your head no, so I don't know.
But maybe -- do you see that bill in there that it says private
citizens?
MR. LORENZ: Let me look at the eligible applicants. And I'm
not sure this is out of the executive summary, but may be submitted by
public, quasi-public, non-profit or other entities or organizations
located within the Gulf states. That's the only --
MR. KRASOWSKI: Yeah, okay. So public. So he could do
that, and we could do one as well if we wanted to. We're not on it.
Page 222
September 11-12, 2012
It's October 5th is the deadline.
So, you know, with investigation of the appropriate
environmental impacts of everything, I think his deal is a good deal,
especially with everybody involved.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If I understand correctly, he can
apply for it directly himself, leaving the county open to apply for --
MR. KRASOWSKI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So it's a win/win, so he doesn't
need our approval to go forward independently.
MR. KRASOWSKI: No, he doesn't. But he might have reasons
for doing that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What are the reasons?
MR. KRASOWSKI: What are the reasons, Mr. Flood?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because really, what happens is by
allowing us to do it -- what you just identified is very significant,
because --
MR. KRASOWSKI: Of course.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- it's a double whammy. I mean,
now we get both the reefs and the --
MR. KRASOWSKI: And the money.
MR. FLOOD: We don't have nonprofit status.
MR. KRASOWSKI: You don't need non --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You can just create --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's let him work it out, please. You
know, you and Commissioner Hiller are not going to work that out.
MR. KRASOWSKI: No me and you, you're the chair. I talked --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, anything you want me to do I can
take care of.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay, good. So let's call it a day. I just
had my comments. Thank you very much, and I appreciate your
interest. But I -- once again, I think Mr. Flood's onto something
probably good, and Ms. Hiller, so --
Page 223
September 11-12, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I agree.
MR. KRASOWSKI: -- good luck with it all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning is next.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, not you?
Commissioner Fiala is next.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, luckily we get other funds also
for reefs, which is good. Every year we get those funding sources, and
plus we take other things that we use for funds, right?
But -- I love the idea, I also love the idea of airlines coming here
into Collier County. But the thing is, we don't have any coming in,
and so I would like to say stop that, first of all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Where are they going to land?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second of all, we would have to
first check and see if there is an opportunity to entice an airline to
come in, and they need some money to -- whether it be to the Marco
Island Airport or the Immokalee Airport or the Naples Airport --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They can't come in here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- if we can find that they need the
money, maybe we can take part of this money and, you know, maybe
one year put it to the reefs and the next year put it to airlines or split it
half and half each way, if that's what it would take to draw an airline
here. We certainly do need one.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Takes a lot more than that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No actually Mr. Wert said 500,000
when we talked about it and we were evaluating that as a way to help
tourism based on the conference that he went to when I asked the
question how much would it cost to get one of these airlines to land
here. He said approximately 500,000 a year. That's usually what it
goes for.
So I think the point that was just made, that is that Mr. Flood
could apply independently and the county could apply for example for
Page 224
September 11-12, 2012
the airline franchises would be, like I said, a win/win. We get both.
Which is even more than we expected.
And maybe what staff could do is assist Mr. Flood to make the
application so that he does get the funding and create a non-profit in
his name to move it forward.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's approved unanimously (sic). It will
get done.
And let me tell you, if you're talking about bringing airlines into
Collier County, will you please take a look at the runways and the
weight-bearing capabilities of the runways and the gates they have to
have and security they have to have. Right now people are talking
about something they don't understand.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We're talking about to Southwest
Florida, like Fort Myers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, give me a break.
They're already flying --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: They're not flying direct.
MR. OCHS: We're in recess till 9:00 a.m. tomorrow morning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Recess till 9:00 a.m. tomorrow.
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was recessed until the following morning by order of the
Chair at 5:30 p.m.
Page 225
September 11-12, 2012
TRANSCRIPT OF THE CONTINUED MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida
September 11-12, 2012
(Day 2)
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION
in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida,
with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Fred Coyle
Jim Coletta
Donna Fiala
Tom Henning
Georgia Hiller
ALSO PRESENT:
Leo E. Ochs, Jr., County Manager
Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Crystal Kinzel, Office of the Clerk of Courts
Ian Mitchell, Executive Manager to BCC
Mike Sheffield, Business Operations Manager — CMO
Page 226
September 11-12, 2012
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, the Board of
County Commission meeting is back in session. We will proceed now
to item --
MR. OCHS: 11F, sir. We have two staff items and then your
LDC this morning.
Item #11J — TUESDAY'S VOTE COUNT WAS CLARIFIED
RECOMMENDATION TO DIRECT THE COUNTY MANAGER
OR HIS DESIGNEE TO SUBMIT A GRANT APPLICATION TO
THE GULF TOURISM AND SEAFOOD PROMOTIONAL FUND
TO EXPAND COLLIER COUNTY ARTIFICIAL REEFS —
APPROVED
MR. MITCHELL: Sorry. But just before we do that, could we
go back to 11J, which was the last item, because the vote didn't
actually come over for either the reporter or -- we checked the audio
record this morning, and we couldn't tell what the vote was. You said
it was unanimous, but in actual fact I think it was 3-2.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because I voted against it.
MR. MITCHELL: And Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And Commissioner Fiala voted
against it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So we're going to have these big
planes landing here, right?
MR. MITCHELL: No. We just need to confirm it was a 3-2.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well, we will use money that
isn't authorized to be used for that purpose.
Okay. All right. So it was 3-2.
MR. MITCHELL: If Commissioner Henning can confirm he
voted for the motion.
Page 227
September 11-12, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The fishing --
MR. MITCHELL: For the reefs.
MR. OCHS: The artificial reef grant application.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
MR. MITCHELL: You voted for it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
MR. MITCHELL: So they're putting on record that the vote was
3-2 with Commissioner Hiller and Commissioner Fiala dissenting.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's continue.
Item #11F
RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD CONTRACT #12-5917 IN
THE AMOUNT OF $1,042,050, TO A.C. SCHULTES OF
FLORIDA, INC., AND AUTHORIZE A BUDGET AMENDMENT
IN THE AMOUNT OF $350,000 FOR THE LIVINGSTON ROAD
IRRIGATION QUALITY WATER AQUIFER STORAGE AND
RECOVERY WELL, BELOW THE UNDERGROUND SOURCE
OF DRINKING WATER — APPROVED (SEPTEMBER 12, 2012)
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. 11F is a recommendation to award
Contract 12-5917 in the amount of$1,042,050 to AC Schultz of
Florida, Incorporated; authorize a budget amendment in the amount of
$350,000 for the Livingston Road irrigation quality water aquifer
storage and recovery well below the underground source of drinking
water.
Mr. Tom Chmelik, your director of public utilities engineering,
will make a brief presentation.
Tom.
MR. CHMELIK: Very good, thank you.
Commissioners, for the record, Tom Chmelik, public utilities. I
Page 228
September 11-12, 2012
have a presentation prepared for you that I'd like to go to or answer
any questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's try questions. Anybody
have any questions? Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't have any questions at all
here. I don't have anything marked, so I make a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning has a comment.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is this in the same area that
we've done ASR wells in the past?
MR. CHMELIK: Yes, absolutely. On Livingston Road there's a
site where there's one existing well and the supporting infrastructure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Was there -- wasn't there one
abandoned recently?
MR. CHMELIK: Well, we did not begin its use because of a
change in a federal regulation. And in order to adjust to that, we've
drilled deeper where drinking water standards do not apply for the use
of irrigation water. That's our plan to drill this existing well deeper.
MR. OCHS: This was the same well, sir, that I think you're
referring to. We piloted it a couple years ago. There were some
arsenic readings that were above levels. And we had some lessons
learned from the recent experience with the City of Naples where they
started their ASR well program, and they went down a level below the
level where the arsenic readings were at issue.
And we are -- and they got permitted for that, so we're following
their lead, and we believe we can reactivate these fields. It's an
important part of our water management plan and our future drinking
water supply, try to get all our irrigation quality water customers that
have demand for the service, our capability to give them that water.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And there's standards on
irrigation water?
Page 229
September 11-12, 2012
MR. OCHS: Torn?
MR. CHMELIK: There are standards that apply but not drinking
water standards. If we're above what's called the underground source
of drinking water, a level that's determined. If you're above that,
drinking water standards apply. If we're below that, they don't apply,
and that's because we're having -- we're using this for irrigation water,
not for drinking water.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Does this include equipment?
MR. CHMELIK: No, just drilling the well deeper and
reconditioning the existing equipment that's there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're -- okay. You're digging
the well deeper. Wasn't the original price just on drilling the well? I
think -- was it Harvey Setterquist?
MR. CHMELIK: Youngquist.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Youngquist, thank you, drilled it
for around a million dollars.
MR. CHMELIK: That's generally the cost for a well, a million to
$2 million.
This slide shows infrastructure that's there on Livingston Road.
There's one wellsite shown by the green arrow and then -- where there
is an existing well today, and then blue arrows are the four additional
sites we can have in the future. They're permitted and ready to go.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, interesting. So it's
actually a savings then. I mean, if we were to drill a new well, it
would cost us more?
MR. CHMELIK: You'd have to drill the whole depth, yes. And
we're using existing, what's there right now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. So the answer to my
question is --
MR. CHMELIK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- yes.
MR. OCHS: Yes.
Page 230
September 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And we do have a completed well, a
potable --
MR. CHMELIK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- well on Manatee Road that has been
there for some time, and we're holding it --
MR. CHMELIK: Yes.
MR. OCHS: It's in reserves.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- in reserve status, that's right.
MR. CHMELIK: It's not being used at this time, but it's ready to
go into service if needed.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's important that everybody understand
that. This is the first time we've drilled an ASR well.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. One more question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The original well was used --
the funds were impact fees? Is there -- only thing that I --
MR. CHMELIK: User fees, sir. They were user fees.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The only reason I'm
asking is, is there -- does there have to be a true-up? And you don't
have to answer it now. If you use one source for this well and you're
using a different source, does it have to be trued-up eventually?
MR. CHMELIK: No. We're all user fees.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Fiala. There is no second yet.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seconded by Commissioner Hiller.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 231
September 11-12, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
MR. CHMELIK: Thank you very much, Commissioners.
Item #11K
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AWARD OF ITB #12-5893
FOR TOURISM INTERNATIONAL REPRESENTATION
SERVICES FOR UK/IRELAND TO OMMAC, LTD. AND FOR
EUROPE TO DIAMONDE AND CORRESPONDING TOURISM
AGREEMENTS AT A COMBINED TOTAL ANNUAL COST OF
$400,000 AND INCLUDES A REVISED TERMINATION
NOTIFICATION PERIOD OF 60 DAYS — APPROVED
(SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 )
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, the next item was moved off of
your consent agenda at Commissioner Hiller's request. It was
previously Item 16F3. It is now 11K on your agenda. It's a
recommendation to approve the award of Invitation to Bid 12-5893 for
tourism international representation services for UK/Ireland to
OMMAC, Limited, and for Europe to Diamonde and corresponding
tourism agreements at a combined total annual cost of$400,000, to
include a revised termination notification period of 60 days.
Mr. Wert is available to answer questions or make a presentation.
MR. WERT: Good morning. For the record, Jack Wert, your
tourism director.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute, wait a minute.
Commissioner Hiller, you have questions.
Page 232
September 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I do.
Jack, what I'd like to know is what have these companies
produced for us over the last year? We're under contract with them
now. What have they actually done for us? What's the return on the
investment that we have actually experienced with them --
MR. WERT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- in the last 12 months? And how
are you going to measure the return on the investment of 400,000 in
these companies for the next year so that we have a benchmark to
evaluate them by prospectively?
MR. WERT: Okay. If I might, I have a slide, I think, that will
answer that, Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
MR. WERT: The international visitation with the assistance of
these two firms, one in Europe, one in UK/Ireland area, you can see
on this slide that visitation -- and we have had international visitation.
You just asked about last year, but I'll show you the growth here from
2006 on.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
MR. WERT: And you can see that nearly every year, with the
exception of that one year when the worldwide recession was really
impacting virtually the entire world in '09, where we were pretty much
flat that year, we have risen. And, actually, in the last year,
Commissioner, we have the highest visitation that we have on record
from our international market; 13.6 percent of our total visitation last
year was international.
To answer your question on the return on investment, last year in
2011 we measured the number of visitors that we track in a
combination of ways, but people that request information or actually
book travel through one of the tour operators. And we've talked
before; that really is the mode of how reservations are made in the
international market. They still use travel agents and tour operators,
Page 233
September 11-12, 2012
and so that's an important thing. They use catalogs to determine
where they might be going.
So we were able to track, last year, visitor spending from those
international visitors who had indicated they had been influenced by
our advertising or booked directly with those tour operators that we
had special deals going with; a little over $16.5 million in spending.
That gives us a return on investment of what we invested in our
international marketing at $45 of international visitor spending for
each dollar we invested in marketing and advertising.
One of the other measures that we have been using for a long
time -- and I'll finish with this, Chairman -- is when we started in
2006, on average we had three of our Collier County properties listed
in these various catalogs. We now are averaging eight. They have
really done a tremendous job in getting us more exposure in the
international market.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's great. Just to clarify, we --
international visitation is -- what is -- the 203,694, what does that
represent?
MR. WERT: Those are actual people -- those are actual visitor
numbers.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We only have 200,000
international visitors a year in -- like, two in the 2001 --
MR. WERT: Yeah. Which is about -- almost 14 percent of our
total visitation is international. And it's growing every year. And I --
I don't have it on one of the slides.
But one of the important things about international visitors, they
stay longer and they spend more dollars. So they really are important.
One other quick thing is that that length of stay, it's risen in just
the last year from four nights to seven nights, and 21 of our hotels in
Collier County actually benefit and are under contract with the various
tour operators in Europe and the UK.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, thank you very much for
Page 234
September 11-12, 2012
your presentation.
Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A motion by Commissioner
Hiller, second by Commissioner Fiala to approve.
Go ahead, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Just fast, to underscore
what Jack was just saying. I had a hotelier -- and this wasn't recently.
This was last year -- a hotelier say that when we started advertising in
the UK and Germany, they could immediately see a difference. They
said it wasn't a year later. They said they could immediately see it by
their reservations. And so I would just have to say the program is
working, and they're good spending visitors.
MR. WERT: They are. Thank you.
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: Motion is carried unanimously.
MR. WERT: Thank you very much, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Are we going to the LDC now?
Item #9C
RECOMMENDATION TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE OF
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE 04-41, AS
Page 235
September 11-12, 2012
AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND
REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY PROVIDING FOR:
SECTION ONE, RECITALS; SECTION TWO, FINDINGS OF
FACT; SECTION THREE, ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO
THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, MORE SPECIFICALLY
AMENDING THE FOLLOWING: CHAPTER 1 - GENERAL
PROVISIONS, INCLUDING SECTION 1 .08.02 DEFINITIONS;
CHAPTER 2 - ZONING DISTRICTS AND USES, INCLUDING
SECTION 2.03.01 AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICTS,
SECTION 2.03.07 OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS, SECTION
2.03.08 RURAL FRINGE ZONING DISTRICTS; CHAPTER
THREE - RESOURCE PROTECTION, INCLUDING SECTION
3.05.02 EXEMPTIONS FROM REQUIREMENTS FOR
VEGETATION PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION, SECTION
3.05.05 CRITERIA FOR REMOVAL OF PROTECTED
VEGETATION, SECTION 3.05.07 PRESERVATION
STANDARDS, SECTION 3.06.06 REGULATED WELLFIELDS,
SECTION 3.06.07 UNREGULATED WELLFIELDS, SECTION
3.06.12 REGULATED DEVELOPMENT; CHAPTER FOUR -
SITE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS,
INCLUDING SECTION 4.02.01 DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS
FOR PRINCIPAL USES IN BASE ZONING DISTRICTS,
SECTION 4.02.04 STANDARDS FOR CLUSTER RESIDENTIAL
DESIGN, SECTION 4.02.14 DESIGN STANDARDS FOR
DEVELOPMENT IN THE ST AND ACSC-ST DISTRICTS,
SECTION 4.02.16 DESIGN STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT
IN THE BMUD-NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
SUBDISTRICT, SECTION 4.02.17 DESIGN STANDARDS FOR
DEVELOPMENT IN THE BMUD-WATERFRONT
SUBDISTRICT, SECTION 4.02.18 DESIGN STANDARDS FOR
Page 236
September 11-12, 2012
DEVELOPMENT IN THE BMUD-RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT
(R1), SECTION 4.02.19 DESIGN STANDARDS FOR
DEVELOPMENT IN THE BMUD-RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT
(R2), SECTION 4.02.20 DESIGN STANDARDS FOR
DEVELOPMENT IN THE BMUD-RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT
(R3), SECTION 4.02.21 DESIGN STANDARDS FOR
DEVELOPMENT IN THE BMUD-RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT
(R4), SECTION 4.02.35 DESIGN STANDARDS FOR
DEVELOPMENT IN THE GTMUD-MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT
(MXD), SECTION 4.02.36 DESIGN STANDARDS FOR
DEVELOPMENT IN THE GTMUD-RESIDENTIAL
SUBDISTRICT (R), SECTION 4.05.02 DESIGN STANDARDS,
SECTION 4.05.04 PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS,
SECTION 4.06.02 BUFFER REQUIREMENTS, SECTION 4.06.03
LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS FOR VEHICULAR USE
AREAS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY, SECTION 4.06.04 TREES AND
VEGETATION PROTECTION, SECTION 4.07.02 DESIGN
REQUIREMENTS; CHAPTER FIVE - SUPPLEMENTAL
STANDARDS, INCLUDING SECTION 5.03.02 FENCES AND
WALLS, SECTION 5.03.06 DOCK FACILITIES, ADDING
SECTION 5.03.07 PORTABLE STORAGE CONTAINERS,
SECTION 5.05.08 ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN
STANDARDS, SECTION 5.06.00 SIGN REGULATION AND
STANDARDS BY LAND USE CLASSIFICATION, SECTION
5.06.02 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SIGNS WITHIN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, SECTION 5.06.03 DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS FOR SIGNS FOR INSTITUTIONAL USES,
SECTION 5.06.04 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SIGNS IN
NONRESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, SECTION 5.06.05
EXEMPTIONS FROM THESE REGULATIONS; CHAPTER SIX -
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AND ADEQUATE
PUBLIC FACILITIES REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING SECTION
Page 237
September 11-12, 2012
6.02.01 GENERALLY, SECTION 6.02.03 TRANSPORTATION
LEVEL OF SERVICE REQUIREMENTS, SECTION 6.06.01
STREET SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS, SECTION 6.06.02
SIDEWALKS, BIKE LANE AND PATHWAY REQUIREMENTS;
CHAPTER NINE — VARIATIONS FROM CODE
REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING SECTION 9.03.02
REQUIREMENTS OF CONTINUATION OF
NONCONFORMITIES, SECTION 9.04.02 TYPES OF
VARIANCES AUTHORIZED, ADDING SECTION 9.04.08
ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT; CHAPTER TEN —
APPLICATION, REVIEW, AND DECISION-MAKING
PROCEDURES, INCLUDING SECTION 10.01.02
DEVELOPMENT ORDERS REQUIRED, SECTION 10.02.00
APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS, 10.02.03 SUBMITTAL
REQUIREMENTS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS,
SECTION 10.02.05 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR
IMPROVEMENTS PLANS, SECTION 10.02.06 SUBMITTAL
REQUIREMENTS FOR PERMITS, SECTION 10.02.07
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICATES OF
PUBLIC FACILITY ADEQUACY, SECTION 10.02.13 PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) PROCEDURES, SECTION
10.03.05 NOTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS
BEFORE THE BCC, THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, THE EAC, AND THE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD, SECTION 10.08.00
CONDITIONAL USES PROCEDURES; APPENDIX A —
STANDARD PERFORMANCE SECURITY DOCUMENTS FOR
REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS; SECTION FOUR, CONFLICT
AND SEVERABILITY; SECTION FIVE, INCLUSION IN THE
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; AND
SECTION SIX, EFFECTIVE DATE — MOTION TO AMEND
Page 238
September 11-12, 2012
CHAPTER 1 - GENERAL PROVISIONS; SECTION 1.08.02,
DEFINITIONS "KENNELING" - APPROVED;
MOTION TO AMEND CHAPTER 4 - SITE DESIGN AND
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; SECTION 4.05.02, DESIGN
STANDARDS AND SECTION 4.05.04, PARKING SPACE
REQUIREMENTS - APPROVED;
MOTION TO AMEND CHAPTER 10 - APPLICATION, REVIEW
AND DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES; SECTION 10.02.07,
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICATES OF
PUBLIC FACILITY ADEQUACY SUBSECTION C.1.B, ANNUAL
TRAFFIC REPORTS - APPROVED;
MOTION TO AMEND CHAPTER 2 - ZONING DISTRICTS AND
USES; SECTION 2.03.07, OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS
SUBSECTION 2.03.07 G, BAYSHORE CRA REVISIONS -
APPROVED;
MOTION TO AMEND CHAPTER 1 - GENERAL PROVISIONS;
SECTION 1 .08.02, DEFINITIONS "HAZARDOUS PRODUCT
AND WASTE" - APPROVED;
MOTION TO AMEND CHAPTER 3 - RESOURCE
PROTECTION; SECTION 3.06.06 REGULATED WELLFIELDS
SUBSECTION 3.06.07, UNREGULATED WELLFIELDS -
APPROVED;
MOTION TO AMEND CHAPTER 3 - RESOURCE
PROTECTION; SECTION 3.06.06 REGULATED WELLFIELDS
SUBSECTION 3.06.12, REGULATED DEVELOPMENT -
APPROVED;
MOTION TO AMEND CHAPTER 3 - RESOURCE
PROTECTION; SECTION 3.06.06 REGULATED WELLFIELDS
SUBSECTIONS 3.06.06A - 3.06.06 I - APPROVED;
MOTION TO AMEND CHAPTER 3 - RESOURCE
PROTECTION, SECTION 3.06.06 REGULATED WELLFIELDS;
SUBSECTIONS 3.06.06 I., PORT OF THE ISLANDS WELLFIELD
Page 239
September 11-12, 2012
— APPROVED AMENDMENTS (SEPTEMBER 12, 2012) AND
FINAL ADOPTION TO TAKE PLACE ON SEPTEMBER 25, 2012
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. That's Item 9C on your agenda. It's a
recommendation to consider an ordinance of the Board of
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Order Number
04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code,
which includes comprehensive land regulations for the unincorporated
area of Collier County, Florida.
And Ms. Caroline Cilek will continue the presentation where we
left off last time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning.
MS. CILEK: Good morning, Commissioners. Caroline Cilek,
senior planner with the growth management division. And I'm here
today to present the second set of LDC amendments in the current
cycle for your consideration. Today's focus will be the amendments
on the agenda.
I will be returning on September 25th to present the last set of
LDC amendments in this cycle, along with the proposed ordinances.
We are preparing two ordinances: One ordinance for the
majority of the amendments and one ordinance for the Bayshore
Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Agency amendment.
The Land Development Code requires that -- LDC amendments
which propose changes to the zoning map involving 10 contiguous
acres and which proposed changes to land uses are considered at two
board hearing dates, with one hearing scheduled after 5 o'clock.
In the current cycle, there are two amendments that fall into this
category. The first is the wellfield amendments, which propose
changes to the zoning map involving 10 contiguous acres or more, and
the second is the Bayshore Gateway Triangle redevelopment agency
amendment which proposed changes to the list of permitted,
conditional, and prohibited uses of land.
Page 240
September 11-12, 2012
Accordingly, these amendments are scheduled for a time certain
of 5:05 on September 25th.
With that, I can begin going through the amendments. I'd like to
know if there's any public speakers as well.
MR. OCHS: You'd have to ask Mr. Mitchell.
MR. MITCHELL: We've nobody registered to speak.
MS. CILEK: Okay, great. Thanks.
The first amendment on the agenda is 1.08.02, definitions of
kenneling. This amendment follows board direction September 27th
of last year to refine the kenneling definition to describe a licensed
establishment that provides a kenneling service for household pets.
The amendment eliminates a numerical limitation on number of dogs.
This was voted 8-1 in favor by the Planning Commission.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you want individual votes for each of
these?
MS. CILEK: Yes, please.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Coletta.
Commissioner Henning -- or Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
I understand that Brad Schiffer voted against this on the Planning
Commission. And I know he has concerns about animal welfare
issues, as do I.
And so I'd like to have a better understanding of exactly what this
Land Development Code adjustment is doing, and I'd like to know
how this ties into any prospective amendment of the ordinance
regarding kenneling and animal care --
MS. CILEK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- is going -- you know, how it ties
Page 241
September 11-12, 2012
in and what's being contemplated for that.
And, Jeff, I'd like to know, you know, where you are on that
ordinance.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, it's not really where I am. Your
Domestic Animal Services Advisory Board has been vetting the
ordinance now, it must be well over a year, and they're still in the
process of vetting the ordinance.
I haven't spent a lot of time on the drafts because they keep
changing. And I've asked Ms. Townsend to get me the final draft
from their proposal at that point in time and look it over for legal
sufficiency.
And if the board approves this particular definition, then this
definition will have to coincide with that new ordinance.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So, in effect, what we're doing
here by creating a new definition, we are binding them to the
definition we're adopting this approval today?
MR. KLATZKOW: Binding them? Yeah, I mean, either you
take the two ordinances at the same time, or you take one at a time.
So if you use the DAS ordinance and you define kenneling, you'd
want to amend your Land Development Code to coincide so it's --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Exactly. So I really think right
now we shouldn't be amending this till we find out, you know, what
the other ordinance is proposing and come up with a mutually
agreeable definition that satisfies, you know, development services as
well as the Animal Services Advisory Board. I think this is not the
appropriate time to be making this change.
MS. CILEK: I do know that one of the recommendations of the
county attorney, while we were working with Amanda Townsend on
this amendment, was that our definitions of kenneling do not conflict.
So I do know that the ordinance that they are proposing is not going --
they're working very hard for it not to conflict with this definition and
that they would be able to co-exist.
Page 242
September 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But the problem is, is since it has
not been finalized, we are, in effect, going to be forcing their hand to
agree with this because it's been adopted, or we're going to have to
bring this back and amend it when, you know, they come up with
something different. It's just premature to did it. It should be done
concurrently, and it should be done with, you know, mutual agreement
by both development services and animal services.
So I actually -- I understand there's a motion on the table, but I
would ask that -- if the motion maker could please reconsider
continuing this item till this matter is resolved.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think we need a little more clarification
before I ask that question. But please explain to us the effect of
removing the number of animals. That's essentially what you're doing,
isn't it?
MS. CILEK: Right. I'll do my best.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. CILEK: What this will do is it will guide the regulations for
what is allowed in specific zoning districts. So currently the LDC
provides that kenneling service can be in different zoning districts, and
I've outlined them on the amendment. So if you look on Page 3 right
above the actual changed language, 1 through 6 identify where you
can have a kenneling service.
So what this will do is it will guide, you know, what a kenneling
service is and then where they can have it. It's making that direct
connection.
What it is removing is the numerical limitation on the number of
dogs. Currently, if a single-family homeowner had more than three
dogs, then they would be in violation of this LDC amendment, excuse
me, of this definition.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. So, essentially, what
you're -- what the committee has said is that where we have limits now
for private homeowners, we are dealing with the potential nuisance
Page 243
September 11-12, 2012
factor based upon complaints that might be lodged against that person
rather than putting it in the ordinance; is that a fair statement?
MS. CILEK: I believe so.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Which I think is a far more
reasonable way to handle it, because we were having some difficulty
about people who wanted to have four or five cats in the house, and
we were saying, no, you can't do that. But in any event, when will
you have the other issues related to this finalized?
MS. CILEK: Well, we actually had worked pretty hard to make
sure that these would come together at the same time, the animal
control ordinance, but most recently that has come -- will be coming a
little bit later to you for consideration. And if it's the board's desire to
have this come back, that's just fine.
We've worked extensively with Ms. Townsend on this, and I've
been monitoring that ordinance as well. So I can't predict when it will
be back, but she's working on it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What impact would it have on the LDC
ratifications if we delay it much further?
MR. KLATZKOW: It doesn't. You can do these as companion
items if you want.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners --
MR. KLATZKOW: You can carve this out of this process right
now and, as Commissioner Hiller suggested, wait till the other
ordinance comes here, and you can do them as companion items. This
is a very minor change.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right.
MR. OCHS: Sir, we're scheduled internally to bring the animal
control ordinance revisions to the board at the second meeting of
October, which would be the 23rd of October.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can we deal with this LDC change at
that time, the same time?
Page 244
September 11-12, 2012
MS. CILEK: Most certainly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Then I'll ask the
motion maker and the second if they would like to revise their motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not without discussion first.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If I recall, this was a result of a
public petition where a personal -- where a person had four dogs at
their home.
MS. CILEK: It was over three.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was over three. And our
previous zoning director determined they fit under kenneling, and they
could not be -- have these animals in their residential home because
they're kenneling.
Now, if you look at the language on Page 3 that is being
removed, it removes the language of residential purposes, and that's all
it's doing is defining what kenneling is. It's an operation of a business,
not at a home, but it has to be in a commercial establishment. That's
all it's doing.
So because we have this interpretation by our previous zoning
director, people that have more than four dogs at home are not in
compliance of our ordinance.
So actually this amendment is good. It does not -- it just defines
what kenneling is as a business and not a person keeping dogs at
home. That's all it does.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If I may comment on that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sorry. I just want to respond to
what Commissioner Henning said. And your interpretation may be
absolutely correct. I just -- the only reason I recommended what I did
is so that the advisory board and citizens have the ability to provide
the input and provide their concurrence with it. So at the end of the
day we may be exactly where we are right now, but I think since
Page 245
September 11-12, 2012
we've got that other group working concurrently, or I should say in
tandem, with development services to make sure that they agree and
that there shouldn't be any additional modification or, you know, some
other clarification --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, do you agree that
kenneling is not a -- you know, a person keeping pets at home?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, then let's approve this
then.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, because I want the input from
the community and from the advisory services.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And they've been working on
this for over a year. And in the meantime people that have more than
three pets at their home are in violation of our code.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well -- and that raises the issue
that Commissioner Coyle raised, which is completely valid, and that
is, you know, at what point having a large number of animals can
create a nuisance and is there a requirement for some regulation for,
you know, residential limits like, for example, people who are, you
know, housing, you know, hundreds of feral cats.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, can you imagine -- there's
laws about taking care of animals and how you take care of animals.
But we start regulating how many animals you can have in a house,
where does it stop? How many kids you have at a house?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't know enough about the
animal laws to be able to respond to you.
But, Jeff, maybe you can help us with what are the health/safety
concerns with the number of animals. And, you know, are there --
what are the state and federal laws, if you're familiar with them, if
you've been working with community on this?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, it is a regulated area. But, I mean,
quite frankly, it's how you take care of your animals. I mean, I'd
Page 246
September 11-12, 2012
rather live next door to somebody with five quiet dogs than one dog
that barks all day long. You know, right now Commissioner Henning
is right. I mean, you are tying residential property to number of dogs
that they have. But this has been this way for years, we've had this in
here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So your motion stands?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My motion stands.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the seconder?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: My second, as soon as I get to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Speak.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- just mention one thing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Your second stands?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, my second stands right now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I just wanted to ask just a
question along this line, because this is the way I had understood it as
well, Commissioner Henning. And I just felt very -- that's why, of
course, I seconded it.
We have a lady down the street who has six dogs. One is a
rescue greyhound. The other ones are little ones. They take them for
a walk every day, and she takes them in a baby stroller and stuff.
Never bothers a soul, and nobody bothers her. She's legal, isn't she?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, not now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But she will be legal after this right?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: She will if you approve this, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Same with the guy down the street
who has four Alaskan huskies, big dogs. Takes them for a -- they take
him for a walk every day, morning and night. But they don't bother a
soul. You know, no neighbors are complaining or anything. So I feel
that this is a needed -- a needed amendment.
So thank you. My second stands.
Page 247
September 11-12, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I ask just one question?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: One question.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you kennel in a residential
zone? Can you get a license to kennel in a residential community?
MS. CILEK: If you look at the top of Page 3, 1 through 6,
residential is not listed in those zoning districts.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So, basically, no kenneling is
allowed in residential -- residentially zoned districts?
MS. CILEK: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I just want to go back to the
definition of kenneling. Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor of the motion, please
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The motion passes unanimously.
Thanks.
MS. CILEK: All righty. The next amendment is 4.05.02, design
standards, and 4.05.04, parking space requirements.
Section 4.05.04 of the LDC allows any development with over
200 parking spaces to surface 15 percent of the required off-street
parking spaces in a grass surface.
Additionally, houses of worship and schools may use grass
parking for up to 70 percent of their parking spaces. This amendment
proposed to remove 200-parking-space threshold for public parks and
similar private recreational facilities and allow these facilities to
Page 248
September 11-12, 2012
utilize grass parking for up to 70 percent of their required off-street
parking.
Consistent with the current code, the grass parking spaces will be
compacted, stabilized, well drained, and surfaced with a durable grass
cover. Driveways, handicap spaces, and aisles will be paved.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Hiller, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Commissioner Hiller, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think it's great that you're
proposing this. The more non-paved surfaces the better for our
drainage. So I think it's positive. Thank you for suggesting it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
MS. CILEK: Next amendment is 10.02.07, submittal -- oh,
10.02.07 c.l.b, submittal requirements for certificate of public
facilities adequacy.
This amendment proposed a change to the annual traffic PUD
monitoring section in the LDC. Currently, PUD property owners file a
monitoring report regarding their development on an annual basis.
Included in the report is a traffic count study, and there are two
alternatives provided in the LDC to complete this requirement. These
alternatives include a payment in lieu or a traffic count waiver if
Page 249
September 11-12, 2012
appropriate.
The amendment proposes to change the process and allow for a
one-time payment of$500 in place of the traffic count study.
It is proposed that a property owner would pay for each access
point within the PUD. The one-time fee would be considered fulfilled
for PUDs that have already provided one traffic count report or a
payment in lieu.
PUDs that have a traffic count monitoring language tied to
specific commitments within their ordinances shall remain in effect.
This was approved by the Planning Commission unanimously.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. This is another resident-friendly
proposal, isn't it, for -- to help residents once the phase-out is
completed? It does have a positive effect on them, does it not?
MS. CILEK: I would say yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make a motion to approve. DSAC
also approved this, and they would have been an important component
in this, so I certainly approve it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A motion to approve by
Commissioner Fiala. Seconded by?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I pass.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
Page 250
September 11-12, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion passes unanimously.
MS. CILEK: Okay. The next amendment is the Bayshore
Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Agency amendment, and this
amendment will be presented by Chris Scott, principal planner with
the growth management division, and Patrick Vanasse of RWA on
behalf of the private applicant, the Bayshore Gateway Triangle
Redevelopment Agency.
Please note that this amendment will return on September 25th
for a second review.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Good presentation.
Question, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What was the Planning
Commission's vote?
MR. SCOTT: It was a unanimous recommendation for approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. These are all design
standards within residential and commercial, correct? For --
MR. SCOTT: Correct. Yeah, it changes the design standards --
for the record, Chris Scott, principal planner with the growth
management division.
In addition to some formatting and reshuffling of provisions,
there are some design standard revisions. A lot of them are carryovers
from existing overlay subdistricts but there are some revisions as well.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. On a sidenote, there
could be some potential, maybe, cost savings and review if we include
the CRA, the Bayshore CRA staff for review. If somebody's going to
build a house or somebody's going to build a commercial building, it
has to go through the review process of the county staff
And would it make more sense to have the Bayshore CRA staff
Page 251
September 11-12, 2012
review prior or review and approve?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I like that idea.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is good in principle, I think. The -- but
the problem is that you might have enough work to overwhelm the
existing staff on the reviews, and that means you may be faced with a
situation in the future of allocating more money for personnel.
Would it not be a good thing to have someone in the Bayshore
area review the review of the county staff? In other words, a summary
review rather than having a primary review?
MS. JOURDAN: For the record, Jean Jourdan, interim director,
Bayshore Gateway CRA.
Presently, anything that's done within our overlay is ran through
our office first, and we do have input with county staff. But, of
course, at the end, still approval is through county staff. But we're
made aware and copied on everything that goes through county staff
as far as our office. And, in addition, county staff actually has anyone
who wants to do anything within the overlay contact us, and then we
have to tell them, yes, they have spoken with us.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you don't anticipate any problems
with rapid response to requests for development that would
overburden your staff?
MS. JOURDAN: I don't feel at this time that our staff should be
the final say. I still think it should go through the county staff but
remain as it is where we actually are involved and work with the
county staff.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine. You answered my
questions. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like the -- I would like the
significant changes publicly described.
Page 252
September 11-12, 2012
MR. SCOTT: Sure. The significant changes -- there are some
insignificant. Like I had mentioned before, there's some
reorganization, and the organization follows the general organization
of the greater Land Development Code and that Chapter 2 provides
your districts, your overlay subdistricts. Chapter 4 provides your
development standards, and then Chapter 10 has your procedures and
those types of things.
There are no map amendments associated with the amendments,
so everyone's underlying zoning designation and overlay subdistrict
designations will remain the same.
The significant or substantive changes would be -- there's some
new uses that are introduced, and that's the reason this has to come
before you for a second hearing after 5 o'clock. Those include
live/work units where you could have residential and a nonresidential
use in the same structure. Similar to mixed use, but it would be the
same tenant occupying both -- artists village and community gardens,
which are new uses to the community -- and does incorporate some
form-based provisions in that your setback standards and some of your
development standards would be a little more flexible based off of
what the structure looks like.
So if it's a house, it would have setbacks that would be typical for
a house-looking structure as opposed to a commercial-looking
structure.
There are some provisions for murals to be exempt, not part of
the sign ordinance, but to allow for some murals in portions of the
CRA.
And then it does establish some nonconforming provisions that
are specific to the CRA, which are intended to help for revitalization.
So a lot of the things that would trigger bringing everything back into
full compliance with the ordinance may not -- aren't as strict within
the CRA to help further reinvestment with these existing structures.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Could you please go over that last
Page 253
September 11-12, 2012
point. You know, we have a problem in Immokalee where we have
changes in uses which have effectuated takings specifically with
mobile homes. So I'm very concerned about that last statement that
you just made about what you are doing to deal with nonconforming
uses, and to the extent that you're changing these regulations, would
they make what is conforming now nonconforming, and what
provisions are you including to protect those property rights to ensure
that they are properly grandfathered. So it's a two-pronged question
that's weighted with concern.
MR. SCOTT: Sure. Okay. As you're aware, Section 9 of the
LDC includes the county's nonconforming provisions that apply
countywide. While the amendments to Bayshore were being looked at,
one of the concerns that kept coming up from the community is, you
know, we have a building that's been sitting vacant for a year, and the
county won't let us -- or the county is requiring the property to be
brought completely back up to code in order for anyone to occupy it.
So as these amendments were being done, the thought process
was if the redevelopment area had its own conforming provisions to
lessen that standard for what would trigger full compliance from what
is required throughout the county in Section 9 of the LDC -- so those
triggers provide more flexibility so -- as opposed to -- I believe, for
example, the existing LDC requires, if you have 50 percent and -- of
the value of the structure and improvements to a nonconforming
property, you have to bring the entire thing up.
This provided greater flexibility in what gets included in that 50
percent. So if it were something to bring it up to building code, you
wouldn't include that dollar amount. It does allow more flexibility for
not having to bring parking lots, necessarily, into compliance and
those types of things.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Jeff, I don't understand what was
just described. Are you saying that if a building sits vacant for a
period of time that the county is requiring the owner of the building to
Page 254
September 11-12, 2012
bring the entire building up to current code? I don't understand that.
How could that possibly be? That -- what code is --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I jump in here just a little bit?
We've had a few over, like, in the triangle, for instance. The triangle
was cut up -- the triangle's 14 acres, and it's cut up into slices. And
some of the slices are together, some of them are elongated. But in
those slices, if somebody bought a building in that slice, for instance,
there was no room to put the parking, now required, as well as the
landscaping, now required. By the time you got those things in, there
was no room for the building.
And so they felt that in many cases, these nonconforming lots, as
long as they brought them up to standards but yet could fit into this
slice of property, should be considered.
And one of them is -- well, there's so many of them. But,
anyway, one of them is where they have night club right now. Well,
there was no room for parking in there, so they were able to work with
the landscaping and work with the parking. And, actually, they park
off site in order to conform with the rules and yet they were still able
to use that property and move forward. There are a number of other
nonconforming.
Also, there were mobile homes, but they were uninhabitable, let
me just say that, except they were housing eight and ten people a
night. They were rented by the night. And they really shouldn't have
even been there. And so the CRA bought them up. I think there were
10, 12, 17? I can't remember how many there were.
MS. JOURDAN: Twenty-one.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Twenty-one, okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Were they voluntary sales?
MS. JOURDAN: Yes, except for we purchased five through the
code enforcement department. They had been -- acquired outstanding
liens, and code had foreclosed on them, so we actually purchased them
from code enforcement.
Page 255
September 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So they were foreclosed on by --
MS. JOURDAN: Some of them were. These were not ones that
we -- the CRA had targeted. The ones that the CRA targeted were
bought from willing purchasers -- willing sellers, and then there were
a few that were in the coffers of code enforcement, and we purchased
those properties since they were in the triangle.
All we did was we paid code enforcement for their fees and
everything affiliated with them in order to -- they had foreclosed on
some properties that were in very bad condition and demolished the
mobile homes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uninhabitable, really.
And let me continue to say that when they took those properties
-- actually, they got rid of them -- you know, they took them to the
dump -- our crime rate in that area dropped 33 percent, right; 33
percent, once you took out that element. So it was amazing the
difference those purchases, some very minimal purchases, made to the
whole community.
And not only that, but now as they move forward, now that they
don't have to work around those things anymore, how the appearance
of the community is improving.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And was alternative housing
sought for these people who were displaced or were they left
homeless?
MS. JOURDAN: No one was displaced. We didn't buy
properties that -- they were vacant.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Stop.
MS. JOURDAN: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute. Stop, stop, stop, stop.
That's not the topic --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Just a question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- under discussion. If you want to have
a discussion about that offline --
Page 256
September 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- then please do that. We're voting on
LDC changes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let's go back to this LDC. And
thank you very much, Commissioner Fiala.
Jeff, I want to be absolutely sure that -- and I'll sit down with you
after, before we rehear this again -- that there is nothing in this section
that is going to effectuate a takings.
MR. KLATZKOW: I had that very discussion with Mr.
Casalanguida this weekend -- and, Caroline, if you could give the
commissioner assurances because you gave me the assurances by
email -- that that's not going to happen. But I had that very
conversation with Nick this weekend.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I'd like to sit down and have
that conversation with you and with Mr. Casalanguida, because what
I'm hearing does give me some concern, but I don't want to come to
any conclusion before I have the opportunity to review this further.
MR. KLATZKOW: Let me get this on the record for you.
MS. CILEK: What we'd like to do is put on the visualizer the
language that relays that the underlying zoning and overlay zoning
will both be applicable for a property owner.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Could you say that again?
MS. CILEK: Give me one second.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, okay.
MS. CILEK: We're going to put some language on the
visualizer.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, all right. Thank you.
MS. CILEK: All right. If you -- this is on Page 17 of the
amendment. And it is, again, repeated under the Gateway Triangle
section of this LDC amendment. And this -- put simply, that the
property owner will have the use of the underlying zoning as well as
the overlay subdistrict uses.
Page 257
September 11-12, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So it provides them the alternative, and
they choose?
MS. CILEK: It does. And this language is stated consistently
throughout the text. This simplifies it into one section.
MR. KLATZKOW: So this LDC amendment, to put you on the
record -- because, Commissioner, that's what will give you the
assurance -- is this LDC amendment will not create any unlawful uses
or any nonconforming properties.
MS. CILEK: This team has taken great care to make sure that
will not happen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I appreciate "great care." I want to
know that it does not --
MS. CILEK: The language under B relays that you will have
both the underlying zoning and the overlay zoning available.
MR. KLATZKOW: Whatever is currently lawful remains
lawful.
MS. CILEK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I am going to -- I hear what you're
saying, and I'm going to go back and review.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes unanimously.
Who's next?
MS. CILEK: All righty. The next amendment category are the
Page 258
September 11-12, 2012
wellfield and related amendments. The first one being 1.08.02,
definitions, hazardous product, hazardous waste. This amendment
brings specificity to the definition of hazardous product or waste.
The proposed language separates the two terms, so there will be
one definition for hazardous product and one definition for hazardous
waste, and each of the definitions identifies the specific state and
federal regulations that apply to each term.
Any questions?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Hiller.
Commissioner Fiala, was your light on for a reason or left over
from before?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Left over from before.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion carries unanimously. Thank
you.
MS. CILEK: The next amendment is 3.06.07, unregulated
wellfields.
In this amendment it proposed to remove language identifying
the Port of the Islands as an unregulated wellfield. We are proposing
to remove this language because the Port of the Islands wellfield is
moving to a regulated wellfield. And LDC amendment 3.06.06 I, the
Page 259
September 11-12, 2012
second from the last on the agenda, identifies it will go into the
language as a regulated wellfield.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's a public wellfield?
MS. CILEK: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
MS. CILEK: The next amendment is 3.06.12. And this
amendment proposes to correct a grammatical error on Line 9, that's it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where's the underline?
MS. CILEK: On Line 9 --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nine.
MS. CILEK: -- there is, I believe, an extra comma, and there's
only a period needed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It was a big one.
Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think we need some discussion on this.
Why was there a comma in the first place?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Coyle, if I may.
I'm so glad you raised the question, because I was going to defer to
you on this one. I knew this was one you could actually handle, so I
was going to give it up.
Page 260
September 11-12, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, okay.
We have a motion to approve.
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.
MS. CILEK: Great.
Moving on, the next amendment, 3.06.06 A. I'm going to go
through A through 3.060.6 I. With the exception of the "add" Port of
the Islands language, are all map changes to the regulated wellfields.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just to make sure, do we need to do
those individually?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. You just did them collectively.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. The motion -- was there anyone
opposed to this? Commissioner Hiller? No, okay. It passes
unanimously.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You know, I can't say no when
Page 261
September 11-12, 2012
you look at me like that. I just can't.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'll keep that in mind.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just a clarification, "I" was just
adding Port of the Isles?
MS. CILEK: There are two "I"s. The first one is adding Port of
the Islands language, and the second is the actual addition of the map.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's two "I"s?
MS. CILEK: Yes. "I" and "I" dot. We all have to "I"s.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The next change will be removal of the
dot.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve --
MS. CILEK: With that --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- 3.06.06 I dot, right?
MS. CILEK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So that includes all of them. We
have a motion now to include all of those, right, or did you break
those apart?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. We did the maps on your
last page.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: "I" dot is a separate motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is a separate --
MS. CILEK: Excellent.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify -- we
have a motion by Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I seconded.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 262
September 11-12, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I guess not. It passes unanimously.
MS. CILEK: With that, I conclude my LDC amendments for
today. I will return with the Bayshore and these wellfield maps on the
25th.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Good.
MS. CILEK: Thank you for your time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS:
(SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 )
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 15 on your
agenda this morning, staff and commission general communications.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Do you have anything, County
Manager?
MR. OCHS: No, sir, nothing this morning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. A couple of things. I read
an article in the Naples Daily News last night.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, no.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I did. I'm so sorry. And I have
very serious concerns about what was said in this article. And I have
concerns both with respect to what the Naples Daily News wrote as
well as what was said by Commissioners Fiala and Coletta and what
Page 263
September 11-12, 2012
happened as a consequence.
And I'm going to read the title. It says, Accusations of Paid
Votes but no Decision on Immokalee Master Plan.
Mr. Casalanguida, could you come up here?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thanks.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: When you and I met, I think it was
on Thursday to review the agenda, you shared with me something
very similar to what Commissioner Fiala said yesterday. And what
you said to me was that you had been told by Diane Flagg that -- was
it the Blockers or who specifically? Was it the Blockers or Mr. Johns
had said that they had bought --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- the vote on the Immokalee Area
Master Plan?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida.
The discussion I had with both Mr. Johns and Mr. Blocker --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no, not the discussion you had
with them. The discussion you had with me.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, it's relative, ma'am, because it
leads to the discussion I had with you. I discussed with two gentlemen
in the hallway where their comment was, we've worked hard to
change this board. And I said, be careful, because what you had said
was you own the board. And their comment back to me was, well,
let's be clear. We said we don't own the board. We said we've
changed the board. And Ms. Flagg heard the same comment in the
hallway.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's not what you told me.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, ma'am, that's the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You know what you told me?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Go ahead, ma'am.
Page 264
September 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You told me exactly what
Commissioner Fiala said.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Now, I will also tell you the
following. You called me in the evening to tell me that Diane Flagg
had called you and that Diane Flagg retracted her statement and never
said that these gentlemen had said anything of the sort.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, Ms. Flagg reached out to me
and said, I don't want to be in the middle of this. Please make sure
Ms. Hiller understands that I didn't say I said that. I said I overheard
that, and I didn't know who said that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, that's not what you said.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, it was two sentences in our
discussion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Uh-uh, uh-uh.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I have two messages that can be --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm sorry. I'm very concerned,
because exactly what you said --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- is what Commissioner Fiala said
yesterday.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, let me just jump in here and
say I never spoke to Nick about this nor Diane Flagg. This is what I
heard from residents in Immokalee.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I heard it from Mr.
Casalanguida, and that's why I'm bringing it up.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We never discussed that. I don't
know.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner Fiala, you're correct.
We never discussed that. It never came up between us.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But this is the surprise --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But this is a very significant issue,
Page 265
September 11-12, 2012
the fact that you said to me exactly what Commissioner Fiala brought
up.
Now, what was said on the dais I really have concerns about.
And, quite frankly, what was said and the implications made, I think,
rises to the level of defamation, not only as against Commissioner
Henning and the way the Naples Daily News has drafted this, to
myself, but also to Mr. Johns and the Blocker family to whom these
statements were attributed by innuendo.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now, let me jump in here and say I
was accused also of-- yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: By who?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: By somebody in Immokalee who
said the Blockers said they own you and they've bought and paid for
the results to this conversation. They didn't say it quite like that. They
said they own you and they --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Own you?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, they own me. I said, I don't
even know them, I mean, other than seeing them in an audience. I
said, they never donated to my campaign. They never gave me any
money. You know, I don't know. But they said, well, that's the --
that's the rumor that's going around Immokalee.
And not only that, I did not hear that once from one person. And
I didn't hear it from staff at all. I just heard it from Immokaleeans, and
that was what was in --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Now, there is a problem. You took
a rumor, and you made it a public statement, and you have, as a
consequence, tainted the reputation of these private citizens and of
Commissioner Henning and, as a consequence of the Naples Daily
News attributing your statements to both him and me, to me as well,
and Commissioner Coletta has done the same.
Now, I will say this. And I'm going to make this very clear --
and, Jeff, correct me if I'm mistaken. But receiving donations as a
Page 266
September 11-12, 2012
candidate is not considered a bribe, is it?
MR. KLATZKOW: Receiving donations, as you know, is highly
regulated by the state.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Correct. But I'm asking a specific
question.
MR. KLATZKOW: By definition, no, that is not a bribe.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Isn't it considered free speech?
Aren't citizens allowed to donate to whomever they want, to
whichever candidate they would like?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, they are.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Let me give you an
example to prove that. And that isn't criminal, is it?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Interesting that you --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let me just ask that. Is it criminal
to make a donation to a candidate that you support?
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. And is there anything
nefarious with making a donation to a candidate you support?
MR. KLATZKOW: Nefarious?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, nefarious, as Naples Daily
News attributed statements made by Commissioner Coletta and Fiala.
MR. KLATZKOW: In and of itself, no.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Great. And here's why I say that,
because Commissioner Coletta and Candidate McDaniel received the
following donations: CDC Land Investments, Collier Vegetables,
Collier Financial Services, Collier Enterprises, Collier Enterprises -- I
don't know who MB Resource Holdings is -- Collier Land and Cattle
Corporation, Collier Land Development, Collier Enterprises, CDC
Land Investment, Collier Management Services, Collier Land
Holdings -- I don't know if CE Resource is part of the same. But
there's nothing criminal, nefarious, or illegal about that, is there?
MR. KLATZKOW: Based on what I know, no.
Page 267
September 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what's the difference between
the Blockers donating and -- quite frankly, they donated very little to
Mr. Henning's campaign and absolutely nothing to me, because I'm
not running.
So how dare two commissioners on this board attack the
credibility of Mr. Johns and the Blocker family? I really think you
owe them an apology, and I think --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I don't think so at all.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- you owe a retraction both to
Commissioner Henning and the Blockers and Mr. Johns and myself,
because it is incorrect and unacceptable.
And as far as the Naples Daily News goes, for stating that these
comments made were nefarious and attributable to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Hiller, you know,
how many times have you said --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- to Commissioner Henning and
me is defamation --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How many times have you said on
this dais --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- and it's malicious defamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How many times on this dais have
you insulted us --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Never.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- have you defamed us?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Never.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, spending like drunken sailors --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, that's true.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- corruption? Yes, right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, spending like drunken sailors
is true.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But that is defamation of character.
That's a little bit different.
Page 268
September 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, that's not defamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And by this one, I'm allowed to
repeat what I've heard on this street.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You have.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You've said, I've heard rumors.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And then when they've talked about
-- oh, yes, you have, and we can pull them up pretty darn easily --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Pull them up.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- with you making such a big point
about it. Thou doth protest too much.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, no.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: All of a sudden --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Mr. Blocker, Mr. Blocker?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- it's beginning to look like we're
very guilty of doing just that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, oh, you've gone overboard.
Now you've really -- you've really -- now you've really gone too far.
MR. BLOCKER: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Mr. Blocker, did you bribe any
member of this board?
MR. BLOCKER: Absolutely not.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Have you legitimately made
donations to a candidate you supported, just like the Colliers donated
to Mr. McDaniel's campaign and to Mr. Coletta's campaign and to
other campaigns?
MR. BLOCKER: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is there any difference between
you and the Colliers?
MR. BLOCKER: Not that I'm aware of.
Page 269
September 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So there's nothing nefarious in
anything you did; you properly paid the amount limited by law?
MR. BLOCKER: Yes, ma'am. I would like to add, Ms. Fiala,
you knew that was a false statement.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, no, I didn't. I wouldn't have
said it.
MR. BLOCKER: Because me and you have never met as far as
-- you knew that was a false statement.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What was a false statement?
MR. BLOCKER: That I bought you or the Blocker family had
bought you, and then you still came up and repeated that yesterday at
-- on the dais.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because I was accused of it, and I --
MR. BLOCKER: You know it was a false statement because
you couldn't have -- it didn't come from me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, no, no, no. Well, it didn't come
from you. It came from the community.
MR. BLOCKER: You knew it couldn't have been true. You
knew it could not have been true.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And you never received anything
from them, and that makes it obvious that you knew it wasn't true.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, okay, okay. We've had enough of
this. If you feel that you've got a legal case, then file it, Commissioner
Hiller, and the Blockers.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm asking for --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This is not the time to interrogate other
commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It is absolutely necessary to get
this on the record.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you've made your point. You have
made your statement, and let's move on.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. I'm going to ask for two
Page 270
September 11-12, 2012
things. I am asking publicly for a retraction.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You mean like I'm sorry that the
whole community says that they've been -- that the Blockers have
bragged that they've bought and paid us -- paid for us?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's a false statement; yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How do I know? That's what the
community has told me.
MR. BLOCKER: Can you bring that community in front of me?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I am asking for a retraction by the
Naples Daily News for their malicious defamation by attributing the
statements you and Commissioner Coletta made to me with respect to
the Blockers.
And I would suggest to you Mr. Blocker, that your family ask the
same of the two commissioners that did it to you and your family and
ask the same of Naples Daily News, because this is unacceptable.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, Commissioner Fiala, go
ahead with your --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: My things.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- yeah, with your things.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, fine. I'm going to put these
on the record.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Leo, first of all, I wanted to ask you
-- I'm right now designated to serve on the Regional Planning Council,
but I have found it's just -- it's so time consuming for me to get all the
way up there and back, and it's -- it happens to be on same day that I'm
also supposed to conduct a meeting. And I was just wondering if
possibly we could select someone else to serve that position.
MR. OCHS: I'm sure that's at the pleasure of the board,
Commissioner, but perhaps the chairman wants to take suggestions or
volunteers.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ian Mitchell can work with you
and put it on the agenda.
Page 271
September 11-12, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You want it on the agenda, or you want
to try to do it now?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. It needs to be recorded, and
I think there has to be a resolution with it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, okay. Can we -- do we need
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't know that there does, but
nevertheless. Is there a resolution required for the appointment of a
representative?
MR. KLATZKOW: Off the top of my head, I just don't know.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Huh?
MR. KLATZKOW: Off the top of my head, I just don't know.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We've always had it on the
agenda in the previous.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, all right. Let's put it on the next
agenda.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, that would be fine. I just felt
if I can't give it my wholehearted support, then I shouldn't -- I should
pass it on to someone else.
Okay. The second thing I wanted to talk about was I was just
wondering if the board would consider bringing a topic up at a future
board meeting about the removal of the trees in shopping centers.
I've heard from a couple individuals here and there. It seems to
be possibly something that other shopping centers might be thinking
of doing. And there -- and people are saying -- I got a nice letter from
the Lindeberrys and -- saying something about how important it is.
And I know in the shopping center right here at Towne Centre they
were taking out the trees because some merchants complained that the
trees prevented people from seeing their signs. On the other hand,
then there's no place to park in any shade.
And so I just thought maybe we could talk about it as a group,
and maybe we could have some of our people just take a look at it.
Page 272
September 11-12, 2012
But, you know, just maybe we could -- I don't like government
regulating too much of anything. But if it's for the convenience of our
citizens or if it's something that we could even consider, I would
appreciate talking about it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You want to bring it back?
MR. OCHS: If I get three nods, I will.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I support Commissioner Fiala. I
think it's absolutely appropriate to address this.
I have a shopping center in my neighborhood that's owned by the
same development that's owned in her neighborhood. And it is private
property, and we do have standards, and the property owner is
properly falling within the four corners of the law in making the
modifications.
The issue is not about that particular developer or those specific
developments but really about the Land Development Code standards
for landscaping of parking lots and how we're reconciling the
requirements or our concerns about public safety as against the interest
of tenants to have visibility from the road and as against users of the
parking lot to feel more comfortable in shade.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The question is, do you want to bring it
back?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So -- absolutely, and so I'm just
explaining why, yes, it is a good idea to bring it back.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All we need is three nods.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You got it here.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So -- but I'd like to make sure that
staff understands what we are looking to reconcile. And I would be
more than happy to sit down with you and share with you the input
I've received from the community where this has helped and also,
having spoken to the developer, their perspective as well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You've got three nods.
MR. OCHS: Thank you. And if any commissioner has some
Page 273
September 11-12, 2012
specific issues in that regard that they want to make sure we
incorporate into the item, please just email me or call me --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure, and that's what I wanted --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And make sure you distribute all of the
input from the commissioners.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, yes, sir. Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That would be great.
And my last thing is, I'd spoke to all of you once before about
PILT funds and about finishing the fire station in Port of the Islands.
That's something that we promised them we would do a long time ago.
The payment in lieu of taxes money that comes in had originally --
when we got it from the state, they said, you know, they wanted us to
definitely protect this area as far as fires and so forth.
And we've put that in the General Fund and used it for many
things. And everything is absolutely legal, but we still haven't fixed
up that fire station.
And now there was an item on the consent agenda which was
pulled and continued, but it was to add six more firefighters, through a
grant. Not that we were going to pay for any of that right now. It's a
two-year grant.
But right now we're housing them, and what I've heard from the
firefighters in that area is the motel that they have to stay in -- very old
motel, but they have a lot of problems with roaches and mice and so
forth, and they can't -- they can't conduct some of their classes.
It's just -- it's not a good -- it's not a good place. It would cost
about $425,000 to get this thing taken care of once and for all and get
it off the books and really assume the responsibility we had promised
them in the beginning.
So I'm going to ask you -- we've got the final budget hearings
coming up, and I would ask you to consider taking that money that we
-- that we get from PILT funds and finishing the job we started. We
already own the building and everything.
Page 274
September 11-12, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Those were my notes.
MR. OCHS: I will bring that -- it's the pleasure of the board. I'll
bring that analysis to you when we meet on the 20th of this month for
your final budget hearing, and I'll show you what impact that will
have on your General Fund reserves, and the board can make a policy
decision.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Thank you very much.
That's it for me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And I have nothing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Been a great meeting. That's all
I got.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I feel that our
community stands alone like no other community in the State of
Florida. We have very -- a lot of amenities that others don't have. We
have beaches and great golf courses and entertainment centers, the
Philharmonic. We have a lot of CEOs that decided to live in this
community. We have communities that our homes are $40 million.
And that's -- represents our community; however, I feel -- and I
have no control. The only control I have is over myself. But I feel
this board doesn't represent this community, and I hope that someday
that we can act as professionals and perceive what this community is
really about, and this community is awesome. And I hope this board
becomes awesome someday.
Thank you. Motion to adjourn.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I wonder -- wonder how many members
of the community would agree with your statements when taken over
the entirety of the service of the board members for the past 12 years,
or is it something that is more recent? I think the record speaks for
itself.
And so we are adjourned until --
Page 275
September 11-12, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to add to that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- next time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think so, too. I think each one of
us, in our own way -- every single one of us sitting on this board and
previous board members have worked very hard for their community.
And to say -- it's kind of like a slap in the face to say we haven't cared
about our community.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We've tried. You and I have
worked on landscaping together because we knew it -- it's what the
community wanted to beautify it. Each one of us has worked to try
and improve their area, to respond to the citizens, to identify problems
before they happen and solve them. And I don't think we've turned
our back on people. And if you do, I'm surprised to hear that,
Commissioner Henning. Yes?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I was going to say something
about the -- actually, Commissioner Henning's statement is factual and
true. It's just where you perceive it to be is the problem. That's the
whole thing.
I mean, does the community think we're doing everything we
could possibly do? I don't think they do. I think there's been a falling
off. I do think responsibility where we're trying to place it is a misfit.
This board did very well until recently. And I'm surprised that,
you know -- I thought -- I was hoping that when we had the primary
elections, then they would end it, and that would be the beginning of
something new that would carry forward.
Obviously, I was terribly wrong on that prediction. And it's
going to be an interesting time between now and November the 16th.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, you
misunderstood my statements.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Again I made a motion to
Page 276
September 11-12, 2012
adjourn.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We are adjourned.
*****
**** Commissioner Coletta moved, seconded by Commissioner
Hiller and carried unanimously that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted ****
Item #16A1
RESOLUTION 2012-144: FINAL APPROVAL OF ROADWAY
AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF
WHITE LAKE CORPORATE PARK PHASE THREE WITH
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PRIVATELY
MAINTAINED AND AUTHORIZING RELEASE OF THE
MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A2
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR GREENWAY ROAD AND AUTHORIZING
THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE
ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY TO THE
PROJECT ENGINEER OR DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED
AGENT — STAFF CONDUCTED A FINAL INSPECTION AND
FOUND FACILITIES SATISFACTORY AND ACCEPTABLE
Page 277
September 11-12, 2012
Item #16A3
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR REGAL ACRES AND AUTHORIZING THE
COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE ANY
UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY TO THE PROJECT
ENGINEER OR DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED AGENT — STAFF
CONDUCTED A FINAL INSPECTION AND FOUND
FACILITIES SATISFACTORY AND ACCEPTABLE
Item #16A4
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR SANDALWOOD/SECOYA AND AUTHORIZE
THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE TO RELEASE
ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY TO THE
PROJECT ENGINEER OR DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED
AGENT — STAFF CONDUCTED A FINAL INSPECTION AND
FOUND FACILITIES SATISFACTORY AND ACCEPTABLE
Item #16A5
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR BUCKS RUN ACCESS AND AUTHORIZING
THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE
ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY TO THE
PROJECT ENGINEER OR DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED
AGENT — STAFF CONDUCTED A FINAL INSPECTION AND
FOUND FACILITIES SATISFACTORY AND ACCEPTABLE
Item #16A6
Page 278
September 11-12, 2012
RESOLUTION 2012-145: FINAL APPROVAL OF PRIVATE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE
FINAL PLAT OF THE IL REGALO REPLAT WITH ROADWAY
& DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PRIVATELY MAINTAINED
AND AUTHORIZING RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE
SECURITY AND ACCEPTING THE PLAT DEDICATIONS
Item #16A7
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER UTILITY FACILITY
FOR THE PLAYER'S CLUB AND SPA AT LELY RESORT AND
AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE,
TO RELEASE ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY TO
THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED
AGENT — STAFF CONDUCTED A FINAL INSPECTION AND
FOUND FACILITIES SATISFACTORY AND ACCEPTABLE
Item #16A8
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR LAKOYA AND AUTHORIZING THE
COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE ANY
UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY TO THE PROJECT
ENGINEER OR DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED AGENT — STAFF
HAS CONDUCTED A FINAL INSPECTION AND FOUND
FACILITIES SATISFACTORY AND ACCEPTABLE
Item #16A9
CONTRACT #08-5130, CHANGE ORDER NO. 5 TO IN THE
AMOUNT OF $46,034 WITH CME ASSOCIATES, INC., FOR
DESIGN & RELATED SERVICES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF
Page 279
September 11-12, 2012
ACCELERATED BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS
AND PILOT BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION (PROJECT #66066) —
AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A10
ACCEPTING A CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND
ESCROW AGREEMENT AS SECURITY FOR EXCAVATION
PERMIT NO. 60.029 FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS FAITH
LANDING, PHASE ONE — AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PROJECT THAT IS BEING DEVELOPED BY HABITAT FOR
HUMANITY, NORTH OF LAKE TRAFFORD IN IMMOKALEE
Item #16A11
AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE,
TO RELEASE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY BONDS
TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR DEVELOPER DESIGNATED
AGENT FOR REGENCY AUTOHAUS, 601 AIRPORT PULLING
ROAD NORTH — UTILITY WORK ON THE PRIVATE PROJECT
WAS INSPECTED AND THE DEVELOPER HAS FULFILLED
HIS COMMITMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE SECURITY
Item #16Al2
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF ESPERANZA PLACE,
PPLA-PL20120001151, APPROVING A STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
APPROVING THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY — W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A13
Page 280
September 11-12, 2012
RESOLUTION 2012-146: MEMORIALIZING APPROVAL OF
A JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) FOR CEI
SERVICES ON THE FDOT RESURFACING PROJECT ON
SR951 FROM FIDDLER'S CREEK PARKWAY TO SOUTH OF
SR90 (US41), ALONG WITH THE COUNTY'S US-41 AND
SR/CR-951 INTERSECTION PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$994,640; AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE
AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZING A NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENT
Item #16A14
AWARD BID #12-5899 TO QUALITY ENTERPRISE USA, INC.,
IN THE AMOUNT OF $75,455.31 FOR A CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACT FOR THE GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY PARK
BOAT DOCK FACILITY PROJECT #80031 AND AUTHORIZING
A $72,700 BUDGET AMENDMENT — THE REVISED PROJECT
INCLUDES MODIFICATIONS TO AN EXISTING RAMP AND
ADDING A FLOATING DOCK FOR SAFE ACCESS
Item #16A15
AWARD BID #12-5922 "STREET NAME SIGN REPLACEMENT"
TO MUNICIPAL SUPPLY AND SIGN COMPANY FOR SIGN
WORK IN THE AMOUNT $106,050.50 — TO REPLACE SIGNS
ON COUNTY ROADS THAT DON'T MEET FEDERAL
HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION AND UNIFORM TRAFFIC
CONTROL DEVICE MANUAL MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
Item #16A16
Page 281
September 11-12, 2012
AWARDING FIVE (5) CONTRACTS WITH IDENTICAL TERMS
AND CONDITIONS FOR RFP #12-5892, "FIXED TERM
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES" TO: MCGEE &
ASSOCIATES, INC.; RICHARD TINDELL D/B/A GREENWORK
STUDIO; JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC.; GOETZ & STROPES
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, INC. AND WINDHAM STUDIO,
INC. WITH A $200,00 COLLECTIVE ANNUAL LIMIT FOR ALL
FIRMS WITHOUT FURTHER BOARD APPROVAL — FOR SITE
PLANNING, ANNUAL PLANTING SELECTION AND DESIGN,
MAINTENANCE, REFURBISHING EXISTING LANDSCAPE,
IRRIGATION FOR MSTU AND BEAUTIFICATION PROJECTS
OR OTHER COUNTY PROJECTS AND IMPLEMENTED WITH
PURCHASE ORDERS ON AN AS NEEDED BASIS
Item #16A17 — Moved to Item #11I (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16A18
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF THE QUARRY PHASE 4
REPLAT, LOTS 42 THROUGH 75, PL20120000412, APPROVING
A STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT AND APPROVING THE AMOUNT OF THE
PERFORMANCE SECURITY — W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A19
AWARD ITB #12-5928 TO BONNESS, INC. FOR TRAFFIC
SIGNAL UPGRADES AT THE INTERSECTION OF AIRPORT
PULLING ROAD (CR 31) AND THE PINE RIDGE CROSSING
SHOPPING CENTER ENTRANCE IN THE AMOUNT OF
$347,314.87 (PROJECT #60172) — REPLACING EXISTING SPAN
Page 282
September 11-12, 2012
WIRE TRAFFIC SIGNALS WITH STEEL MAST ARMS FOR
IMPROVED SAFETY DURING DANGEROUS WEATHER
Item #16A20
AWARD ITB #12-5929 FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL UPGRADES AT
THE INTERSECTION OF PINE RIDGE ROAD AND THE PINE
RIDGE CROSSING SHOPPING CENTER'S ENTRANCE TO
TRANSCORE ITS, LLC IN THE AMOUNT OF $329,006.03
(PROJECT #60172) — REPLACING EXISTING SPAN WIRE
SIGNALS WITH STEEL MAST ARMS FOR IMPROVED
SAFETY DURING DANGEROUS WEATHER
Item #16A21
AWARD ITB #12-5930 FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL UPGRADES AT
THE INTERSECTION OF PINE RIDGE ROAD AND NAPLES
BOULEVARD, TO HIGHWAY SAFETY DEVICES, INC. IN THE
AMOUNT OF $287,110 (PROJECT #60172) — TO REPLACE
EXISTING SPAN WIRE SIGNALS WITH STEEL MAST ARMS
FOR IMPROVED SAFETY DURING DANGEROUS WEATHER
Item #16A22
ALLOWING THE BAREFOOT BEACH CLUB CONDOMINIUM
OWNER'S ASSOCIATION, INC. AND THE CONSERVANCY OF
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. TO ENTER UPON COUNTY
PROPERTY TO BEGIN EXOTIC REMOVAL, DATA
COLLECTION AND MONITORING OF THE MANGROVE
FOREST ON COUNTY-OWNED PROPERTY IN THE VICINITY
OF LELY BAREFOOT BEACH — THE RIGHT-OF-ENTRY WILL
AUTOMATICALLY EXPIRE 60-DAYS AFTER EXECUTION
Page 283
September 11-12, 2012
Item #16A23 — Moved to Item #11J (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16A24
RESOLUTION 2012-147: DECLARING OCTOBER 9, 2012 FOR
A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PETITION VAC-PL2012-
0001606, TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE
COUNTY'S INTEREST IN A 200-FOOT PUBLIC ROAD RIGHT-
OF-WAY OF A PORTION OF SR29, COPELAND AVENUE SO.
Item #16B1
THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) TO
APPROVE AND EXECUTE A SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT
AWARD AGREEMENT FINANCIALLY ASSISTED BY FIFTH
THIRD BANK BETWEEN THE CRA AND AN APPLICANT IN
BAYSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE AREA (FISCAL IMPACT:
$3,243.90) — TO REPLACE A ROOF ON RESIDENTIAL
PROPERTY AT 2723 GULFVIEW DRIVE, NAPLES
Item #16B2
THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) TO
APPROVE AND EXECUTE A SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT
AWARD AGREEMENT FINANCIALLY ASSISTED BY FIFTH
THIRD BANK BETWEEN THE CRA AND AN APPLICANT IN
THE BAYSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE AREA (FISCAL
IMPACT: $8,000) — FOR UPGRADES INCLUDING NEW
WINDOWS, DOORS, STUCCO, RAILINGS, DECKING AND
STAIRS ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AT 2836 SHOREVIEW
DRIVE, NAPLES
Page 284
September 11-12, 2012
Item #16B3
THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) TO
APPROVE AND EXECUTE A SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT
AWARD AGREEMENT FINANCIALLY ASSISTED BY FIFTH
THIRD BANK BETWEEN THE CRA AND AN APPLICANT IN
THE BAYSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE AREA. (FISCAL
IMPACT: $221 .07) — TO REPLACE A GARAGE DOOR AT
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AT 3044 ARECA AVENUE, NAPLES
Item #16B4
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) APPROVE
THE APPLICATION AND RECIPIENT AGREEMENT FOR THE
IMMOKALEE CRA COMMERCIAL FACADE IMPROVEMENT
GRANT PROGRAM FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF $20,000 FOR
FACADE IMPROVEMENTS FOR PARALEGAL & NOTARY
MULTI SERVICES, INC. AT 1007 NORTH 15TH STREET (SR29)
IMMOKALEE, FL
Item #16B5
THE SELECTION COMMITTEE'S SHORT-LIST RANKING AND
ENTER INTO CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WITH AIM
ENGINEERING FOR THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY'S (CRA) REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL #12-5855,
"IMMOKALEE CROSSWALK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT" —
CONTRACT WORK INCLUDES A TRANSPORTATION STUDY
& PROFESSIONAL DESIGN SERVICES FOR IMPROVEMENTS
ON PEDESTRIAN SAFETY SYSTEMS ALONG MAIN STREET
AND SOUTH FIRST STREET IN THE IMMOKALEE CENTRAL
Page 285
September 11-12, 2012
BUSINESS DISTRICT
Item #16B6
AWARD RFP #12-5896, DESIGN OF THE FIRST STREET
ZOCALO IN IMMOKALEE WITH THREE FIRMS SELECTED
THROUGH CONSULTANT'S COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATION
ACT (CCNA) — WITH DAVID CORBAN ARCHITECT, PLLC;
MOORE & SPENCE ARCHITECTS AND RG ARCHITECTS FOR
PLANNING, ENGINEERING, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
AND WITH ARTISTIC CONSULTING SERVICES FOR DESIGN,
PERMITTING AND TO OVERSEE THE PLAZA PROJECT
Item #16C1
WORK ORDER UNDER CONTRACT #08-5011-68, FOR
$255,747.25 WITH MITCHELL & STARK CONSTRUCTION FOR
UNDERGROUND UTILITY CONTRACTING SERVICES FOR
WASTEWATER PUMP STATION 103.03 PROJECT #70046 —
LOCATED IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF CYPRESS WAY EAST
IN THE PALM RIVER ESTATES AREA
Item #16D1
PURCHASE OF A PERPETUAL, NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT
(MISC PARCEL 99999-252BSE) IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,100
CONSISTING OF 120 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS, FOR AN
EXISTING CAT BUS SHELTER ON BROWARD STREET — FOR
AN EASEMENT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE
BUS SHELTER OWNED BY MAX CAP, INC.
Item #16D2
Page 286
September 11-12, 2012
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN A FY12/13 STATE AID TO LIBRARIES
GRANT AGREEMENT, TECHNOLOGY PLAN, AND CURRENT
YEAR ACTION PLAN, PERMITTING THE COLLIER COUNTY
PUBLIC LIBRARY TO APPLY FOR STATE AID TO LIBRARIES
(FISCAL IMPACT: $219,000) — AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16D3
BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING $44,745.59 IN
ADDITIONAL STATE AID TO LIBRARIES GRANT FUNDS
AWARDED TO COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY FOR
FY09/10 AND FY 10/11 — TO RECOGNIZE PREVIOUSLY
UNAPPROPRIATED REVENUES
Item #16D4
A BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING $276,635.50
IN PROGRAM INCOME REVENUE GENERATED FROM
CONVEYING PROPERTIES ACQUIRED UNDER THE
NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PROGRAM (NSP1) —
RECOGNIZING $276,635.50 IN NET PROCEEDS FOR
PROPERTY AT 4420 19TH AVENUE SW; 4814 30TH PLACE
SW; 3061 ARECA AVENUE AND 4471 32ND AVENUE SW
Item #16D5
A BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING $785,293.43 IN
STATE HOUSING INITIATIVE PARTNERSHIP (SHIP) GRANT
REVENUE AND PROGRAM INCOME — AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page 287
September 11-12, 2012
Item #16D6
COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO SIGN AN
AGREEMENT BETWEEN NATIONAL DOWN SYNDROME
SOCIETY AND COLLIER COUNTY'S PARKS AND REC
DEPARTMENT FOR THE THIRD ANNUAL BUDDY WALK AT
NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL PARK ON OCTOBER 20, 2012
Item #16D7
"CERTIFICATION FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF REGULATORY
REFORM ACTIVITIES REQUIRED BY S.H.I.P", THE 2009/2010
PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT & AUTHORIZE ELECTRONIC
SUBMISSION TO FLORIDA'S HOUSING FINANCE CORP. TO
ENSURE PROGRAM COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS
Item #16D8
A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR SABAL PALM MUNICIPAL
SERVICE TAXING UNIT (MSTU) RECLASSIFYING $103,185
FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TO OPERATING
EXPENDITURES
Item #16D9
ADVERTISE AND BRING BACK AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. 91-107, AS AMENDED (THE FOREST LAKES
ROADWAY & DRAINAGE MSTU) TO INCORPORATE
PROVISIONS TO FACILITATE CONSTRUCTION OF
ROADWAY AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN
MSTU BOUNDARIES
Page 288
September 11-12, 2012
Item #16D10
AWARD CONTRACT #12-5923 IN THE AMOUNT OF $224,120
AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE AN
AGREEMENT WITH VICTOR J. LATAVISH, P.A., FOR
"PROFESSIONAL DESIGN SERVICES FOR EAGLE LAKES
COMMUNITY & FITNESS CENTER PROJECT" #80184
Item #16D11
SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE FOR THE STATE HOUSING
INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM (SHIP) FOR A
REPAYMENT IN AN AMOUNT OF $1,205,91 IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE BOARD'S SHORT SALE POLICY — FOR PROPERTY
AT 956 TRAFFORD ISLES COURT #105B, IMMOKALEE
Item #16D12
SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE FOR THE STATE HOUSING
INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM (SHIP) FOR A
REPAYMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,350 IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE BOARD'S SHORT SALE POLICY — FOR PROPERTY
AT 1332 REFLECTIONS LANE #4, IMMOKALEE
Item #16D13
SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,000
FOR PAYMENT RECEIVED FOR THE BALANCE OWED ON A
STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP (SHIP) LOAN —
PROPERTY AT 3429 CARSON LAKES CIRCLE, IMMOKALEEE
Page 289
September 11-12, 2012
Item #16D14
FOUR (4) AMENDMENTS TO FY12 AGREEMENTS AND
ATTESTATION STATEMENTS WITH THE AREA AGENCY ON
AGING OF SWFL, INC., DBA, SENIOR CHOICES OF SWFL,
WITH THE FISCAL IMPACT $9,000 (DECREASING FUNDING)
FOR THE NUTRITION SERVICES INCENTIVE PROGRAM
Item #16D15
FY12 PROJECTS THAT INCLUDE CAPITAL AND OPERATING
EXPENDITURES, AUTHORIZE SUBMISSION OF A GRANT
APPLICATION TO FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
(FTA) URBANIZED AREA FORMULA PROGRAM (49 U.S.C. §
5307 FY12), ACCEPT A GRANT AWARD IN THE AMOUNT OF
$2,543,557 AND AUTHORIZING THE NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENTS
Item #16D16
RESOLUTION 2012-148: APPROVING THE EXPENDITURE OF
FUNDS, NOT TO EXCEED $1,500, FOR ACTIVITIES AND
INCENTIVE PRIZES ASSOCIATED WITH COUNTY STAFF
PARTICIPATING IN THE COLLIER COUNTY 2012 UNITED
WAY CAMPAIGN
Item #16D17
STAFF TO NOTIFY APPLICANTS OF THE COUNTY'S
CANCELING OF TWO "AS IS" CONTRACTS FOR SALE &
PURCHASE OF PROPERTIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD
STABILIZATION PROGRAM (NSP) BECAUSE APPLICANTS
Page 290
September 11-12, 2012
FAILED TO OBTAIN FINANCING AND NOTIFY THE TITLE
COMPANY TO RETURN APPLICANTS ESCROW DEPOSITS
Item #16E1
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN AN ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT FROM
ADVANCED MEDICAL CENTER, LLC TO ADVANCE
MEDICAL OF NAPLES, LLC FOR MEDICAL DIRECTOR
SERVICES BY DR. GREGORY E. LEACH, M.D. AND FOR
EMPLOYMENT PHYSICALS AND DRUG TESTING SERVICES
Item #16E2
AGREEMENT #13-CP-11-09-21-01-XXX BETWEEN THE STATE
OF FLORIDA, DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
AND COLLIER COUNTY TO ACCEPT $8,355 FOR THE
PREPARATION OF HAZARDS ANALYSIS REPORTS FOR
FACILITIES THAT STORE EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS
SUBSTANCES IN COLLIER COUNTY AND APPROVING THE
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT — AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16E3
RESOLUTION 2012-149: AN EMS GRANT APPLICATION,
DISTRIBUTION FORM AND ACCEPTING THE GRANT FUNDS
WHEN AWARDERD AND CERTIFY FY12 FUNDS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $74,895 WILL BE USED TO IMPROVE COUNTY
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AND DIRECT FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH TO REMIT FUNDS TO THE
COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AND APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT
Page 291
September 11-12, 2012
Item #16E4
RESOLUTION 2012-150: ADOPTING A COMPREHENSIVE
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR COLLIER COUNTY
AND ITS MUNICIPALITIES
Item #16E5 — Withdrawn (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
AFTER-THE-FACT APPROVAL FOR A FEMA STAFFING FOR
ADEQUATE FIRE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE (SAFER)
GRANT APPLICATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $610,720 TO
HIRE 4 FIREFIGHTERS FOR ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE & RESCUE
DISTRICT
Item #16E6
RECOMMENDATION TO RATIFY PROPERTY, CASUALTY,
WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND SUBROGATION CLAIMS
SETTLED AND/OR CLOSED BY THE RISK MANAGEMENT
DIRECTOR PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION 2004-15 FOR THE
THIRD QUARTER OF FY 12
Item #16E7
RECOGNIZE AND APPROPRIATE REVENUE FOR SPECIAL
FACILITY MAINTENANCE IN THE AMOUNT OF $92,395.26
TO COUNTY SECURITY AND FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
COST CENTERS AND APPROVE ALL NECESSARY FISCAL
YEAR 2011-2012 BUDGET AMENDMENTS
Item #16E8
Page 292
September 11-12, 2012
AN ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT FROM ADT SECURITY
SERVICES, INC. TO ADT, LLC, RELATING TO INVITATION
TO QUALIFY (ITQ) #09-5227, SERVICES FOR SENIORS
Item #16E9
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY'S
FARM WORKER VILLAGE IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES RELATED TO NATURAL AND
MANMADE HAZARDS EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Item #16E10 — Withdrawn (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
AFTER-THE-FACT APPROVAL OF A FEMA STAFFING FOR
ADEQUATE FIRE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE (SAFER)
GRANT APPLICATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $916,080 TO
HIRE 6 FIREFIGHTERS FOR OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL AND
RESCUE DISTRICT
Item #16E11
RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT REPORTS AND RATIFY
STAFF-APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS AND CHANGES TO
WORK ORDERS — FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 12, 2012 THRU
AUGUST 22, 2012
Item #16E12
A PREVIOUSLY BOARD APPROVED GRANT PURCHASE OF
AN ENHANCED 911 EMERGENCY INFORMATION DISPLAY
Page 293
September 11-12, 2012
SYSTEM AND ASSOCIATED MINOR EQUIPMENT UNDER
CONTRACT #083052 W/NATIONAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL
PURCHASING ALLIANCE (IPA)
Item #16E13
WAIVING COMPETITION TO APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF
A MICROWAVE VIDEO DOWNLINK SYSTEM FOR THE
COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE-AVIATION DIVISION
FROM PREVIOUSLY BOARD APPROVED DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE GRANT FUNDS
Item #16F1
BOARD RATIFICATION OF SUMMARY, CONSENT AND
EMERGENCY AGENDA ITEMS APPROVED BY THE COUNTY
MANAGER DURING THE BOARD'S SCHEDULED RECESS
(FOR THE AUGUST 14, 2012 ABSENTIA MEETING)
Item #16F2
FY13 TOURISM AGREEMENTS FOR CATEGORY "B" GRANT
AGREEMENTS TOTALING $63,000 AND CATEGORY "C-2"
GRANT AGREEMENTS TOTALING $135,000 AND WAIVING
$25,000 FUNDING LIMIT GUIDELINES IN CATEGORY "B"
GRANT APPLICATIONS FOR FY13
Item #16F3 — Moved to Item #11K (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16F4
Page 294
September 11-12, 2012
BUDGET AMENDMENT REPORT THAT COVERS IMPACTS
TO RESERVES IN AN AMOUNT UP TO AND INCLUDING
$5,000 AND A BUDGET AMENDMENT MOVING FUNDS
Item #16F5
BUDGET AMENDMENT APPROPRIATING APPROXIMATELY
$267,628,099.09 IN UNSPENT FY12 GRANT AND PROJECT
BUDGETS INTO FISCAL FY13
Item #16F6
RESOLUTION 2012-151 : APPROVING AMENDMENTS
(APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS
OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2011-12
ADOPTED BUDGET
Item #16F7
RFP #12-5903, GRANT WRITING & PROJECT MANAGEMENT
OVERSIGHT SERVICES WITH GUARDIAN COMMUNITY
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, INC., AND AUTHORIZING THE
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE COUNTY ATTORNEY APPROVED
AGREEMENT (ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST: $25,000)
Item #16F8 — Continued to the September 25, 2012 BCC Meeting
(Per Agenda Change Sheet)
CONTRACT #12-5895 "IMPACT FEE STUDY" AND
AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY APPROVED AGREEMENT WITH TINDALE-
Page 295
September 11-12, 2012
OLIVER ASSOCIATES, INC. (4-YEAR ESTIMATED COSTS:
$950,000)
Item #16F9
AN ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT WITH NAPLES COMMUNITY
HOSPITAL, INC. FOR CONTINUED PARTICIPATION IN THE
FEE PAYMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM ORIGINALLY
APPROVED FOR ANCHOR HEALTH CENTERS, P.A.; AND
AMENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS IN THE ORIGINAL
AGREEMENT RELATED TO JOB & WAGE REQUIREMENTS
FOR CONSISTENCY WITH REQUIREMENTS IN THE FEE
PAYMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Item #16F10
AN AMENDMENT TO THE JOB CREATION INVESTMENT
PROGRAM AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND
THE ANIMAL SPECIALTY HOSPITAL OF FLORIDA, LLC DUE
TO A SCRIVENER'S ERROR
Item #16G1 — Moved to Item #14A1 (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16G2
A FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA) GRANT
OFFER OF $635,625 FOR THE DESIGN, PERMITTING AND
BIDDING OF RUNWAY #17-35, PAVEMENT RESTORATION
AT THE MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT AND THE
ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENTS
Item #16H1
Page 296
September 11-12, 2012
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING SEPTEMBER, 2012
CHILDHOOD CANCER AWARENESS MONTH IN COLLIER
COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY THE KID'S CANCER CONNECTION
VIA MAIL DELIVERY. SPONSORED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS — ADOPTED
Item #16H2
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED COLLIER COUNTY'S 100 CLUB
SUMMER SPEAKER EVENT JULY 26, 2012. $15 TO BE PAID
FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET — AT
SHULA'S STEAKHOUSE, 5111 TAMIAMI TRAIL N., NAPLES
Item #16H3
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED AN EAST NAPLES CIVIC
ASSOCIATION LUNCHEON JULY 19, 2012. $18 TO BE PAID
FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET — AT
HAMILTON HARBOR YACHT CLUB, 7065 HAMILTON
AVENUE, NAPLES
Item #16H4
COMMISSIONER HILLER'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE WILL ATTEND THE FLORIDA SHORE &
BEACH PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION'S 56TH ANNUAL
Page 297
September 11-12, 2012
CONFERENCE, SEPTEMBER 26-28, 2012. $260 TO BE PAID
FROM COMMISSIONER HILLER'S TRAVEL BUDGET — BEING
HELD AT THE WALDORF ASTORIA, 475 SEAGATE DRIVE,
NAPLES
Item #16I1
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE TO FILE WITH
ACTION AS DIRECTED. DOCUMENT(S) HAVE BEEN
ROUTED TO ALL COMMISSIONERS AND ARE AVAILABLE
FOR REVIEW IN THE BCC OFFICE UNTIL APPROVAL
#16I2
ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES AND AGENDAS TO FILE WITH
ACTION AS DIRECTED. DOCUMENT(S) HAVE BEEN
ROUTED TO ALL COMMISSIONERS AND ARE AVAILABLE
FOR REVIEW IN THE BCC OFFICE UNTIL APPROVAL
Page 298
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
September 11, 2012
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Miscellaneous Correspondence:
1) Memorandum:
Debbie Wight Re: Special Districts in Collier County 5.24.12
2) Mediterra North and Mediterra South Community Development
Districts:
Interlocal Agreement 5.3.12
3) Quarry Community Development District:
Proposed Budget Fiscal Year 2012/2013 5.31.12
4) Verona Walk Community Development District:
Proposed Budget Fiscal Year 2012/2013 5.31.12
e•
4'
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES
September 11, 2012
2. ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS
DIRECTED:
A. Minutes:
1) Collier County Code Enforcement Board:
Minutes of 5.18.12 (Special Magistrate); 6.1.12 (Special Magistrate)
2) Collier County Planning Commission:
Agenda of 4.25.12; 5.3.12; 5.17.12
Minutes of 4.25.12; 5.3.12; 5.17.12
3) Contractors Licensing Board:
Minutes of 5.16.12
4) Development Services Advisory Committee:
Minutes of 5.2.12
5) Environmental Advisory Council:
Minutes of 6.6.12
6) Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee:
Agenda of 5.15.12
Minutes of 4.17.12
7) Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee:
Minutes of 5.7.12
8) Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee:
Minutes of 1.23.12
9) Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board:
Minutes of 5.24.12
10) Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency:
Agenda of 6.20.12
Minutes of 5.16.12
11) Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board:
Agenda of 6.20.12
Minutes of 5.16.12
4
12) Land Acquisition Advisory Committee:
Minutes of 5.14.12
13) Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Committee:
Minutes of 4.10.12; 5.14.12
14) Pelican Bay Services Division Board:
Agenda of 6.4.12 (Clam Bay Subcommittee); 6.6.12; 7.5.12 (Ad-
Hoc Committee to Develop an Approach to Studying Pathways and
Trees)
Minutes of 5.2.12
15) Radio Road East of Santa Barbara Blvd to Davis Blvd Advisory
Committee:
Agenda of 4.13.12
Minutes of 3.7.12; 4.13.12
16) Tourist Development Council:
Minutes of 2.28.11; 3.28.11; 4.1.11 (Subcommittee); 4.22.11
(Subcommittee); 4.25.11; 5.6.11 (Subcommittee); 5.27.11; 6.3.11
(Subcommittee); 6.27.11; 6.30.11 (Subcommittee); 7.21.11; 7.28.11
(Subcommittee); 9.6.11; 9.26.11; 10.24.11; 11.21.11
(Subcommittee); 11.28.11; 1.12.12 (Subcommittee); 1.23.12
September 11-12, 2012
Item #16J1
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 7, 2012
THROUGH JULY 13, 2012 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J2
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 14, 2012
THROUGH JULY 20, 2012 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J3
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 21, 2012
THROUGH JULY 27, 2012 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J4
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 28, 2012
THROUGH AUGUST 3, 2012 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J5
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF AUGUST 4, 2012
THROUGH AUGUST 10, 2012 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J6
Page 299
September 11-12, 2012
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF AUGUST 11, 2012
THROUGH AUGUST 17, 2012 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J7
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF AUGUST 18, 2012
THROUGH AUGUST 24, 2012 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J8
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF AUGUST 25, 2012
THROUGH AUGUST 31, 2012 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J9
SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS TO ACCEPT FEDERAL
ELECTION ACTIVITY FUNDS WITH A 15% MATCHING
CONTRIBUTION AND CHAIRMAN TO SIGN A CERTIFICATE
REGARDING MATCHING FUNDS
Item #16J10
BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING CARRY FORWARD
FROM PREVIOUS AND CURRENT YEAR INTEREST EARNED
IN SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS GRANT FUND NO. 44047
Item #16K1
AN AGREED ORDER AWARDING EXPERT FEES IN
Page 300
September 11-12, 2012
CONNECTION WITH ACQUISITION OF PARCEL #122 & #123
IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. WILLIAM
PILGER, ETAL., CASE NO. 06-1125-CA, COUNTY BARN ROAD
WIDENING PROJECT #60101 (FISCAL IMPACT: $11,250)
Item #16K2
A MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH OWNER
AL SUBS, INC. & TENANT, 951 PETROLEUM CORPORATION,
AND A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT TO BE DRAFTED
INCORPORATING SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS THE
SETTLEMENT THAT AWARDS FULL COMPENSATION,
BUSINESS DAMAGES, STATUTORY INTEREST, ATTORNEY
FEES AND EXPERT FEES AND COSTS IN THE AMOUNT OF
$320,000 FOR PARCELS #109FEE, #109TCE AND #109FEE2,
#109TCE2 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. AL
SUBS, INC., ET AL., CASE NO. 10-3562-CA COLLIER
BOULEVARD, PROJECT #60092 (FISCAL IMPACT: $294,440)
Item #16K3
MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH RESPONDENT
COLOMBO ENTERPRISES OF NAPLES, INC., & STIPULATED
FINAL JUDGMENT TO BE DRAFTED INCORPORATING SAME
TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
IN THE AMOUNT OF $525,000 FOR PARCELS #131A, #131 B
AND #133 IN THE LAWSUITS STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V.
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF NAPLES, ET AL., CASE NO. 04-
3587-CA AND COLLIER COUNTY V. STONEBRIDGE COUNTRY
CLUB COMMUNITY ASSOC, INC. ET AL. CASE NO. 04-3588-CA
THAT HAVE BEEN CONSOLIDATED INTO ONE LAWSUIT,
IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT #66042 (FISCAL IMPACT:
Page 301
September 11-12, 2012
$346,970)
Item #16K4
A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT PRIOR TO TRIAL IN THE
LAWSUIT ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, V. PAUL R. PRANSKY, FILED IN
THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, CASE NO. 10-3654-CC TO SETTLE A
PROPERTY DAMAGE CLAIM FOR THE SUM OF $3,500 AND
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE RELEASE
Item #16K5
A MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT PRIOR TO TRIAL
IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED JORGE MAGANA, ET AL., V.
COLLIER COUNTY, FILED IN THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA (CASE
NO. 11-2441-CA) FOR THE SUM OF $7,500
Item #16K6
A MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT PRIOR TO TRIAL
IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED BENJAMIN GROENEWALD V.
MARY J. WEHRLY, JACK WEHRLY, AND COLLIER COUNTY,
FILED IN THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA (CASE NO. 11-01366-CA) FOR
THE SUM OF $15,000
Item #16K7
A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT PRIOR TO TRIAL IN THE
Page 302
September 11-12, 2012
LAWSUIT ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, V. ANDERSON COLUMBIA
COMPANY, INC., AND AJAX PAVING INDUSTRIES, INC., D/B/A
AJAX PAVING INDUSTRIES OF FLORIDA, LL C, ALL D/B/A
ACCI/API JOINT VENTURE, FILED IN TWENTIETH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA (CASE
NO. 11-2087-CA) TO SETTLE FOR THE SUM OF $30,000 AND
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
Item #17A
RESOLUTION 2012-152 (DISTRICT I) AND 2012-153
(DISTRICT II): APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY
ASSESSMENT ROLLS AS THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLLS,
AND ADOPTING SAME AS THE NON-AD VALOREM
ASSESSMENT ROLLS FOR PURPOSES OF UTILIZING THE
UNIFORM METHOD OF COLLECTION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 197.3632, FLORIDA STATUTES, FOR SOLID WASTE
MUNICIPAL SERVICE BENEFIT UNITS, SERVICE DISTRICT
NUMBER I AND SERVICE DISTRICT NUMBER II, SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT LEVIED AGAINST CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL
PROPERTIES WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF
COLLIER COUNTY, THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND AND THE
CITY OF EVERGLADES CITY, PURSUANT TO COLLIER
COUNTY ORDINANCE 2005-54, AS AMENDED AND WITH
REVENUE ANTICIPATED OF $19,028,100 FOR FY 13 AND FOR
THE TOTAL SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PROPOSED FOR SOLID
WASTE MUNICIPAL SERVICE BENEFIT UNIT SERVICE
DISTRICT I OF $173.49 & SERVICE DISTRICT II FOR $165.28
PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT. THE AMOUNTS ARE THE SAME AS
THOSE APPROVED BY THE BOARD IN FY12
Page 303
September 11-12, 2012
Item #17B
ORDINANCE 2012-31 : REPEALING AN UNNUMBERED
ORDINANCE CODIFIED AS SEC. 98-1 (EXPENDITURES FOR
LIGHTING) IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES OF
COLLIER COUNTY
Item #17C
ORDINANCE 2012-32: REPEALING AN UNNUMBERED
ORDINANCE CODIFIED AS SEC. 46-5 (FEE FOR ALIMONY
PAYMENTS AND COLLECTION) IN THE CODE OF LAWS
AND ORDINANCES OF COLLIER COUNTY
Item #17D
ORDINANCE 2012-33: REPEALING AN UNNUMBERED
ORDINANCE CODIFIED AS SEC. 78-28 (SALE OF CANNED
GOODS) IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES OF
COLLIER COUNTY
Item #17E
ORDINANCE 2012-34: REPEALING AN UNNUMBERED
ORDINANCE CODIFIED AS SEC. 2-1 (PURCHASES FROM
STATE DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS) IN THE CODE OF LAWS
AND ORDINANCES OF COLLIER COUNTY
Item #17F
ORDINANCE 2012-35: REPEALING AN UNNUMBERED
Page 304
September 11-12, 2012
ORDINANCE CODIFIED AS SEC. 2-26 (FRANCHISES
GENERALLY) IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES
OF COLLIER COUNTY
Item #17G
RESOLUTION 2012-154: PETITION CU-PL20110001157,
ICHTHYO PARK CONDITIONAL USE, A RESOLUTION OF
THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A
CONDITIONAL USE TO ALLOW AN EDUCATIONAL
AQUARIUM IN AN AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT
PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION 2.03.01 .A.1 .C.3 OF COLLIER
COUNTY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED IN SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
*****
Page 305
September 11-12, 2012
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10: 16 a.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
FRED COYLE, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
}
IDSVIGH ` 'S CK, CLERK
*$'to M'
sign ositL'` A
These minutes appro d by the Board on 0caeS I t 20 Z ,
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM
AND TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER & NOTARY PUBLIC
Page 306