BCC Minutes 10/23/2012 R BCC
REGULAR
MEETING
MINUTES
OCTOBER 23, 2012
October 23, 2012
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, October 23, 2012
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as
the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such
special districts as have been created according to law and having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Fred Coyle
Jim Coletta
Donna Fiala
Georgia Hiller
Tom Henning
ALSO PRESENT:
Leo Ochs, County Manager
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney
Crystal Kinzel, Clerk of Courts Finance Director
Mike Sheffield, Business Operations Manager
Troy Miller, Communication & Customer Relations
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB)
Airport Authority
co.I i
(j
AGENDA
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor
Naples FL 34112
October 23, 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
October 23, 2012
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS."
PUBLIC PETITIONS ARE LIMITED TO THE PRESENTER, WITH A
MAXIMUM TIME OF TEN MINUTES.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN
ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3335 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL,
SUITE 1, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Pastor John Boutchia - Gospel Baptist Church
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for consent and
summary agenda.)
B. September 20, 2012 - BCC/Budget Hearing
C. September 25-26, 2012 - BCC/Regular Meeting
Page 2
October 23,2012
3. SERVICE AWARDS
A. EMPLOYEE
1) 20 Year Attendees
a) Michael Widner, Library
2) 25 Year Attendees
a) Noemi Fraguela, EMS
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation supporting the continuation of the "287g" partnership between
the Collier County Sheriffs Office and the United States Department of
Homeland Security, which allows for the identification, arrest and removal
of criminals illegally present in the United States. To be accepted by Chief
Greg Smith on behalf of Sheriff Kevin Rambosk. Sponsored by
Commissioner Coyle.
B. Proclamation recognizing October 26, 2012 as the 13th Annual Red Walk
for Collier County Public Schools. To be accepted by Dr. Susan Barcellino
and Craig Greusel. Sponsored by Commissioner Fiala.
C. Proclamation designating October 25, 2012 as Narcotics Overdose
Prevention & Education (NOPE) National Candlelight Vigil Day in Collier
County. To be accepted by Frank Nappo, President, Ana DiMecurio and
Melanie Black, Drug Free Collier; Emily Castillo and Colleen Deswal,
David Lawrence Center; and Sandi Smith and Marlee Rognrud, The
Willough. Sponsored by Commissioner Fiala.
D. Proclamation recognizing the Fourth Annual Naples International Film
Festival and its opening night film, "Honor Flight." To be accepted by
Shannon Franklin, Executive Director, Naples International Film Festival.
Sponsored by Commissioner Coyle.
5. PRESENTATIONS
Page 3
October 23,2012
A. Presentation recognizing Jackson Bonar, an 11 year old student at Oakridge
Middle School, for his bravery and heroism. To be presented by
Commissioner Hiller.
B. Presentation recognizing the heroic and valiant lifesaving efforts of East
Naples Fire Control and Rescue District firefighter Manuel S. Morales. To
be presented by Commissioner Fiala.
C. Presentation by Mark Elsner of the South Florida Water Management
District, providing an update on the Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan,
as requested by Commissioners during the Big Cypress Basin Joint
Workshop held on April 27, 2012.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
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
10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of member to the Development Services Advisory Committee.
B. Appointment of member to the Contractors Licensing Board.
C. Appointment of members to the Collier County Planning Commission.
D. Appointment of member to the Consumer Advisory Board.
E. Appointment of members to the Environmental Advisory Council.
11. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to review and approve the proposed Collier County 2013
Page 4
October 23,2012
State Legislative Priorities. (Debbie Wight, Legislative Affairs Coordinator)
B. Recommendation to reject all bids submitted in response to solicitation #12-
5905, Rural Land Stewardship Area (RLSA) Program Review, and provide
direction to staff on obtaining services from an outside independent firm to
perform review and analysis of the RLSA amendment package.
C. This item to be heard at 11:00 a.m. Recommendation to consider an out-
of-cycle Tourist Development Council ("TDC") Grant Application from the
City of Marco Island/Hideaway Beach District for Erosion Control
Structures at Hideaway Beach and if approved make a finding that the
project is in the public interest and authorize all necessary budget
amendments. Estimated fiscal impact: $925,000. (Nick Casalanguida,
Growth Management Administrator)
D. This item continued from the October 9, 2012 BCC Meeting.
Recommendation to adopt resolutions authorizing the condemnation of the
land and easements necessary for the construction of capital improvements
at the intersection of US 41 and Collier Boulevard. (Project No. 60116.)
Estimated fiscal impact: $13,500,000. (Jay Ahmad, Transportation
Engineering Director)
E. Recommendation to award a construction contract to Oldcastle Southern
Group, Inc. (f/k/a APAC-Southeast, Inc.) for Bid No. 12-5948 - Immokalee
Road Safety Improvements Project No. 60016.4, in the amount of
$1,906,761.14. (Jay Ahmad, Transportation Engineering Director)
F. Recommendation to award Bid Number 12-5845 and 12-5845R,
"Countywide Chemicals," for the purchase of various chemicals required for
potable water, wastewater, and irrigation quality water treatment by the
Water and Wastewater Departments, to various vendors in the estimated
annual amount of$5,500,000. (George Yilmaz, Public Utilities
Administrator)
G. Recommendation to approve separate Work Orders to Kyle Construction
Inc., Quality Enterprises USA, and Haskins Inc., under the Fixed-Term
Underground Utilities Contract #08-5011, in the total amount of$2,052,336
for the replacement of air release valves under Project Number 70044, Force
Main Technical Support. (Tom Chmelik, Planning and Project Management
Page 5
October 23, 2012
Director)
H. Recommendation to award bid number 12-5964, "SRO Wellfield Raw Water
Transmission Main Repair," to Southwest Utility Systems, Inc., in the
amount of$1,131,450, to complete the second stage of Phase IV of the
South RO Wellfield Raw Water Transmission Main Repair, Project No.
70030. (Tom Chmelik, Planning and Project Management Director)
I. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. Recommendation to hear testimony from American Medical
Transport and the public to determine the need for an additional Class 2
post-hospital inter-facility transport ambulance transfer service in Collier
County. (Dan Summers, Bureau of Emergency Services Director)
J. Recommendation to deny the negligence claim of Liz Pfunder, Claim #22-
02151201177 in the amount of$46,288.51. (Jeff Walker, Risk Management
Director)
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to approve, and authorize the Chairman of the Board of
County Commissioners to sign, an Interlocal Agreement relating to
establishment of the Gulf Consortium to act on behalf of Collier County in
the implementation of the RESTORE Act (Resources and Ecosystems
Sustainability Tourist Opportunities and Revised Economies of the Gulf
Coast States Act of 2012).
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
A. This item to be heard at 1:00 p.m. This item continued from the
October 9, 2012 BCC Meeting. Recommendation to discuss Item #11E
from the Board's September 11, 2012 agenda regarding "Wastewater Basin
Program" contracts.
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
A. AIRPORT
Page 6
October 23, 2012
1) The Annual Performance Appraisal for the Airport Authority
Executive Director.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners reviews
and approves the proposed FY 2012 - 2013 Action Plan for Chris
Curry, Executive Director, Airport Authority.
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, in its
capacity as the governing body of the Collier County Airport
Authority, indicates its intent to extend the Airport Authority
Executive Director's Employment Agreement with Thomas C. Curry,
fixing the end date of the first extension term as September 30, 2015,
and amending the Agreement to comport with Ch. 2011-143, Florida
Statutes.
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
1) Recommendation to authorize the Clerk of Courts to release the
Excavation Bond in the amount of$25,000 which was posted as a
development guaranty for work associated with Boys & Girls Club of
Collier County (Petition: PL20110002178).
2) Recommendation to approve the Lease and Rent Agreement between
the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO) and the
Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC).
3) Recommendation to approve the release of lien in the amount of
$17,811.26 for payment of$1,511.26, in the Code Enforcement
Page 7
October 23, 2012
Action entitled Board of County Commissioners vs. Edward A.
Kaulbars and Paula A. Kaulbars, Code Enforcement Case Number
CEPM20090013071, relating to property located at 1579 Whispering
Oaks Circle, Collier County, Florida.
4) Recommendation to approve the release of lien in the amount of
$17,612.29 for payment of$562.29, in the Code Enforcement Action
entitled Board of County Commissioners vs. Michael Motto, Code
Enforcement Case Number CESD20110006565, relating to property
located at 4160 23rd Place SW, Collier County, Florida.
5) Recommendation to approve the release of two liens with a combined
value of$56,509.04 for payment of$1,609.04, in the Code
Enforcement Action entitled Board of County Commissioners vs.
Abel D. Accilio & Sara Accilio, Code Enforcement Special
Magistrate Case Numbers CEPM20100003242 and
CEPM20100004034, relating to property located at 907 Summerfield
Drive, Collier County, Florida.
6) Recommendation to approve the release of lien in the amount of
$112,017.61 for payment of$567.61, in the Code Enforcement Action
entitled Board of County Commissioners vs. Ester M. Torres and
Jorge L. Torres, Code Enforcement Case Number
CEPM20080014195, relating to property located at 1340 Center Lane,
Collier County, Florida.
7) Recommendation to direct the County Manager or his designee to
complete the required update to the data in the Floodplain
Management Plan and bring it back to the Board of County
Commissioners for approval and adoption.
8) Recommendation to approve a sand delivery and placement contract
to Eastman Aggregate Enterprise LLC for a combination unit
cost/lump sum price of$430,828 and to Stewart Mining for a direct
purchase of 33,600 tons of sand for a cost of$243,600 for the
Vanderbilt and Naples Beach Emergency Beach Renourishment
project. The total cost of this project is $674,428.
Page 8
October 23,2012
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to waive the Notice to Proceed requirement and
approve payment in the amount of$16,956.05 to Kyle Construction,
Inc., for improvements made to Master Pumping Station 321, Project
Number 70050.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve modification #6 to Subgrant Agreement
between the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and
Collier County, Disaster Recovery Initiative Grant Agreement
#10DB-D4-09-21-01-K09, to add one (1) new project to provide
hurricane hardening to County owned Gilchrist Apartments, extend
the Subgrant agreement and amend the associated subrecipient
agreements to extend project completion deadlines and modify Project
Work Plans.
2) Recommendation to approve a mortgage and note modification
agreement for a loan issued by the State Housing Initiatives
Partnership (SHIP) Program to The Shelter for Abused Women of
Collier County to correct a scrivener's error made in the repayment
terms, change legal name and consider the Shelter in good standing
with the mortgage.
3) Recommendation to approve one (1) release of lien for deferral of 100
percent of Collier County impact fees for owner occupied affordable
housing dwelling unit that has been repaid in full.
4) This item continued from the September 25, 2012 BCC Meeting.
Recommendation to accept the Conservation Collier Annual Report
and provide the Board of County Commissioners and public with an
update on the Program's past activities.
5) Recommendation to approve an amendment to the Community
Development Block Grant Agreement between Collier County and
David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc. by extending the grant
Page 9
October 23, 2012
agreement period, requiring compliance with HUD Grant #B-11-UC-
12-0016, and updating the project work plan.
6) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment recognizing
$199,478.74 in program income revenue generated when conveying
properties acquired under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program
(NSP1).
7) Recommendation to approve the Chairman to sign, three
Memorandums of Agreement with the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission (FWC) in order to allow FWC to conduct
Youth Hunts for Collier County residents at Pepper Ranch Preserve in
November 2012, January 2013, and February 2013.
8) Recommendation to approve a Resolution providing for New
Smartcard Media Fees, memorializing a fare increase and Collier
County Employee monthly Fare Discount previously approved by the
Board of County Commissioners and establishing a Collier Area
Transit Fee Policy.
9) Recommendation to approve an after-the-fact substantial amendment
for a City of Naples HUD Community Development Block Grant-
Recovery (CDBG-R) project.
10) Recommendation to accept and execute the Safe Havens Supervised
Visitation and Safe Exchange Grant in the amount of$350,000 from
the United States Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against
Women and approve the necessary budget amendment to recognize
revenue.
11) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a
Letter of Understanding with Larry Ray, Collier County Tax
Collector, outlining Tax Collector and Library joint use Facility in
Everglades City, Florida.
12) Recommendation to authorize the Chairman to execute agreements
between the County and Agency for Health Care Administration
(AHCA) for any additional eligible funding that may be leveraged
under the alternative intergovernmental transfer programs (IGT). Any
Page 10
October 23, 2012
funds so identified are already budgeted in the FY2013 approved
budget and executed agreements will be brought back to the Board for
ratification.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to award RFP #12-5813 — Wellness Program
Biometric Measurement and Laboratory Testing Services to Quest
Diagnostics in the estimated amount of$259,380 per year.
2) Recommendation to award RFP #12-5920 — Third Party
Administrator for Property, Casualty and Workers' Compensation to
Johns Eastern Company, Inc. in the estimated amount of$113,278 per
year and retroactively approve the extension of the current agreement
with Johns Eastern Company, Inc. from October 1, 2012 to December
31, 2012 for $20,200.
3) 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 a time limited period for the Isles
of Capri Fire Rescue District.
4) 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 a time limited period for the
Ochopee Fire Control District.
5) Recommendation to authorize the purchase of Cisco SMARTnet
maintenance agreements from CDW-G for the County's Cisco
hardware and software in the amount of$158,242 utilizing the State
of Florida contract #250-000-09-1.
6) Recommendation to award Group Vision Discount coverage to Vision
Service Plan (VSP) for a three year period effective January 1, 2013
in an estimated annual premium of$40,930.
Page 11
October 23, 2012
7) Recommendation to accept reports and ratify staff-approved change
orders and changes to work orders.
8) Recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the removal of
8,408 ambulance service accounts and their respective accounts
receivable balances which total $5,515,177.55, which were recorded
as Bad Debt Expense during Fiscal Year 2009, from the general
ledger of Collier County Fund 490 (Emergency Medical Services).
9) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment recognizing
carryforward from FY 2012 for the Goodland Horr's Island MSTU
Fund (149) in the amount of$944.95.
F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS
1) Recommendation to approve the Fiscal Year 2013 Strategic Plan for
the Naples Marco Island, Everglades Convention & Visitors Bureau
(CVB).
2) 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).
3) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
to the Fiscal Year 2012-13 Adopted Budget.
4) Recommendation to review and approve the proposed FY2012-2013
Action Plan for Leo E. Ochs, Jr., County Manager.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, acting in
its capacity as the Collier County Airport Authority, approve the
attached Assumption Agreement with Air Expeditions, Inc. for
facilities and space at the Marco Island Executive Airport to provide
Page 12
October 23, 2012
specialized aviation service operations.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, acting in
its capacity as the Collier County Airport Authority, approve the
attached First Amendment to a Sub-Lease Agreement with Raven Air
LLC, d/b/a Island Hoppers Aerial Adventures for facilities and
specialized aviation service operations at the Marco Island Executive
Airport.
3) Recommendation to approve a Site License Agreement with the
Immokalee Chamber of Commerce for a Harvest Festival at the
Immokalee Regional Airport.
4) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Airport Authority
Executive Director to lease exhibit space at the 39th Annual Sun `N
Fun Fly-In Event. The Airport Authority in conjunction with the
Seminole Casino at Immokalee will partner to create a cooperative
relationship to enhance general aviation and promote the casino
through joint attendance at this air show.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce 2012 Excellence
in Industry Awards Gala Celebration at the Hilton, Naples, FL on
September 20, 2012. $50 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's
travel budget.
2) Commissioners request for Board approval to attend the Florida
Association of Counties Legislative Conference November 28-30,
2012.
3) Proclamation designating November 2012 as Pancreatic Cancer
Awareness Month in Collier County. Proclamation will be mailed to
the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network. Sponsored by the Board of
County Commissioners.
Page 13
October 23,2012
4) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the Goodland Village Arts Alliance Luncheon on October 5,
2012. The sum of$13.25 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel
budget.
5) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a
letter of support for the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council
Five Year Update of the Comprehensive Economic Development
Strategy document.
6) Commissioner Hiller requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose. She
will attend the November 10, 2012 Naples Equestrian Challenge
Bootstrap Boogie Barn Dance at the NEC Arena 206 Ridge Drive,
Naples, FL. $100 to be paid from Commissioner Hiller's travel
budget.
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
September 22, 2012 through September 28, 2012 and for submission
into the official records of the Board.
2) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
September 29, 2012 through October 5, 2012 and for submission into
the official records of the Board.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a
Settlement Agreement prior to trial in the lawsuit entitled Darling
Elie, individually and as Guardian of Jadarrien Elie, a minor child v.
Collier County, et. al., filed in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and
for Collier County, Florida, Case No. 07-1463-CA for the sum of
$334, to settle the consortium claim for the minor child.
Page 14
October 23,2012
2) Recommendation to authorize a counteroffer of$2,500 to the business
damage claim made by Floridan Foods, LLC, for Parcels 166DE and
166TCE in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Holistic Health
Healing, Inc., et al., Case No. 12-CA-1756 (U.S. 41 Ditch/LASIP
Project No. 51101) (Fiscal Impact $2,500).
3) Recommendation to approve final settlement of the class action
lawsuit titled Cinquegrana v. Collier County, et al., involving red light
cameras (Collier County Circuit Court Case No. 09-7628-CA).
4) Recommendation to authorize the County Attorney's Office to make
an Offer of Judgment to Respondent, Naples Gateway Estates, Inc. for
Parcel No. 204DAME in the amount of$3,860 in the lawsuit styled
Collier County v. John D. Lawrence, et al., Case No. 11-3207-CA
(LASIP Outfalls 3 & 4 Project No. 51101) (Fiscal Impact $1,000).
5) Recommendation to authorize the County Attorney's Office to make
an Offer of Judgment to Respondent, Myrtle Chase, LLC for Parcel
No. 206DAME in the amount of$9,960 in the lawsuit styled Collier
County v. John D. Lawrence, et al., Case No. 11-3207-CA (LASIP
Outfalls 3 & 4 Project No. 51101) (Fiscal Impact $1,660).
6) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution terminating the Employment
Agreement with the Executive Manager to the Board of County
Commissioners.
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-
Page 15
October 23, 2012
JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
A. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are
required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve Petition VAC-
PL20120001606, to disclaim, renounce and vacate the County and the
Public interest in a portion of State Road No. 29 (a.k.a. Copeland Avenue
South) a 200-foot public road right-of-way, being a part of Section 23,
Township 53 South, Range 29 East, Collier County Florida being more
specifically shown in Exhibit A.
B. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating carry forward, transfers and supplemental revenue) to the
Fiscal Year 2012-13 Adopted Budget.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252-8383.
Page 16
October 23,2012
October 23, 2012
MR. OCHS: Chairman, you have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, the Board of
County Commission meeting is now in session.
Will you please stand for the invocation by Pastor John Boutchia
from the Gospel Baptist Church.
Item #1
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
FATHER BOUTCHIA: Gracious Father, we thank you for this
wonderful day that we have together. Thank you for this meeting that
will be held by these commissioners. Thank you for these dear
people.
We pray for these commissioners here, Coyle and Coletta, Fiala,
Hiller and Henning. We pray that you just give them wisdom here
today.
The Bible does tell us that if we lack wisdom and we need it that
all we need to do is ask of you. And so may the decisions that are
made today, may they be made for the interest and well-being of the
people here of Collier County, and the decisions not be made out of
any political expediency but would it be that their thoughts would be
towards that which would help and benefit this county.
Lord, our thoughts are for our country here today nationally.
Statewide we pray for the elections that are coming, that God-fearing
people will be brought into office and that this country, Lord, that you
would just watch over the things here.
Thank you for this -- again, this meeting and the opportunity.
We thank you for the people that will be recognized here today, for
Michael Widner for 20 years of service, for Noemi Fraguela of the
EMS department who will be recognized for 25 years. Thank you for
people that have given their lives for causes such as this, and thank
Page 2
October 23, 2012
you for the recognition that will be had today.
And we ask all this in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Please join us for the Pledge of
Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. County Manager, will you please
go over the changes to the agenda, please.
Item #2A
APPROVAL OF TODAY'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND
SUMMARY AGENDA AS AMENDED — APPROVED AND/OR
ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Good morning, Commissioners. These
are the proposed agenda changes for the Board of County
Commissioners meeting of October 23, 2012.
The first proposed change is to withdraw Item 11E. That is
withdrawn at staffs request. We'll bring that back at a later date.
The next proposed change is to continue Item 16D6 from your
consent agenda and bring it forward at your next meeting on
November 13, 2012.
The next proposed change is to add Item 16E10 to your consent
agenda. This is a temporary extension of an interfacility transport
COPCN. And we'll bring that back to the board for formal approval
within the next two board meetings.
The next proposed change is to move Item 16F1 to become Item
11K on your regular agenda. It's the presentation of the Convention
and Visitors Bureau 2011 Strategic Plan. That move is made at
Commissioner Hiller's request.
The next proposed change is to move Item 16F4 from the consent
agenda to become 11K. That's a recommendation to approve the
Page 3
October 23, 2012
proposed 2013 action plan for the county manager; that item is moved
at Commissioner Hiller's request.
The next proposed change is to add Item 16J3 to the consent
agenda under constitutional officers that are repressed by the tax
collector to have the board extend the tax roll until such time as the
Value Adjustment Board proceedings can be concluded. They're
running longer this year.
We have a couple of agenda notes this morning, Commissioners.
Item 10D, the backup and staff information submitted in the agenda
packet is incorrect. The information uploaded is for the
Environmental Advisory Council. Revised backup material showing
the Consumer Advisory Board is the correct advisory board has been
distributed to each commissioner.
Item 16H1, function and events section of the executive summary
should read: "Attend the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce 2012
Excellence in Industry Gala" instead of the "Wake up Naples Event."
That change is made at your executive manager's request.
We have two time-certains scheduled for today's agenda. First
time is 11C to be heard at 11 a.m., and the next item to be heard at 1
p.m. is 13A on your agenda, and those are all the changes I have, Mr.
Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
County Attorney, do you have any changes?
MR. KLATZKOW: No changes, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We will begin with -- ex parte
disclosure and any other changes by commissioners with
Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: With respect to the ex parte, I have
no disclosures at this time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: With respect to the agenda, I
would like to pull Item K6, which is under the county attorney
Page 4
October 23, 2012
recommendation to adopt a resolution terminating the employment
agreement with the executive manager to the Board of County
Commissioners.
And also it's my understanding that the county attorney has an
add-on item which is a confidentiality agreement which he has
prepared, and it's my understanding that it was at Commissioner
Henning's recommendation, and I'd like that introduced in the record.
And I'd like a presentation on that by the county attorney.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: K6 is going to go where?
MR. OCHS: It will be Item 12B on your agenda, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 12B.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Item what?
MR. OCHS: 12B. 16K6 will become Item 12B under county
attorney.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Is that all, Commissioner
Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, we have to add the add-on
item, which the -- there's another item. So it will be 12C -- or 12B
would include a confidentiality agreement?
MR. OCHS: If that's the pleasure of the board, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I'd like to ask the county
attorney.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Where is it?
MR. KLATZKOW: We'll have to email you guys a copy of it. I
wasn't intending to take it to the board unless I was asked to take it to
the board, and I have not been. Mr. Mitchell had not agreed to it, so I
didn't take it to the board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Whoa, first time I heard of that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And, actually, my understanding
from.County Attorney Klatzkow is that Mr. Mitchell has said that he
would not agree to signing any confidentiality agreement until the
clerk paid him his severance.
Page 5
October 23, 2012
Now, I'm not sure that a confidentiality agreement is even legal
or enforceable in any way, but I think that, because of what has been
brought to my attention, this needs to come before the board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: When did this come up? I mean, why
are we hearing about it now?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I mean, if it was well known between the
county attorney and at least one or maybe two commissioners, well,
why are you surprising the rest of the commissioners at the meeting?
You know, it's not even in the agenda for the public to read.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Or for us to read.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Or for us to read. We do have an
ordinance which specifies that things brought up at the last minute can
be heard if the board majority of board agrees, or it can be
scheduled for a hearing at the next meeting so that it gets appropriate
announcement in the agenda so that the public can see it, and the rest
of the commissioners can understand what's going on here.
And so I'll ask the commissioners, do you want to hear it today,
or do you want to postpone it until the next meeting?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How does that affect Ian Mitchell's
-- I mean, is that who we're talking about? I don't even know. You
know, I haven't seen anything. I spoke to the county attorney
yesterday; he never mentioned it, so I have no idea what's going on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Tell me what your preferences
are. Do you want to hear it, or do you not want to hear it?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, question, if I may. If we
hold this off, then what we do is we have to move the other item for --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, you don't.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'm asking the county
attorney.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, you can hear the Ian Mitchell item
Page 6
October 23, 2012
without the confidentiality or the proposed confidentiality agreement.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Except, Jeff, if I may, that isn't
what you represented to me. Because in our meeting together, you
indicated -- when I said, is Mr. Mitchell signing a settlement
agreement, you said, no, he's signing a confidentiality agreement, and
that was in the meeting that we had the previous Thursday in the
presence of --
MR. KLATZKOW: To refresh your recollection, there are two
-- there is a confidentiality -- there is a -- there's a resolution before the
board that would terminate Mr. Ian's (sic) employment with the
county. His agreement with the county had provided for a
confidentiality agreement which had never been entered into.
We have been trying to clean that up as part of the exit strategy.
Mr. Mitchell never agreed to the final agreement.
I almost never bring an agreement to the board that's not been
finalized because there's no point. You can agree to it,then the other
side wants changes, and I've got to bring it back. But the only time I
would bring an agreement to the board that's not signed is if it's with
another local agency; FDOT, what have you.
I don't know what to tell you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, is this--
MR. KLATZKOW: You can do the resolution without the
confidentiality agreement, or if it's the will of the board, you can take
a look at it, but Mr. Mitchell has not agreed to it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So it's not part of our decision-making
process?
MR. KLATZKOW: It does not have to be.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So the confidentiality agreement is
not part of his severance? It's not part of the termination agreement?
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's in the --
MR. KLATZKOW: There is no termination agreement. There's
Page 7
October 23, 2012
a resolution by the Board of County Commissioners terminating him.
There is no -- there is no termination agreement.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't see how you separate the
confidentiality agreement, which Mr. Mitchell has tied to the payout
of his severance package, and his termination today.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. Well, you -- your resolution's
basically firing him. Whether or not he signs it or not is not part of
that decision-making process.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We're firing him?
MR. KLATZKOW: That's essentially what you're doing, yes.
You are terminating his employment without cause.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think Commissioner Henning was first.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's not abnormal for a
confidentiality agreement with contract employees. We've done it in
the past.
You know, I'm a little bit concerned that we're doing a settlement
and resolution without that agreement being agreed to by all parties. It
just doesn't make sense for us to do something like that. I think that
needs to be settled.
So in my opinion we either continue this until we have an
acceptable confidentiality agreement, or this has to be a part of this
resolution.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, is a confidentiality agreement,
County Attorney, a requirement of the contract? Does the contract
specify?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. The contract specifies he would enter
into a confidentiality agreement, but you're firing him.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead. Wait. No,
Page 8
October 23, 2012
Commissioner Fiala was next.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Forgive me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's just what I was going to say.
Is this normal? And who came up with this idea, and why is it being
presented at the 11th hour?
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm not presenting this, ma'am. I'm just
saying that we had this -- you know, Commissioner Henning noted to
us that his contract required a confidentiality agreement. This was a
couple weeks ago. Since that time we discovered that that's true.
We've been talking to Mr. Ian (sic). Mr. Ian's never agreed to
one. But it really -- you can proceed as you are without having a
confidentiality agreement, if that's the desire of the board, or you can
restructure this as a termination agreement including a confidentiality
clause, but that's a very different agenda item.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, when we had our meeting -
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, wait a minute. We
have Commissioner Coletta ahead of you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Forgive me.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I, for one, want to proceed with
this item. If the confidentiality agreement could be done after the fact
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Uh-uh.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- I have no problem with that. I
can understand Mr. Mitchell's reluctance to sign off totally and walk
away and be left in limbo. He's looking for a little bit of assurance,
and I have no problem with that. Knowing the circumstances that exist
out there, I think it's a wise move on his part.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller, and then
we'll take a vote.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Again, when I had the meeting
with the head of payroll for the Clerk's Office, Mr. Mitchell, Mr -- and
Mr. Klatzkow, what Mr. Klatzkow said when I asked if a settlement
Page 9
October 23, 2012
agreement was going to be signed as part of this termination, his
response was, no, and that instead of a confidentiality agreement -- I'm
sorry. Instead of a settlement agreement, there would be a
confidentiality agreement signed, which Mr. Mitchell agreed was the
appropriate approach.
I questioned the legality of such an agreement. I don't think it's
appropriate. I don't believe there is anything that can be kept
confidential as it relates to government business with respect to Mr.
Mitchell's position.
And I think that the fact that Mr. Mitchell has clearly said that he
won't sign this agreement unless he is paid by the clerk and this is
what Mr. Klatzkow has relayed to me then that raises concerns in
my mind, and I want to know what's going on. I want to have an
understanding.
Now, I have mails with Mr. Klatzkow, which all of you are
welcome to have. They're all a matter of public record, and anyone is
welcome to read them. And I encourage you to go back when this
issue was first raised and read all the communications on this matter.
This is a very serious issue. And I think continuing this and not
discussing it today in tandem with Mr. Mitchell's termination is not
the correct decision.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm having a little trouble grasping
this. If everything we do is a matter of public record, then what is the
confidentiality? Everything we do is a matter of public record. I don't
understand.
MR. KLATZKOW: It was the desire of the board --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: There is a complete dichotomy
there.
MR. KLATZKOW: It was the desire of the board, when you
entered into your agreement with Mr. Mitchell, that he be able to --
you be able to confide with him and that he would keep it to himself,
Page 10
October 23, 2012
all right. These are primarily oral conversations, since obviously
public records are public record, all right. Mr. Ian's -- and that was in
Mr. Mitchell's contract.
That agreement was never entered into. As a cleanup item -- you
know, when we're going through this, it was noted that he hadn't done
this. So as a cleanup item, we were going to have him execute it. Mr.
Mitchell declined.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just one thing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I don't know what information
we're trying to suppress here, but it just doesn't smell good to me.
Commissioner Henning, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just pull, the item. It's in the
contract, Section 16, County Attorney. Look at it; give us advice on
what it says, okay. Would can discuss this, you know, later on. I
mean, the contract is really simple in my opinion.
So let's pull it, hear it, make a decision about the resolution. And
the contract is a part of our agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I don't see the contract as being
part of our agenda, but --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It is.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It most certainly is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- the issue -- not the contract provision
requiring the confidentiality agreement. If we have employed Mr. Ian
for years and we haven't negotiated a confidentiality agreement with
him, the fault is ours, not with Mr. Mitchell. So let's not assume that
he has an obligation to do anything in that respect at this point in time.
So Commissioner Hiller has asked that Item 16K6 be pulled, and
it will go to 12B if the board approves it, and I am inclined to support
it.
So what other information, other changes do you have,
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER That's it.
Page 11
October 23, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. As far as disclosures go on the
consent agenda, I have no disclosures. On the summary agenda, I met
with staff, and this is regarding the Copeland Avenue South issue.
That's it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I have no further changes to the
agenda, and I have no disclosures for the consent agenda or the
summary agenda.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sir, I have no changes to the
agenda and no disclosures to make.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No changes to today's agenda. I
do have ex parte on the add-on item, 16E10. That's the only ex parte
communications I have.
So I`ll make a motion to approve the agenda as amended.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Henning to
approve agenda as amended, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mr. Chairman, could I just ask a fast
question?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
Page 12
October 23, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're moving Ian Mitchell's. I don't
even know what number that is, and we're moving onto what number?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 16K6 is going to 12B.
COMMISSIONER FIALA B.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Bravo, bravo. 12 Bravo.
Page 13
Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
October 23,2012
Withdraw Item 11E: Recommendation to award a construction contract to Oldcastle Southern
Group,Inc.(f/k/a APAC-Southeast,Inc.)for Bid No. 12-5948-Immokalee Road Safety
Improvements Project No.60016.4,in the amount of$1,906,761.14. (Staff's request)
Continue Item 16D6 to the November 13,2012 BCC Meeting: Recommendation to approve a
budget amendment recognizing$199,478.74 in program income revenue generated when conveying
properties acquired under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program(NSP1). (Staff's request)
Add On Item 16E10: 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 grant an extension to the current Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity approved by the Board to Ambitrans Medical Transport,Inc.,until December 13,-2012 or
until such time that this renewal may be scheduled on the Board's regular agenda. (Staff's request)
Move Item 16F1 to Item 11K: Recommendation to approve the Fiscal Year 2013 Strategic Plan
for the Naples Marco Island,Everglades Convention &Visitors Bureau(CVB). (Commissioner
Hiller's request)
Move Item 16F4 to Item 11L: Recommendation to review and approve the proposed FY2012
2013 Action Plan for Leo E.Ochs,Jr.,County Manager. (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Add On Item 16J3: Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners order that the
tax roll be extended pursuant to Section 197.323,Florida Statutes. (Staff's request)
Note:
Item 10D: The back-up and staff information submitted in the agenda packet is incorrect. The
information uploaded is for the Environmental Advisory Council. Revised back-up material
showing the Consumer Advisory Board as the correct advisory board has been distributed to each
Commissioner.
Item 16H1: Function/Event section of the Executive Summary should read: Attended the
Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce 2012 Excellence in Industry
Awards Gala at the Hilton,Naples FL. (Executive Manager to the BCC request)
Time Certain Items:
Item 11C to be heard at 11:00 a.m.
Item 13A to be heard at 1:00 p.m.
11/8/201212:09 PM
October 23, 2012
Item #2B and #2C
SEPTEMBER 20, 2012, BCC BUDGET MEETING AND THE
SEPTEMBER 25-26, 2012 BCC REGULAR MEETING MINUTES —
APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COYLE Okay. Now we have minutes for the
September the 20th, 2012, BCC budget hearing and minutes for
September 26, 2012 --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: for the BCC regular meeting.
Motion to approve those minutes by Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seconded by Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, that's me, Fiala.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, was that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You were looking the other direction.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know I was.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It was me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So it was seconded by Commissioner
Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But we're like two peas in a pod.
Just the blonde pea and the brunette pea.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, there you go.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 14
October 23, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion carries unanimously.
That brings us to service awards, County Manager.
Item #3A1
SERVICE AWARDS — EMPLOYEE - 20 YEAR ATTENDEES
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. We have two today. If the board would
please join us in the front of the dais.
Commissioners, our first service award recipient celebrating 20
years of service with our library department is Michael Widner.
Michael?
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much for your service.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks for all your service.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you for your service.
(Applause.)
Item #3A2
SERVICE AWARDS EMPLOYEE — 25 YEAR ATTENDEES
MR. OCHS: Celebrating 25 years of service with the EMS
department, Noemi Fraguela.
Neomi?
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
Page 15
October 23, 2012
MS. FRAGUELA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you for your service.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you for your service.
MR. OCHS: That concludes our service awards, Commissioners.
(Applause.)
Item #4
PROCLAMATIONS ONE MOTION TAKEN TO ADOPT ALL
PROCLAMATIONS ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: That takes us to Item 4 on your agenda,Mr.
Chairman, proclamations.
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION SUPPORTING THE CONTINUATION OF
THE "287G" PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE COLLIER
COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, WHICH ALLOWS
FOR THE IDENTIFICATION, ARREST AND REMOVAL OF
CRIMINALS ILLEGALLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES.
ACCEPTED BY CHIEF SCOTT SALLEY ON BEHALF OF
SHERIFF KEVIN RAMBOSK— ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4A is a proclamation supporting the
continuation of the 287(g) partnership between Collier County
Sheriffs Office and the United States Department of Homeland
Security which allows for the identification, arrest, and removal of
criminals illegally present in the United States. To be accepted by
Chief Greg Smith on behalf of Sheriff Kevin Rambosk.
Page 16
October 23, 2012
This item sponsored by Commissioner Coyle.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Chief Smith is here. Chief, I'm
going to depart a little bit from our normal procedure. I need to read
something from this proclamation. We don't always read the entire
proclamation, but I'd like to read some excerpts from this
proclamation.
As many of you know -- you've probably read newspaper reports
about the 287(g) program being terminated by the federal government,
and this is a partnership that has been established by many local law
enforcement agencies throughout the United States with the federal
government and the Department of Homeland Security to identify
illegal aliens who have been convicted of crimes.
And the current partnership between Collier County and the
Department of Homeland Security has been responsible for the
identification, arrest, deportation of 4,000 individuals who were
responsible for the commission of over 27,000 crimes; 27,000 crimes.
They are repeat criminal offenders. And as a result of these
people being deported, our jail population has declined to the point
where we no longer have to maintain the Immokalee jail, and we have
excess beds in the jail here on this campus.
It saves taxpayers a huge sum of money by removing repeat
criminal offenders. That is a very important part of keeping our
community safe. And the board, I hope, is going to unanimously
endorse this resolution.
And, Chief, if you and SALLEY will come up, we'll have a
presentation of this, and pictures.
(Applause.)
CHIEF SMITH: On behalf of Sheriff Rambosk, thank you for
this proclamation. He sends his greetings and both regrets that he
could not be here today.
There has been a lot said recently both in support and on the
counter to our participation in the 287(g) program. And I could stand
Page 17
October 23, 2012
up here ad nauseam and extol on the benefits this program has
delivered to the citizens of Collier County, but it's really important to
clarify that there's two things that are required for a person to be
removed from the community under the 287(g) program.
First of all, they have to have committed a crime, usually a
felony; and, secondly, once they've committed that crime, it has to be
determined that they were in the country illegally to start with.
We're not -- you know, despite what you may hear or what's
represented by others, we're not out there trying to enforce
immigration law. We're simply identifying these people who have
committed and continue to commit and prey on the good citizens of
this county, and we're processing those people for a further look by
ICE and Customs Enforcement for removal from the community.
And as Commissioner Coyle said, you know, we've removed
thousands of would-be criminals who would otherwise still be here
still preying on the citizens of our county.
So, again, it's something that the sheriff intends to continue as
long as it's a program offered to him by the United States Government,
and we thank the board for their continued support as well.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. Thank you.
Scott?
CHIEF SALLEY: Just for the record, my name's Scott
SALLEY, chief of corrections.
I've had the good fortune of watching this program develop since
it was just a concept. But what the leadership of Collier. County, the
citizens of Collier County, what you expect -- I'm sorry -- what you
demand is a safe county, and by implementing 287(g) we can deliver
that product for you.
We do not -- the sheriffs, the Collier County Sheriffs Office,
does not deport. We transfer those individuals, and they have a
hearing on the East Coast, and it's up to the United States Government
Page 18
October 23, 2012
on the status of those individuals.
We follow the law. That's all we do. And, again, that is not
expectation, that is a demand, and we are here to serve.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING OCTOBER 26, 2012.AS THE
13TH ANNUAL RED WALK FOR COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC
SCHOOLS. ACCEPTED BY DR. SUSAN BARCELLINO AND
CRAIG GREUSEL — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4B is a proclamation recognizing October 26,
2012, as the 13th Annual Red Walk for Collier County Public
Schools. To be accepted by Dr. Meredith Kirby and Craig Greusel.
This item is sponsored by Commissioner Fiala.
If you'd please step forward and receive your proclamation.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. You're always involved
with those good things, aren't you?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll be there.
MR. GREUSEL: That's right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is someone going to say something?
MR. GREUSEL: No, we're good. See you Friday.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right, good.
(Applause.)
Page 19
October 23, 2012
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 25, 2012 AS
NARCOTICS OVERDOSE PREVENTION & EDUCATION
(NOPE) NATIONAL CANDLELIGHT VIGIL DAY IN COLLIER
COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY FRANK NAPPO, PRESIDENT, ANA
DIMECURIO AND MELANIE BLACK, DRUG FREE COLLIER;
EMILY CASTILLO AND COLLEEN DESWAL, DAVID
LAWRENCE CENTER; AND SANDI SMITH AND MARLEE
ROGNRUD, THE WILLOUGH — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4C is a proclamation designating October 25,
2012, as Narcotics Overdose Prevention and Education National
Candlelight Vigil Day in Collier County.
To be accepted by Frank Nappo, president; Ana DiMercurio and
Melanie Black, Drug Free Collier; Emily Castillo and Colleen
Deswal, David Lawrence Center; and Sandi Smith and Marlee
Rognrud, The Willough.
Sponsored by Commissioner Fiala.
If you'd please step forward and receive your proclamation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And who isn't here to receive this
proclamation?
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who gets it? Who's going to get it?
Okay. Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you so much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Congratulations.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Congratulations for the work you do.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Congratulations.
MR. NAPPO: Thank you so much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is someone going to speak?
Page 20
October 23, 2012
MR. NAPPO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. CASTILLO: Good morning,Commissioners. The Narcotics
Overdose Prevention and Education Candlelight Vigil is in memory of
those who -- those lost to drug- and alcohol-related incidents and those
suffering from the disease of addiction.
Our intention is to raise awareness on the issue of substance
abuse and to remove the stigma associated with addiction. We want to
educate the community members about the dangers, consequences of
prescription drug misuse and abuse, as well as other substances and
drug overdose. Addiction not only affects the individual but also the
family members of the addict.
This vigil will take place October 25th at 6 p.m. in Cambier Park
located at 580 8th Street South in Naples.
The night will start off with the Honor Guard and the Pledge of
Allegiance followed by community members who have lost loved
ones through addiction. We ask you to please join us in remembering
those who've lost their life with the fight of addiction at this great
community event.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Item #4D
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE FOURTH ANNUAL
NAPLES INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL AND ITS`
OPENING NIGHT FILM, "HONOR FLIGHT." ACCEPTED BY
SHANNON FRANKLIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NAPLES
INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4D is a proclamation recognizing the Fourth
Page 21
October 23, 2012
Annual Naples International Film Festival and its opening night
"Honor Flight."
To be accepted by Shannon Franklin, executive director, Naples
International Film Festival.
This proclamation is sponsored by Commissioner Coyle.
Please come forward.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm going to tell them a little bit about
what's going on here, okay. Do you mind?
MS. FRANKLIN: No, not at all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Although this is a proclamation
for the national -- Naples International Film Festival, it's about more
than that. They begin the film festival, this next -- well, November the
1st through November the 4th in Naples, but they're doing something
else to recognize the World War II generation. They will spotlight, in
the opening night presentation, the film documentary "Honor Flight."
"Honor Flight" takes volunteers from the national group Honor
Flight Network who gathered together veterans and take them -- fly
them to Washington, D.C., to have a tour of veterans memorials in
Washington, D.C.
And to date they have flown more than 80,000 veterans to the
nation's capitol over the last eight years.
So we're very happy to recognize the Naples International Film
Festival and wish you the greatest success. And everyone should turn
out for the films that they'll be previewing during that period of time.
So thank you very much for your good work and your help with
veterans. Thank you.
MS. FRANKLIN: Thank you so much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You can take that one.
MS. FRANKLIN: Okay, great.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Take that podium.
Page 22
October 23, 2012
MS. FRANKLIN: Thank you so much. I just wanted to thank
everyone on behalf of the Naples International Film Festival. Thank
you to the Collier County Board of County Commissioners for this
wonderful honor.
We truly appreciate your continued support, and we will work
very hard here in our fourth year, November 1st through the 4th, to
provide a world-class film festival for our community and continue to
work with our volunteers and all our wonderful patrons to help bolster
the arts and cultural lifestyle here in Collier County.
So thank you again for all your support. We appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, if I could get a motion to approve
the proclamations this morning, please.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve all the
proclamations.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve the roclamations b
p by
Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Hiller.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The proclamations are approved
unanimously. Thank you.
MR. OCHS: That takes us to Item 5 on your agenda this
morning, Commissioners; presentations.
5A, I understand that the young student may not yet be here.
Page 23
October 23, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Not yet. He's on his way. His
principal is bringing him over
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll do that one last, then.
Item #5B
PRESENTATION RECOGNIZING HEROIC AND VALIANT
LIFESAVING EFFORTS OF EAST NAPLES FIRE CONTROL
AND RESCUE DISTRICT FIREFIGHTER MANUEL S.
MORALES PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Okay. Then we'll move to Item 5B. It's a
presentation recognizing the heroic and valiant life-saving efforts of
East Naples Fire Control and Rescue District Firefighter Manuel S.
Morales.
This item is to be presented by Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you
MR. OCHS: Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Thank you very much. First,
before I do this, Manny, would you like to come forward, please.
MR. MORALES: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I already have his picture right here.
I just want to tell you briefly about Manny. He was traveling home in
uniform, by the way, after completing his duty shift. And while
traveling eastbound on U.S. 41 in Ochopee, Firefighter Morales
witnessed a car traveling westbound, and it struck a guardrail,rolled
over, and ended upside-down in a swampy area.
Firefighter Morales immediately stopped and activated the 911
system. He asked bystanders if anyone had exited the partially
submerged vehicle and was told by elderly bystanders that none had
exited the vehicle.
With total disregard for his own safety, Firefighter Morales
Page 24
October 23, 2012
submerged himself several times, with no diver-safety gear, searching
the SUV for victims. As he was submerging a third time, Firefighter
Morales located the hand of a victim and began extricating him from
the vehicle.
As Firefighter Morales continued his efforts to remove the
victim, he began -- it began to sink into the soft murky bottom of the
swamp, endangering his own life.
After verifying there were no other victims in the SUV,
Firefighter Morales pulled the victim, who was bleeding, ashen in
color, and vomiting and thrashing violently in the water to the safety
of a shore.
After successfully removing the victim from the water, Morales
began caring for the victim utilizing an on-scene park ranger's first-aid
kit, evaluated the victim's vital signs, and continued emergency patient
care until the arrival of the Ochopee Fire Department.
Identifying himself as an off-duty East Naples Fire Department --
and he's a paramedic -- Morales continued to coordinate patient care
until the arrival of Collier County EMS. Upon arrival of the Collier
County EMS, the patient was stabilized, conscious, and alert.
And it is my esteemed pleasure to introduce you to Manny
Morales. Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you so much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Manny, congratulations. Thank you so
much.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you so much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good job.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Manny, you could put this also on
your -- I don't know what you can do with it, but maybe on the wall at
work or home or something, aside from the plaque.
MR. MORALES: Yes, ma'am. Thank you so much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He's a real hero, folks.
Page 25
October 23, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: He sure is.
MR. MORALES: May I say a few words?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
(Applause.)
MR. MORALES: Good morning, Commissioners and public
citizens. Thank you.
I would like to first and foremost thank God for giving us the
men and women in uniform, the courage, the strength to do what we
do. It is our passion. And, honestly, without our men and women and
the Sheriffs Department, Collier County EMS, and our fire
department -- we co-exist and we take our energy from one another to
do better and excel. And we do what we do because it is our passion.
And God gave us the strength, and we feed off of one another.
Also I would like to acknowledge my crew, my chief, Chief
Schultz; my lieutenant, Kevin Nelms; and driver/engineer Chris Diaz
and all of our public safety personnel. Thank you. Without them -
for them we accept this award. Thank you so much.
(Applause.)
Item #5C
PRESENTATION BY MARK ELSNER OF SOUTH FLORIDA
WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, PROVIDING AN UPDATE
ON THE LOWER WEST COAST WATER SUPPLY PLAN, AS
REQUESTED BY COMMISSIONERS DURING THE BIG
CYPRESS BASIN JOINT WORKSHOP HELD ON APRIL 27, 2012
PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item 5C is a presentation by Mark
Elsner of the South Florida Water Management District providing an
update on the Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan as requested by
Page 26
October 23, 2012
commissioners during the Big Cypress Basin joint workshop held on
April 27, 2012.
Good morning, Mr. Elsner.
MR. ELSNER: Hi, good morning. That's a tough act to follow.
For the record, I'm Mark Elsner. I'm the administrator of the
water supply development section of the South Florida Water
Management District. I appreciate you allocating some time for me to
come talk to you about our Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan
update.
Last time I was here was back in 2010, and at that time I was
describing the process on how we were going to update our 2005/2006
Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan. Since then we've been
meeting, working hard, and we have a draft document. And I'm here
today to give you an overview of the work that's been accomplished
and what this plan is saying.
This represents thousands of hours by our stakeholders and our
staff in putting this together, and we really appreciate Collier County's
participation in this, and especially George Yilmaz and Paul
Mattausch.
What is the water supply plan? Simply speaking, it's a road map
on how we're going to meet our water needs over the next 20 years.
And this plan, it's through 2030. The Lower West Coast is one of four
planning regions the district is developing regional water supply plans
for. It includes Lee County, most of Collier County, and portions of
Charlotte, Glades, Hendry, and Mainland Monroe County.
You know, one thing, as a part of a road map, is it is includes the
strategies and projects that are going to be needed to meet those needs
over the next 20 years. An important part of this is water supply plans
are updated every five years to stay current. And if you look over the
last five to seven years, it's a testament of why we need to continue to
update these regularly based on the current situation.
Public participation is critical to ensure that our plans address the
Page 27
October 23, 2012
needs and concerns of the area. We used a whole host of forums and
methods to solicit that input. The primary forum that we used was
through the district's Water Resources Advisory Commission. This is
an advisory body to our governing board, and it's made up of
appointed stakeholders by our governing board members; and they
represent businesses, utilities, environmental interests, agricultural
interests, and a whole diverse group.
Our Water Resource Advisory Commission, or WRAC, meets on
a monthly basis. And as part of the stakeholder meetings that we held
here, they're of the issue workshop under our WRAC.
As part of this process, we had five workshops, and really seven,
because the last two meetings we actually held a meeting in Collier
County, and then we went up and did the same meeting in Fort Myers
to go ahead and facilitate input locally from those two counties.
For the planning area we're estimating the population has
increased by about 51 percent to about 1.5 million people in this area,
and we use population projections from the University of Florida
Bureau of Economic and Business Research. Most of the local
governments do utilize this as a resource in developing your
comprehensive plans also.
Besides the population, there is a significant agricultural industry
in this area, and we're projecting that to grow 18 percent to about
333,000 acres to 362,000 acres.
And with those urban and agricultural uses, we're projecting
water demand to increase by about 30 percent to about 1.2 billion
gallons a day.
Sorry. All right.
For breaking this down to Collier County, we're projecting the
population's going to increase by about 38 percent to about 472,000
people.
Agricultural industry is going to stay consistent at about 89,000
acres, and we're estimating that water demands are going to.increase
Page 28
October 23, 2012
by about 14 percent to about 336 million gallons a day.
This just shows the utility service areas in Collier County. These
are utilities that are greater than 100,000 gallons a day. And as you
can tell, by far Collier County is the largest utility provider in the
county.
What are the challenges that this area's facing in the way of water
supply? A lot of our fresh groundwater sources, the development has
been maximized so that there is additional fresh groundwater
available, but it's going to have to be on a permit-by-permit or
application-by-application basis, and it's limited by concern over harm
to wetlands, the potential for saltwater intrusion, as well as aquifer
protection.
With two-thirds of the rainfall falling during the wet season,
storage is very important in the way of surface water availability. And
because of the lack of storage, surface water availability is limited
throughout the year. And also, because of lack of storage, those
freshwater discharges to our estuarine environments is also affecting
the quality of those environments.
Every plan needs tools, and these are the tools in our toolbox.
They consist of continued use of freshwater sources, such as fresh
groundwater and surface water; continued use and expansion of
alternative water supplies, such as reclaimed water, saline water from
the Floridan aquifer; and also better management and capturing that
surface water during the rainy season through reservoirs and aquifer
storage and recovery for use at a later time; and, of course,
conservation, and I'll get into that a little bit more.
This area could be considered as a poster child for
implementation of these tools. Every one of them has -- pretty much
has been implemented in this area. In the region, 90 percent of the
wastewaters were used for a beneficial purpose. Over 40 percent of the
public water supply treatment is consisting of reverse osmosis of
brackish water, and conservation has been a big part of what you do
Page 29
October 23, 2012
here.
Aquifer storage and recovery is also being utilized by many of
the utilities in this area, storing reclaimed water, groundwater, as well
as surface water and treated drinking water.
With the tools in the toolbox and looking forward, this is how we
see the future needs being met. And if you go across the top here,
these are our water source options, our tools. Here are just three of
our user groups. And from a public water supply standpoint, we still
see continued use of fresh groundwater and increases in use of
brackish water. Storage is going to be really important, and primarily
through aquifer storage and recovery, and, of course, conservation.
From a landscape irrigation standpoint, continued use of fresh
groundwater, increased use of reclaimed water and, of course,
increased conservation.
Conservation is really important for all uses and all sources. And
the cheapest gallon of water is a gallon we don't use. And what we
mean by that is if we can go ahead and conserve that water, that's a
gallon that a local utility and local government doesn't have to
provide. And looking forward, most of that's going to be coming from
alternative water supplies, and conservation is much more cost
effective in developing those supplies. So we want to go ahead and
maximize the efficiency of use of all of our resources.
This area from conservation is pioneer. In 2003 you asked to
have a rule developed that would limit landscape irrigation to three
days a week. That was put in place. The district took that concept and
implemented it district-wide in 2010 with our district-wide year-round
landscape irrigation conservation measures rule. And this rule
endorsed a two-day-per-week irrigation requirement; however, for
counties wholly within the Water Management District, it allowed for
three days a week where utilities could not support a two-day-a-week
schedule.
What we're asking is that local governments like yourself work
Page 30
October 23, 2012
with your utility department to look to see if you could support a
two-day-a-week landscape irrigation rule to further conservation. In
this area Lee County and Cape Coral have adopted two-day-per-week
ordinances. An important part of the year-round rule is it doesn't
affect the use of reclaimed water. That's still exempt and can be used
at any time.
And in the bottom here just shows the per-capita use, and over
time you can see that it's gone from 194 gallons per day per person in
1990 down to 151 in 2005. So there is a conservation ethic that's
being established here, and that's reflected in the demands.
So what's the plan saying for the future? We need to go ahead
and improve the understanding of fresh groundwater sources maintain
our aquifer monitoring program. It's a complicated system that you
have here in the way of aquifers. And we have minimum flows in
levels and what we call maximum development levels, and we need to
do more work in defining what that is and what water may be
available for use.
We actually have a partnership with Collier County looking at
monitoring. This was a -- we're in our fourth year now, but we've
worked with Collier County and the USGS in putting together a
comprehensive monitoring program to look at water quality and detect
changes in water quality as well as the potential for saltwater
intrusion.
The plan's recommending continued increase and promotion of
water reuse and conservation. We want to work with local
governments in understanding sea level rise and the potential impact
on public water supply wellfields as well as other water users.
We have a Floridian aquifer model that's been completed, and
we're in the process of updating it with peer-review comments. It will
be available to look at use of the Floridan aquifer regionally.
Promotion of local storage projects. Given two-thirds of the
rainfall falls during the wet.season, how can we hold that water back
Page 31
October 23, 2012
for later use? And we're looking with Collier County in potentially
partnering on two projects, the North Golden Gate Estates Flowway
Restoration Project as well as the Northern Belle Glade --Belle
Meade Rehydration, which this will capture water, recharge
groundwater, and reduce flows to our estuarine systems.
For the Caloosahatchee River, construction of the C43 west basin
storage reservoir that will allow us to provide water to meet minimum
flows and levels to the rivers. And then I'll get into it in a minute, but
coordination with local governments and utilities on water supply
related elements, which is going to be part of your Comprehensive
Plan.
So what did the plan conclude? It concluded that future water
demands of the region can be -- can continue to be met through the
2030 planning horizon with appropriate management and continued
diversification of water supply sources.
This is contingent upon several things: Utilities completing the
projects that they've identified; site specific refinement of groundwater
availability; and construction of the C43 reservoir for environmental
needs.
And this conclusion has a significant emphasis on water
conservation as well as diversification of water supply sources through
reuse and brackish water. I've got to recognize Collier County and
applaud the leadership of Collier County in the -- in looking ahead,
and you guys position yourselves very well. Fifty-five percent of your
public water supply capacity is reverse osmosis and using brackish
water.
You're reusing about 90 percent of your wastewater for a
beneficial purpose. You've implemented aquifer storage and recovery
for drinking -- storing drinking water when it's available, and you're
currently developing a program to store reclaimed water, surface
water, and groundwater, supplement your reclaimed water, and you've
developed supplemental sources to maximize the use of your
Page 32
October 23, 2012
reclaimed water. So you guys -- Collier County has positioned itself
very well in the way of meeting your future needs.
And we have supported that and have been there with you. Over
the last 15 years, between the Water Management District and the Big
Cypress Basin, we've allocated over $15.8 million to partner with
Collier County in development of 35 alternative water supply projects.
Our plan -- our water supply plan and your Comprehensive Plan
are linked. Through this process we've worked with your utility
department identifying projects that they're going to use to meet your
future needs.
After we approve this plan, Collier County will have 18 months
to go ahead and update your Comprehensive Plan and the water
facilities part of that incorporating the project's -- or updating your
10-year facilities work plan to incorporate the projects that we've
identified or other projects to meet those future needs.
So what's next? Our document was published in September.
We've been meeting with local governments and making presentations
as well as the stakeholder. We plan on bringing this back to our Water
Resources Advisory Commission in November, as well as our
governing board for final approval on November 15th.
You can go to our website for more information, and all three
documents that make up this plan are posted there.
And with that, that's a very brief summary of thousands of hours
of work. Any questions?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Questions, board?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a few little comments here.
First of all, I want to say thanks to our taxpayers, we have been
allowed to work with you so well, and that's why we have an
exemplary program as far as our future water sources go. And I want
to say -- I want to ask you if you can tell me, please, first how
Page 33
October 23, 2012
beneficial is the CREW land to our future water resource? You work
with us on that, and I'm on their board.
Secondly, I want to commend -- and maybe you can back this up
-- our Conservation Collier Program. This is -- the voters voted to do
this, you know, buying up land to protect our future water resources as
well as, of course, environmentally sensitive land, et cetera. And L
want to know if that has helped you a great deal.
MR. ELSNER: Okay. I can't talk to specifics about Conserve
(sic) Collier but just in general. Like, the CREW lands, anytime that
we can go ahead and maintain land in a natural state -- there is natural
storage there, and one of the challenges we have is we urbanized and
developed South Florida; we got rid of a lot of that natural storage.
So by preserving it, maintaining it, and holding water, that allows
more water in the system. It allows groundwater recharge, but it
decreases the amount of water going to our estuarine system, so it's a
positive, positive, positive.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. I feel so, too.
Can you tell me where we stand right now with our water table at
the end of this rainy season?
MR. ELSNER: Actually, the last month has been a boom month
all across South Florida. You know, going through the dry season,
you guys weren't getting the rainfall that the East Coast was, but the
last month and a half has brought that up, and water levels are right at
where they should be for the end of the season here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Boy, that's the first time in a few
years we've ended up that way, isn't it?
MR. ELSNER: Yes. As part of our water shortage team, it's a
good thing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I want to say -- I want to give
credit to BCB, to Big Cypress Basin. They have worked right along
with us as a partner, and they deserve a lot of credit for helping us
with a lot of this funding, as well as South Florida Water Management
Page 34
October 23, 2012
District.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you for your presentation,
Mark.
Could you go to the schedule that shows Collier County and the
population projections, as well as the water needs to serve that.
MR. ELSNER: This one?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I think that schedule is
extremely important as it relates to our Comprehensive Plan. And I
think what is critical is that the numbers that you present here are
consistent with the projections with respect to population in the
balance of the Comp Plan, and I'm not sure that the numbers that you
have here are, in fact, the numbers that we are using for that timeline,
and I'd like verification of that, because if this is the number we're
going to use, it needs to be used for everything.
MR. ELSNER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And it's critical, because my
concern is that if the numbers and the planning that the county is
engaging in differs materially, then your gross water demands will be
thrown off, and where you think we've done great, we, in fact, may
not be in a good position.
So I think it's very important that staff work with you and that at
the end of the.day when we do see that Comp Plan come back to us, I
would like to see this reconciliation myself:
MR. ELSNER: And that's an excellent point. We spend a lot of
time up front and working with the local government planning
departments and utilities in coordination of these numbers and
agreement with them. They were based on the 2009 BEBR numbers.
Those have been updated over the last several years.
We have gone`back and looked at those numbers, and we're
within one and a half -- 1 to 2 percent of the current projects of that,
Page 35
October 23, 2012
but that consistency is really important.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It is, extremely so.
So, you know, if -- Leo, if you could make a note of that --
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am, I am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- and if we could bring that back
at that time, and I'll have my aide do the same.
MR. OCHS: Very good.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much for your
presentation.
MR. ELSNER: Thank you very much.
Item #5A
PRESENTATION RECOGNIZING JACKSON BONAR, AN 11
YEAR OLD STUDENT AT OAKRIDGE MIDDLE SCHOOL, FOR
BRAVERY AND HEROISM — PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That brings us back to 5A. Is Jackson
Bonar available?
DR. PATTON: He is.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, he is.
DR. PATTON: He's coming.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, 5A then would be a presentation
recognizing Jackson Bonar, an 11-year-old student at Oak Ridge
Middle School, for his bravery and heroism. And this item will be
presented by Commissioner Hiller, and we're very pleased to have Dr.
Patton in the office -- in the audience with us this morning.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And we also -- Superintendent
Patton, welcome.
DR. PATTON: Thank you.
Page 36
October 23, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And Mr. Studland representing
Rick Scott's office is also with us.
Before I introduce our guest of honor today, I'd like to read an
article from the Naples Daily News. Don't be surprised. And this
article is written by a reporter by the name of Jessica Lipscomb on
September the 19th, 2012.
A Collier County sixth grader is being credited with stopping a
school bus Tuesday after the bus driver suffered an apparent heart
attack and lost control. Jackson Bonar was the last person on the bus
as he headed home from his first day of an after-school program at
Oak Ridge Middle School.
He and the bus driver, Robert W. Kelly, were two streets away
from his house in Golden Gate Estates around 6 p.m. when the bus
started moving slower, then faster. Jackson looked over at the
65-year-old driver. He made a strange face at me and fell against the
window, the 11-year-old said. They were headed towards a palm tree
when Jackson jumped out of his seat, hit the brakes, and steered the
bus into a chain-link fence on Weber Avenue (sic) near Third Avenue
Northwest.
I figured if it hit the tree, the air bag would go off and hurt him
even more, Jackson said.
An Oak Ridge teacher, who happened to be driving by, got out of
her car and, with help of another man, opened the bus doors and
started to help. Jackson called his mom who called 911.
Paramedic said Kelly still was alive and conscious when he was
taken to the hospital, according to Jackson's mother, Paula Bonar. She
said he appeared to have suffered a heart attack.
That was a great reaction he had going, Bonar said of her son.
Jackson said he knew what to do because he has experience driving
golf carts and four-wheelers. He's my hero, said his dad, Doug Bonar.
And with that, I introduce all of you to Jackson.
(Applause.)
Page 37
October 23, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If you could all stand over there.
Jackson, I know you think you're here today because of the
Board of County Commissioners honoring you, but I have a surprise.
You're not, or maybe you are in part.
I have a letter of recognition from the governor of the State of
Florida, and I'm going to read it to you.
Master Jackson Bonar, Dear Jackson, as governor, one of my top
priorities is ensuring the safety and security of the citizens of Florida.
On behalf of the people of our state, I want to thank you for
quickly jumping into action and helping your bus driver as he
experienced a medical emergency. There is little doubt that your
efforts not only saved his life but also prevented a tragedy that could
have harmed many others as well.
Your alertness and ability to instantly respond helped a fellow
Floridian in an extraordinary way. You are to be commended for your
willingness to assist others in need. Your parents must be extremely
proud of you, as am I.
Thank you for being a great Floridian and a tremendous role
model to Floridians of all ages. It is Floridians like you who make our
state such a great place to live, work, and play.
Sincerely, Rick Scott, Governor.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And now on behalf of the Board of
County Commissioners, our sentiments are shared with the governor's.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. BONAR: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #7
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
Page 38
October 23, 2012
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 7 on your
agenda this morning, public comments on general topics.
MR. MILLER: Commissioners, you have three registered
speakers for public comment. Your first speaker is John Lundin, and
he will be followed by Vincent Angiolillo.
MR. LUNDIN: Commissioner Coyle, I'd like to speak out
against your proclamation in support of 287(g). I've created an -- I
call it an anti-proclamation. I would like everybody to watch the
monitor. I have a video of the protest held on Sunday in Immokalee
opposing 287(g).
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And what is the run time of the video?
MR. LUNDIN: I have three minutes to speak here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And does that include the video?
MR. LUNDIN It does.
MR. SHEFFIELD: Troy, maybe you could help out.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you need help?
MR. LUNDIN: No.
MR. MILLER: It's loading.
MR. LUNDIN: It froze up before.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: When do we start the timer?
MR. MILLER: It's paused, sir. We've stopped it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that the rules?
MR. LUNDIN: I apologize. I'm having technical difficulties.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's the people in our audio/visual
department. They don't want to see it.
(The DVD was played as follows:)
"We are going to deliver the more than
1,700 signatures against 287(g), and we're
also here to say that we do not want police
and ICE collaboration. We don't want police
and ICE collaboration. No, we don't want
Page 39
October 23, 2012
police and ICE collaboration. Okay.
"For the media, if you all want to follow
them inside, they're going to do (inaudible)
the petitions. I'm not sure if you want all
to see that. But let's go inside.
"And (inaudible)from (inaudible)
Association went inside and gave them a cover
letter regarding our more than 1,700
signatures that we've received on the petition
that we've been collecting for over a month
and a half regarding the end of 287(g).
"We wanted to let them know that we are
here and that we are watching, okay? We
wanted to let them know that we do not agree
with police and ICE collaboration.
"We want (inaudible). We don't want
separation of families. We don't want fear
and mistrust in our police department. We
want police to stop collaborating with ICE.
"Sheriff Rambosk has the power to end the
287(g) agreement. He has the power to do it.
He can do it. He can do it, and we want to do
it. We want him to know that we are here. "
(The DVD concluded.)
MR. LUNDIN: Okay. I'd just like to say, quickly, the 287(g)
program will end on December 31st. The federal government's going
to end it, and it's replaced by the Secure Communities Program, which
is a nationwide program. It's less invasive. And thank you very
much.
MR. MILLER: Your next public speaker is Vincent Angiolillo,
and he will be followed by Bob Krasowski.
MR. ANGIOLILLO: Commissioners, I'm Vinny Angiolillo. I'm
Page 40
October 23, 2012
sure you-all know who I am.
Commissioner Coyle, you started out this presentation on the 287
program alluding to the fact that 27,000 people committed crimes
(sic), and you made it sound like they committed them in Collier
County. That's nationwide, Commissioner.
You take a program like this, and you try and build it up to make
it look as though it's doing something good for this community. You
also mentioned felons were being deported when, in fact, most of the
people have committed misdemeanors.
The 287 program is a failed program, and I find it despicable this
board not only condones this but flaunts it by a public proclamation. I
publicly hold all the commissioners responsible in their actions today.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And, for the record, those are Collier
County statistics for repeat offenders: 4,000 people deported; 27,000
crimes.
MR. MILLER: Commissioners, your last public speaker under
public comment --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I, Commissioner Coyle?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Before we move to the public
speaker, would the Sheriffs Department like to respond to the
allegations or claims that were just made?
CHIEF SMITH: Commissioner, for the record, Greg Smith,
chief of administration for the Sheriffs Office.
First of all, let me start by saying that I'm never more proud than
to live in a country that gives someone the opportunity to address
government and to speak openly concerning the things of government
and how that works.
Certainly, I wouldn't want to do anything up here today to detract
from their ability to do that; however, to bring clarity to the issue, we
are not interested in status offenders. We only are interested in those
Page 41
October 23, 2012
people who are committing crimes in this community. That's the
charge of the people to the sheriff. We don't have discretion with
regard to that.
You know, if someone breaks the law, you know, our duty is to
meet that person and enforce that law and to restore order. That's
what we do. That's what the men and women of the Collier County
Sheriffs Office have always done, will always continue to do.
The 287(g) ICE initiative, as we stated earlier, number one, you
have to have committed a crime. The large majority of those crimes
are felons. We have deported rapists. We have deported -- "we." Not
"we," ICE. But we have deported rapists, we have deported those
people who are involved in human trafficking, drug dealers --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Please be quiet.
CHIEF SMITH: -- and others who prey on this community on a
regular basis. It is true there are those who have been labeled for
deportation by ICE that have committed misdemeanors. You know,
we don't dodge that issue. You know, we meet that head on as well.
But the vast majority have committed felons (sic), and not just one
felon. You know, I mean, it's simple arithmetic. You have 27,000
crimes and 4,000 people, you get the idea pretty rapidly that most of
these people are committing a number of offenses.
But as I said earlier -- and, you know, the will of the government,
the federal government to continue this program right now is
uncertain, but as long as it is a tool available to the Sheriffs Office and
as long as the Board of County Commissioners and the vast majority
of the citizens of this county support it, we'll continue to do it.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. Thank you very much.
Okay. Let's have the next speaker.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Bob Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Hi, Commissioners. I can't pass up the
opportunity to say I pretty much support your support for that
Page 42
October 23, 2012
program. I think there's a lot of good being done removing criminals
from our system, our jails, overcrowding of the jails, and people who
are here illegally taking jobs that some of them, you know, bricklayers
or whatever, would have been held by American citizens.
But I certainly sympathize with a lot of the illegals, because
they're the new slave class. They have to hide in the shadows. They're
worried about getting picked up. And the political establishment
allows this to happen so they can exploit cheap labor, which hurts
America all the way across the board.
And I wish we were doing more in foreign countries to share our
knowledge and wealth, like hospitals and stuff like that. But that's a
whole 'nother issue.
I'm just here to speak briefly on an item that's on your consent
agenda. And I'd just like to point out -- and this is the beach
renourishment emergency truck haul. And you've come in --your
estimate was 650,000. Now it's 674,000; pretty good within the range
of the estimate.
But I'd like to point out that if we had an arrangement with the
sand provider where they could separate out the beach-quality sand
through the course of their normal operation, setting that aside using
other materials for other uses, that we could even get a better price.
And I'm not saying that this is the best price available, but in the
emergency situation, this might be okay. And then when you compare
it to other costs in other places for sand, beach truck renourishment,
they might have a better deal, but it might be for reasons.
So that's pretty much it. I'd like -- in the future, there are areas of
our beach that can benefit from truck haul spot renourishment, and we
have to look into that, but that will be probably your next meeting.
Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Bob?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Bob, thank you for bringing those
Page 43
October 23, 2012
points forward. Truck hauls, as I understand now, were the way our
beaches were renourished until the major renourishment in 2006, so it
isn't something new. And the fact that it ought to be considered as a
means for renourishment and possibly a far more economical means
definitely should not be ignored.
So I'm glad you highlighted this agenda item, even though it was
on consent, and I agree with you. And I'm going to ask that we do
some research on the pricing of sand brought in from the mines as
opposed to through dredging.
MR. KRASOWSKI: That's great.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I appreciate that, because that,
potentially, could result in savings.
MR. KRASOWSKI: And I know we have -- as part of our bid
process you're going to be considering that, although it wasn't entirely
clear the way your motion was stated in the minutes. You know, it
didn't say, like, sand, truck haul, inland, but I think the intent was
there. And I guess I'll have to ask the appropriate person to explain
what that means to me.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, please do. And if there's
anything that you find out that is different than we understand, please
let me know --
MR. KRASOWSKI: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- and discuss it with Leo.
MR. KRASOWSKI: I'll be back.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Thanks a lot. Appreciate it,
Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that our last speaker?
MR. MILLER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That brings us to public
comments on general topics now.
MR. OCHS: Oh, we just concluded that, sir.
Page 44
October 23, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry, yes.
MR. OCHS: We move on to Item 10 on your agenda this
morning, Board of County Commissioners.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 2012-197: APPOINTING NORMAN E. GENTRY
TO THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
-.ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 1OA is appointment of member to the Development
Services Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve the
committee's recommendations of Norman Gentry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A motion by Commissioner
Henning to approve the committee's recommendation, seconded by
Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (No verbal response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 2012-198: APPOINTING PATRICK WHITE
RECOMMENDED BY CITY OF NAPLES TO THE
Page 45
October 23, 2012
CONTRACTORS LICENSING BOARD - ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 10B is appointment of member to the Contractors
Licensing Board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve the City of
Naples recommendation of Patrick White.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Fiala to
appoint the City of Naples recommendation Patrick White, and I'll
second the motion.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
Item #10C
RESOLUTION 2012-199: APPOINTING DOUG RANKIN FOR
DISTRICT 5 AND RE-ADVERTISE THE DISTRICT 2 SEAT TO
THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 10C is appointment of members to the Collier
County Planning Commission.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have two appointments, one
from District 2 and the other from District 5. And by our ordinance,
the candidate must be nominated by the commissioner of that district.
You want to go first, Commissioner Hiller?
Page 46
October 23, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm not prepared. I'm not prepared
to make a nomination today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So that seat will remain vacant
until such time as you come up with a nomination.
So the second seat is to be nominated by the commissioner from
District 5. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I nominate Doug Rankin.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta nominates
Doug Rankin, and it's seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes 4-1 with
Commissioner Hiller dissenting.
County Manager?
Item #10D
RESOLUTION 2012-200: APPOINTING VICTORIA DINARDO
TO THE CONSUMER ADVISORY BOARD ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. 10D is appointment of member to the
Consumer Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve Victoria
DiNardo.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
Page 47
October 23, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- to approve Victoria Denardo by
Commissioner Fiala, seconded by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (No verbal response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
Item #1OE
RESOLUTION 2012-201: APPOINTING PATRICIA ANN
FORKAN IN THE TECHNICAL ALTERNATE CATEGORY AND
TO RE-ADVERTISE FOR TECHNICAL CATEGORY FOR THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 10E is appointment of members to the
Environmental Advisory Council.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to readvertise.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Coletta to
readvertise for the position, seconded by Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I -- how about the technical
alternate, Patricia Ann Forkan?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I'll go ahead and make a
motion. I'll change my motion that we advertise for the technical
position and recognize Patricia Forkan as the technical alternate.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that okay with the second,
Commissioner Henning?
Page 48
October 23, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then we'll restate the motion.
The motion is to appoint Patricia Ann Forecan as the technical
alternate and to readvertise for the other the permanent member and
voting member of the Environmental Advisory Council. It's seconded
by Commissioner Henning.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 11 on your
agenda, County Manager's report.
Item#11A
REVIEW AND APPROVE THE PROPOSED COLLIER COUNTY
2013 STATE LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES - REVIEW OF
BUILDING CODE TO ENHANCE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
CONSENSUS; NO KILL ANIMAL SHELTERS — REVISE
LANGUAGE; SYNTHETIC DRUGS COUNTY ATTORNEY TO
BRING BACK WITH AN ORDINANCE BANNING THE SALE
AND IN SUPPORT OF DRUG FREE COLLIER — CONSENSUS;
MOTION TO APPROVE LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES AS
AMENDED — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: And 11A is a recommendation to review and
approve the proposed Collier County 2013 State Legislative Priorities.
Page 49
October 23, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That might take more than six minutes.
Why don't we take a 10-minute break now for the court reporter, and
then we'll pick that up when we come back from break.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, Board of County
Commission meeting is back in session.
Okay. County Manager, let's continue with 11A.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. That's the presentation.of your 2013 State
Legislative Priorities.
Ms. Debbie Wight, your legislative affairs coordinator, will
present. Debbie.
MS. WIGHT: Good morning, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning, Debbie.
MS. WIGHT: You have before you your 2013 proposed State
Legislative Priorities. And a lot of them are repeats. And the pub -- if
you'd -- you have questions or if you'd like me to read through them--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would, actually, but could you
put them on the overhead so everyone else can see them as well?
MS. WIGHT: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And then read them as you go
along.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's don't read the whole thing. You
know, we can read and people can see it on the screen. If you want to
touch upon the topics, feel free to do that, if there's anything
important.
Commissioner Henning,you were first, however.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would hope the board would
consider an economic development initiative in asking the legislators
to streamline the Florida Building Code.
I'll be happy to work with Deb Wight to provide examples of the
impediments and some industry requirements that.has nothing to do
Page 50
October 23, 2012
with public safety.
The Florida Building Code was enacted because of Hurricane
Andrew. It was modeled upon the. Miami-Dade County building code.
And since then there are so many things in there that has nothing to
do with Florida Building Code.
I actually talked to Blake Gable. I was talking to a resident, a
multi-millionaire that wanted to start a chain, a restaurant chain
throughout the whole country. Decided not to build in the State of
Florida because one of the requirements was that he had to put in a
drinking fountain, and that.was one of their requirements. That should
have been an option if an entrepreneur or restaurateur wanted to build
in the State of Florida.
Those are some of the examples. Of course, we have the
infamous water heater issue.
So I would like to add something like that, and I'll work with Deb
to provide the legislation delegation some examples.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think that's a great idea.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I think it is, too, but I don't
understand why the DSAC wouldn't be heavily involved into
something like that. Is there anything wrong with getting the
Development Services Advisory Board involved in reviewing the
needs for changes in the building code?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, there isn't; however, there's
a time frame --
MS. WIGHT: There is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: for presenting information.
But I think it would be good for the board to have DSAC to advise the
County Commissioners on some impediments in the Florida Building
Code.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I would feel much more
comfortable going forward with a legislative initiative if we had the
backing and input of the DSAC. They're the people who really
Page 51
October 23, 2012
understand this.
Any one of us might have a pet issue relating to the building
code, but I don't think any of us can review it in a comprehensive way.
And I would like to support Commissioner Henning's idea, but
I'd like to make sure that we focus on it in a way that we've got
support of the building industry; otherwise, we're going to put some
legislators at risk of doing something that isn't really very smart.
MS. WIGHT: Your issue, Commissioner, is that we need to get
the priorities presented in time for the November 14th Collier
legislative delegation hearing and meeting; and we're beyond their
deadline, but they've let us do that because of the elections and things
like that. That's why we had to cancel the legislative joint workshop.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's try to get at it this way. Can
we approve Commissioner Henning's motion to add a review and
simplification of the building code, and then we can begin to go to
work on details to back that up?
MS. WIGHT: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: At least you can get it on their agenda.
MS. WIGHT: That's what I was going to suggest.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then I don't know -- do we need
individual votes on each of these changes?
MR. OCHS: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think -- do we have three nods on this?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right. So we'll get it on the
agenda, and then let's try to get the DSAC involved, and
Commissioner Henning can have input through them or directly to us,
and we can try to bring it all together. Okay.
I have a question still, County Manager, about that issue.
MS. WIGHT: Are you talking about the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No-kill animal shelter issue. It is unclear
to me what you gave to me. I do not understand your response to my
Page 52
October 23, 2012
question. And so I merely want a clarification.
MS. WIGHT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This particular issue seems to imply that
we're objecting to coordinating with all rescue groups and persons on
the euthanization registry before we euthanize an animal, and I can't
imagine why we would ever object to doing that.
So I'd like a clear statement that it is our policy before we
euthanize any animal that we notify all rescue groups or persons on
the euthanization registry which have indicated a willingness to take
that type of animal.
Now, I don't understand the difficulty in doing that, but certainly
to refuse that as a principle, in my opinion, is irresponsible.
But, nevertheless, if there is a good reason, let me know about it.
I did not get it out of whatever you told me, okay.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Could we ask our Domestic Animal
Services director, Amanda Townsend, to just provide some brief input
on that issue, sir?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep, that will be fine.
MS. TOWNSEND: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Amanda
Townsend, your director of animal services.
We, in Collier County, have an extremely successful relationship
with local, state, and even sometimes regional and national rescue
groups. Rescue adoptions represent over 40 percent of all of the
animals that are adopted from our shelter.
We do make any animal available to rescue groups if they want
them provided that we don't think that they are dangerous to the
community either because they have a highly communicable disease
or because they are too aggressive to be placed in the community.
We do everything we can to work with rescue groups, legitimate
rescue groups, and place those out in the community.
The difficulty with the Animal Rescue Act, as it was put forth
last year, was that it did not provide sufficient protection for animals
Page 53
October 23, 2012
from going to rescue groups that may not be legitimate or from
animals that, in the shelter, are very sick and have the potential to have
a contagious disease that could affect other animals in the shelter.
Being .put in a position to defend humane euthanasia is not a fun
place to be, and I wouldn't do it if I didn't think that, ultimately, the
Animal Rescue Act didn't provide the proper and sufficient protection
for animals; however, at animal services we do everything we can to
work with legitimate rescue groups to place the animals.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That is a written policy, is it, for
Collier County, that you do everything that is possible to place the
animal for adoption with legitimate rescue groups and individuals?
MS. TOWNSEND: Yes, sir. That's written in our internal
department policies. And if it needs to be brought forward to this
commission for ratification, we can do that as well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I just want to feel comfortable that
it's not just something you do normally, but it is a policy of Collier
County Government that you do that?
MS. TOWNSEND: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And your answer is, yes, it is a policy; it
is a written policy in our procedures?
MS. TOWNSEND: (Witness nods head.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, are there other provisions of the
proposed legislation that are objectionable to us?
MS. TOWNSEND: No, sir. For example, one of the provisions
in there was for reporting of annual statistics and whatnot, and we
don't have a problem with that. It's really that -- for example, the
phrase "irreparably suffering" could be interpreted in such a way that
-- prohibiting euthanasia of an animal if it were -- unless it were
irreparably suffering.
If the animal has a highly contagious disease and could
potentially infect the rest of the shelter population but perhaps it's not
irreparably suffering, to protect the whole, we may need to euthanize
Page 54
October 23, 2012
that animal.
So there were very small specific language issues in the Animal
Rescue Act that we thought did not sufficiently protect animals.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then my only recommendation
to you is that this particular description here seems to say that you
don't agree with contacting rescue groups or persons on the
euthanization registry to see if the animal can be adopted. It sounds
like you're objecting to doing that.
So if it is, in fact, your policy to do that, then I don't see why you
want to put it in here as one of the reasons that you don't like the state
legislation. So I would take out this language and maybe deal with the
one that you're talking about.
MS. TOWNSEND: And the issue of making contact with the
rescue groups was not as much - was not as difficult as then there --
the legislation also requires specific hold times: 24 hours to see if that
-- those respond, and then another 48 hours for them to claim that
animal.
And in the shelter environment, the animals never stop coming
in. So we -- there's potential that we would have to reduce our hold
times disallowing, perhaps, the rightful owner to reclaim a stray in
order to accommodate for those mandatory hold times placed by this
legislation. And the longer we hold the animals, the more that costs,
the more potential there is for disease spread to other animals in the
shelter. It will be administratively burdensome and very costly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This gets more and more complex, and
you're causing me more and more concern.
MR. OCHS: Well, Commissioner, let me try to
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute.. Let me make sure I get
the point across here. I mean, the.fact that you don't want to keep
animal for 24 hours --
MS. TOWNSEND: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- waiting for somebody to claim it, in
Page 55
October 23, 2012
my opinion, is not a very animal-friendly policy, okay.
There are lots of circumstances where a person loses an animal,
and they won't know that it has been found for more than 24 hours or
48 hours. We have to have some way of dealing with this that is
humane and considerate for the animal owners, and you're not making
me feel real good about this.
MS. TOWNSEND: I'm sorry, sir, that you misunderstood what I
was trying to explain. We do everything we can to help animals leave
the shelter alive.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. OCHS: What's our hold policy?
MS. TOWNSEND: We hold a stray animal that comes in for
five days legally, or if it has owner information, we must make three
attempts to contact that owner, if it has a microchip or what have you.
That's just the legal requirement. We hold every animal for as long as
we can.
Animals that are surrendered by their owners become our
property right away. Again, we hold every animal as long as we
possibly can to try to give it a chance to leave the shelter alive. They
never stop coming in.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And this is all written policy?
MS. TOWNSEND: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then I would take this language
out of here, because it leaves an entirely incorrect impression.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, I agree with you. The language
below the title -- what we're really opposed to is state mandate of a
no-kill shelter under any circumstances. The explanation underneath
got into areas, as you just mentioned, that were confusing with regard
to this specific recommendation. And we'll revise that language.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Any questions by the
commissioners?
We have public speakers?
Page 56
October 23, 2012
MR. MILLER: . Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Call the first one.
MR. MILLER We have four public speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MILLER: The first public speaker will be Nicole Johnson.
She'll be followed by Ana DiMercurio.
MS. JOHNSON: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
Nicole Johnson, here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest
Florida.
Item G under your legislative priorities deals with the Everglades
Boulevard I-75 interchange. And the request for legislative support in
the first sentence is based upon the project being a critical need for
safety and for evacuation. It makes it sound as if there's no emergency
access, which there is -- there's a ramp there -- and that in case of
emergency, public safety personnel are not able to open the gate,
which they are.
So I want to put on the record, as the Conservancy Florida,
Wildlife Federation, and Audubon did at your MPO meeting last year,
' that the gate can be opened and is opened by emergency personnel in
times of emergencies.
In fact, when the Conservancy went out to look at the gate and
see exactly what was going on there, it was open. The police were
conducting a manhunt for a burglary suspect. So emergency
personnel were coming and going.
There currently is state law under the Florida emergency policies,
Florida Statutes Chapter 252, that says in the event of any emergency,
the state makes available facilities owned by the state upon request of
local authorities.
FDOT has confirmed that they recognize the authority contained
in this law. They do ask that the county notify them when there is a
need of access. Such notification is, I believe, being done on a
case-by-case basis. And I'm unaware of any instance where the
Page 57
October 23, 2012
county was denied access or penalized after the fact.
FDOT has also confirmed that the access ramp, which was part
of the Picayune restoration, is going to remain permanently; therefore,
the Conservancy recommends that you address the safety issue if
you're formalizing the access agreement with Florida Department of
Transportation through a creation of an MOU or some sort of
agreement. This would solidify the safety access, remove any
question about future emergency or evacuation access, and the ability
for the county to open the gate.
And once the safety issue is addressed, we can discuss the
proposed interchange on the basis of whether it is viable, needed, or an
appropriate solution for transportation needs in the Estates and if an
interchange would impact our community and how it would impact
our natural resources. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Commissioners, your next speaker is Ana
DiMercurio. She'll be followed by Valerie Maxwell.
MS. DiMERCURIO: For the record, I'm Ana DiMercurio, and I
represent Drug Free Collier.
And I noticed that on your list of new priorities for consideration
is synthetic marijuana. Well, I wanted to talk a little bit about what
synthetic marijuana is
If you look at the packages, which I'll show in a minute, it
indicates that it's potpourri or incense. This is potpourri -- potpourri,
"pot-pourri."
Anyway, these are the packets that are being sold here in Collier
County stores. And with your permission, I'd like to -- well, you
know -- you want to take the whole board?
But what is it really? It's basically a mind-altering synthetic drug
that is being sold here in our local community and being used by
young and old alike. It is a local issue.
We recently spoke to members of the Marco Island City Council
on this subject. They asked for their city attorney to look into the
Page 58
October 23, 2012
possibility of an ordinance.'
We spoke with the Naples City Council and received information
from their commissioners or their city councilmen that it's one of the
issues listed as a priority by the Florida League of Cities, and they're
wanting to follow this as closely as possible.
We recently hosted a community awareness meeting with close
to 200 local representatives, doctors, nurses, teachers, who wanted to
learn more about this product and how it's being used here in our
community.
What are the impacts of it? This is not marijuana. People who
use this are often --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Excuse me. Be sure you collect these
from the commissioners. Some of the commissioners have been
tearing them off the board. Wait a minute. There's one over here that
you didn't get.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, that's Kleenex.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, yeah, sure it is. Yeah. That doesn't
look like Kleenex to me.
MS. DiMERCURIO: There were nine packets. We'll make sure
we count them.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let me just state, being on this
board is a mind-altering experience. Nothing required to move to that
direction.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sorry to interrupt you. I just didn't want
to proliferate the distribution here.
MS. DiMERCURIO: I appreciate that. Thank you for doing
your part.
So you're going to hear from one of our speakers today about the
effects that they're seeing from young people coming in for treatment
at David Lawrence Center. You're also going to hear how easy access
this is to our young people.
We're seeing signs that this is taking root here in Collier County.
Page 59
October 23, 2012
Eight out of 10 kids being treated for substance abuse are using this
DJJ is violating kids for using this as -- and so it's a violation of their
probation. Youth resource officers working in the school setting are
seeing these products. In fact, the ones that are circulated were taken
from kids.
As a parent, I want you to know I love Collier County. I love
living here. But when I walked into a store and I saw rows of these
packets being sold right next to glass pipes and bongs, it was
disappointing. And I'm asking you, as a representative of Drug Free
Collier and a parent, to make this a high priority for our community.
Thank you
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This item is on our agenda, our
priorities, to do exactly what you want to do. I support it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, we all do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Except maybe Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm, I mean, viciously opposed to
what's happening to our youth. I mean, it is disgusting. It's not a joke.
This shouldn't even be made light of This is an absolute tragedy, and
we need to get really tough on these pushers who are distributing these
drugs.
You know, it's one thing to hold a child who's in possession
culpable, but at the end of the day, it's all about the people who are
pushing these drugs, and you need to go after the pushers and you
need to lock them up and you need to throw away the key.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So anything I can do to help you,
let me know, and I'm there for you
MS. DiMERCURIO: Thank you
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: A couple of questions. I think
we might have already had a discussion about this when it was bath
Page 60
October 23, 2012
salts that were an issue at that time.
If I'm not mistaken -- help me with this County Attorney, did we
pass a local ordinance forbidding the sale of this? I'm pretty sure we
did. Can't we do the same thing with this?
MR. KLATZKOW: You know, I'm just Googling it as you're
saying it, and I'm seeing other counties are considering these
ordinances. So I could come back to you if you want. I mean, there's
federal law on this, there's state law on this. I can't give you a
knee-jerk opinion on this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, if I remember correctly --
and it's been a little while. But when the bath salt issue came up --
MR. KLATZKOW: We don't have any ordinance regarding bath
salts.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We don't?
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I thought we did.
MS. WIGHT: We don't. Bath salts are considered a synthetic
drug. There's spice, bath salts, K2. There's all kinds of names for it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But trying to get the state to act
on this in a fast track is probably unlikely.
MS. WIGHT: They have done --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think it's a good idea to do it
but, meanwhile, why not go through the motions of getting local
ordinance in place, and that might discourage the vendors from trying
to carry it?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: One of the problems that states have had
and the federal government has had is they change the formulation.
Because it's synthetic, they can create different formulas. And so
when you outlaw a particular name or formula, they change the
formula and somehow skirt the law.
What I don't understand is why we can't write a law broad
enough to deal with these things without having to specify the formula
Page 61
October 23, 2012
or the contents of the package. We should be able to prohibit it based
upon its physical effect no matter what the formulation might be.
So I would hope we could come up with some way to get around
that problem, but I know that in watching this happen across the
nation, there are all sorts of excuses as to why you can't do it, and I
think we need to overcome that, and I think we can.
Commissioner Henning, your light was on. Did you have --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It is, but it was on the previous
item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The I-75 interchange. And I
know this has been a priority for many, many years; however, we
never received a presentation on the justification report, County
Manager. Could we get that sometime in the near future?
MR. OCHS: I'll ask Mr. Casalanguida to give you a brief status
report on that, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no, no. I mean, just in the
future if you can --
MR. OCHS: Oh, absolutely; yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- on a future agenda. No need
to do it now. Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Yes.
MR. MILLER: Okay. Commissioners, your next public speaker
is --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I comment on -- I want to
comment on this issue with respect to the drugs, and I want to talk
about the I-75 interchange before we move to another topic.
With respect to the issue on the drugs, the Attorney General, Pat
Bondi, has spoken to this issue of the synthetic drugs and to the issue
of how we have adapted legislation to block the sale of these drugs
notwithstanding the constant change in the formulas being used to
evade the law that's being used to limit them.
Page 62
October 23, 2012
I think what we ought to do is contact the Attorney General's
Office, find out where they are, see what we can do and, like I said, I'll
help in any way to get this done.
MR. KLATZKOW: Do you want me to come back --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- with you with a report on this? Because I
just see -- Pasco just enacted the first ordinance in Florida a week ago.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely, absolutely.
MS. WIGHT: Pam Bondi has made this one of her top priorities.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely. She calls it "junk"
very aggressively, and I support her.
MS. WIGHT: But she's got all kinds of links to the Department
of Justice and everywhere else on synthetic drugs.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. So I would like to
encourage that. Does the board agree that Jeff should come back with
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep, yep. You've got three nods.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think we have five nods.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep. Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Now, the other thing I wanted to
talk about is the access gate. What the district director for DOT has
said is that the county does not have to call ahead if the gates need to
be opened for emergency reasons.
What has been made clear to us and was made clear to us when
we were up in Tallahassee as part of the legislative delegation was that
we only have to call after and let them know that we opened it.
So while some people were concerned that it would inhibit our
response time because we would have to get permission, no, that is not
the case. It's simply advising them that we have done so, again, after
the fact.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Do we have another public
speaker?
Page 63
October 23, 2012
MR. MILLER: Yes. Your next public speaker is Valerie
Maxwell. She will be followed by Emily Castillo.
MS. MAXWELL: Good morning, everyone. My name is
Valerie Maxwell. I'm the president and founder of International
Learning Academy. We are the nontraditional private high school
here in Collier County that helps everybody.
The reason I'm here on behalf of the topic "synthetic drugs" is
because it's happening everywhere, and I have firsthand knowledge of
how bad it can affect a school.
Back in March, I had a situation with a young man on probation,
as a lot of kids on probation are using this synthetic drug because it
does not show up on the test. And it also has some very serious side
effects.
I spent four hours last night researching this, and some of the
horrific results of this synthetic cannabinoid has caused death,
retardation, and the list goes on.
Back in March, I had a young man -- I begged his parents to not
let this young man smoke spice. And these are very prominent people,
okay, and they are actually enabling him to do that so that he would
not fail a drug test and be violated on probation.
As a result, you know, I asked him, I said, why are you doing
this? He said, well, it seems to calm him down. I said, do you
actually know what's in this? He said, yes and no. I says -- well, I
gave him a list of different things that were in different types of this
particular synthetic marijuana.
Anyway, about 2 o'clock in the afternoon, one of my teachers,
you know, screamed because their son fell over the desk in
convulsions. He was having a seizure, which is one of the byproducts
of what can happen when they smoke this.
Now, I'm 62 years old. I've never dialed 911 in my life, but here
I was dialing 911 to save this young man's life and, luckily, I had a
student that was CPR certified, and he ran to his rescue to save this
Page 64
October 23, 2012
young man because he was having a seizure.
The first person on the scene was a police officer, ran over to the
young man trying to find out -- you know, trying to say what did you
do, what did you do. He wouldn't tell him, mainly because he couldn't
even answer him.
After I got off of the phone with 911 -- they told me what to do.
I ran over there. They said, do not let him fall asleep, which I did not.
I had to make him stay awake, because if he went into a coma, it
could be even worse. So the paramedics came, and they took him
away.
As a result, his parents finally listened to me. And the day he
was taken -- he was off probation -- they did not tell him -- they
shipped him off to Arizona to a rehab center where he still is to this
day. He plans to live out there, thank God, and not come back here,
but he's had two to three more seizures since he's been there. Once
you open up this in the brain, you're prone to seizures for the rest of
your life.
I wanted to let you know --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Your time has expired, by the way.
There was only three minutes provided; is that true, or is that the
warning?
MR. MILLER: It was the warning; in five seconds from now.
MS. DiMERCURIO: Okay, all right. I just wanted to show you
this real quick. I know they showed you a lot of stuff. This right here
is 10 grams. It costs $20 to buy it. It's worth about $140 worth of
weed/pot, okay. So a lot of what these kids are doing -- and they
make them, basically, very humorous. This one shows Castro sitting
on the pot, and they call this what -- WTF. Well, you figure that out,
"what the" -- okay.
So, anyway. But, basically, this is what this is actually worth.
This one here is $10 that they're buying, and this is worth about $50
worth of pot. So a lot of these kids are breaking it up, selling it to
Page 65
October 23, 2012
their friends.
If we were -- there's cons and pros to this whole thing. We take it
off the market, it's just going to go under the market, okay. They're
going to make it themselves. This is not just kids, guys. These are
people probably working in the county and everywhere else that don't
want to lose their jobs, and they're smoking this so they won't -- you
know, they'll fall -- they won't be detected on a drug test.
This is very serious. It's not just the kids. It's the adults. It's the
military. They're discharging people every day in the military being
caught with this. This is serious.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Commissioners, your final speaker on this item
is Emily Castillo.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aren't we keeping this on the
item? I mean, we're keeping it on our priorities.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not trying to, you know,
deter anybody from speaking, but definitely don't want to waste
anybody's time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you want to speak in support? Go
ahead.
MS. CASTILLO: If I could; I'll make it short.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
MS. CASTILLO: I'll even be under three.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. CASTILLO: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Emily Castillo, and I am the clinical supervisor for all of the children
substance abuse programs and prevention programs for the David
Lawrence Center.
And just kind of to keep you aware also -- just a couple of the
other speakers had mentioned, as we're assessing kids and they are
Page 66
October 23, 2012
coming in, those that have been identified to have substance abuse
issues, about eight out of 10 of those kids are reporting at least some
use of the synthetic marijuana.
So it's definitely something that's going around. All the kids do
know that, you know, if anybody -- and this also goes with adults, too,
because I've talked to some of my counterparts who work with adults
in the legal system, and that's what's happening is that people are
using this because the standard drug testing doesn't include synthetic
marijuana on their panels for drug testing.
So it's definitely something that we are seeing, and we have seen
those effects, and we have had people who have successfully
completed even our treatment programs but decided to use the
synthetic marijuana, you know, post probation or post treatment, and
then we get phone calls from parents who are letting us know that the
seizures and things like that and the health issues -- we had one child
have psychotic breaks, and it hasn't gone away. He's going to have to
be on psychiatric medications to manage those symptoms now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, the action that we have
decided to take here is, of course, to leave this on our legislative
priorities list so that we can support whatever the State of Florida is
doing, but we've also instructed the county attorney to proceed
immediately with something we can do in terms of an ordinance for
Collier County, so we're proceeding on two paths. And, of course, the
one for a local ordinance is likely to be done more quickly, so we're
going to move on that as fast as we can.
Any other questions on the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You know, I've been thinking
about all of this, and I think what we need to do is develop a very
comprehensive approach to fighting the war on drugs.
And maybe, Jeff, while you're looking at ordinances on the
Page 67
October 23, 2012
synthetic drugs, if you could see what other ordinance we should be
enacting locally.
For example -- well, I'll let you be the judge of what options there
might be, but I think we have to consider the other drugs as well that
are out there that are, you know, threatening our population.
The other thing I wanted to suggest is Drug Free Collier as an
organization has done exceptional work, and one of the things I would
hope this board would support is directing the county manager to go
out and see what we can find by way of grants to help Drug Free
Collier advance its cause.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Do you want a formal motion --
MR. OCHS: No, it's not necessary, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- County Manager? You understand
what the guidance is, and we three or more, probably five nods for this
thing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I hope five.
And I have one last suggestion, and that is the media needs to get
involved. The media needs to come out and aggressively educate the
population.
I mean, I have never seen those packets before. I was shocked
when I saw them. They look like -- can you pass me one again? I
mean, this it -- it's just -- it's really shocking.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Don't do it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Look at them. Look at these
packets. Look at these packets. Look at this one. "Mr. Nice Guy."
Imagine a 12-year-old getting this packet. "Mr. Nice Guy" on the
back, too. This one over here, it says, "Jazz, Strawberry." This one
over here -- well, this one is -- well, this one isn't quite as good. It
says "Rehab."
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Purple Haze.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: "Purple Max."
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have -- let's move on to our
Page 68
October 23, 2012
time-certain at 11 o'clock.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, can we get a motion to approve the
legislative priorities as presented with the additional suggestion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make that motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And remember the other change you had
was from Commissioner Henning about the building code issues.
MR. OCHS: Yes, absolutely. Writing that in.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor of the motion to
approve the legislative priorities as amended, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (No verbal response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion carries unanimously.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, just to close the loop on that, we
will need one of the members of the board that's available to present to
the state legislative delegation, Collier delegation, at 2 p.m. on
November the 14th. And, Mr. Chairman, if you're available, please let
us know. If not, we'll go to the next --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let me check my calendar. If I'm
available, I'll do it. If not, I won't. Okay. I'll let you know.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
MS. WIGHT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Thank you, Debbie.
Item #1 1 C
Page 69
October 23, 2012
CONSIDER AN OUT-OF-CYCLE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT
COUNCIL GRANT APPLICATION FROM THE CITY OF
MARCO ISLAND/HIDEAWAY BEACH DISTRICT FOR
EROSION CONTROL STRUCTURES AT HIDEAWAY BEACH
AND IF APPROVED MAKE A FINDING THE PROJECT IS IN
THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND AUTHORIZE ALL NECESSARY
BUDGET AMENDMENTS. ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT:
$925,000 — MOTION TO CONTINUE TO NOVEMBER 13TH
MEETING SO STAFF CAN PROVIDE ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION — FAILED; MOTION TO APPROVE —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, takes you to your time-certain
hearing. It's 11 a.m. Time-Certain Item 11C. It's a recommendation
to consider an out-of-cycle Tourist Development Council and grant
application from the City of Marco Island and the Hideaway Beach
district for erosion control structures at Hideaway Beach, and if
approved, make a finding that the project is in the public interest,
authorize all necessary budget amendments.
Mr. Nick Casalanguida, your growth management administrator,
will present.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning, Commissioners. This
is an out-of-cycle budget request, and the applicant is the City of
Marco.
Going through the beach criteria there, it's considered an
ineligible beach when -- fall into Category 5B where they have high
erosion and a finding that's in the public interest.
Your Coastal Advisory Committee voted 5-4 to not fund this, and
your Tourist Development Council 4-3 not to fund this as well, too.
Ultimately, it's your decision. I guess the county attorney has
provided the backup material that does allow you to make this finding.
Page 70
October 23, 2012
If it's funded, this will come out of the same funds for your beach
renourishment program that was put into the budget before you during
the budget cycle.
On the viewer you have the location that's being proposed, and
I'll just quickly point to it so you can get a feel for it.
I'll just give you a quick graphic what a T-Groin looks like for
the public.
And with that, Commissioners, I think the applicant for the funds
probably has a presentation or would like to present to the board as to
why they're asking for these funds.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I comment?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Before any presentation is
made, I'm not sure that I agree that the city and Hideaway are the
appropriate petitioners with respect to this grant.
If I understand correctly, the T-Groins will in part protect the
private beach and in part will serve to protect the pass, and that in the
absence of those T-Groins what will happen is that the pass will fill in
and would have to be dredged much more often; is that correct, Gary?
MR. McALPIN: Commissioner, for the record, Gary McAlpin.
The T-Groins at the far end that -- where Nick showed you will
have some beneficial effect on not allowing the pass to fill in. But
typically we have dredged this pass on a five- to ten-year cycle in the
past, and it has not been a problem with depth.
So the primary function of the T-Groins is to protect the beach.
There's a secondary benefit, and you could look at that as protecting
the pass. The value of that secondary benefit is much less than the
value on protecting the beach, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand, and that's the issue. I
mean, there are two benefits. One is a private benefit, and one is a
public benefit.
Page 71
October 23, 2012
If that private beach is built up at the expense of the private
property owners, if those T-Groins are not there, that sand will rapidly
move into the pass, and the pass would have to be dredged more
frequently than you describe.
Because, again, I'm working on the assumption that the owners of
the private property have the intention of building that beach up
beyond what it is now.
Can you answer my question?
MR. McALPIN: Commissioner, the value of the -- we have -- as
far as protecting that Collier Creek, that inlet that we looked at, I don't
know the exact time frame for the last dredging, but I will say that it's
in the five- to eight-year period of time.
The value -- we have -- we have dredged that pass twice in that
period of time. There -- the value of the T-Groins that we would put
on Hideaway Beach, especially on that north end, will have some
impact. The value of that on how quickly the pass will shoal in, if
they're not there, if we put sand on the beach without that, we couldn't
do without doing a more extensive study.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And, really, I think that's the
question, because what you have here is these T-Groins benefiting
both a private group as well as the public with respect to that pass.
And I think that to the extent that TDC funds could be used, it can
only be used to the extent that the T-Groins serve a public benefit.
So my understanding is is that the Hideaway Beach residents and
the City of Marco -- and I don't know how much the City of Marco is
contributing -- are putting substantial monies towards the permitting
as well as the -- well, the engineering and the permitting of the
T-Groins.
Is that correct, Bruce?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So they're making a
contribution towards the T-Groins that amounts to, let's say, $400,000.
Page 72
October 23, 2012
If the total cost of the T-Groins is the 950- that's being proposed plus
the 400-, let's say, 1.5 million, the question is, to what extent is the
public contribution matching the public benefit?
And you're telling me that part of these T-Groins does benefit the
public, in which case Collier County should be the petitioner, number
one and, number two, the amount of TDC dollars awarded should be,
again, to the extent that the county is benefiting because the pass is
being protected.
And I understand that what you're saying, that in the past,
historically, we have not dredged that pass as frequently, that we
haven't had the need. But if Hideaway builds that beach up and there
is nothing protecting that sand from drifting in the pass, we're going to
have a problem with the pass. And we can't stop them from building
their beach up at their expense, because it is not a public expense, and
it is their beach.
So I think it does warrant further analysis. And, again, there just
has to be a proportionality analysis to make a determination of what's
the public benefit, what's the private benefit. The public needs to pay
for the public benefit. Private parties need to pay for the private
benefit.
I don't think we have all the information here today, and I don't
think, as its presented, it should pass. And I do feel at the end of the
day, the county should be the petitioner for a portion of the total cost
of the groins.
So I'd like to make a motion that we continue this and allow staff
to work with the engineers, both the county engineers and the
Hideaway engineers, to come up with some, you know,
proportionality analysis.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I never thought
about that, but there is a public benefit the way you explained it. And
the T-Groin is something that we need to be a part of to protect that
Page 73
October 23, 2012
public benefit; however, the proportionality, that T-Groin is there for
two purposes, to keep the sand --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- on the beach, the improved
beach, but we also need to know what our fair-share costs should be.
So I totally agree with it, so I'll second your motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. There's a motion by
Commissioner Hiller to continue this item until additional information
can be collected, and it's seconded by Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And, again, I just want to repeat
that the intent is that to the extent there's a public benefit, the county
becomes the petitioner for these funds, not the City of Marco nor
Hideaway, and Hideaway contributes their share out of their private
funds, and the county contributes using TDC dollars and, of course,
the TDC would have to approve that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. I'm willing to go along with
that, because I think you're heading in the right direction. But I would
love to hear the presentation if that is acceptable, unless you would
like to wait for that presentation till another time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, if it's going to be continued, you'll
hear the presentation --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would wait.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- when it's going to be scheduled again.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Bruce?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We don't know if the continuation
motion will pass, but nevertheless.
MR. ANDERSON: Commissioners, we'd like to come back to
you at your next meeting with those numbers. And we do have an
emergency situation here. I mean, that's why the city council passed a
resolution that's in your agenda packet declaring this a public
Page 74
October 23, 2012
emergency. So we don't want to go into, you know, continued delay
on this.
I understand the point about the proportionality question, and
we'll be glad to get back with you on that. But, please, no undue
delay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And Commissioner Hiller hit it right
on the head. If the city and Hideaway go to renourish their beach, it's
all going back into the middle anyway. The T-Groins are essential in
order to keep the sand on the beach and not fill in the pass, which was
a point I was going to make later on; it's an excellent point.
So if you guarantee it can come back to us at next meeting, I'll go
along with that.
MR. ANDERSON: And we're also going to take a look at prior
history within the City of Naples and T-Groins and erosion-control
structures that have been placed there and what proportionality, if any,
has been used to pay for those.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. And the only thing I'll say
with that is that it's difficult to compare proportionality. You might
look at the approach that was used but, obviously, you know, if they're
not beside -- if they have T-Groins that are not beside a pass, it might
be very different. You know, if you're talking about drifting sands
back down public beaches versus -- or back down private beaches or
whatever they are. But you understand my point. I mean, it's -- right,
okay.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning was next.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. There's no reason why
this can't be presented before the CAC and the TDC. It's actually --
the way it was proposed and the way that it is explained are two
different things. And I think that you can get support from our
advisory boards if it is explained correctly.
Page 75
October 23, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, exactly, and I think that's
the problem. I think it was not correctly explained.
But I have to say, I mean, things like this are not obvious. I had
the benefit of going to the Beaches and Shores Conference. I spent
three days listening to coastal engineers and surveyors. Gary, in fact,
was one of the speakers there. And, you know, but for the education
that I got, I don't think I would have seen this issue either. But I saw
plenty of T-Groins over that three days.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I can't say that I feel very
comfortable with the direction we're going on this, but I'm going to
take the lead of the commissioner of the district.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And, really, I want to take the lead
-- thank you. I want to see what our folks out on Marco Island have to
say, if they are in agreement with this, do they feel that -- now, I didn't
realize it was going to go all through the whole process again. How
long will that take? I don't think we can stand to have a few more
months because it's in such bad shape.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the TDC's going to meet
prior to our next meeting. I don't know when the CAC's meeting. Mr.
McAlpin could probably help us with that.
MR. McALPIN: The CAC will meet on the second Thursday of
November. That will be the next meeting we'll have with the CAC.
And then we'd have to take it to the TDC, which is the fourth Monday.
So the soonest we could bring this back, if we did that with what
you're suggesting, Commissioner Henning, would be in December.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. That is not a problem, though.
And if I may, I mean, I see that you're about to speak, but that does
not in any way inhibit Hideaway and Marco from going forward with
the engineering and the permitting, which they are, I think, in the
process of working on.
Page 76
October 23, 2012
So all we're talking about is paying for our proportionate share of
any construction cost, which comes after that. So they still can move
forward.
MR. SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, if I might make a comment
on the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. SAUNDERS: My name is Burt Saunders. I'm with the
Gray Robinson law firm, and I represent the City of Marco Island.
And as has already been pointed out, the city council has passed
a resolution declaring this an emergency. The erosion in this area is
very dramatic. You have the photos of it. The CAC and the TDC
have already met on this issue. They have voted not to fund this
project, not to recommend it. So this is going to come back to you.
And what I'm suggesting is that your staff can make this
proportionality analysis over the next week or so. We'd ask that this
be on your next agenda, get that report from your staff. Sending this
to the CAC and the TDC, quite frankly, will be a useless act, because
they've already reviewed this project. So it's really your decision.
The public purpose has been determined by this commission in
the past in terms of these T-Groins. The Hideaway Beach folks are
going to pay for all of the sand. They're going to pay for the
mobilization and demobilization for T-Groins to reduce the price, as
well as the engineering, as has been pointed out.
And so I think that the issue, really, is teed up for this
commission to make the decision. But time is of the essence. So I
would ask as the representative of the City of Marco Island that you
go ahead and continue this to the next meeting and have staff develop
that proportionality analysis and present it then as opposed to sending
this to the TDC and the CAC.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Who was next?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I ask Burt something?
Page 77
October 23, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Burt, maybe this is lost on me. But
if we're going to the TDC to ask them to fund just the T-Groins, and
Marco Island and Hideaway Beach are paying for all of the rest, I'm
not quite sure why I understand -- if we're asking -- say I'm asking,
really, Commissioner Hiller. If we're asking the county to be a
sponsor of this as well, but the money's still coming from the same
pot, right?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Only the county could be a grant
applicant for the TDC funds. Hideaway and Marco cannot, but the
county can be, I mean, because it's a county asset that's being
protected as a consequence of building those T-Groins. So to the
extent that, you know, we're using the public fund for a public benefit,
that's acceptable, but what's presented here today wouldn't work.
And, again, Marco has to pay its fair share, Hideaway has to pay
its fair share, and the county has to pay their fair share based on
whatever benefit they're deriving.
MR. SAUNDERS: And, quite frankly, who is the applicant,
really, is a detail that the commission can make that decision.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, it's a material detail.
MR. SAUNDERS: Right. No, I understand. It's an issue that's
not something that has to be decided by the TDC or the CAC. You
have this -- it's -- again, it's been teed up for you. We have a meeting,
I think, in early November. And if it's going to be continued, I'd ask
that it be continued to that date. The issue of who is the applicant, we
can work with your staff and make that determination.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Commissioner Fiala, I'm
going to have to apologize. I won't be able to support you on this if
you want to continue it. I don't see any advantage to it. This has been
before us many, many times. It's been reviewed. We've got
everybody paying a fair share. And I think we're being waylaid and
Page 78
October 23, 2012
that the whole intention of this is just to run it into overtime until an
actual disaster takes place, and then everybody will be scrambling to
figure out what happened. So forgive me, but I won't be able to vote
with it -- with you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. That statement was
absolutely false. There's -- this hasn't been before us several times.
And, in fact, Commissioner Coletta, I was down there this weekend.
The pictures that we have before us is a different scenario today, okay.
There are -- there is sand between the mangroves and the water.
You know, the staff should really be going down there to find out
what the real emergency is and what the real reason is why we want to
push this forward.
If you want to get it on the next agenda, I could support that;
however, I think the best way to do it is for on our advisory boards to
analyze it, because it is a different animal.
And it's never been before us, Commissioner Coletta. So -- hang
on. I got the floor.
So, anyways, I'm going to support the motion. If you don't want
to support, that's fine.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And -- can I respond?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, you're right. The advisory
boards have weighed into it. It was just about split down the middle.
Obviously, there's some disagreement with what's taken place by the
amount of people that support it from one direction or the other.
This has been an issue before us many times. I think that this is
something that we have analyzed and we have talked about long
enough, and I'm willing to make a final vote on it not, to continue it.
MR. ANDERSON: And if I may, the TDC and the CAC were
presented with the argument about reducing future maintenance costs
for dredging a channel, and it fell upon a majority of deaf ears. And
Page 79
October 23, 2012
they got hung up on the public-access issue, which is only relevant if
we were asking for sand, and that's not what is at issue. It's
erosion-control structures which are clearly allowed by the TDC
funding policy.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner Coyle?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a motion. I'm sorry. Go ahead,
County Manager.
MR. OCHS: Staff would like some time if you're asking us to do
a thorough analysis of the public benefit. To do a good job for you,
we'd need some time, and we prefer to come back at your December
meeting. If we're forced to come back on the November meeting,
obviously we'll do that. But we'll do the best job we can within the
time available, but it may not be totally complete at that time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I want to make sure that everybody
clearly understands what you're being asked to do, including the staff.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're being asked to evaluate the
relative benefits for the county, the public, and Hideaway Beach and
Marco Island to determine how the cost of the structures should be
shared with all of those people. That is different from the current
proposal.
MR. OCHS: Absolutely.
-- CHAIRMAN COYLE: The current proposal says that the county
you're asking the Board of County Commissioners to make a
decision as to whether the money can be used to build the T-Groins.
That's not what you're being asked to do now, which is okay. I
dust want to make sure when we bring it back you've got the right
answers.
You're going to have to determine the extent to which the
T-Groins benefit Hideaway Beach by retaining their sand, and they're
going to have to pay for that portion of the T-Groins in addition to the
Page 80
October 23, 2012
sand.
MR. OCHS: That is my understanding.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's exactly what you've been asked to
do. So if that is your understanding, then you're going to have to
come back with appropriate information that will support a
recommendation.
MR. OCHS: And that's why I would like some time to do that
properly, and I -- if Commissioner Hiller could --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could we hear from Bruce
Anderson on this subject?
MR. OCHS: I want to make sure -- because Commissioner
Hiller brought this item forward. If I'm misunderstanding your intent,
ma'am, please let me know.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. I think you're absolutely
correct. And the bottom line is, we can't use public dollars to benefit
private property. We have to use the public dollars for a public
purpose.
And what I would suggest is that, Bruce -- and Bruce and I have
talked about this, and he understands and completely sees where I'm
coming from on this issue.
What I recommend, in the interest of -- you know, if you're
concerned about time, then I think you need to have your engineers
develop that proportionality analysis, get the work done, and present it
to staff for their review and approval.
The burden shouldn't be on them; it should be on you to show
them what you believe your proportionate liability is with respect to
those T-Groins. And staff doesn't have to go out and, you know, hire
a consultant and go through all the processes that we normally have to
do. Let staff review it.
The second thing is, with respect to the expenditure of TDC
funds, it must go back before the TDC to get approval of that
expenditure. It doesn't have to go before the CAC.
Page 81
October 23, 2012
But when we expend TDC funds -- and as Commissioner Coyle
properly pointed out, this is being framed as a different question than
what the TDC denied. I think going before the TDC, which is easy to
do in light of the fact it's before the November meeting, shouldn't be a
problem.
So just present the engineering, get staff to review it, bring it
before the TDC, let them approve it as the county being the petitioner
for its proportionate share for the public's benefit, and then bring it
back to the board. And you could be here by November, and there
shouldn't be a problem with that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Bruce, could we hear from you?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Then I'll have a comment right after
Bruce.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay. The Hideaway Beach district is a
creature of the City of Marco Island. The City of Marco Island,
through its city attorney, has made clear that they want an up-or-down
vote today, and I'm not in a position to overrule or dispute that.
I can tell you that the district is bumping up against a December
deadline. The engineering for the sand and the T-Groins has been
completed. The permitting is in process.
I did ask the engineer to give me a breakout of some dollars of
what portion of the T-Groin costs that are not included in the 925- that
we're asking for that the district is picking up.
And in terms of extra engineering fees, it's $82,500, and for
mobilization/demobilization costs, that's $72,000. So there we're
talking about $154,000. And then on top of that, the Hideaway Beach
district in the City of Marco Island contributed $50,000 in engineering
fees towards the cost of the actual dredging that occurred in
anticipation that they would receive some of the sand that got dredged,
and they did not get a single gram of sand. Instead, it was deposited
on the near shore in anticipation that it will wash on shore.
Page 82
October 23, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Offshore. It won't wash
offshore.
MR. OCHS: Onshore.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Onshore.
MR. ANDERSON: Onshore.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Offshore.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, you do have eight registered
speakers, including Mr. Anderson and Mr. Saunders.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So that's six.
MR. OCHS: Six more.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait, just a moment, just a moment.
You know, it makes no sense to have six or eight public speakers
if we're going to continue this item, because we'll be talking about
something different if we continue it.
We have a motion. Is there anybody here who wants to speak in
opposition to continuation? Opposition to continuation.
MR. KRASOWSKI: How about something other than
opposition to continuation but it's just as relevant, right now and here,
that would impact the thought process?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You can't speak from the audience.
MR. KRASOWSKI: I'm sorry, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, are you opposed to a continuation
of this item?
MR. KRASOWSKI: Not especially.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then we have nobody -- are you
-- are you opposed to the continuation of this item?
MR. GIBSON: Yes, I am.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then please state your name and
Page 83
October 23, 2012
MR. KRASOWSKI: I still want to speak on this item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Bob, we'll get to you, okay.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay. I mean, you're just dismissing it.
MR. GINSBERG: Chairman, I'd still like to speak. I came all
this way, and I'd really like to speak.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're not going to keep anybody from
speaking. I just want to hear people who are opposed to the motion.
Yes, sir, go ahead.
MR. GIBSON: Thank you. My name's Jerry Gibson. I'm a
sitting councilman for the City of Marco Island.
And I just wanted to stress that we do not take likely (sic)
declaring an emergency, and despite, perhaps, what Commissioner
Henning may have saw the other day during high tides and in storm
situations, it is an emergency situation.
So any needless protraction of this is silly. It should be acted on
and treated as an emergency and move forward.
And I might just add, if Commissioner Henning's ready to change
his vote, then we may have a majority for -- from the TDC.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Okay. Call the next public speaker.
MR. MILLER: Your next public speaker would be Bruce
Anderson.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like to ask a question of
the councilman.
I heard Bruce Anderson just state that the Marco attorney, who I
believe is Burt, took the position that it had to be an up-or-down vote
today. Is that the position you're taking? It is?
MR. GIBSON: I would encourage you to make it an up-or-down
vote today.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I prefer the term
"encouragement" than saying it is or isn't, because my concern is,
what I heard Mr. Anderson say sounds very much like an ultimatum to
Page 84
October 23, 2012
this board, which I don't find acceptable.
And if what is being presented today here has to be decided
upon, I assure you, I would not support it. Unless I get the
information that I have requested to justify the use of public dollars for
a public purpose, under no circumstances could I award -- could I vote
to award TDC funds to the City of Marco and to -- or I should say to
Hideaway Beach as it's been described.
So, you know, I was hoping to bring some fairness to the process
by suggesting a continuance. But if you want my vote today, then I
will say on the record that I would agree with Commissioner Coletta
and I would vote no.
MR. GIBSON: First of all, I don't think it was given as an
ultimatum by our city attorney. I think he's probably in favor of it
being acted on in -- no later than November.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Which is doable.
MR. GIBSON: And, frankly, you know, I'm not a politician. I'm
a statesman. So I would certainly never give ultimatums.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
MR. GIBSON: I'm looking for a solution, and -- but I think we
need to stop delaying it. This is -- this is really Phase III of the
T-Groin.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What I would like to see is the GIS
which shows us in real time exactly what it looks like right now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Come on. Let's get back to topic, please.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, this is my district, and
I'd love to participate in this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Go ahead, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I really would. First of all, I
wanted to ask my city councilman if this -- if the city could prolong
this for just one meeting, guaranteed one meeting. I don't know if it
can go through all of this process. I know at the TDC Commissioner
Henning fought it tooth and nail and really kind of turned the people
Page 85
October 23, 2012
against it. If he has a change of heart, then it's worth going to another
meeting.
I don't believe at all that Commissioner Hiller had any ulterior
motives. I think she just wants to get some facts. I think the way
we've presented it today is very good. I don't see any problem with
this, and I'm willing to vote if I have a couple more votes here, but I'd
need some, you know, people to tell me yes, you know, I'm willing to
do this; otherwise --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: My motion stands --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- I would like to -- oh, I know that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- to continue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know that.
MR. GIBSON: I have served on the TDC with Commissioner
Hiller. I know her penchant for wanting facts, so --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that's fine. And I feel, along
with that, something that has happened with the TDC, they just
presented this fine plan, and I thought it was a wonderful plan, their
advertising plan, and right on here it says something about how the
beaches are private -- it says it twice in here on the slides -- and it also
says something about exclusive, and I think that that's a wonderful
thing.
Now, these beaches aren't actually private, but they are --
anybody can get to them. And the hotels, actually, as you well know,
have shuttles back and forth constantly because their people can't get
any shells on the sand in front of the hotels because they're all swept
clean of shells. So they shuttle them back and forth all the time.
And we know boaters can get there, and people walk their dogs
and so forth. And as well as just sun themselves because they want to
feel like they're in a more exclusive beach, just as the TDC advertises
in their promotions.
Now, if it would -- I like the way it's set up right now.
Everybody's paying a good share. I don't feel that those figures need
Page 86
October 23, 2012
to be changed any at all, but if we have to wait one more meeting to
come to a positive conclusion in favor of getting this job done, then
I'm willing to go there. And I want to hear from you.
MR. GIBSON: I'm in total agreement with everything you've
just said, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine.
MR. GIBSON: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: All right. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Commissioner, your next speaker is Bruce
Anderson. He'll be followed by Michael Poff.
MR. ANDERSON: Hi, Commissioners. I won't address the
substance. I just want to make clear I was not issuing an ultimatum.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
MR. ANDERSON: I was just repeating what I thought I
understood the city attorney to say that they wanted it voted on today.
That's all.
If you're going to continue it to your next meeting, then I have
nothing to say today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Next?
MR. MILLER: The next speaker is Michael Poff. He'll be
followed by Erik Brechnitz.
MR. POFF: Good morning. For the record, Michael Poff. I'll be
very brief.
As the engineer of record, the situation is there's an emergency
that's been declared by the city. It's a highly critically eroding beach.
No one on the TDC or the CAC has disputed the technical aspects of
the project.
There's also other issues; as the sand moves alongshore into the
channel, it fills in. It causes scour on the opposite shoreline. So
there's an emergency on that property as well.
Commissioner Henning, you're right, there is sand in front of
those mangroves now. That's the sand that was placed during the
Page 87
October 23, 2012
Collier Creek dredging project that, in absence of the structures that
aren't there now, that sand will move into the inlet and fill it in.
We have a sediment budget developed for the shoreline. Our
firm commits to working with you and your staff and the City on
Marco on a proportionality basis if that's what you'd like to see.
As far as schedule goes, our goal is to be out to bid with this on
December 1st. If we can achieve that schedule, then I will work
diligently to help you make that schedule.
Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you put the GIS up so we can
see what it looks like right now?
MR. POFF: I'm not sure I have the ability to do that. The picture
I have is not current. It's a 2012 aerial.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Gary? I mean, we can just link to
the Internet.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll see it if it's reheard, you know, or
we'll see it today if it is heard. One way or the other. We are taking
public comment.
MR. MILLER: Your next public speaker is Erik Brechnitz. He'll
be followed by Burt Saunders.
MR. BRECHNITZ: My name is Erik Brechnitz, and I'm
chairman of the Marco Island special tax district for Hideaway Beach.
I'm also a resident of Hideaway Beach.
And with regard to Mrs. Hiller's proposal to move this to
November, November really doesn't hurt us much. December kills us.
We have a timeline to get this project done prior to turtle season
starting. The timeline is very tight. Any delays is like a stack of
dominoes falling.
So we are going out for bid, hopefully, on the 1st of December.
That gives us precious little time to figure out how in the heck we're
going to pay for this thing if you folks deny our request.
So if you're going to vote to postpone it -- I would prefer that you
Page 88
October 23, 2012
vote today. But if you're going to vote to postpone it, please in your
motion write on tablets that it will be at the November meeting we
will consider this again.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: My motion includes that, and it
includes that it goes before the TDC.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Next speaker?
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Burt Saunders. He'll be
followed by Bob Krasowski.
MR. SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, just for
clarification, I did indicate that continuing it until November was
certainly acceptable. I understand the need for the analysis of the
engineer. We'll be able to get that done and to the county in advance
of that meeting.
I've sat in your position before, and I know that someone coming
to you and giving you an ultimatum doesn't set well, and I would not
do that, and I didn't do that. So I just wanted to clarify that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we can all bring (sic) Bruce,
right?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Next speaker?
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Bob Krasowski. He'll be
followed by Graham Ginsberg.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Hello, Commissioners. Bob Krasowski.
Being that we didn't get the full presentation, could someone
point out to me where the T-Groins are going to go and exactly what
amount of beach is to be renourished?
MR. McALPIN: Commissioner, the T-Groins are going to go in
this location right in through here. The three T-Groins, 1, 2, and 3
(indicating) most probably, and that's the area where the beach will be
renourished, too.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay. Thank you, Gary.
I find the proportionality concept very appealing. I do believe
that the funds should go to public beaches and not private or
Page 89
October 23, 2012
semiprivate beaches or beaches with restriction of access.
Bruce said something about comparing this project to City of
Naples beaches, but City of Naples beaches have access up and down
the coast at every block at the end of the beach, so it's nothing like
that.
But the proportionality and the privacy are issues, but
proportionality kind of deals with that. I would think that they should
consider paying for the erosion-control structures themselves out of
the monies -- 145 -- $1,425,000 that they have, because if you put the
control structures there, you'd start getting accretion. That's when the
sand builds up. If they put it out in the water, it doesn't go away. It
goes up onto the beach. That's what Bruce was talking about earlier.
So if you want to get real nit-picky on economics, you put the --
control structures in, and that helps the beach build, and then you go
from there.
I find the suggestion that we take into consideration the public
benefit of keeping the pass open a very creative concept. Bruce said
that they have considered that already. But if that's something you
feel is beneficial, I think it carries a lot of weight for somebody like
me that says don't do it if it's not a public benefit.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, I agree.
MR. KRASOWSKI: But the -- yeah, so that would leave
$490,000 for them to do this, and it would involve TDC money.
So -- but just some comments, and I'll be back next time.
MR. MILLER: Your next public speaker is Graham Ginsberg.
He'll be followed by Brad Cornell.
MR. CORNELL: I waive.
MR. MILLER: Then this is your final speaker on this item.
MR. GINSBERG: For the record, Graham Ginsberg. I've got
something for the overhead. Can we put this on? And I got a couple
of pictures as well. Can you pass one of these to the commissioners?
How are we going to get one of these to the commissioners? Just pass
Page 90
October 23, 2012
it down here?
Basically you've got a couple issues here. I'm coming to speak
about access. The letter I'm handing out was written by Billy Collins,
a longtime resident of Collier County, and he was kicked off
Hideaway Beach about 10 years ago.
In my opinion, the situation hasn't changed. I consider it a hostile
environment for tourists. It's very difficult to get to.
The picture I'll show you is very current. It's with my children
walking to the beach. It's at low tide. It's a long walk. It's two hours
-- two miles roundtrip. That's high tide -- I mean, sorry, low tide.
And you can see, not exactly ideal conditions. You've got to walk
one mile there and one mile back. There's no bathrooms along the
way. There's no places to drink fresh water.
That's a -- the one picture. This here's the T-Groins. It doesn't
look anything like the picture you saw of T-Groins. That is Hideaway
Beach. You can see they're using metal for -- and that was actually
metal coated. They are very corroded already.
I don't consider that, you know, top-quality work, and I'm here to
complain about the work not only with these T-Groins but this
problem we notice as well.
That is Gordon Pass. The T-Groins are falling to pieces, okay.
That's our money that is being wasted. All right. Those bars are all
over the beach, okay. There's one of those blocks that just falls to
pieces. They're positioned right next to the wall. There's one of them
in place you can see. This is just shoddy work. There's nails that are
holding these together, and they also are lying in the sand. Not good
work at all.
All right. I also took exception to what Commissioner Coyle's --
Commissioner Hiller calls a private beach. As far as the State of
Florida is concerned, there are two sections to a beach, a dry section
and a wet section. The wet section is owned by the state. To have a
private beach, both sections need to be privately owned. You would
Page 91
October 23, 2012
agree with that?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yep.
MR. GINSBERG: So this is a public beach with private access.
Not a private beach. I want to be clear about that, because this is
perpetuating misinformation.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Say that again. Say that again. If
you say this is a public beach --
MR. GINSBERG: It's a public beach because not both parts of
the beach are owned privately.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So -- well, part of the -- are you
saying the part -- the wet-sand portion of Hideaway -- Bruce, is the
wet-sand portion of Hideaway public or private? There are some fully
privately-owned beached in Collier. Is that one -- is the wet-sand
portion privately or publicly owned?
MR. GINSBERG: This has been gone over for years. It is
public -- there's an erosion-control line established in '95, as far as I
know. It's the same as in front of the Ritz Carlson.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So are you advocating for the use
of public funds for that private beach -- or for the public portion of
that private beach?
MR. GINSBERG: No, because --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- that, quote, private beach?
MR. GINSBERG: I'm not for this project at all. In fact, I was
against the project many years ago. And you can see the date on that
was around 2004 when they asked for money. I'm not for spending
public funds at all in this area.
And if you look at the aerial photograph that we had a little
earlier, that -- that island that's been created to the south that we had
up on the overhead is really made by our tax dollars. The sand that
gets dumped on that beach -- whoever pays for it gets washed down to
the mouth further south, and that's that island that you see being
formed.
Page 92
October 23, 2012
If you look back in the aerial photographs going back to 1940
and advance it to 1995, you will see where our tax dollars go. It goes
to that island. And I don't think it helps the residents of Hideaway
Beach, because when they look out now they see mangroves. They
don't see water. That's a huge problem for them.
I don't know how they can say that they have a waterfront
property now. They've got bayfront property. It's not -- it's not the
Gulf of Mexico anymore. That's our tax dollars that are being pushed
down there.
And there were T-Groins back then. They used to use Hessian
bags. Now they're using these other structures. They don't work to
hold the sand on the beach. They do somewhat slow the erosion
process on the beach itself.
And, Commissioner Fiala, I sent you an email probably about
2004/2005 showing you a picture that I outlined with a hard structure
along the entire coastline here, and I asked that it be paid by the
Hideaway Beach residents, and the DEP didn't want to pass it because
it was a hard structure along the entire coast.
So we're at the same point now, just putting these little segments
in, but you're asking us to pay for it.
I would say hardline the entire coastline and have them pay for it,
because these structures you're putting up are a waste of our money,
and they're not going to last. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That was the last speaker?
MR. MILLER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Everyone in favor of the motion
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I just want to make sure --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- to bring this back in November --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That it -- yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And there's no ifs, ands, or buts; it
Page 93
October 23, 2012
definitely comes back in November, or I won't vote for this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's what Commissioner Hiller's
motion said, and she reiterated.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you, Commissioner Henning,
your second?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It goes to the TDC, comes back in
November.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The look on his face is telling me
no.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let me repeat my motion.
My motion is that Hideaway does the engineering work that
shows the proportionality and brings it to staff so that they have the
opportunity to review and determine whether it's acceptable or not;
that the executive summary is redrafted to show that the petitioner will
not be Hideaway or Marco but rather Collier County for the -- with
respect to those funds that serve a public benefit; and that it be brought
back to the TDC for approval, because it is going to be an expenditure
of TDC funds; and then it be brought back to the board in November.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the TDC can have an
emergency meeting.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, just like we did on Wiggins
on the bathrooms.
MR. OCHS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's not a problem.
MR. OCHS: And I don't know if you need an emergency
meeting. You meet before your next board meeting but after we go to
publication with the agenda. So we would have to report verbally at
the meeting --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's fine.
MR. OCHS: -- what the vote of the TDC was, if that's okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. We've done that before.
MR. OCHS: Yeah, we've done that before.
Page 94
October 23, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So it's not --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. So November is fine.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Bruce and Burt, what are your --
you know, what are your comments about that?
MR. ANDERSON: Well, I'm --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Dumbfounded.
MR. ANDERSON: I'm a little puzzled about going back to the
TDC because it involves TDC funds. I mean --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, the expenditure --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Either way it does.
MR. ANDERSON: Yeah. I mean, when they considered it
before, it involved TDC funds.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: They didn't. The petitioner was
not the county. The applicant for the grant funds was not the county,
Bruce. The applicant for grant funds was Hideaway, and that is not
going to work. The applicant for the grant funds has to be the county,
and it has to be clearly demonstrated that the funds that are being
awarded will serve a public benefit, and that will be established
through the proportionality analysis.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Bruce, would you guys -- can we
have them talk about this over our lunch break and come back? They
get to talk with their people and let us know, because right now I'm
willing to vote yes for this, but I don't know if I have the other votes
on here to approve it and move this thing on. It sounds like we're just
kind of moving it around here.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, you've got my support.
Commissioner Henning, do you agree? So you have the three
votes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think it's a better approach
than it was before, and I disagree with Bruce Anderson the way it was
presented. The Florida Statutes are very clear, Mr. Anderson. I'll be
happy to provide it for you.
Page 95
October 23, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think Bruce has done a fine job so,
you know -- and Bruce has worked with these people all along. Now,
you know, what I'm trying to get at is are we putting it off for one
meeting but to change the whole context of this?
See, I can't understand why the county would apply for this when
it's there on Marco Island and it's part of the Marco Island taxing
district, and Marco Island collects the TDC funds, and Marco --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, we collect TDC funds.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and that whole pass, not only does
it benefit all of the boaters that come in and out, it benefits the people
on the other side, Isles of Capri. I just don't -- I'm not quite sure. I'm
willing to go there if I'm going to get a yes vote, but is it going to
change so much that it's not going to do any good.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why don't we ask the county
attorney to explain.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. We use the TDC funds to
dredge that waterway, correct?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And what Commissioner Hiller
is saying, T-Groin -- a T-Groin there will protect that public access
which TDC funds were used previously.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I -- so, in other words, you feel
TDC should pay for the T-Groins, but you want it written differently
but still the same thing?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, it's -- no, no.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Ah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's proportionately. You need to
have the proportionality; that's what Commissioner Hiller is saying,
and that never was presented that way.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm feeling real uncomfortable with
this now, I'll tell you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let the county attorney explain it.
Page 96
October 23, 2012
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, as I understand, the bottom line is
the proposal in front of you is for the district to pay for the
engineering, the design, and the renourishment of the beach, and for
the board to pay for the full cost of the three T-Groin structures.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: T-Groins, right. That's the way it's
written now.
MR. OCHS: Right, but where we're heading with this is to
evaluate the proportionate public benefit of the cost of those structures
versus the private benefit so that the likely net result is that the
$925,000 investment by the board will be reduced when we come
back --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see.
MR. OCHS: -- as I understand the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And how many votes do we need on
this, to pass this? Three? Okay.
Thank you.
MR. OCHS: One other alibi, and I'm sorry, sir. I got the CAC
and the TDC meetings reversed for November. So we may need to
have a special meeting, Commissioner Henning, of your TDC board if
you want to review this and make a recommendation prior to the
November 13th meeting.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's no reason why they can't
-- we can't.
MR. OCHS: Okay. I'm just letting you know.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd really like to confer with --
unless you'd like to vote on it now, then I cannot vote for it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Call the question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor of the motion, please
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 97
October 23, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So the motion fails 3-2, and that leaves
us right where we started --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I'll --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- at the beginning of the day.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- make a motion to approve. We
didn't start there. I make a motion to approve this and move forward
with it immediately.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I've got a second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Fiala to approve this item --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's an illegal use of TDC funds.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and a second by Commissioner
Coletta.
Now, I have some questions. There's been a lot of debate about
whether or not this is a private beach or a public beach and whether or
not it's in the public's best interest to spend this money to build the
T-Groins. We all know that the T-Groins will be built probably in an
area which is clearly state property, right? You're not going to build it
on the land; you're going to be building it into the water. Is that true
or not true?
MR. POFF: For the record, Michael Poff.
The significant majority of the structures are seaward of the
erosion-control line, which is on state-owned land. It's just the trunk
that anchors into the uplands that would be on upland property.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. But it will benefit private
property; will it not?
MR. POFF: Again, for the record, Michael Poff.
Page 98
October 23, 2012
Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And there is a provision in our
ordinance which permits non-eligible beaches to receive that kind of
support and funding; is that true?
MR. POFF: Yes, sir. If it's declared in the public interest.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Attorney, do you agree with that
assessment?
MR. KLATZKOW: You must declare a public interest.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So that brings us to public
interest. What is the public interest in building T-Groins?
MR. POFF: It will retain the sand on the beach, and it will not
move alongshore into the navigation channel, reducing future
maintenance dredging costs.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How much did it cost to dredge that
channel the last time we did it?
MR. POFF: On the order of $300,000. I don't have the exact
figure, sir, but it was --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And we do it, on average, how
frequently?
MR. McALPIN: We do it on an approximately eight-year cycle.
It depends upon the infill rate.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And the infill rate was a little bit
short because there was no sand to go back on there because it was all
there already; is that correct? I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I've got a couple more questions. I need
to understand what is the public benefit to putting the T-Groins there.
Forget the benefit to Hideaway Beach. I want to understand clearly
what the public benefit is to putting the T-Groins there.
MR. SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, I think there are two public
benefits. One, of course, is slowing down the rate of filling in the
canal or the channel there, and that's clearly a public benefit. But you
also -- seaward of the erosion-control line is all public beach. Those
Page 99
October 23, 2012
T-Groins will help preserve that public part of the beach.
Access is a problem, but there is access. You could walk there.
You can boat there. So you have two general public interest issues
that are being met. But the primary one is to prevent the filling in of
the channel.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And one of the speakers has been very,
very clear in his contention that there are no private beaches there.
The property owners do not have the authority to keep someone from
beaching a boat there or walking along that beach; is that a fair
statement?
MR. SAUNDERS: That is correct. I think Florida law is clear,
and I'm sure Mr. Klatzkow can confirm, but --
MR. KLATZKOW: It's the erosion-control line.
MR. SAUNDERS: Seaward of the --
MR. KLATZKOW: You've got wet sand and dry sand. Wet
sand is the public. Your problem with that, of course, is high tide.
Well, then there is none. It's just the dry side.
MR. SAUNDERS: Well, when you do a beach renourishment
project, you establish an erosion-control line, and so I don't know
where that line is, and the engineer can certainly elaborate on that, but
there is --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Can someone tell me what public
interest is served by letting that beach erode to the point of destruction
of homes?
MR. SAUNDERS: There is no public benefit to that.
The councilman was just pointing out that there are public
restrooms. I'm not sure if they've been constructed.
MR. GIBSON: They have been constructed.
MR. SAUNDERS: There are public restrooms there now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: In that section of beach? I thought they
were in the southern portion.
MR. OCHS: They are.
Page 100
October 23, 2012
MR. SAUNDERS: Just to the south of it.
MR. OCHS: It's the southern.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. I think they're only in the
southern portion, yeah.
I guess here's where I come down on this: I've often thought this
distinction of public benefit is sort of phony. There is no public
benefit, in my mind, to letting a beach erode to the point it causes
destruction of structures or it causes elimination of beach. It's clearly
not the property of the property owners. The state asserts control over
that portion where the groins would be installed.
So I can't find a public benefit for doing nothing. What's the
public benefit in that?
Marco contributes a substantial amount of money, their visitors.
MR. SAUNDERS: Twenty-two percent of your tourist
development fund comes from Marco Island.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Twenty-two percent. They contribute a
substantial amount of money for the -- to the TDC. And when they
declare an emergency and they say they'd like some of their money
spent for that purpose, I have to consider it to be a credible request.
So I don't find -- I don't see, personally, any prohibition from a
finding of personal -- or of public benefit in building those groins
there. And that's all we have to do, is to make a determination that it
is in the public benefit to do that and let the taxing district and
Hideaway Beach Marco, if they wish, fund the cost of the sand.
So I'll vote in favor of the motion, and the motion carries -- well
MR. OCHS: You have to make a motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We haven't called it, have we?
MR. OCHS: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
Page 101
October 23, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The motion passes 4-1 with
Commissioner Hiller dissenting.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I did have my light on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I said I did have my light on. I
agree with your statement; however, using TDC funds for structures,
renourishment, jetties or whatever, it shall have public access, and it's
never been defined of what the definition of public access is except for
Statute 161 of the Florida Statutes.
And I think it's very important when the -- when a portion of the
statute is not clarified, you have to use the total statute, not just part of
the statute. We have clarified what public access means, too. So --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well -- but that just determines whether
or not it's an eligible or ineligible beach. We have the authority under
our ordinance to allow replenishment -- or allow erosion-control
expenditures on beaches that are ineligible. That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We can't supersede Florida
Statutes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And this is the challenge that's
going to go on. It's a shame that this issue is being pushed the way it
is to try to find that true public benefit.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you boat in that pass?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, absolutely not.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But I can.
Page 102
October 23, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't anymore, but I can, yeah. I'm
sorry, the -- we're finished.
MR. ANDERSON: I didn't know if Commissioner Henning was
making a motion to reconsider or not.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't know. We won't know that yet.
MR. ANDERSON: Are you making one? Because you're
allowed to do so while the item is still on the table and everyone's in
the room. I didn't know if you were -- if you wanted to make that now
or not, or are you waiving that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you asking me?
MR. ANDERSON: Yeah, I'm asking you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't remember me every
saying reconsideration, but we can ask the court reporter if I ever said
anything about reconsideration.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, he didn't.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner -- the chairman
hasn't heard that I said reconsideration.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You were just opposing what --
your vote, so I guess --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think he's just looking in his crystal
ball, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like to make a comment
with respect to my vote.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Your argument doesn't make
sense, Commissioner Coyle.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, of course it doesn't.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: In fact, the statute provides that
what is a publicly accessible beach, and it has both a factor
considering the amount of parking available as well as restroom
facilities in order for a beach to be considered publicly accessible.
I'm not sure that the ordinance that we have that provides that we
Page 103
October 23, 2012
can use TDC dollars to benefit a private beach is valid, and I think this
needs to be brought back and looked at very carefully.
I don't know when the ordinance was originated or amended to
reflect that, but I think that it requires scrutiny. And I think it goes to
the legality of the expenditure, which raises the question as to whether
the clerk can or cannot pay this given the statutory limitations.
I think a full legal analysis is required and I, quite frankly -- if it
can be done and if the statute legally provides that the type of beach
Barefoot has -- I'm sorry, not Barefoot -- but Hideaway has does
qualify for public funding, then that should have been brought forward
by the County Attorney's Office before this debate occurred.
Now -- and I'm not finding fault with you. I'm not finding fault
with you.
MR. KLATZKOW: We did sign off for legal sufficiency.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, that's right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Well, not in light of the
argument that's being presented, because the argument that
Commissioner Coyle presented is not an argument I have ever heard.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, let me read it to you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no. Then let me just also --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You don't want me to read it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. And I also want to say this.
Legal sufficiency is not enough. I want to know if it's legal.
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, we believe it's legal, okay.
If three of you want me to go to the AG's office to get an opinion, I
can do that --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like that.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- but your TD statute -- your TD statute
also says that the TDC can make a request to the Department of
Revenue if they find something, you know, that they dislike about it.
And that's another remedy that's available.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I think we need -- I think
Page 104
October 23, 2012
this needs to be validated, because there's no reason for this debate to
be recurring if, in fact, these funds can be used in the manner in which
it's being proposed.
MR. KLATZKOW: I would need a majority support for that
before I would go to the attorney general.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, why don't we just read from our
ordinance.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I want --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. I'm going to read from the
ordinance. My light is on right now.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Go ahead, Commissioner Coyle.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: An area of an ineligible beach that is
subject to high erosion may have erosion-control structures installed
with Category A funding from the TDC. End of story.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's pretty clear.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's very clear. So -- now, we're finished
with this, I hope, okay. It's been done.
We're breaking for lunch because I'm hungry. Thank you.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
MR. SHEFFIELD: You have a live like.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, Board of
County Commission meeting is back in session.
All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Item #13A
DISCUSS ITEM #11E FROM THE BOARD'S SEPTEMBER 11,
2012 AGENDA REGARDING "WASTEWATER BASIN
PROGRAM" CONTRACTS — APPROVED TO COMMENCE
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, you have a time-certain 1 p.m.
Page 105
October 23, 2012
item. It's 13A on your agenda. This was an item that was continued
from the October 9, 2012, meeting. It's a recommendation to discuss
Item 11E from the board's September 11, 2012, agenda regarding
wastewater basin program contracts.
And Ms. Kinzel is, I believe, standing there prepared to make a
presentation, sir.
MS. KINZEL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. And we're just
passing out some agenda item refreshers, but these were part of your
agenda in prior meetings.
I'm here to go over the item that was continued from the last
meeting regarding the wastewater basin.
And as we discussed briefly at the last meeting, there were
several issues or questions, perhaps, surrounding the item. So I
wanted to give just a general bit of background.
This started with RFP11-5782, which was issued on November
18th of 2011. On December 16th, seven determined responsive
proposals were received in purchasing. On January 9th in 2012 a
selection committee meant -- met and ranked the firms, ranking them
one through seven for the full proposal that was solicited in the RFP.
On January 19th the selection committee reconvened to discuss
and rank the consultants for each of three basins but considering the
full scope of the RFP.
Now, it was noted by purchasing during this meeting that it was
probably an error on the part of purchasing that each basin had not
been originally ranked in the first meeting, but they did reconvene.
And the reconvened committee only considered the top three
proposers from the initial ranking in January 9th, and that will be
important as we go through this, I think.
But they were ranked by -- according to the full scope of the RFP
at that time, because we're back in the January time frame.
Now, February 14th an executive summary was provided to the
Board of County Commissioners ranking all seven of the proposers as
Page 106
October 23, 2012
well as the top three for each of the basins.
On March 27th there was a subsequent executive summary
brought to the board that created some of the questions that we know:
Two million for three firms for six years or a total projected cost of
$36 million on an estimated construction cost of 60 million. That
represented about a 60 percent engineering-to-construction ratio,
which some people questioned. The average industry's usually about
10 to 15 percent engineering fees to the actual cost of construction.
So the item was continued by the Board of County
Commissioners back in March so that the cost items could be
considered by county staff.
Now, the next agenda item that was submitted by staff was on
September 11th of this year, and the costs were significantly reduced
from the 36 million that was requested in March to a total of about 5.7
million, and that was 1.9 million for two of the three basins and 1.8 for
the third basin.
So staff, during the meeting, presented several times that this was
not a change in the engineering scope. And I just wanted to go over
some of the transcripts -- does this work? Yeah, there we are.
These were some of the questions that both commissioners asked
as well as Mr. Klatzkow. Start with Mr. Klatzkow. He said, your
contract ties to your RFP. And Dr. Yilmaz indicated yes. And Mr.
Klatzkow asked, has the scope changed? Commissioner Hiller offered
"materially," but Mr. Ochs said, no, the scope and the engineering
services, all tasks, as Ms. MARKIEWICZ had previously mentioned,
were in the original specification. Obviously, the scope of projects in
construction would change.
So Mr. Klatzkow asked for additional clarification saying, I
understand that, but my question is, the RFP you put out is tied to your
contract.
And Mr. Ochs said yes, and Dr. Yilmaz said yes. And Mr.
Klatzkow said, so you've not changed the engineering scope, and the
Page 107
October 23, 2012
answer was no. No, we have not. Again, affirm.
Now, Ms. MARKIEWICZ from purchasing came up, and she
was talking about the RFP being inclusive of all of the potential
engineering tasks. And it said that they had now taken the contract
and refined it.
And Mr. Klatzkow, being -- I think there was a little confusion
with those statements and conflict. And Mr. Klatzkow went back.
Did the RFP state that the scope might be reduced?
And Mr. Pajer said, well, it says included but not limited to,
which is kind of in contrary to "was the scope reduced." So I think
there was still confusion at that point in time at the meeting.
So to go over a little more -- and these, again, are verbatim
excerpts from the RFP. The first legal notice indicated that services to
be provided shall include but not limited to three phases of work. The
three phases being identified as wastewater design and post-design
services.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The top portion of that document
is not visible.
MS. KINZEL: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Right there it starts.
But each of the dots is from a different portion of the RFP, and
the RFP was put on the record at one of the prior meetings.
So if you go through a brief description again, they shall perform
the analysis, and they will perform design-and-construction support
services. The basins shall include the three phases of work.
So fairly clearly throughout the RFP document it did indicate that
there were going to be the three phases, and the tasks that were
outlined in the RFP should be included for the contractors.
Now, the board, at the meeting, did approve the contracts as
presented by staff, but staff indicated that they would not issue a
notice to proceed until we had time to further review it, and that's --
since the September meeting we have met with staff several times and
gone over these items so that we could come back to you with some
Page 108
October 23, 2012
clarification, okay.
During subsequent discussions -- and one of the meetings that we
had with utilities, they provided a schedule. And this is -- back and
forth. This was prepared by the utilities department, and it's going to
be very, very small. So let me just tell you briefly what it -- I have
provided one in your packet.
This lists the tasks as they were in the original RFP, for the
majority of them. It also then goes to the contract and ties the items
from the contract that was then proposed by the board back to the
original RFP.
And if you go to the conclusion, the original typed conclusion by
county staff -- and the reason I left mine in handwritten notes is so you
could differentiate between my additions and utility staff report -- they
had indicated that about 74 to 76 percent of the task items were
included in the contract; however, that analysis did not note that the
entire post-design phase had been extracted from the RFP and not
included in the contract.
So there were another 15 tasks that were associated with Phase 3
in the RFP that were eliminated when it went to contract with the
vendors.
If you factor in those 49 tasks and the ones that were then
included in the contract, you're down to more of a 51 or 53 percent of
the tasks that were originally proposed in the solicitation to what was
responded then in the underlying contract that the board has approved,
okay.
Now, additionally, we went through each of the contracts. And
there were just a few minor nuances, because we know staff worked
diligently, and we worked together to try to quickly come up with the
comparison information that we wanted to present to you.
Some items -- you'll see the notes in green, and this is for the first
vendor. Again, the same schedule but a correlation between the RFP
tasks and the contract tasks.
Page 109
October 23, 2012
So when you're looking at the first vendor, CDM Basin, the plus
one -- again, the handwritten notes or the change in four in the couple
of green items that you see, these are where we did detect some
nuances or differences between the RFP and the task that was then
included in the contract.
So, for example, Task 1 in the CDM contract was not -- we were
not able to tie that back to a line item within the RFP. Now, it is a
general item of requiring some meetings and other things with the
vendor and the contractors and the county staff, but -- so each of these
is just to indicate items that we detected were different from the RFP
tasks to the contract tasks.
The second vendor was Hole Montes. And, again, the green
items indicate a nuance or a difference from the proposed tasks to the
contracted tasks.
And, finally, AECOM. Again, some of the nuances in the green.
I know it's small print, but I have provided copies of the basin
schedule, and I'll submit these for the record.
So there were some apparent differences between what had been
included in the RFP and what had come back as a contract. We felt
that that was important to point out because of the indications that the
scope for the engineering services had not changed.
In an October 8th meeting that we had prior to the last board
meeting, we received also an additional schedule from utilities staff
prepared by them. And, again, this indicates the basin program
outlining Basins 101, 305, and 306. These are comments relative to
the RFP 11-5782, and then the comments relative to the
board-approved contract. And, again, this is prepared by utilities staff
so that we could get from Point A to Point B.
The largest differences that you can see on the engineering, if
you go down to the third box where it talks about quantity of full
rehab design, in the original RFP it was asking for 111 regular pump
stations for a full rehabilitation. That, in the contracts, was dropped to
Page 110
October 23, 2012
20 of the pump stations, okay.
They did add this, which was not in the RFP, which ended up to
be a partial rehab or design of regular pump stations. So as you can
see, the remaining 91 came down to be partial rehabs versus the full
rehab initially anticipated by the original RFP.
When you go down further, the lines are quantity of force main
design. The entire three basins were in your RFP; 8 percent of the
three basins were in the contracts.
The quantity of the gravity main design, the entire three basins
were included, and only 4 percent of the basins in the contract.
The quantity of the lateral designs, the entire three basin were
included in the RFP, and 8 percent of the three basins were in the
contracts.
I think, as you can see, we did determine that there were several
significant changes from the original RFP scope that was solicited to
the contracts that were eventually awarded by the Board of County
Commissioners.
Now, there is an appellate court case that appears to be to point
as to the pitfalls of changing your scope of work considerably from
the time that it is solicited and reviewed and scored and ranked to the
time that you then significantly change the scope and do the contract
contrary to the scope or plus or minus tasks.
We've given that to the County Attorney's Office. I think it's
under review. We just recently discovered that, but we've provided it;
so they may have some consideration for that court case.
Now, I also went back to listen to both the original ranking
meetings from the selection committee as well as the reconvened
selection committee to try to get a feel for how it went from the
original scope of the award down to what was finally contracted. And
there are several outstanding issues after I reviewed those meetings.
The initial rankings and recommendations at both meetings were
based upon all three tasks for the entirety of the basins. So the
Page 111
October 23, 2012
rankings in both the initial meeting and the reconvened meeting were
under the assumption that it was the full RFP for which they were
proposing.
No ranking seemed to be done for the reduced scope that was
then presented to the board at the September 11th meeting.
Now, it does not appear that all the firms were ranked by basin.
Only the top three from the initial ranking one through seven were
considered to be ranked separately for each of the basins.
So you have a reduced scope, and then you have additionally that
not all of the vendors that originally proposed to the solicitation were
re-ranked to the reduced scope.
Also it was a little bit unclear, even in the conversations of those
meetings, the intent of awarding all three basins to a single vendor or
splitting the basins. And the RFP did provide that it may be awarded
to one or all three, but I think the confusion of the initial proposal
ranking versus the reconvened ranking threw a little bit of intent on
were we still going to rank them for each basin or was one eligible to
get all three?
So, in other words, when they re-ranked, were they looking at
only one basin per vendor, or could one vendor get all three? The
response in the meeting minutes were, yes, it was still open that they
could do that. Okay.
Okay. It does appear there's been a substantial scope change, and
that might have changed your proposers' rankings if they had the full
benefit of each and every one of the tasks that were, in fact, going to
be required by contract. That's one of our concerns.
Another concern that we had was were the contracts that were
presented to the board really reflective of what you heard or
understood to be approving? Because you were told, routinely, that
there was no scope reduction or scope change in the contracts that
were being awarded under the 9/11 executive summary. And I've just
gone over with you there were substantial tasks excluded. The entire
Page 112
October 23, 2012
post-design phase was excluded.
And the post-design phase would have to go back for
re-solicitation, and those costs would all be in addition to what you've
already awarded under the -- only the two initial phases. So if --
because of the exclusion, then you would be required to do a
re-solicitation for Phase 3, in our opinion.
So, in summary, we haven't totally finalized our review of the
issue. We have not made a determination, because the Clerk's Office
has not been presented with an invoice or a bill, and that's usually our
test; when we get a bill, we review it for legality, board approval,
public purpose.
But based on the board's question and concerns, we did go back
and do this review with county staff, county legal, and we're open --
we wanted to put on the record our concerns with the board and with
the vendors. If there's any additional information that the vendors
could provide, county legal can provide, prior to the time that we
would receive an invoice, that could eliminate any of the concerns we
have, then we're open to that information.
But with that, Commissioners --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who was first, Commissioner Coletta or
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta was.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, actually, I'd like to hear
from staff first. We have a tremendous amount of information. I do
have a number of questions, but I don't want to ask them till I could
hear from staff, find out what kind of a response they have to this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let me -- can I ask a question
first just to clarify this thing? What I heard was a list of what the clerk
feels are discrepancies between the RFP and the contract and then a
statement that was made, well, we don't really do these detail things
until you present us with an invoice.
So now what are you suggesting we do, Ms. Kinzel? Are you
Page 113
October 23, 2012
suggesting we award the contract, and then once we award the
contract and send you the invoices, you're going to audit them and
reject them, or what are you suggesting we do?
MS. KINZEL: Well, Commissioner Coyle, you've already
awarded the contracts, okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. KINZEL: You did that in spite of this review or without
consideration of the facts I've just put out. The staff did agree to hold
off on an NTP so that we exactly would not put a vendor in a position
of having done work with our inability to pay them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So they haven't been given the notice to
proceed?
MS. KINZEL: My understanding from staff is that they have not
been given notice to proceed.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. What are you suggesting? Are
you suggesting that the contract should not have been awarded, or are
you suggesting that we proceed with it and then you'll tell us in detail
what we should do once the invoices are completed?
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner Coyle --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I can't rationalize those two comments
you made.
MS. KINZEL: Okay. And the reason it is -- it is a board
decision whether or not to award a contract. That really is not the
clerk's role.
What we did do is do an upfront review based on the contracts
that were let, and we wanted to bring back to you our concerns that we
see that it may not meet the test for legalities.
Now, I know your county attorney may have some different
determination, but that will be a determination that this board needs to
make as to whether you continue with those agreements or you
re-solicit under the reduced scope that you've now determined is
fundable.
Page 114
October 23, 2012
So that is purely a board's choice and decision to be made based
on the facts you've been given.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let me make sure I understand.
If we were to go back and re-evaluate the contracts in accordance with
the comments you have made here, would there be a problem getting
payment made on those items?
MS. KINZEL: There can be, yes. In other words, what I'm
indicating to you is that the contracts that you let were not in
conformance with the original solicitation that was made. So there
might be an issue with paying those invoices under those conditions.
We're still working on that. I'm still looking for any other legal
assistance that we can get with this or any other positions to the
contrary that would convince the Clerk's Office that there aren't these
differences between the original solicitation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So there really is no definitive
resolution to this problem?
MS. KINZEL: Well, there is. In my opinion, you have a
determination to be made today. Do you continue with the contract
having been let, do a notice to proceed with the risk that it is not
resolved and the payments are not made? And it's been put on the
record so your vendors can make an informed and intelligent decision
on whether they proceed with the work even if there is a notice to
proceed. Or you could suggest re-solicitation of the scope now that
you've narrowed it, now that you've identified it more accurately to
limits within your budget. It could be re-solicited under those
parameters, and the firms could be appropriately ranked.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. There is no definitive solution to
this. But go ahead, tell us what your position is.
MR. OCHS: Staffs position is that we've brought you
appropriate contracts that you've adopted and entered into, that they
were appropriately solicited under the Competitive Negotiations Act
of the state, and that they meet the preaudit test for payment.
Page 115
October 23, 2012
And, again, as Ms. Kinzel just said, that test, as I understand it, is
that the work serves a valid public purpose if there's a budget
appropriation to pay for the work and it's legally entered into. And I
don't know which of those items we are being told fails to meet the
preaudit test at this point.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that's my point. I saw a lot of
things that the clerk feels are wrong or don't necessarily add up, but I
can't get a statement that says, if you do this, it will be okay. So how
do I solve it is the problem.
MS. KINZEL: Well, Commissioner, I think if you re-solicited
appropriately with the tasks that you had identified and had the
bidders propose to those specific tasks, you are on solid ground.
So I did give you an alternative to choose that, knowing what you
know now and knowing the tasks that are identified now, if it's
re-solicited appropriately and the vendors are ranked appropriate to
that solicitation, that clears up the ambiguity between your original
RFP in the detailed tasks and what you've ended up contracting with
now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, County Manager, what's your
assessment of this?
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, Ms. Kinzel's first statement when
she showed you the legal notice was that the services to be provided
shall include but not be limited to the following. So the argument that
there were, you know, certain services in the contract that may not
have been in the RFP shouldn't necessarily be surprising in that the
RFP said the services that will be provided shall include but not be
limited, and then went into the following list.
So, again, I -- and I'm not a lawyer, but I don't know where we
fail the preaudit test on this contract. Maybe the attorneys could help
us with that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Scott?
MR. TEACH: Yes, Commissioners. Scott Teach, deputy county
Page 116
October 23, 2012
attorney.
And we've been working with Crystal in trying to make headway
on this, as well as with staff.
One thing I want to put out on the record, to understand the
consultants' Competitive Negotiation Act, it's a four-pronged test, and
it's different from competitive bidding, which is what -- the case that
they've cited, which I got yesterday, references. You have a public
announcement under --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: When you say "they" have cited, what --
MR. TEACH: The Clerk's Office, in the case that Crystal was
talking about. I have reviewed that; we received that yesterday. And
in my opinion, I don't think it's applicable here, and I'll go through that
in a moment.
But the CCNA involves a public announcement of the job. Then
it's a qualifications-based selection. It's not the guy who bids the
lowest. It's the guy who's most qualified pursuant to a selection
committee, which this board approves the ranking of.
From there you have arm's-length negotiation. Scope and price
are determined and discussed and negotiated. Then a contract is
brought back to the board, and the board either approves the contract,
rejects the contract. That's where we are right now. The board had
previously approved a contract.
Now, you know, there has been some discussion about some
change in the number of tasks and the amount of work. And there
were some changes; there were some -- there were some changes.
But I want to address this case first. And this case was a case
concerning fair competition among bidders. It was also an RFP, but it
was not a CCNA RFP.
And so it's distinguishable for several reasons. One, the case
arises out of the First District Court of Appeal. We're in the Second
District Court of Appeal, so it's nonbinding authority. That's just a
subtle, you know, procedural issue.
Page 117
October 23, 2012
But in addition to that, it involved providing an online lottery
system to the State of Florida. In that instance, the low bidder
negotiated a more favorable agreement, a higher benefit to him as far
as monetary compensation. In this case the scope was reduced, and
these consultants are actually getting paid less.
So one of the things this case talks about is fair competition
among bidders. Well, we don't have bidders here because it's
qualification based; it's not dollar based.
But we don't have a situation where someone is being favored by
being treated more preferential by having a larger contract. We've
done the opposite. We've reduced the scope. And these consultants
actually would be paid less than what the original project was scoped
out as.
In addition to that, Commissioner, it's probably one of the more
important distinctions, we don't have a protesting party here. We don't
have -- the time period for anybody to protest has long expired. In this
case, even, the Court noted that the state had the opportunity to raise
the issue that the party failed to -- so it's administrative.
This party also failed to protest, but this court decided to hear it
anyways for other reasons. But we don't have a party who's saying
"I've been harmed," so it's hard to see where the county's in the wrong
when we don't even have a party coming forward and saying you've
mistreated me. So I think that's -- you know, that's significant here.
And the Court also talks about, in passing, it's called Enta
(phonetic), they make a comment about engineers and professional
consultants. And they say, well, they tried to say that this is one of
those cases, but this case doesn't involve engineering consultants.
So I think there's room there that you can read this and say,
maybe consultants, professionals, are treated differently, not like this
case addresses it, because they weren't -- they were trying to get an out
by saying, well, it's similar. The Court said no, they aren't treated
differently under 287, the competitive bidding statute. So there's
Page 118
October 23, 2012
distinctions there.
Another thing, Commissioner, this is -- you know, this is, in
essence -- we can -- there have been substantial changes but this is, in
essence, the same project. It's a wastewater basin project on the same
three wastewater basins that have been reduced in size.
We've seen other projects in the county that have been reduced in
size. Road projects have been reduced or increased in size. We have
change orders.
But one -- another distinction, Commissioner, is the courts
routinely give deference to the agencies in enforcing and interpreting
statutes. And in this instance it would be -- it would be surprising if a
court said that Collier County failed to interpret this law wrong (sic),
and we're going to reverse them, because we've gone through our
procedures, the purchasing policy, in the award of the CCNA contract,
and they would be showed -- they would show deference to the
county.
Now, we've also had some talks about there may have been some
staff errors in the solicitation of the selection committee, but the courts
look at that and they say, unless it's arbitrary -- and arbitrary is defined
as improper motive or without reason, or if it's fraudulent, or it's
unlawful, the court is -- the courts do not look at -- or dishonest. The
Court will not overturn the selection committee's determination unless
it's fraudulent or dishonest.
We don't -- haven't had any allegations that that's what's going on
here, that the selection committee has been dishonest or acting
fraudulently.
We're working off of a standard professional services agreement,
which is the CCNA agreement that the county's used for probably
approximately nine year now. It was originally crafted by outside
counsel.
All these consultants are familiar with that contract. That
contract provides, very clearly, that it allows -- Section 12.3 of the
Page 119
October 23, 2012
contract allows the county to terminate the agreement in whole or in
part without cause.
So are we saying that we can't negotiate now what we can do
later? To me that doesn't make sense. I -- last night I was looking
around a little bit just to see how other counties handle this. And
we've all been struggling to find authority because this is such a
unique situation, and there's not a whole lot of law that addresses this
particular situation.
But I found that Martin County has a CCNA solicitation out right
now that their responses are due first week in November, and they've
got the same language. The county can reduce or eliminate in whole
or in part any portion of the scope of services at any time for any
reason.
If we're doing something wrong, there's other people who are
doing it wrong, too.
I think ultimately -- and Crystal touched on this, and I think it's
probably a good idea that some of these consultants are here today.
And you might want to hear from them to see whether they would
have a comfort in going forward or not because, ultimately, they're
either going to get paid or they're not. And so, you know, I think that
their input probably is significant.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let me make sure I understand
this. We put out an RFP that specified the scope and amount of
services to be provided?
MR. TEACH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We decided to reduce the scope, and we
sat down with the people who submitted proposals and we negotiated
with them?
MR. TEACH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And they understood what portions of
the RFP were being modified?
MR. TEACH: Yes, sir.
Page 120
October 23, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And they're -- they're going to sign or
have signed a contract with us to do it under those circumstances?
MR. TEACH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But to follow the clerk's logic, the only
way we can continue this project is to scrap it, go back to the
beginning, change the RFP to exactly match the contract that we're
going to negotiate, but what happens if during that negotiation there
are mutually agreed changes? Doesn't that sort of put us in an
unending position where you just keep going back and doing it over
and going back and doing it over?
MR. TEACH: And, Commissioner, I guess -- I mean, that's part
of it. I don't believe that you have to have -- and I have not been
presented with any evidence to show that you have to have a mirror
image in an RFP in the contract or an invitation to bid in a contract.
And there's even some authority out that there talks about that if the
invitation to bid does not match the contract, it's not arbitrary and
capricious. I've read that. I'd have to get the cite, but I've read
authority of that nature.
But getting back to, I think, most -- one of -- the most significant
point here is we don't have a party that's come forward and said I've
been wronged, and they could have done that, and they haven't done
that, and the time period for them to protest has expired.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioners, do you mind if
we listen to the other public speakers?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have no problem.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Fine with me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Huh?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Fine would me.
MR. MILLER: Commissioners, I have one registered speaker
for this item. It's Mark Schultz.
MR. SCHULTZ: Thank you, Commissioners. My name's Mark
Schultz, and I represent the three firms here, AECOM, CDM Smith,
Page 121
October 23, 2012
and Hole Montes. And my clients --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're representing all three of the
firms?
MR. SCHULTZ: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They're independent bidders?
MR. SCHULTZ: Yes, sir, they are.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Go ahead.
MR. SCHULTZ: My clients believe that the contracts have been
awarded properly. You've complied with the Consultants Competitive
Negotiation Act which requires you to rank them. They were ranked
through the staff that was on the committee to do that ranking.
They're ranked appropriately. We're prepared to do the work.
I see no authority for going back and having to do another
request for proposal. In fact, Commissioner Coyle, I think you hit the
nail on the head; there's going to be a twilight zone if every time you
have to have an exact request for proposal be the contract.
And what does the Consultants Competitive Negotiation Act
require? In Section 5 it says after you rank them, then you negotiate
with them. Well, what are you negotiating about? The only things I
can think of are price and scope and time. That's what was done here.
I think it's important to point out that the one thing that the clerk
didn't mention is that Phase 1 was always listed as "may." So
everyone who sent in a response to the request for proposal recognized
that Phase 1 was always "may." "May" means it could be taken out. I
think that was the majority of what was removed.
Now, I think it's critical here that no bidding or no party that
submitted a proposal has protested; no one. In fact, no one who didn't
even participate has done that. So it's a little troubling. It's a little
puzzling that it's even an issue.
I guess, lastly, what I would say is I've looked at the case that I
believe the clerk is referring to, and it's the State of Florida
Department of Lottery versus G. Tech Corporation, and it's not on
Page 122
October 23, 2012
point at all. And why isn't it? Specifically, what the Court looked at
was specific requests for proposal language that the First District
Court didn't think was followed. That specific language is not in this
request for proposal.
And, lastly, it was about a bid. They were bidding, and they
underbid the one other bidder in it. And then when they met with the
Department of Florida -- Department of Lottery, what happened?
They got a higher contract. They were going to be paid more.
Completely not what was happening here.
What we were doing, my three clients responded to the requests
for proposal showing their ability, technical abilities and ability to do
this, and they were awarded the contract. They were awarded and
ranked to then enter into negotiations to do that.
So my clients are willing, ready to go forward. We know it's
almost been a year since the time the contracts were awarded. And,
you know, the system isn't getting any younger out there. So we're
ready to do the work.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: Can I just ask you a question, sir?
MR. SCHULTZ: Sure.
MR. KLATZKOW: You and I have not spoken before, have we?
MR. SCHULTZ: No.
MR. KLATZKOW: All right. Are your clients willing to
assume the risk that if there's a notice to proceed the clerk doesn't pay
you?
MR. SCHULTZ: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. Thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. Since there's so much
uncertainty, what is -- this is a maintenance issue of our system, and
Page 123
October 23, 2012
infrastructure needs to be replaced. So what is the risk to go out for a
new RFP? Mr. Yilmaz or somebody from public utilities.
MR. OCHS: Tom, Mr. Chmelik.
MR. CHMELIK: Yes. Hello, Commissioners. Tom Chmelik,
for the record, public utilities.
The risk is continuing to operate under the conditions we are
today. I'm going to be presenting a later item on air release valves,
ARVs, later in today's agenda, and that's indicative of the
infrastructure we have.
In the last -- since 2009, we've had, I believe, 23 SSOs or sanitary
sewer overflows. We have to continue to operate under those
conditions.
The infrastructure that we have here represents the same risk.
There will be failures. And we have structured this to get after the
worst first, and that's what we've brought forward to you in the
reduction of scope.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you think there's a great risk
by going out and -- for a new RFP under the scope to change scope?
MR. CHMELIK: Well, there's increased risk.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's increased risk.
MR. CHMELIK: There's an extension of risk, the risk we have
today.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're just prolonging the risk?
MR. CHMELIK: Prolonging that risk and preventing us at
getting other items beyond that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. So, you know, the risk is
whether the determinations --
Thank you, Tom -- these determinations are going to be paid or
not, the work is going to be paid. Why would we want to go through
the exercise of that fight?
MR. KLATZKOW: Because you have a second risk.
Page 124
October 23, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. KLATZKOW: And your risk is that if the contracts are
ultimately awarded to somebody else, and now that you've entered
into these agreements, okay, that the vendors that you've entered into
these agreements may make a claim for costs for preparing the
solicitation. That is your risk.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That is the maximum risk.
MR. KLATZKOW: That is your risk.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's a maximum risk, which is
not a lot.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But the contractor is -- no, the
professional is taking the risk. They're not getting paid. And you
asked the question, and they're ready to take that risk on. Is that your
understanding?
MR. KLATZKOW: They're willing to proceed with the job
under the cloud of uncertainty created by Ms. Kinzel is what I got out
of this.
What I'm saying is if you rebid it, the risk you are taking --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- not counting time --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Our risk if we proceed with the
existing contracts is none.
MR. KLATZKOW: Is none.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's their risk.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's why I asked him that question,
because they're at risk.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And if we go out for a new RFP,
the risk is --
MR. KLATZKOW: Now you're at risk.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- their cost of bidding the job.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the time it took them and
Page 125
October 23, 2012
material it took them to bid it --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- if they don't receive it.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If I may, there's another point. Going
back and issuing the RFP again does not solve the problem because
we'll go through the same negotiation process that we went through
this time, and we will inevitably find that there are differences
between the RFP and what we negotiated.
So there is a never-ending solution to this problem. This idea
that the RFP has to match verbatim with the final contract is, in fact,
ludicrous.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think the thing was it's not --
closer to -- the argument is closer to what the actual work is going to
be.
MS. KINZEL: And, Commissioner, just to maybe help in the
thought process, there is a way to draft and construct the RFP, the
solicitation, so that you give yourself the opportunity legally to
constrict or expand on certain tasks in this environment.
It really does go back to how you let the solicitation and what the
parameters are and what are you thinking through to put in your
original solicitation.
But there is most certainly a way to define within that solicitation
the problem or the issues that we've run across here are because the
RFP, the solicitation that went out, seemed to be quite restrictive on it
"shall" include this, it "shall" have these three phases, it "shall" have
this. All of the -- all of the responders were ranked according to that
full RFP.
After it was awarded, after it was ranked, the scope was
significantly altered. So you not only had other bidders that might
have been out there that did not bid at all for the original proposal
Page 126
October 23, 2012
because it was beyond their capacity, beyond their ability to perform,
so they didn't bid or quote.
Subsequent to the entire process, you get to today, and the scope
is much narrower. It includes far less work and capacity. There,
perhaps, could be another vendor out there.
Now, they have brought forward that you don't currently have
vendors protesting. I don't disagree with that. You did not have a
vendor come forward. We were just trying to put the tasks out there.
But I want to give you some comfort that this does not need to be
a never-ending issue. If it is solicited properly with certain framework
within your RFP, you can get a solicitation that's defensible.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I've responded to a lot of RFPs in my
business before. I know it very, very clearly. And this is a typical --
and I don't mean Clerk of Courts. It's a typical clerk's approach to
business, and it doesn't make sense to me, but anyway.
Commissioner Hiller, you're next.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
Jeff, when was this contract awarded? Do you remember the
contract, the date?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. A couple meetings ago.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: A couple meetings ago?
MS. KINZEL: Nine eleven.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Nine eleven.
MS. KINZEL: At that meeting.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: All right. I just want to correct for
the record -- could you come to the podium, sir. What was your name
again?
MR. SCHULTZ: Mark Schultz.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Mark Schultz?
MR. SCHULTZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Mark, thank you.
Mark, I wanted to correct for the record, you said that this
Page 127
October 23, 2012
contract was awarded a year ago. It was awarded 9/11.
Mark, you also made another statement which I thought was
interesting. You said that Phase 1 was not included, and you made a
point of saying Phase 1 had the wording "may." And actually the
wording was "included but not limited to."
In fact, all of Phase 1 was included. What was omitted were the
phases where the wording "shall include" was referenced both in --
you know, it was actually in the advertising in the public notice as
well as the RFP.
So I just wanted to mention to you, you have it backwards, and
that's very significant because that elimination of the "shall," in fact, is
what materially shows that this project is a very different project.
Is that correct? Do you want to go back to your notes and verify
what you said?
MR. SCHULTZ: No. I think that the first scope was "may"; the
other two were "shall."
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, exactly. And the "may"
was included. And the "shall" is what was eliminated.
MR. SCHULTZ: Yes, but I don't think that's critical, and the
reason why is what you're doing with that is you're ranking them, then
you're entering into negotiations. The statute talks about the requests
for proposal being a mechanism to rank. Once you've performed a
ranking, then you can negotiate.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, the --
MR. SCHULTZ: It's hard to believe that my three clients who
are capable of handling -- for example, the clerk mentioned it went
from 111 pumps down to 12. We were ranked across all of it, as
everyone was. If we're capable of handling the larger scope, we're
certainly capable of handling the smaller scope.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But here's the difference. The
difference is is that you have companies out there who may not be
able to handle the larger scope, but had it been properly represented in
Page 128
October 23, 2012
terms of what the scope actually was intended to be, which was the
smaller scope, those companies would have qualified, and that's where
the problem is. Because as a consequence of the manipulation of the
definition of the scope, certain qualified companies have been
excluded, either from responding or from being given due credit for
what they're capable of doing.
MR. SCHULTZ: Well, with all due respect, I don't believe there
was a manipulation. I think you can negotiate the scope, and no one
has come forward, so --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, let me just -- I'm going to
get to that. But let's talk about the qualifications.
Can you please give me the criteria that were used or that was
used to rank the three firms that you represent for the three basins?
MR. SCHULTZ: No, but I assume the staff has that. I haven't
gone through all of that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I need to see those -- I need to see
the qualifications that were used to rank for the three basins. And I'm
not asking for the overall ranking. I'm talking about that second
ranking that was done to qualify the three firms for the three basins.
What was the criteria used, and where are the calculations?
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Joanne MARKIEWICZ, interim director
of purchasing. The rankings that were used were based on
experiences that the companies had on each of the three basins.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to see the documentation
that shows the ranking. What criteria was specifically used?
MS. MARKIEWICZ: I don't have that in front of me,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you produce it?
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: All right. It hasn't been produced
today.
MS. MARKIEWICZ: The tape is very clear that it was based on
Page 129
October 23, 2012
the experiences that each of the companies had on the basins, past
experience, past work.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What past experience did these
companies have that the other companies don't have?
MS. MARKIEWICZ: I'll get that for you, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: While you're getting that, let me
just address the issue of the bid protest. You know, the fact that the
other companies did not protest isn't evidence that this is done
correctly.
In fact, one of the reasons companies don't protest here in Collier
County is fear of retaliation by staff, and I've had a number of vendors
tell me that. And they're very concerned that if they file a bid protest
that subsequently, when they bid on a job, that staff will prejudice
them in the selection process. So as a consequence there are
companies out there that will not file a bid protest even though they've
been wronged.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Again, under no circumstances
does the fact that there was not a bid protest filed mean that this was
done correctly. So it's very, very concerning.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, I have no evidence at all to support
that claim that staff retaliates.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Nor do I.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That has been told to me by
vendors.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: By whom? Name somebody.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. I'll ask them to come forward
and speak for themselves.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Go ahead. Who are they?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you going to do that now?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to hear that.
Page 130
October 23, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'd like to hear it, too.
Do you know of any vendors who have been discriminated
against, staff?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I said fear of discrimination.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've just been indicted because you're
unfair to people.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do any members of staff know of any --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let me repeat for the record -- I'm
going to repeat this again -- that vendors do not file bid protests for
fear of retaliation by staff.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just name one so we can at least talk
with somebody, you know. You know, rather than just say that that's
the case, prove it. Tell us --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: There's no proof needed. It's a fact,
and I'm happy to talk to the last vendor that told me. And, with their
permission, I will bring it forward or let them bring it forward.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could you name that person, then, so we
could contact them and have them -- or you said they were in the
audience, right?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I didn't.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I thought you said they were in
audience.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And, again, I will repeat that not
filing a bid protest doesn't mean that the way the bid was let was legal.
And I don't know if this is legal or not. You know, I'm listening
to the debate from both sides right now, and I have a lot of questions,
a lot of questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Are there any other questions by
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I'd like the answers --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- the commissioners?
Page 131
October 23, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- to the criteria that was used for
ranking one, two, three among the three basins.
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Hole Montes performed an INI analysis in
past basins on 305 and 306. They completed IQ work in Basin 305 in
the past. They had a working knowledge of systems. They were the
engineer of record for the Naples wastewater collection in Basin 305
and 306. They had completed seasonal analyses for two southern
basins in 1995. They designed the western bypass, and they clearly
had the most experience with that basin.
Their subconsultant also was a public relations firm who would
be very helpful in the 305 basin, as it touches many businesses. They
were ranked for Basin 305 as first.
CDM, who had as a subconsultant WilsonMiller, designed 305,
and another consultant who was doing some additional work and,
therefore, they were ranked on 305. They'd done INI work and other
related work in Basin 101. They and their team qualified -- were more
qualified for (sic) any other firm, and so they were ranked for Basin
101.
AECOM was ranked for the third basin. Their subconsultant, Q.
Grady Minor, had assisted in the retrofit of Basin 305 and 306 in the
past. They assisted with the ARV valves in Basin 306. They had
prior work and redesign efforts identified in their proposal. Some of
their specific team members were especially helpful in other basin
work at the county. So, again, based on qualifications and past
experience.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So that was the two criteria that
you used as qualification -- you used past experience as the basis for
ranking the three basins?
MR. PAJER: The criteria -- for the record, my name's Craig
Pajer, principal project manager for planning and project management.
The criteria that was published in RFP and that the selection
committee used for evaluating the various firms includes --
Page 132
October 23, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no. I just want to know for
ranking the top three that you selected for the top three basins. That's
the criteria I'm looking for. Just that. What was the basis for selecting
those top three?
MR. PAJER: The criteria --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And how did you decide each of
them --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let him answer, please.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want to clarify.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You interrupt him every time he tries to
talk.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I know. But he's answering a
different question.
What I'd like is just, specifically, the criteria that you used to
select the top three by the three basins, just that criteria and where was
that --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Don't try to say a thing. Just wait a
minute, okay. Wait until there's sufficient silence here to give you a
chance to answer.
MR. OCHS: Joanne just answered that. Ms. MARKIEWICZ
answered that, sir.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So where was that criteria spelled
out in the RFP? Where was it specified that that was going to be used
to rank the top three? I just want an understanding of that.
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Commissioners, in the CCNA, and in this
particular project, we used the project understanding and approach, the
technical team's experience and abilities, their location, availability
and responsiveness and their references.
When we got down to the ranking of the top three firms, I've
already listed what we used: Their project understanding, their past
experience, and the team they brought to the table.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I ask one last question,
Page 133
October 23, 2012
Joanne? What was -- what firm did the last 20 or 30 -- I'm just going
to take an arbitrary number -- let's say the last 25 full pump designs?
MS. MARKIEWICZ: I'm sorry. Let me ask Tom Chmelik to
respond to that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm just curious.
MR. CHMELIK: I don't have the exact data. Those vary. We
use all of our consultants that are on our fixed-term contract. We've
used Tetra Tech, we've used Hole Montes, we've used AECOM.
We've used ABB. Any of the vendors that are on the list.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
MR. OCHS: Well, sir, there's really no motion to approve.
You've entered into the contracts. What we'd like to do is proceed to
issue the notice to proceed so we can begin the work.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that's what I mean. Motion to
approve issuing of notice to commence.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Right? Isn't that what you're asking for
in the executive summary?
MR. OCHS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. OCHS: We're holding off issuing the notice to proceed.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then we've got --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I ask Leo --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We've got a motion made by me.
Seconded by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
Page 134
October 23, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I want to ask one quick question.
You're looking at three basins here, Leo. For two years now I've been
asking for the -- basically, you know, the asset-management schedule
for all the other basins, what's -- where is that and what's the total
cost?
I mean, if we're looking at what amounts to a hundred million for
these three basins, what are we looking at with respect -- how many
basins are there in total?
MR. OCHS: I don't know, ma'am. I'll ask the staff to come up
and talk to you about that. Tom?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'm going to finish this motion.
Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then the motion passes
unanimously.
All right. Go ahead and answer Commissioner Hiller's --
MR. CHMELIK: Tom Chmelik, for the record. We have 20
basins, and these are three of those 20. And as part of our
asset-management initiative, we've gone through our assets. We know
our assets. We know what's worst first. We've categorized those in a
Level 1, 2, 3 scenario.
I can't tell you what's going to happen in five, 10, 20 years.
That's what asset management --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why hasn't that --
MR. CHMELIK: -- proposed and the RFP is going to --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why hasn't that been presented to
the board? And what's the estimated cost of what needs to be done?
MR. CHMELIK: It's part of our budget, ma'am.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, the work associated with that is in
your five-year CIE, and it's brought forward each year in your capital
budget.
MR. CHMELIK: That's the basis of our budget, or our CMP,
Page 135
October 23, 2012
and we are in the middle of preparing for an RFP for the asset
management enterprise system.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's not what you've represented
here in the past. You've represented in the past that you have to put
together an inventory. I know that Dr. George (sic) was, you know,
looking at developing a system that Nick Casalanguida was going to
adopt to inventory his own assets.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We've had discussion. I can pull
all the minutes.
MR. OCHS: No, you're right. I'm not debating that at all,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So where is that? I mean, that was
discussed over the last year, over the last two years.
MR. OCHS: Right. The last time we gave you a status report,
we told you we're still developing the system. They went through the
pilot phase in public utilities. It was --
MR. CHMELIK: We have raw data. We have a lot of data. We
don't have a system.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it's not yet in the --
MR. OCHS: It's not in the final form, no.
MR. CHMELIK: It's not in the software system, no.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you don't have the information
for the next five years as of right now?
MR. CHMELIK: We know what's worst first, and we know
what we have to get after in the next year, the year after, and --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: When are you going to get this
done? When is this going to be completed?
MR. CHMELIK: We're going to be returning to the board with
an RFP that we're directed to do to go on to Phase 2. We modified the
Phase 2 tasks that were part of the asset-management RFP, and we'll
be bringing that back to you after the first of the year.
Page 136
October 23, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So right now we've basically let a
project to do work where we have no idea what the total exposure on
the whole system is. So we're basically shooting in the dark?
MR. CHMELIK: No, not at all, not at all.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: A hundred million dollars towards
MR. CHMELIK: We've identified assets that are 25, 35 years
old that need rehabilitation where we've had failures, where we've
identified worst first, and we're going after those in a coordinated
industry-standard method.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But just for those three basins, not
for the 20 basins.
MR. CHMELIK: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, that's the problem. I mean,
we have to look at the totality of the system. I mean, we have limited
resources. I'd like this brought back.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That's for another day's meeting.
That's not the topic.
MR. CHMELIK: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Where do we go now, County
Manager?
Item #11B
REJECT ALL BIDS SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO
SOLICITATION #12-5905, RURAL LAND STEWARDSHIP
AREA (RLSA) PROGRAM REVIEW, AND PROVIDE
DIRECTION TO STAFF ON OBTAINING SERVICES FROM AN
OUTSIDE INDEPENDENT FIRM TO PERFORM REVIEW AND
ANALYSIS OF THE RLSA AMENDMENT PACKAGE —
MOTION TO RETURN THE CONSERVANCY'S $80,000
CONTRIBUTION AND INITIATE RLSA PROPOSED
Page 137
October 23, 2012
AMENDMENTS WITHOUT THE SERVICES OF AN OUTSIDE
INDEPENDENT FIRM — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we go to Item 11B on your agenda.
It's a recommendation to reject all bids submitted in response to
Solicitation 12-5905, Rural Land Stewardship Area program review,
and provide direction to staff on obtaining services from an outside
independent firm to perform review and analysis of the RLSA
amendment package.
Mr. Bosi will present.
MR. BOSI: Good afternoon, Commission. Mike Bosi, interim
director of planning and zoning.
I'd just like to put a little disclaimer. As the director of planning
and zoning, the area of expertise within my possession is that of the
planning. This is the procurement process. It's a little bit outside of
my area of expertise, so if I stumble, I apologize.
Let me give you a context of why we're here and what we're
asking to do. As the county manager had indicated, we're asking to
reject all bids, and it lays within a fault of mine of why we're here.
Back in January of 2011 we adopted the EAR report, and as part
of that EAR report we said the Rural Land Stewardship five-year
review program that was conducted from 2007 and concluded in 2009
was going to stand as the county's assessment of the Rural Land
Stewardship Area. It was being included as part of the EAR-based
amendments.
At the December 14, 2011, Board of County Commissioners'
meeting, I came before the BCC, asked the board to separate the
EAR-based amendments out from the -- or separate the RLSA
amendments out from the majority of the EAR-based amendments just
because we know of the issues and the amount of time that was going
to be associated with passing those individual RLSA five-year
amendments. And the board agreed to that, said trail behind, lag
Page 138
October 23, 2012
behind the EAR-based amendments with the RLSA five-year review
amendments.
Just as a sidenote, October 30th of this month, the CCPC will be
making recommendations on adoption for the majority of the
EAR-based amendments. And December 11th of this year, the
EAR-based amendment adoption item will be on the board's public
hearing. So we're somewhat at a lag right now.
On April 10th of 2012, the Board of County Commissioners --
we brought an executive summary before the board to officially direct
staff to accept the contribution from the Conservancy. And let me
take a step back. At that December 14th meeting in 2011, when you
segmented out the RLSA amendments, the Conservancy had
volunteered up to $90,000 to pay for an outside review, an outside
consultant to review the data and analysis in the amendment packages
that were submitted to the board at their April 21, 2009, meeting, and
provide for a third-party arbitrator to those amendment packages.
April 10th of this year, the board directed staff to accept that
money. On April 1 lth, I was contacted by the Conservancy, indicated
that a grant agreement or a contract was needed to facilitate the
exchange of funds. On the 26th of April, staff provided the
Conservancy with a draft contract based upon the scope of work that
was attached to that April 10th executive summary.
On May 2nd, I -- we issued the invitation for bids at my sign-off
with purchasing, but in the meantime we were still finalizing the
contract with the Conservancy.
On the 25th we received draft language from the Conservancy in
addition to the contract that related to the independence of the outside
counsel.
Now, with -- on the visualizer, the very top is what was
associated with the -- with the scope of work that the Board of County
Commissioners directed staff -- on April 10th, they directed staff to
accept the funds, and it basically said it should not be -- the vendor
Page 139
October 23, 2012
who would perform services for the county, initiate a Rural Land
Stewardship Area five-year review are not eligible for selection due to
the requirement for an independent review. That was attached to that
scope of work on the 10th.
The language that came from the Conservancy was a little -- was
a little bit more restrictive. That language was not contained within the
invitation to bid. Within the invitation to bid, it was that original
language that was concluded within that scope of work. Because of
that, because of my error, because I initiated the invitation to bid
before we had finalized that contract, that important information was
omitted from that invitation to bid. So the submitters were not aware
of that.
When we resolved the -- when we resolved the contract issue
with the Conservancy, it included their more restrictive language.
Within that contract we evaluated the proposals based upon the
proposals that were submitted. None of the -- none of the firms that
submitted met any one of the -- all of the criterias contained within the
scope of work as well as the no-conflict clause that's contained within
our contract.
Based upon that, we are -- we're here asking the Board of County
Commissioners to provide us with direction in terms of how we move
forward.
Now, I think there's a number of parties that were part of that
five-year review process that want to speak on this item, so there's a
lot of interest, and there's a lot of competing interests that are involved
within these RLSA five-year amendments. So we see the value of an
outside counsel, but we also see that we're a year behind the rest of the
EAR-based amendment process.
We're asking the Board of County Commissioners: One would
be -- the option would be to direct staff to repost that invitation to bid
with those -- that no-conflict clause clearly articulated within that
invitation to bid so that all submitters are clearly understanding the
Page 140
October 23, 2012
conditions that we're asking for and the filter that we're asking for in
terms of how we're going to select the firm.
If that is not the desire of the Board of County Commissioners,
then the second option would be direct staff to return the $80,000 to
date that the Conservancy has provided to the county to fund that
outside consultant and move forward without that retention of a
third-party firm.
And a third potential possibility that wasn't included within your
executive summary would be if the board feels strongly for that
third-party firm, to fund that yourself.
Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mike, I need some clarification on
something. It's unclear to me, based upon what you've said, whether
the county failed to include the proper language in the RFP or whether
the terms of the Conservancy's grant of money for that purpose were --
the terms were changed after we produced the RFP. Which one is it?
MR. BOSI: The scope of work that went on the April 10th
executive summary is the bolded --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, wait a minute. I want to know, what
did the people who bid on this receive?
MR. BOSI: The language that is at the very top of that -- of the
visualizer --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. BOSI: -- is that qualifier language in terms of no
competition. That's what was in the invitation to bid, and that's what
was in the scope of work that the board approved on April 10th.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Was that in accordance with the
agreement that you had with the Conservancy at that point in time?
MR. BOSI: There was no formalized agreement. There was the
no-conflict clause that --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So the Conservancy changed --
well, maybe not changed -- but provided you with clarification about
Page 141
October 23, 2012
the terms under which they would grant this money to have this work
done; is that what we're saying?
MR. BOSI: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That -- now, I can't imagine why we ever
would have put ourselves in that position, but nevertheless. So we put
out an RFP without working out an arrangement with the Conservancy
first.
MR. BOSI: That's on my shoulders. And --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right.
Commissioner Henning, would you like to hear the public, or do
you want to go?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I want to go.
I made a mistake earlier today, so -- and I need to own up for it
later on. You're only human. But I appreciate the fact that you're
willing to own up, that you're human.
Who are the bidders that bidded on this, the professionals?
MR. BOSI: And I know the type is too small. The low bid was
from Ivey Planning Group, but it was a single-source firm. The
second bid was AECOM. The third bid in terms of pricing was
Tindale & Oliver. The fourth was the Planning Center out of Santa
Ana, California; and then we had Murphy Planning Group out of Fort
Myers; and Harrison, Rivard, Duncan, Buzzett out of Panama City in
Florida; and the last was VHB MillerSellen out of Orlando, Florida.
So we had seven total bids.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you're saying that none of
these fit the criteria for what is provided in the RFP?
MR. BOSI: They could not meet all of the conditions within the
scope of work as well as the additional no-conflict clause between the
-- with the county and the Conservancy.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you think there's any firm
Page 142
October 23, 2012
out there that -- well, we don't know until we ask.
MR. BOSI: We're not sure. We -- we're hesitant -- we don't
want -- we don't want to delay the process that much further, but we
also recognize the value that the third party can provide to this process
in terms of an arbitrator towards, you know, some of the arguments
that could be put forward.
We're hopeful that we would receive a qualified bidder, and that's
why we're seeking that direction. That was the first recommendation
that was suggested by staff.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you feel that Former
Commissioner Mark Strain, Planning Commissioner Mark Strain, can
do an analysis and --
MR. BOSI: I would have to -- I'm sure if he had put together a
proposal and a team, he would receive very -- he would receive the
same scrutiny that any other bidder would have based upon the
qualifications and the time spent.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Except for we could have got it
for free. Not anymore, I guess.
There's no growth out in RLSA. Actually there's no growth, very
little growth, in the urban area. Is there really a need to update it?
MR. BOSI: And that's -- that would be the discretion of the
Board of County Commissioners.
The one thing I would say is the -- since the outset of the Rural
Land Stewardship Area, the one criticism that I think that has been
lobbied against it was that it did not provide the level of specificity or
certainty that was contained in terms of what's the intensity of
development and what would be the infrastructure required to provide
for that development.
And the one thing I would say about from that time when it was
-- when it was passed back in early 2000 to this time, and the five-year
review has produced a lot more specificity towards where that
development was going to be transpiring within the Rural Land
Page 143
October 23, 2012
Stewardship Area.
And one of the key components of the proposed amendments was
a specific cap on the intensity of number of acres that could be
provided. So in that regards, it would be an improvement.
Could the system continue to exist as it is without any -- without
any further modifications? I think that it could. But I think that what
happened for -- between 2007 and 2009 was -- there's three real
interest groups within that area. You've got your property owners,
you've got your ag. interest, your environmental components. You
have one pie.
Everyone wants to make sure that their advocacy group, their
portion that they're representing has a fair representation. And I think
that all those people sat down at the table -- and there was a series of
23 public meetings. We had a series of a number of meetings with the
Environmental Advisory Council and the Planning Commission that --
a series of compromises that were arranged that produced
improvements to the overall program.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Well, that's a sidenote
from the item on the agenda.
MR. BOSI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're asking us to not issue the
proposal, return the money to the Conservancy; however, I just don't
feel that there's a need at this time. There's no pressure on growth out
there. There's no -- there's no property rights taking being proposed.
There's no threats on the environment. There's no threats on
agricultural use out there.
So my opinion is we don't -- we don't do anything on the second
question and let's, you know, kick this down the road when the
economy starts -- after the elections, the economy starts getting better.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And what is the motion other than
Page 144
October 23, 2012
kicking it down the road? Is there a more technical term for that or
not?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Well, the
recommendations -- accept staffs recommendations and further give
staff the -- well, I should say the county manager not to bring any
RLSA amendments back until the appropriate building pressure on the
RLSA, when they foresee building happening in the RLSA.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
We still have public speakers, by the way.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I want to hear the public speakers
first.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then we'll -- how many public
speakers?
MR. MILLER: You have five. One has ceded her time to
another speaker, so there will be four in total.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh.
MR. MILLER: Your first speaker, Nicole Johnson, has ceded
her three minutes to Andrew McElwaine, who will be speaking for six
minutes. He will be followed by Nancy Payton.
MR. McELWAINE: Thank you very much. For the record,
Andrew McElwaine, Conservancy.
I'm not really prepared to speak directly on Mr. Henning's
motion. It sounds fine. I was going to talk to the issue of what to do,
and I was simply going to say that we support Mr. Casalanguida and
his staff, and if they want to cancel it and give us our money back,
we're fine with that. If they feel there's a need to continue, an
opportunity to continue, we're fine with that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, there's a carrying charge.
MR. McELWAINE: Yeah, I'm charging you interest, yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We've been having to hold that money
for some time now.
Page 145
October 23, 2012
MR. McELWAINE: Yeah, I know. It's earning at least a quarter
percent, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, not here. It's a lot more than that
here.
MR. McELWAINE: I want to see your investment portfolio.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Me, too.
MR. McELWAINE: In any event, we'll support whatever
decision you make in terms of the use of the Conservancy money. I
see the landowners want us to have it back, and we're fine with that.
The -- I do want to address the idea that there's been some
unnecessary delay or somehow I pulled a fast one on Mr. Klatzkow
and Mr. Coyle with the changes to the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You could never do that. They're
both so smart. That would not be possible, especially Coyle.
MR. McELWAINE: That was my mother-in-law --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: She's right for the second time today.
MR. McELWAINE: Exactly. Well, both my mother-in-law and
my teenage son will be happy to dispute the notion that I could do
that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: There's no one --
MR. McELWAINE: Heaven help the person that tries to put one
over on Mr. Coyle. They would not have a good day.
The upshot is that the contract that we did agree to was very
much in keeping with the stipulations from last December. Mr. Coyle
said repeatedly that he wanted to keep the study free of bias, including
any bias from the county, even -- the stipulation even said that the
consultant should report directly to the board, not to the staff.
So, again, I feel that the contract that Mr. Klatzkow signed and
that Mr. Coyle signed was entirely in keeping with the stipulations,
and I do reject the allegation that that's not the case. Second --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I haven't heard that allegation, by the
way.
Page 146
October 23, 2012
MR. McELWAINE: Well, there is a three-page letter to that
effect that --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Could you introduce that into the
record?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, that one. Okay.
MR. McELWAINE: It's my only copy. So I do want to reject
that emphatically. And I also want to reject the idea that somehow we
were trying to delay anything. Actually, I have sent emails to Mr.
Klatzkow that, in fact, in January I began asking for a gift agreement
between the Conservancy and the county. I asked again in February,
and those emails are on file, and I wasn't responded to until April.
And I said, again, we need a gift agreement to govern the use of the
funds, and that's when we began the negotiating process that resulted
in the grant agreement.
So, again, I think we tried very hard to do this right. And I think,
finally, I would note that for the landowners to now say this is all
unnecessary, I can tell you that not two weeks ago they were lobbying
one of my board members, a member of my executive committee, to
pick one of the vendors here and get us to approve one of the proposed
vendors. So, clearly, two weeks ago it wasn't a delay or too little as
they allege in their letter.
So in any event, I'm happy with whatever you decide. If the
decision is to give us our money back, that's fine. I'm not sure we
need a whole lot more public speakers to say whether the contract was
valid or not or whatever. If the decision is to give us our money back
as they've asked, I'm happy with that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll make a motion to refund --
MR. McELWAINE: There's a motion on the table.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We already have a motion we have to
deal with.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: There's a second one.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, let's do the first one first. But I'd
Page 147
October 23, 2012
just like to ask you a question.
At the point in time when it would seem appropriate that we hire
someone to do an unbiased evaluation, can we -- can you sort of keep
that money in escrow, and we can talk about it again?
MR. McELWAINE: Well, sir, you have the money. And,
certainly, I'd be happy to do what you like. Right now the county has
it. And if the decision is to proceed and try to find an independent
consultant, which is one of the recommendations on the table, we
won't oppose that. The landowners have said you should just give it
back, not do it; I'm fine with that as well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right. Okay, fine. Thank you.
We have a motion to --
MR. MILLER: Commissioner, we have more speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry?
MR. MILLER: We have more speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry, go ahead.
MR. MILLER: Your next public speaker is Nancy Payton. Ms.
Payton will be followed by Brad Cornell.
MS. PAYTON: Good afternoon. Nancy Payton. I'm
representing the Florida Wildlife Federation and also Defenders of
Wildlife today. Both our organizations -- and both the organizations
did participate in the five-year review process quite actively and have
been involved in the RLSA for a number of years.
We support moving ahead with the amendments. We would like
to see the amendments move forward. There's been a tremendous
amount of public staff, appointed committee members, time devoted
to refining the RLSA program, and improving it. So we think that it
should move forward. But we think it should move forward now
without the independent reviewer, at least funded through the county
with the Conservancy's grant.
We appreciate the grant, and we like the idea of an independent
review, and we supported the scope of work, which was presented in a
Page 148
October 23, 2012
public forum for the public to comment and provide input.
What we don't appreciate is the business of the contract that was
negotiated not in the sunshine. The public, the federation, Defenders,
and I'm sure there are others, didn't realize that contract was
underway, and the contract does somewhat change the scope of work.
And if it didn't change the scope of work, why didn't it come
back or at least be on the consent agenda for the public to have some
knowledge of that? It was a bit of a --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're talking about the contract
between the Conservancy and Collier County for the use of that
money?
MS. PAYTON: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. PAYTON: See, the public got to speak on the scope of
work, but then the public didn't know that there was also this contract
that was going to be negotiated, and that would have been fine. I saw
a copy of the contract that the county proposed, and it just reflected
what was in the scope of work, but then there were additions to it, and
I think that began to undermine the idea of an independent review and
an independent company working on that.
And -- well, I don't think you're ever going to find a contractor
that's going to meet the needs of the Conservancy and the staff and the
public. And so I agree that -- kindly return the money to the
Conservancy and let's move on. If they'd like to use that money to
hire a contractor, that would be fine, and that information could be
brought forward during the transmittal and adoption process, but let's
move forward, and let's have everything happen in the sunshine.
So a summary of our recommendation is please move forward
with these amendments. Who knows, they may not even get past the
transmittal hearing, but at least we can move forward. And thank you
to the Conservancy, but no thank you for the money.
MR. MILLER: Commissioners, your next public speaker is Brad
Page 149
October 23, 2012
Cornell.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I believe Commissioner Henning's
motion is slightly different than what you're suggesting. Is it?
MS. PAYTON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is it or is it not?
MS. PAYTON: Commissioner Henning, as I understand, says
let's just forget about the RLSA for an unknown amount of time,
period of time. Federation and Defenders are saying let's move
forward with those amendments that were crafted through a very
public process without the independent review that would be funded
by the grant from the Conservancy.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the Conservancy is essentially
saying don't move forward with the amendments and don't hire a
consultant right now?
MR. McELWAINE: Well, I think Commissioner Henning's
motion is just fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. McELWAINE: I agree with him that there's no real need
for this right now. On the other hand, the issue that I really came
prepared to speak to was just a question of the use of our funds. My
statement on that was, simply, whatever you'd like to do, we're happy
to work with you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right. Thank you very much.
MS. PAYTON: May I comment that there is a need to address
the RLSA amendments, and it's not probably in the best interest of the
county and the growth plan to wait till there's a problem. Let's be
proactive and deal with it now and be ready when that development
comes so we can properly control it rather than playing catch-up or
retrofitting. So I think that there is a valid reason to move those
amendments forward now and be ready if and when that development
comes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
Page 150
October 23, 2012
MR. MILLER: Commissioners, your next speaker is Brad
Cornell. Mr. Cornell will be followed by John Passidomo.
MR. CORNELL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Brad
Cornell, and I'm here on behalf of Collier County Audubon Society
and Audubon of Florida.
Regarding the motion that's on the floor, I agree with Nancy that
doing nothing, so to speak, really flies in the face of the whole concept
of land-use planning. You know, you're supposed to be doing this
stuff ahead of time. Don't wait for, you know, a problem to develop.
Let's make the playing field look like what it's supposed to be. You
know, you guys are in charge of land use. You know, call it the way
you think it should be.
Audubon supports staff recommendation to return the $80,000 to
the Conservancy and direct staff to promptly initiate transmittal of the
Rural Land Stewardship Area five-year review EAR amendments.
Staff, I believe, are fully capable of reviewing these amendments
and the data and analysis to go with them.
I served for you on your RLSA five-year review committee from
2007 to 2009, the entire time. We reviewed substantial data and
analysis for the EAR amendments that were proposed, as well as lots
and lots of public input, including very specific edits recommended by
the Planning Commission, the vast majority of which were quickly
incorporated by the five-year review committee into those
amendments.
The five-year review amendments include many benefits for the
public and for the county. A couple of them are the limits on acreage
and credits for urban development incentives for the Rural Land
Stewardship which maximizes both habitat and farming acreage.
And also the creation of much-improved incentives to protect
farming and preserve or restore the entire agri -- area of critical state
concern for the Okaloacoochee Slough, which is the eastern part of the
county. Those are called Ag Stewardship Credits. Those are
Page 151
October 23, 2012
tremendously beneficial and big improvements to this program. We
need them. And even if nothing is happening in terms of development
now, that doesn't mean we shouldn't put them in place now.
A third-party review of the RLSA five-year review amendments
was a reasonable idea 10 months ago, but the county and the
Conservancy have been unable to agree on any contractor. And I say
the time's up. Let's stop delaying these very beneficial RLSA
amendments. It should not take five years to implement the five-year
review amendments, all of which your committee recommended after
a very robust public process.
So please move forward with those in transmittal. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Commissioners, your final registered speaker on
this item is John Passidomo.
MR. PASSIDOMO: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name
is John Passidomo. My address is 821 5th Avenue South in the City
of Naples. Our firm represents the Eastern Collier Property Owners.
Our clients collectively own significant ownership interest in the
almost 200,000 acres which comprise the Rural Land Stewardship
Area --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you list those property
owners?
MR. PASSIDOMO: I can, but I'd have to do it from memory. I
think they have each signed a letter that was transmitted to the Board
of County Commissioners. There are eight in number.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Just for the people in the
community who don't know who they are.
MR. PASSIDOMO: Certainly. Thank you.
They are Pacific Tomato Growers; Collier Enterprises; Half
Circle L Ranch Partnership; English Brothers; Barron Collier
Companies; Consolidated Citrus; King Ranch, Incorporated; Alico
Land Development Corporation; and the Priddy family.
Our clients in the aggregate own almost 200,000, almost -- a
Page 152
October 23, 2012
significant part of that 200,000 acres that comprise the Rural Land
Stewardship Area in Northeastern Collier County. They have for over
10 years worked with environmental advocates to develop private
sector incentives to promote the RLSA goals of environmental
stewardship, smart growth, and agricultural preservation.
In 2007 -- a historical perspective might be of interest certainly to
the public, and I know each of the commissioners has been engaged in
this process from time to time.
But in 2007, Collier County began its required five-year review
of the RLSA's landmark strategic plan for the Rural Land Stewardship
Area. And in April 2009, after almost two years of work by a citizen
committee appointed by the Board of County Commissioners in over
25 public hearings and meetings, the Board of County Commissioners
adopted improvements to the proposed RLSA program proposed by
the citizens' committee and revised by the Planning Commission and
the Environmental Advisory Committee, and it directed that staff
move forward with the public hearings for review and adoption of
those recommended improvements to the program.
Now, three-and-a-half years later, that directive from the Board
of County Commissioners has not been implemented. Indeed, two
years ago, on October 15, 2010, the Department of Community
Affairs, in their assessment of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report,
said it was about time for the county to get on with this work. We,
respectfully, submit that there's no reason for the delay.
As suggested by Mr. Cornell, this is a planning process. It's at a
long-range planning process, and it really is a strategic plan for
Eastern Collier County, which is intended to go to buildout 30, 40, 50,
60 years from now.
Whatever the immediate projections for growth are, frankly, are
immaterial to the long-range planning.
We, respectfully, request that you move forward, that you adopt
Option No. 2 recommended by your planning staff, and we stand
Page 153
October 23, 2012
ready to participate in those public hearings.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Okay. We have a motion on the floor.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I withdraw my second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We no longer have a motion on the floor.
Commissioner Henning, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you know, my motion did
not say, Brad, wait till development is knocking on the door or is too
late. You know, have staff bring it back when it is appropriate.
So I just remind everybody, you need four-fifths to adopt this,
okay. So you better do it right. You ain't going to get it. I guarantee
you that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'm sorry. We --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I was finished.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, no. I just sort of talked over that last
statement you had. Commissioner Fiala didn't hear it. Would you
mind saying again?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What part didn't you
understand?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Something about four-fifths.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You need four-fifths to adopt a
Growth Management Plan.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Who were you saying that to?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I was saying that to Mr.
Passidomo.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I wasn't saying it to
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I don't know.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. All I was going to do is make
Page 154
October 23, 2012
a motion. Staff asked for direction, and so my direction is direct staff
to return the $80,000. This was okay with the Conservancy, provided
to the county from the Conservancy to fund the retention of the
third-party firm, and direct staff to initiate the RLSA amendment
process without the independent review to finalize the EAR-based
amendments.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A motion by Commissioner
Fiala, second by Commissioner Coletta.
Commissioner Hiller? I'm sorry?
MR. OCHS: I apologize. Did the motion also include rejecting
the bids?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It doesn't, but that certainly was her
intent, I believe.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, it must. Yes, thank you for --
thank you for bringing that to my attention. Please include that in my
motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And, Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. The thing that was
astounding to me in this entire discussion is what Nancy brought out
about this contract being executed out of the sunshine. And I applaud
you for recognizing that because I just found out about it, and I was
appalled also.
And it's absolutely not a reflection on Conservancy's part,
because it isn't Conservancy that did it. It is the county that did it, and
specifically it was Commissioner Coyle that did it, and I don't see how
that can happen. This is what happened in the Gilchrist case. Wasn't
that the same issue there, that a contract was executed outside of the --
was it -- which -- wasn't that in that audit? Yeah.
So, I mean, I think we need to have some sort of procedure in
place to ensure that no contracts are executed that the board has not
seen and voted on.
Page 155
October 23, 2012
So, Nancy, thank you for bringing this forward, because this is
actually the second time this has been highlighted in the last two
meetings.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Crystal was just making a face that
said, you know, that wasn't what happened.
Andy, would you please tell us what happened?
MR. McELWAINE: I guess -- I'm not the county attorney, so I
am -- you should be very grateful for that. The --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't know. They probably
would be really happy. They could get by with a lot of stuff.
MR. McELWAINE: That's for sure, because I wouldn't know
what they were talking -- I don't know enough Latin.
The upshot is it really was -- my understanding at the time was
because what we had was consistent with the stipulations that
Commissioner Coyle made in his motion in December, that there was
no further process that the board needed, but I'll defer to your much
wiser counsel on that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just to clarify that, did I engage in any
contract negotiations with you?
MR. McELWAINE: No, sir, not to the best of my knowledge.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Have you seen my signature on any
contract with you?
MR. McELWAINE: Yes, sir, the final --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. McELWAINE: -- the final agreement for Mr. Klatzkow's
signature and then yours on behalf of the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Right. It was deemed legally sufficient
by our county attorney --
MR. McELWAINE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- is that not correct?
MR. McELWAINE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's not enough. I mean, it still
Page 156
October 23, 2012
needs to come back to the board.
So, Nancy, you're absolutely right. Thank you. And it's no
reflection on you, but thank you.
MR. McELWAINE: Thank you, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you for those facts. Legal
sufficiency --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Why are we always trying to make
the county look bad?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We're not. We're trying to make
sure --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It sounds like it to me. If you were
saying that Commissioner Coyle went, snuck around and made this
little agreement with the Conservancy and nobody else knew it, and
that certainly makes us look bad.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, it -- bottom line is it can't be
done. I mean, all contracts have to come back to the board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It wasn't done.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It was. The contract needs to
come back before the board, has to be approved by the board. If the
county attorney says it's legally sufficient, that's nice. It still needs the
board's approval. And we didn't say go back, you know, put this in a
contract, and we accept it as written.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Manager (sic), would you please
explain to Commissioner Hiller what the facts are?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: County Attorney you mean?
MR. KLATZKOW: I've got to tell you, I just don't remember
what happened here. Typically, what often will happen is that the
board will take action, and then they'll authorize the chairman to sign
based on that action. That may have happened here.
Sometimes what we'll do is we'll do legal review of an agreement
and get it back to staff. Sometimes staff inadvertently just doesn't put
it on executive summary. There are -- they may be under the
Page 157
October 23, 2012
understanding that they can simply just take it to the chair. I don't
know what the particulars are on this, but I don't know why this is an
issue either.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It isn't, because we have now -- I've
just made a motion to cancel everything we've done, right, return the
$80,000 and initiate -- and direct staff to initiate the RLSA
amendment process. So, I mean, whatever -- whatever is being talked
about --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is irrelevant.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- just disregard entirely and move
forward.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor of the motion, please
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. There's -- it passes 4-1 with
Commissioner Henning dissenting.
Let's go on.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Nancy, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to take a 10-minute break
for the court reporter, and we'll come back, maybe.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, we -- the Board
of County Commission meeting is back in order.
We have a lot of things to do in a fairly short period of time.
Commissioner Henning (sic) is having to leave here at 5 p.m.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I could leave at 9 p.m.
Page 158
October 23, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry. I didn't mean -- I misspoke.
Commissioner Coletta is leaving at --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Five a.m.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- at 5 p.m.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But not leaving totally.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So we're going to try to get a couple of
things done so that we can release members of the audience who have
been sitting here for a long, long time.
So we're going to go with Ian Mitchell's item. What is that?
Item #12B
RESOLUTION 2012-202: ADOPTING A RESOLUTION
TERMINATING THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE
EXECUTIVE MANAGER TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that's Item 12B. It was previously
16K6 on your agenda. It's a recommendation to adopt a resolution
terminating the employment agreement with the executive manager to
the Board of County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. 16K6?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I say something?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, it wasn't 16K6, was it?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
MR. OCHS: Yeah. It came off the 16K6 and moved to 12B
under your county attorney's.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I say something under this
item?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I misspoke about the contract
where -- provisions under 16 where I said Section 16 provides a
Page 159
October 23, 2012
confidentiality agreement. It's not in there in Section 16, so I
apologize.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Where is it? Where is it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's not in Section 16 like I said.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're not going to tell us where it is?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's in your packet.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right.
Commissioner Hiller, you pulled this item.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I pulled this item, and the
reason I did was because I need to get an understanding of what's
going on.
You know, at the -- in order for me to be able to vote to support
awarding Ian the severance package, one of the things I need to do is
understand why we're doing it. And based on what was presented on
the record, you know, Jeff clearly pointed out that the clerk would not
pay, and so that left me concerned, because if the clerk doesn't pay
and I approve something that the clerk wouldn't pay knowingly, then
the problem I've got or we, actually as a board, have is, you know, it's
either misfeasance or malfeasance or something along those lines.
So as you know, I met with Ian and the county attorney and with
the director of payroll for the clerk -- actually the director of
operations who's also head of payroll -- and during the course of that
meeting I asked Ian to please, you know, give me the reasons so that --
you know, other than what he presented, so that I could legitimately
make -- or cast my vote in favor of giving him the award.
But Ian said at that time he could not tell me. And since that time
nothing has been brought to my attention. No facts have been brought
forward to me to be able to change what Jeff has said.
And in the meantime, certain other things have happened that
have really left me wondering. And I really want to understand what's
Page 160
October 23, 2012
going on here.
And this relates to the termination of Evelyn Prieto. And what I
don't understand is how Ian, who basically has been set up for
termination by this board, was allowed to terminate Commissioner
Henning's aide.
And the problem I have with that termination is that I think it
exposes the board to litigation. I think that Ian's actions with respect to
the termination put us in a position where the board standing is legally
compromised.
The termination happened last week, and Evelyn was terminated
with cause. There was a letter written by Ian that found her to be at
fault on several levels. And I asked for the employee files so I could
go back and see what was in the record to see what the basis for the
termination was.
And you'll recall I had mentioned earlier that when I spoke to Jeff
when I heard it rumored that that might be happening, that he said that
human resources in the County Attorney's Office said that Evelyn
could not be terminated because there was no evidence in the file to
support termination. And then, you know, like, I guess it was one or
two weeks later Evelyn is being terminated.
Now, I went through the employee file, and there is nothing in
there to support termination. In fact, I spoke to HR. I spoke to Amy
Lyberg, and I found the opposite. I found that Evelyn had contacted
Amy Lyberg back in February and was very concerned about what
was going on in the office and, in effect, was alleging that Ian was
being hostile towards her, that she was, in effect, facing a hostile work
environment among other things that Amy would not disclose.
And I asked her if she documented this, and she said no. And I
said, why not? She said, Evelyn said that she didn't want it
documented. I said, did Evelyn come back again? And she said, yes,
on numerous occasions.
I asked if she met with Ian on multiple -- to discuss this and, you
Page 161
October 23, 2012
know, was any corrective action taken with Ian? And she said, yes, on
multiple occasions. I said, did you document that? And she said no.
And I said, well, do you have, you know, these meetings
calendared with respect to Ian? And she said yes.
So it appears -- and I don't know what your position is,
Commissioner Henning, because she was your aide. And I went
through the file, and I found this photograph. It's a photograph of
Evelyn and her daughter, and Evelyn is wearing a Henning T-shirt and
a Tim Nance T-shirt.
I just don't understand what happened and how an employee in
Ian's position could be allowed to terminate someone. And then now
you've got this confidentiality agreement. And I just don't understand
what's going on. And I really feel that we've got some very serious
issues facing the board. And I just -- I have real concerns. And I want
-- I want my questions answered. I want to know what's going on
here.
MR. TEACH: Well -- Scott Teach, Deputy County Attorney.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I'm going to just put this on
the overhead.
MR. TEACH: One thing I would say, Commissioner, I think
these numbers --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Hold on a minute.
MR. TEACH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I strongly object to you putting a minor
child's picture on the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We'll just -- here. That's okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- to be broadcast over the public just
because you've got some --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We'll just take --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- gripe to lodge here.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Just go ahead and put it with
Evelyn.
Page 162
October 23, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And, by the way, what is the point of
that anyway, Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, it's relevant because --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is? Tell us how it's relevant.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, just let the county attorney
speak, and then I'll address these issues. Because I'm the one asking
the questions, not you. And I want an answer.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, but what you're doing is getting into
character assassination here, and it's just for your own benefit.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no. We've got some very
serious issues here, and I want answers, because I don't know what's
going on.
MR. TEACH: Commissioners, I represent the Board of County
Commissioners, and this is an inappropriate conversation to have in
the public with employees for a variety of reasons, one of which is I'm
not sure why people would want to apply if they know that they're
going to be brought out and their -- reasons for their termination
publicly.
But, more importantly, the conversations could be had, and there
-- the employee was separated just recently. We haven't -- there's a
potential that this employee could file suit for -- anybody can file suit,
and this conversation -- I strongly, strongly urge you to avoid this
conversation.
I can only tell you this: These matters regarding separations and
discipline are seriously considered. These are things that are kept very
close in conversations in the human resources --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It that why it was published by
Brent Batten? I mean, there was an article about her severance and
what it was all about.
MR. TEACH: Commissioner, let me just explain. These things
-- we take great lengths so that these aren't disseminated or voiced
among other employees.
Page 163
October 23, 2012
In my office, there has generally been two employees, two
attorneys who are involved in this. We don't share this information
with the other attorneys in this office. Myself and Colleen Greene are
the primary attorneys that review these things.
We shut our doors when we have conversations in regard to this,
whether it's with HR or whoever, because we have to respect the
dignity of these employees. And some of them -- you know, they
don't agree with these things, and they raise issues and allegations that
are uncorroborated. A lot comes out because it's a very emotional
time.
I can tell you myself, in my nine years here, I've made a lot of
recommendations regarding employees, regarding discipline -- and
they're just recommendations, because the staff people make the
ultimate recommendations -- but I wrestle with these things. They
disturb me.
And in these nine years, I've had two where I've made
recommendations that weren't followed. One was adverse to the
county, ultimately; my recommendation was not followed. And the
other one was adverse to an employee who is deceased.
So I can tell you this: I take these things highly seriously, and
this conversation is not appropriate for the board in public.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But you didn't terminate Evelyn.
MR. TEACH: I did not.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Mr. Mitchell did. So I'm not sure
where your concern is.
I received an anonymous email from someone that I'm going to
enter into the record, which I've allowed the county attorney to read,
and I think you-all received it, too, because it was addressed to the
board as a whole, and it raises some very serious concerns about
what's going on here.
I want to know what's going on; the public has the right to know.
While you sit there and say this is all supposed to be veiled in
Page 164
October 23, 2012
confidentiality, Brent Batten wrote an article about it that was
disclosing the reasons for her termination and which, quite frankly,
seem completely without legal basis.
MR. TEACH: Now, Commissioner -- and sometimes you'll
understand this, that we've had employees that we've taken adverse
action, and these employees contact the news, and they tell their side
of the story, and we don't speak up because we don't want to engage in
this, because it could come back adversely to the county if it's taken in
a different context.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is her termination letter a public
document?
MR. TEACH: Yes, yes, and if somebody requested it, we would
provide it. And --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, as it turned out,
Commissioner Coletta -- Coletta's aide had that document before she
was even terminated. I mean, I think Commissioner Coletta might
have known what was going on. I didn't. No one would tell me.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I've got to respond.
I know nothing about what you're talking about, and the
implication that something may have happened because somebody
was supporting a political candidate other than myself is completely
false.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm not implying anything of the
sort.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I mean, the fact that you
asked for it to be put up on the viewer that they were wearing
campaign shirts --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm just --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- indicates there's a political
problem with this whole thing, and that is an issue that I just -- I can't
believe that you'd lower yourself to this level.
Now we're getting back to the real subject. Why is Ian Mitchell
Page 165
October 23, 2012
leaving? There it is right there.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, we're -- this is a very serious
issue because, again, there was an allegation made by this woman who
was terminated that she was, you know, in effect in a hostile work
environment, and nothing was done about it. And then Mr. Mitchell,
on his way out the door, is allowed to terminate her, and there's
something wrong with that. And I want to know why this was done
and what's going on.
And then all of a sudden Mr. Mitchell is given the opportunity to
sign a confidentiality agreement, and he comes back and he says, I
will only sign it if the clerk pays me. Now, there's something wrong
with that. I'll read you what this anonymous email said.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why would you even --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Why would you want to read an
anonymous letter when they don't even sign their name? Where's --
you know, how can we then ask that person -- I don't think that you
should even begin to lower yourself to read an anonymous letter that
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why? It's a public record. It's a
public record.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, it isn't. It's anonymous.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. It's a public record.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, if the person isn't brave
enough to sign their own name, then I think there's no validity to
something like that. If they can't even sign their own name --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Kind of like rumors in the
Immokalee Master Plan.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Well, right, right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But this is important.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Except that I have the names for it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, anyway, I need -- I need an
Page 166
October 23, 2012
understanding of how that could -- how that could be allowed to
happen, and I really have a problem with it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Why are we continuously running
people down?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, it's a big deal.
Now, here's the other thing. As I was looking through the file, I
saw that Mr. Mitchell had not done evaluations for any of the aides
this year; that with respect to last year, three of the aides got
incomplete evaluations. I mean, what was going on? What is it that
was going on that we don't know?
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, he's -- he is your employee.
You have a contract with him. If you want to talk about the
management of that contract, that's the five of you to talk about it.
Evelyn is one of your aides. I mean --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But did you have to approve her
termination?
MR. KLATZKOW: Approve the termination? Mr. Teach, were
you involved in the termination? I don't get involved in terminations.
MR. TEACH: Commissioner, all I will say on the subject is all
these matters are vetted through human resources and the County
Attorney's Office, and they have been reviewed for a determination
whether the action could go forward.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And so you, obviously, approved
it, because she was terminated.
MR. TEACH: Commissioner, we have reviewed the action that
was requested, correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you allowed someone in Ian's
position to terminate --
MR. TEACH: Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- someone under his employment
as he was out the door?
MR. TEACH: Commissioner, I have no further comment on it.
Page 167
October 23, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I have a file that has nothing
to support the termination. I mean, you've compromised our standing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a comment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, what garbage.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's very serious.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Compromised our standing?
Commissioner Henning, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's not fair.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, Commissioner
Hiller, what you have espoused is new information to me, and it's not
my understanding.
I did not involve myself in that because it involved the office and
the office staff. I thought it was inappropriate. Evelyn did an okay
job for me. I didn't want to see her, you know, go on my behalf.
You know, we have -- just like any type of working relationships,
you have misunderstandings, and we've had some misunderstandings,
and we were working through those.
There's no reason for, on my behalf, to terminate her --
termination of Evelyn; however, it sounds like that you have more
information than I do, and I'm very disturbed by that.
Leo, do I have a right to talk to your staff about the involvement
with the termination of my aide?
MR. OCHS: Those communications should come through my
office, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And did they?
MR. OCHS: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I was actually -- Jeff called Amy
Lyberg. We spoke to Amy in Jeff s office, and he was there when I
spoke to her, and he called her to get certain documents.
And I can ask questions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do I have the right to ask --
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioners, you have a very narrow
Page 168
October 23, 2012
agenda item here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, we can discuss Evelyn if you want
to.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I do. And with the county
attorney, I would imagine?
MR. OCHS: I'd like to be present as well if we're going to have
MR. KLATZKOW: The termination was Ian's termination
decision.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, but there's allegations it
was improper.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I want to get down -- sir,
may I finish? I want to get down to the nitty-gritty of it.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Now, I looked at Jordan
Krumbine's file by contrast and, you know, what was documented in
there is, you know, extensive compared to her file which had nothing.
So I just don't understand what's going on and how, again,
someone in Ian's position could have been allowed to terminate that
employee without any documentation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The question is, what bearing does that
have on this agenda item?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, it has a great deal of bearing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, tell us what it is, and let's try to
clear it up.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The bearing is is that, you know, it
appears that -- from my understanding, that Evelyn was subjected to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, forget that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- a hostile work environment.
Page 169
October 23, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're talking about an employment
agreement for Ian Mitchell. That's all we're talking about.
Now, if --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just don't -- I'd like an
explanation of what's going on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, what is it you want to know?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I want to know exactly why was
he allowed to terminate Evelyn. I want to know why he's saying that
he wants a confidentiality agreement and will only sign it if paid by
the clerk. I don't see how we can award this payment based on the
fact, Jeff, that you have said that --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then vote against it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- he doesn't qualify, that he
doesn't qualify for the severance pay. I mean, I need explanations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Jeff, did you say that?
MR. KLATZKOW: Let's take it one at a time, all right. Let's
talk about the confidentiality agreement. When the issue of Ian's
leaving the county first came up, Commissioner Henning went
through the files and asked our office to provide him a copy of the
confidentiality agreement.
We looked. We couldn't find one, all right, and Ian's contract
provided that he enter into one, all right.
So at that time, as a cleanup item, it was thought that we get into
the confidentiality agreement and we bring it to the board at the same
time as we had resolution.
Ian elected not to enter into the confidentiality agreement. I do
not bring agreements to the board when the other party has not
assented to it. There's no purpose to it because you approve it, and
then they'll come back and say, I want changes, and then I've got to
bring it back again. And I've done this my whole life. I've done it in
my corporate life as well.
So that's the confidentiality; it was a cleanup item -- no more, no
Page 170
October 23, 2012
less -- all right, when Commissioner Henning noted that it wasn't
there.
What was your other question?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Evelyn's termination.
MR. KLATZKOW: I was not involved in Evelyn's termination,
all right. You can talk to Mr. Teach about it. You can talk directly to
Ian about it, if you'd like. He's here.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The fact that the file wasn't paper,
the fact that there was a --
MR. KLATZKOW: You can talk to Ian about that. He was your
employee, all right. Now, if he didn't properly engage what he should
have engaged in, I don't know what to tell you. He was your
employee. He was not Leo's employee. He was one of the contract
employees.
You know, at the end of the day, he was hired to supervise your
aides. He made the decision to terminate, all right. Scott worked with
that just to make sure that there wasn't any hair on it. That's what we
do, all right. But the decision to terminate was Ian's. And you can ask
him if you want, all right. But that was the decision.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Who's next?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I am.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll tell you, when I think we've
reached the bottom of where we're going to go, we've managed to find
one more step. I'd like to make a motion at this time that the Board of
County Commissioners adopt the attached resolution terminating the
employment agreement for the executive manager to the Board of
County Commissioners and, furthermore, to drop any reference as far
as a confidentiality agreement goes. I think that's absolutely asinine.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Coletta to
approve --
Page 171
October 23, 2012
MR. KLATZKOW: The resolution?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- the resolution. And --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I seconded it, but I still --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Jeff had -- but I still had a question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That will be all right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Hiller said that you
said the clerk wouldn't pay it. Did you say that?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. What I said during our initial
conversation we had -- when Ian first brought this up, remember, there
was an executive summary for his performance evaluation where he
was asking for a raise. And instead of doing that, he read a statement
on the record basically asking to be fired.
And what I said was, your agreement provides, all right, that if
you're going to get terminated and get severance, all right, that you
must be ready, willing, and able to continue your duties; otherwise,
you're just quitting, all right, and you don't get severance when you
quit, all right.
And what I told Ian at that time at that date was that you're not
going to get paid under these circumstances, all right. I then privately
told Ian to talk to each and every one of you, you know, to discuss,
you know, what it is, because I still don't know to this day, you know,
what the issue is with Ian, all right, what it is, so that you can make a
legislative finding, all right, that you're making here so he can get
paid.
That's what happened.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala, that's all?
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I'm going to support the
motion, but you can't change a contract on the fly, especially when
there's no reconsideration. But I will support the motion, and there are
certain requirements under the contract that will come to roost.
Page 172
October 23, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
Crystal, will the clerk be able to pay this?
MS. KINZEL: I'm not sure, Commissioner. We haven't
reviewed it. A lot of information's been put on the record, legal
considerations, ethical considerations. We have to go back and review
the totality of the information based on today's agenda item.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, if the board approves this,
then I believe the contract provides it would have to be paid for in 10
days.
MS. KINZEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, you accept that you can pay
it in 10 days?
MS. KINZEL: No, Commissioner. We haven't even reviewed
the issue. Whether we can pay or not pay will have to be determined
based on reviewing the facts, based on what you vote on and
determine today.
We'll have to go back and look at all those. But, you know, I
can't guarantee today. I haven't even seen what pay request is going to
be put forward. There's a fiscal element of this -- of the agreement,
you know --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What is the total pay that he would
be getting, including the value of the benefits?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's in the executive summary.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I know. I want it on the record.
MR. KLATZKOW: Sixty-four thousand --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's on the record. It's in the executive
summary.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I want it -- 65,000?
MR. KLATZKOW: Approximately.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'm going to call the motion, but I
Page 173
October 23, 2012
also have to make a statement here. I'm sure that the clerk and
Commissioner Hiller can spend weeks and months dredging through
the depths of the garbage that they can come up with to find
something that will tarnish the reputation of some of our employees,
but the point is that the action we're taking today, if this motion
passes, is in the county's best interest because, number one, it helps us
solve a problem that has been in existence for many years, and that is
the management of aides to commissioners by a contract employee
which has become an almost impossible task. I very briefly talked
about this last time where you have a manager of the group who's
managing aides who report to commissioners, and he never really has
control over the circumstances in the office because commissioners
are always trying to make sure that their aide is treated properly and
used in certain ways, and they refuse to let them to be used in other
ways, and it creates an almost impossible management problem.
So the action that we're considering here will help us solve that
problem, because I hope that we will take this opportunity to eliminate
that position -- it will save us money -- and then each aide will work
for the commissioner. The commissioner will be responsible for
hiring them and firing them and evaluating them.
And in that way we can eliminate all of the pressures that have
resulted in situations that we've had when we put them all in the same
office and have them listening to each other's conversations and
telephone calls and seeing correspondence between -- of other
commissioners and things of that nature. We can isolate that.
And I can tell you from my own experience being in that office
is, in my opinion, very close to a violation of the Sunshine Law. You
walk down the hallway, you overhear tidbits of conversation. An aide
picks up a telephone, tries to deal with a problem with a constituent,
and somebody else overhears it and repeats it, and the information just
gets transferred in ways that it shouldn't. And I hope that we will
separate that, separate all those aides and the commissioners.
Page 174
October 23, 2012
And I, personally, intend to move out of that office as quickly as
I possibly can. So -- I'm going to Oregon.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Really?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So I am -- I'm saying to the public and to
the other commissioners that this action that we're contemplating
today will be in the best interest of Collier County in a number of
different ways.
So now I'll call the question. All in favor of the motion --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think Crystal wants to speak.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Crystal is not a voting member of this
group.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes 4-1 with Commissioner
Hiller dissenting.
Now, Crystal.
MS. KINZEL: Just, Commissioner Coyle, I need to put on the
record, you've made several disparaging remarks often about the
clerks. The Clerk's Office hasn't created this situation. The
unfortunate circumstance is that we are left to unravel fiscal legality of
decisions made, and we'll continue to do that.
But, you know, the office goings-on or whatever has transpired to
bring this agenda item forward, I have specifically not reviewed the
details of this. We were asked for calculations of salaries on fiscal.
I'm unaware of the other things that have been brought up here. That's
why I can't commit to a payment or a nonpayment --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I didn't ask you to.
Page 175
October 23, 2012
MS. KINZEL: -- which is a reasonable position.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I didn't ask you to.
MS. KINZEL: But some of the comments --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I was referring to your comment about
there are several ethical or behavioral problems that we will have to
review. You just made those statements a few minutes ago.
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner, you have put on the record that
there might be ethical --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I haven't.
MS. KINZEL: Well, members of this board in total. Obviously,
if there are accusations about how this payment is made, we're just
going to have to review those. That was the only intent of that
comment to be made.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I just want to make sure it was on
the record. Okay. I'm sorry.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, may I? Can I speak now?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, you may.
MR. MITCHELL: I'm absolutely appalled that you would bring
Evelyn Prieto into this conversation. I mean, even though I terminated
her, one of the things that I have done since that time is I have not
spoken to the press, to the television, who've been onto my phone
every single day, because I respected that individual, and you should
have done the same.
But what I want to do is just give the people who've listened to
you today a sample of my life working with you. And one of the
things that is really surprising is that that aide we've just been
discussing was your backup aide up to February when you had her
terminated as your backup. You had all -- everything removed from
her. I wonder why.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
MR. MITCHELL: Now, let's just go on to something -- excuse
Page 176
October 23, 2012
me, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let me answer that question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let him speak.
MR. MITCHELL: Secret list. On July 24, 2012, during the
board meeting and during the lunchtime, Commissioner Hiller came
into my office, closed the door, and accused me of keeping a secret list
on her that I was going to use when she ran for reelection. She said,
the details of this secret list are all over Collier County.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's completely false. Actually,
it was completely the opposite.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no.
MR. MITCHELL: So then I asked her -- I asked her, where had
she heard about this secret list. She said from a number of sources
across the county.
And I said, well, then -- I laughed because it was absurd, and I
just said, well, it's some secret list.
But we still had a 22-minute conversation on it even though the
commissioner said, I have no problems with you. I trust you. I
always have. But I think, as Collier County employees all know, that,
coming from Commissioner Hiller, is the kiss of death.
But now let's go to recent times. Personnel records. On October
1 lth I stayed in my office for lunch, and I had the door closed. The
BCC staff know that if my door's closed and they want me, if they
knock and I'm having lunch, then they'll send me an email message or
anything. So there's knocking on the door, and I ignored it, but it
persisted.
When I opened the door, Commissioner Hiller stood there with --
the county attorney stood behind her. And what she said was she'd
come to collect the personnel records that were in my files of the aides
in the BCC office.
I looked at the county attorney, because the previous day we'd
Page 177
October 23, 2012
had an agreement that I was doing a project for Commissioner Coyle.
When I finished that project, then I would copy the files and take them
up to his office. But this wasn't that. We want them now.
And so when I looked at the county attorney, he never spoke; he
just shrugged his shoulders. Commissioner Hiller followed me into my
office. I sat at my desk where these files were stored, and she stood
over me while I started going through the files. Now, the file that I
was extracting was from current employees.
But she said, no, she was looking, and she wanted all the files of
all the aides.
And I pulled them out, put them on the desk, put them on my
desk, and she picked them up. As she picked them up, she browsed
them. She browsed those files.
And I'm ashamed to say that I let her walk out of the office
carrying those files. She had no legal right to take those files. No
legal right whatsoever.
The fact that the county attorney was with her -- he was behind
her. He was -- stood at my office door. Her back was to him. He had
no visual sight of what she was doing with the files. And then she
walked out with them.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You need to stop, Ian. You're out
of line, and you're lying.
MR. MITCHELL: No, I'm not.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Very much. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He's endured a lot.
MR. MITCHELL: That's exactly what happened. You walked
out with those files in your hand.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Jeff, can you please step in?
MR. KLATZKOW: Sure, I will. Tuesday meeting you asked for
the files. The board adjourned around 3:15. The files were not given
to you. All day Wednesday the files were not presented to you.
Page 178
October 23, 2012
You came to my office at 11:30 to look at the files. I don't have
them, ma'am. Who has them? Ian must still have them, all right.
These were public records, all right, that you were asked to
produce, and you didn't produce them, all right. Commissioner Hiller
was in the building. She asked for them.
We took the files up to my office. I sat at a desk with her.
Commissioner Hiller went through the files, noted what she wanted,
okay. I then went to my paralegal, make sure that you redact any
information that needs to be redacted -- took photocopies of it, all
right.
And then once the photocopies were made, I then returned the
files to you intact. These are public records, Mr. Mitchell. Intact, all
right. Gave a copy to Commissioner Hiller, gave a copy to
Commissioner Coyle, who had asked for it as well, all right.
Had you done what you -- she had asked you to do on Tuesday's
meeting, all right, I wouldn't have had to have gone down there.
Commissioner Hiller wouldn't have had to have gone down there, but
you didn't do it, all right.
MR. MITCHELL: But you had called me the day before, and
you said --
MR. KLATZKOW: I asked you --
MR. MITCHELL: You called me the day before that --
MR. KLATZKOW: That copying took a half hour, all right. So,
no.
MR. MITCHELL: You called me the day before. You said I'm
not going to --
MR. KLATZKOW: You're out of line on this one. You are so
out of line on this one.
MR. MITCHELL: I'm sorry, Commissioner Coyle. This is just --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let me ask a question.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have to answer the question
about this open-door meeting. Yes, it's true, I did meet with Ian
Page 179
October 23, 2012
because someone had said that he was keeping a file. And I asked the
question. I said, Ian, are you keeping one? He said no. I said, I didn't
think so, and that was it. And it was really simple, and it was very
positive. And that was it.
And as far as Evelyn, the reason I removed her as the backup on
my computer was it concerned me because she had access to all my
emails and could read every single thing.
And if, in fact, I've removed my aide because I've considered her
being able to read all my emails a problem also.
So the bottom line is, you know, having another aide -- another
commissioner's aide having full access to viewing your emails is, I
think, problematic. And when I realized that was the case, I had her
removed, but not otherwise.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. County Manager?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can you --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: There's no issues there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can you briefly tell us what is the proper
method for requesting public records in Collier County?
MR. OCHS: Well, we have a public-records custodian in our
Department of Communications and Customer Relations, and those
typically -- request for public -- official requests for public
information route through that department. That's typically how
public-records requests are processed in our agency.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is there a time limit that you have to
return them or --
MR. OCHS: Well, it's dictated by statute, ma'am. It's --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The time it take to pull it out of
your drawer.
MR. OCHS: It's the most practical time --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The time it takes to pull it out of
your drawer.
Page 180
October 23, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller.
MR. OCHS: I don't have the document in front of me,
Commissioner. I'd have to pull that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And does that mean that any government
employee has the right to walk into an office and demand the public
records?
MR. OCHS: Any government employee?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, any Collier County employee.
MR. OCHS: They can request a public record, and we have to
produce it in a reasonable period of time, yes, sir.
MR. MITCHELL: There's the resolution.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Now, you do have a resolution related -- Resolution
2007-327 regarding a policy of uniform charges for production of
public records in part.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let me read something.
MR. OCHS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This is from Resolution No. 2007-327 --
MR. OCHS: Yeah, that's just where I was headed.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- paragraph 1, it has to be almost --
well, 5B. It says all requests for -- all requests made by individual
members of the Board of County Commissioners for records and
documents relating to the performance of their official duties shall be
made through the county manager who will assign the appropriate
staff to perform the requested task. And that's what our rules require.
It does not allow the county attorney or a Board of County
Commissioner to walk down to somebody's office and demand that
they produce the contents of their files.
There is a process, and we do that so we can control it and we
know who has that information. And we generally, I would hope,
make copies of them rather than give them the original files, but
maybe we don't. But in any event, I find the process highly irregular.
Page 181
October 23, 2012
But the point is, this item has passed and we're over with it. So
let's go on to the next item.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Actually, no. Let's wait a moment.
MR. OCHS: The next item --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Jeff, can you comment on whether
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, go on to the next item.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- public records for how they
relate to the board?
Item #14A
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL FOR THE AIRPORT
AUTHORITY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR — MOTION TO
APPROVE WITH A 4% INCREASE IN PAY — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: We're going to take the -- 14A.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 14A?
MR. OCHS: Al, which is the annual performance appraisal for
the Airplane Authority Director.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Very well.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: By the way, if I may say,
Commissioner Coyle, I believe that you requested the county attorney
to give you copies of the records that were given to me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, but I didn't go down to his office
and pick them up off his desk.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh. So that's the difference
between the application of the resolution to you and me?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The item number again?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. 14A1, the annual performance appraisal
for the airport authority executive director.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Chris.
Page 182
October 23, 2012
MR. OCHS: Mr. Curry is here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are there any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any comments, Chris?
MR. CURRY: Chris Curry, executive director of the Collier
County Airport Authority. There are no questions, but I'm here to
entertain any questions that you may have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Hiller was first.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: My light is not on.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Your light is on.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: He didn't turn it off from before.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Chris, I think you've
done an admirable job. Your evaluations were very high, about as
high as you can see in county government. Obviously, the advisory
board thinks very highly of you, and the commissioners even, for the
most part, came across with a great score.
I make a -- I'd like to make a motion that we go ahead and we
accept Chris Curry's evaluation, recommend him for a 4 percent pay
increase, and 20 weeks of severance as allowed by the state statutes to
be added to his contract.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I will second that motion.
You've done a wonderful job, Chris.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep.
MR. CURRY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There was an article written about this in
the newspaper, and it said there were no comments from some of the
other commissioners concerning your evaluation, and I'd like to
correct that.
Page 183
October 23, 2012
MR. CURRY: Yes. There were some comments from you,
Commissioner Coyle.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, and from Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And from me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But I would like to read my comments
into the record just to make sure that it's recognized.
Chris Curry continues to be the most qualified and professional
airport executive director Collier County has ever had. He has made
remarkable progress in improving staff, facilities, and public
perception despite efforts by some members of the public and the
County Commission who oppose improvements at the Immokalee
airport.
So with that --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'd like to read mine then, too.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, on one of them I wrote you've
done an excellent job. Then on one, this is operating safe and efficient
airports, I had you've done a great job. And then farther on down
under the Immokalee airport, winning the FAA grant for the
restoration of Runway 9-27, I said, you saved the taxpayers a great
deal of money while providing safer airports. So just in case
somebody said it wasn't written on there, there it is. And it's right on
the agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by --
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, we have four public speakers on
this item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MILLER: Your first public speaker is Luis Arredonde. He
will be followed by Marvin Courtright.
MR. COURTRIGHT: Luis left. He withdrew.
MR. MILLER: Okay. Marvin Courtright will be followed by
Jim Murray.
Page 184
October 23, 2012
MR. COURTRIGHT: Wow. This has been quite an experience
sitting here today.
I'm assuming that each and every county commissioner and the
county manager and the county attorney has received a copy of my
request for a Collier County airport executive director audit of his
appointment. Am I on firm ground with that? Have all of you
received them (sic) and looked at it?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I have.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yep.
MR. COURTRIGHT: Okay. This situation has far more
reaching provisions than is really bringing to -- coming to light. He
has glowing reports from the advisory board; he has glowing reports
from Ms. Fiala, from Mr. Coyle, and Mr. Coletta. What's missing is
how he got those points and who he was working for at that time.
Give him all of those accolades and credits if you recognize that
they came from the Immokalee Redevelopment Plan and the CRA and
Mr. Curry's activities within that organization. Because his entire
period of time that he has been with the Collier County Airport
Authority, he has -- his concentration has been strictly on developing
an industrial complex, and he has driven off multiple aviation
customers, all under the control of the Immokalee Redevelopment
Plan program and the CRA.
If you gave him credits for what he did for general aviation or the
airport in general, he had 1 s all the way. He was incompetent in
regard to the Immokalee airport.
Now, why is all this? It goes back because -- I ask myself why.
How is he able to do these things impacting all these businesses on the
airport, aviation businesses? And no one's complaining; no one's
saying anything.
And I finally came to these documents, which I gave to you.
And Page 5 -- no, Page 6, it is. Let me get to it. I hope I don't run out
of time.
Page 185
October 23, 2012
In the tally of the appointment of Mr. Curry, which was -- I was
here, watched it all going on, this book contains a -- or had a video of
what took place and also the minutes.
Mr. Curry was not properly awarded and did not earn his
appointment as executive director. He was awarded it because Mr.
Coletta awarded him five extra points. The score was so close that
that five extra points gave Mr. Coletta (sic) a win.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Mr. Curry.
MR. COURTRIGHT: I'm sorry, Mr. Curry. Thank you. Gave
Mr. Curry the appointment.
Now, it's documented and, Mr. Coletta, you have it, as everyone
has. The point is, when I -- as a veteran, retired 40 years -- 30 years,
pardon me, and I know the value of a DD214. The question is, why
did we let him coast in here with an extra five points which he was not
entitled to because he had failed to meet the state and the county
prerequisites for five extra points?
Those five extra points moved him into the winning column. No
one questioned it until I went back to human resources, and I went
back to the veterans administration in Building H. I don't know why
he never produced his 214, but I do know that awarding him those 214
-- those points made him the executive director, and it's not right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. COURTRIGHT: We either have rules or we don't.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Your time has expired. Do you
remember what you said to us on that day?
MR. COURTRIGHT: I was proud to see him hired, and I told
him so.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. COURTRIGHT: But --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So what do you want us to do? Do you
want us to go back two years, two-and-a-half years and --
MR. COURTRIGHT: No, sir.
Page 186
October 23, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- reverse that?
MR. COURTRIGHT: No, sir. What I would like you to do is go
to the public in Immokalee and to the aviation people and ask them,
do an evaluation of his capabilities and what he has accomplished.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You see, there's your problem. There's
your problem. I'd like to make sure you understand that the airport
authority is responsible for three airports in Collier County.
MR. COURTRIGHT: Oh, believe me, sir, I do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's not all about Immokalee, okay. It's
about Marco and Everglades City, too. And so at least three of us took
a look at all of the things that Mr. Curry has done, and I still stand
behind my remarks that he is the best airport executive director we've
ever had here in Collier County, and I defy you to name one that is
better.
MR. COURTRIGHT: I don't have to, because you've had eight
executive directors under the airport authority, eight.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So?
MR. COURTRIGHT: Five of them were appointed -- no, four of
them were appointed, and the other ones were interims. None of
them, really, lasted long enough to get an evaluation. Theresa Cook,
gone. Tammie Nemecek with the EDC. All these people are no longer
with us anymore.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: She wasn't the airport executive director.
MR. COURTRIGHT: No, but she was involved in multiple
wastes of money and building dead buildings out there. The
Department of Agriculture building is a classic example. This just
goes on and on, and we're talking millions of dollars of waste.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We understand. We understand there's
nobody you like. So thank you very much.
And who's the next speaker?
MR. MILLER: Jim Murray is your next speaker, and he will be
followed by your final speaker on this item, Frank Halas.
Page 187
October 23, 2012
MR. MURAY: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I can't really
comment on what Marvin said. Those are things that I don't know
about. But I was also here when Mr. Curry was selected.
The airport -- Jim Murray, a member of the Airport Authority
Advisory Board.
The board has given Chris very high marks, all 2s, and 3s. I
think it averaged out to about a 2.7. The three airports are responsible,
according to the Florida Department of Transportation, for about $13
million in direct and indirect economic impact.
And though I know the commissioners know it, talking about the
FDOT, many people don't, that the funds that we get for our grants
don't come from general funds. They come from user fees and fuel
taxes.
If we turn down a grant, it's not going to save any money. That
money will go to a project with a lower priority. That's true with both
the FAA and the FDOT.
I know that there have been problems regarding the Immokalee
airport. Some tenants would like to see it revert back to it being a
good ole boys flying club like it used to be. Under today's security
requirements, that is not going to happen.
Chris has been doing a very good job of upgrading security there.
As a matter of fact, one of the things that are considered dangerous
are ag. planes, crop dusters, and we have our 2- or 3-million-dollar
planes that sit out there, so we do need the security. And Chris has
worked to bring the airport security up to standards and run it as a
business.
Also regarding Immokalee, the FAA has certain strategic plans in
case of natural or other disasters. The Immokalee airport sits inland.
It sits on relatively high ground, which is why the National Guard
wants to build a readiness center there.
The runways are 70 years old. They're almost as old as I am and
in just about as bad shape. So the FAA does want them improved to
Page 188
October 23, 2012
current standards.
The board has worked closely with Chris since he came here. He
keeps us appraised of everything that's going on. And for myself, I
have total confidence in him. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Commissioner, your final speaker on this item is
Frank Halas.
MR. HALAS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. This is one of
the first times that I've been back here in these chambers since I
retired, and I can tell you that I'm enjoying retirement very much.
I'm here in regards --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Probably more after seeing today, right?
MR. HALAS: I'm one of the people on the Airport Advisory
Board. And I can tell you that I was also on the board at the time that
we went through the vetting process for Chris. And I felt at the time
that we were going through the vetting process -- excuse me, I've got a
frog in my throat here -- that he was the champion of the other people
that we interviewed.
Since I've been on the airport authority, I found that Chris is very
honest. He has a high degree of integrity, he's a high achiever,he also
follows FAA and FDOT regulations, he conducts himself in a very
professional manner, and the airports are slowly but surely becoming
self-efficient (sic).
He is -- I also find that he is very focused. He's a very strong
leader, and I think that shows up in the way the operation of the three
airports are.
He's also a visionary, and he understands what needs to be done
here to not only improve the airports for general aviation, but also for
the commercial aspect. And some day Immokalee airport, I believe, is
going to be a great venue here for the state or for the county as far as
commercial aviation.
I understand that we have had a lot of problems or there seems to
Page 189
October 23, 2012
be some problems with the Immokalee airport. But when you look at
the other two airports and see how well and how efficient they run, I
think it's just a group of people that don't want to conform to what
needs to be done to make this a commercial type of airport.
And I can tell you that I've read some of the letters of flying
schools that now come into Immokalee airport, and those student
pilots along with their instructors who fly into Immokalee airport are
overwhelmed by what we do or what the staff out there does in
regards to addressing the aircraft, making sure that all their needs are
made to make sure that if they need a service car to run in town to get
something to eat, that there's a car available there so that they can go
in there and get something to eat in the town of Immokalee and then
proceed back out to the airport while the staff is refueling the aircraft.
But it's amazing what's been accomplished out there, not only
with the grants that he has obtained but also getting other monies.
And we also have the National Guard that is out there for a reason.
So thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Is that the last speaker?
MR. MILLER: Yes. For that item, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: Can I just get clarification on the motion. I
may have misheard it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: I just want to make sure we get this all done
properly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the motion?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion was -- go ahead; tell us
again.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. The motion was to -- I'm
sorry. Let me get back to the agenda item -- that we approve the
Page 190
October 23, 2012
agenda item and that we grant him a 4 percent pay increase and
include in his contract 20 weeks severance as allowed by the state
statutes.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. Could we get to the contract. The
contract is the third item. Could we get to -- that last part,
Commissioner, could we please do that while we're here?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In other words, this isn't
appropriate for this part?
MR. KLATZKOW: I think you're better off using that one when
you actually get to his contract.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How about the salary increase?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, that's fine because it talks about the
adjustment here. That one's fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, fine. Then that's my
motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion is for 4 percent pay
increase.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question on the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why not 10 percent?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Because 10 percent was the
amount we gave the county manager because of unusual
circumstances that he never received a raise at that time. And I think
that 4 percent is in line with where we are at this point in time. But I'm
willing to listen to any suggestions you've got, Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just thought it was -- well,
we're not being consistent anyway, so 0, 10, 4, that's fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Twenty.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll support the motion. A
hundred?
Page 191
October 23, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor of the motion, please signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes 4-1 with
Commissioner Hiller dissenting.
That brings us to?
Item #14A2
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REVIEWS AND
APPROVES THE PROPOSED FY 2012 - 2013 ACTION PLAN
FOR CHRIS CURRY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIRPORT
AUTHORITY — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 14A2 is a recommendation that the Board of
County Commissioners reviews their proposed FY2012/2013 action
plan for Chris Curry.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can we have a presentation on the
plan?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I've read it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think the public should have a
right to hear it. I'd like it presented.
MR. CURRY: Well, I believe the action plan should be part of
the package along with the evaluation, if I'm not incorrect.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is.
Page 192
October 23, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's in there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's here. Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who's going to manage your
contract?
MR. CURRY: Who's going to manage my contract?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The terms of the contract.
MR. CURRY: Well, I would think that the Board of County
Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. CURRY: Unless you want me to manage my contract.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you have certain duties
under the contract.
MR. CURRY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who's supposed to manage
those?
MR. CURRY: Unless I'm confused, do you want me to manage
it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's certain terms that you're
supposed to do under the contract. Do you want the airport authority
to manage it?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Henning, that's
exactly what I was -- that was what my light was on for was I think we
ought to go back to being managed under the airport rather than under
us. I do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Heresy, heresy.
MR. CURRY: Was that -- was that your question?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
MR. CURRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you -- there's certain terms
and conditions and performances that you're supposed to provide in
Page 193
October 23, 2012
the contract. Who do you want to manage that?
MR. CURRY: I can manage it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you sure?
MR. CURRY: If you want to give me that preference, I'll
manage it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Whose preference was it on the
existing contract --
MR. CURRY: Well --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- to manage it?
MR. CURRY: -- it was the county's contract that I agreed to, but
I can certainly manage my own contract.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it was the airport authority
who managed the existing contract; that's your understanding?
MR. CURRY: The airport authority as the Board of County
Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
MR. CURRY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're saying the same thing
then.
MR. CURRY: Well, when you reference airport authority, I'm
not sure whether you're talking about the airport authority --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We are the airport authority.
We're the agency.
MR. CURRY: Well, you are now, but I came in at the time just
when that separation took place.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you agree that we're the
agency?
MR. CURRY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. CURRY: Am I -- I feel like I'm missing something.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think you are, because you're
really late on your performance of your contract. You were supposed
Page 194
October 23, 2012
to provide the evaluation form to the board by September 1 of every
year, your annual performance. You were supposed to provide a
contract renewal no later than two years, and that date was -- ended
September 30th.
MR. CURRY: Well, you are correct; therefore, I assume I need a
waiver in order for you to accept the terms and conditions of this new
contract.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, under your performance,
what you're saying is you want the airport authority to tell you what to
do under your performance part of the contract. We provide you
salary for your services. Under the contract -- you provide certain
obligations under the contract; is that true?
MR. CURRY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you want the airport
authority to manage that for you? That's what you're telling me. We
should have told you by September 1 you didn't provide your
performance evaluation to the airport authority, or we should have told
you prior to September 1 you need to provide it.
We should have told you by September 30th that you should
provide us a renewal contract. That's what you're telling us, and that's
what you want us to do on this -- on this next item.
I thought it would have been a part of your evaluation form, these
numbered ones, that you were going to manage the -- your
performance under the contract, such as the management of the
airport, or airports. That's part of your contract, right? Is that true?
MR. CURRY: You have a copy of the contract, so I know you
can read the contract just like I can.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. CURRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess you answered my
question.
MR. CURRY: Yeah. It seems like you're going in circles with
Page 195
October 23, 2012
me. Why don't you just come out and, you know, let me know exactly
what you're saying, because I'm having a hard time figuring out where
you're going.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I guess what I need to do
is sit down with you with the contract and show you where certain
things wasn't performed.
MR. CURRY: I wouldn't have any problem with that. In fact,
I've tried to meet with you on several occasions, and you just have not
been available to meet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
MR. CURRY: So any time -- any time that you would like to
meet with me, I encourage that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I will do this in a public forum,
sir.
MR. CURRY: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And as far as meeting with me,
that was under specific things under the agenda. Your contract is on
the agenda, and I just wanted to find out, under your next year's
evaluation -- and you already told me you want the airport authority to
manage your part of the deal under the contract. I get that, okay?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is it my turn?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I honestly don't -- have no idea what
you're talking about.
You are an employee of the airport authority, which is the Board
of County Commissioners, right?
MR. CURRY: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that right? We negotiate your
contract. We have a mutual obligation to do things by a certain time.
MR. CURRY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If we fail to do it on a certain time, we
can mutually agree to do it on a different time.
MR. CURRY: I believe the board has that discretion.
Page 196
October 23, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. And so if it didn't get done by the
end of September, we've got it now. Why can't we act on it? And
what is the big problem here?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's a legal question you need
to ask the county attorney.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I don't think it is. It's fairly simple.
It's -- the term very clearly addresses the mutual written agreement of
the authority and the employee.
So if you're late getting the things to us or we're late putting them
on an agenda, there's a simple way to solve that problem. We don't
have to get antagonistic about it. We just say, okay, let's extend it, or
we could say let's terminate it. You know, we can do either one. We
do these things by mutual written consent.
So I think this is simple. You know that you work for us. We're
not managing your contract. We mutually negotiate a contract. And
we both have obligations under that process.
So we have -- do we have a motion to approve an extension of
his contract and --
MR. KLATZKOW: That's not the item.
MR. OCHS: Sir, this item's the action plan approval.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, okay. Then are we going to
approve the action plan?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like it presented.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I wanted to add something;
that's why my button is on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. With regard -- we have a good
action plan here, by the way, and it's easy for us to grade you on that.
But I wanted to say, I don't know how well this is working out.
A couple years ago when we changed this over to -- took away from
the airport authority, made them then an advisory committee, and we
became the airport authority. They're always at the airport. They're
Page 197
October 23, 2012
always in tune with what you're doing. We're just up here.
And I just feel that that -- that didn't work out very well, and all
of a sudden the airport became a political football instead of a
functioning business, which is what we really wanted to see happen.
And I really think we ought to go back to the way it had been and
have an airport authority, the board members are already there, and we
become the ruling body that they report to.
And I would like to see -- I can see that you don't like that idea,
but I think it's a good idea.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's not the way it legally works.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's not the way that it legally
works.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: They still have to come --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It worked before.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: They still have to come to us for
approval for everything.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you could keep -- if you kept the same
people that are on the airport authority now, it will work but only so
long as they stay on it.
You'll recall that when we first had the problems with the
Immokalee airport it was because people were treating it like a good
ole boys' flying club out there. It was managed for the benefit of the
few out there who wanted unrestricted access and utilization of the
airport. And, quite frankly, they discouraged anybody else from
getting there.
We went through a succession of airport executive directors who
did nothing to improve the security or the facilities or to get
substantial grants. So when we decided that we would -- I mean, I
remember one of those members coming in this room and saying, you
people, you County Commissioners, should keep your fingers out of
Page 198
October 23, 2012
the airport authority. You have nothing to say about it. And that was
the time that I recommended that we eliminate that guy from the
airport authority and send him back to retirement in Marco.
Now, if we get those kinds of people back on that board, you're
going to have the same problem if they have the authority to make
decisions. But right now it's a good board. They're progressive, they
know what they're doing, and I value their recommendations.
And I would like to continue to get their recommendations from
them rather than them just going off and doing things. We've had
things done out there that are long term in nature that are hurting us
because people made decisions to benefit their buddies, and that's --
let's not go on with that, but nevertheless.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Then I make a motion to --
and I'm going to continue to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, bring it up.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- think about this and talk with
people --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- because I -- that, to me, isn't the
final say.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, that's fine, that's fine.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But I listened, and I have an open
door there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. So I ask you to -- I
make a motion to approve the proposed action plan for Chris Curry for
2012/2013.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A motion by Commissioner Fiala
to approve his action plan. Seconded by --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
Page 199
October 23, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes 4-1 with Commissioner Hiller
dissenting. And that brings us now to —
Item #14A3
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, IN ITS
CAPACITY AS GOVERNING BODY OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY, INDICATES ITS INTENT TO
EXTEND THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR'S EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WITH THOMAS C.
CURRY, FIXING THE END DATE OF THE FIRST EXTENSION
TERM AS SEPTEMBER 30, 2015, AND AMENDING THE
AGREEMENT TO COMPORT WITH CH. 2011-143, FLORIDA
STATUTES — MOTION TO APPROVE AND ADDING 20 WEEKS
OF SEVERANCE TO THE AGREEMENT; THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY WILL BRING BACK THE AMENDED CONTRACT
ON THE BOARD'S CONSENT AGENDA — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 14A3 --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 14A3, okay.
MR. OCHS: -- which is the consideration of extension to the
airport authority executive director's employment agreement, fixing
the end date of the first extension term as September 30, 2012.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let me have it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
Page 200
October 23, 2012
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I make a motion that we
approve this and that we add to his contract the 20 weeks severance as
allowed by Florida Statutes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is that standard for the contract?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. It's been standard for your contract
employees.
Right now, Mr. Curry, I believe your contract calls for three
months' severance?
MR. CURRY: That's correct.
MR. KLATZKOW: So Commissioner Coletta's asking that it be
amended for 20 weeks. This is your contract. Do you concur in that?
MR. CURRY: I can agree with that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve the contract
for an extension and to allow 20 weeks of severance pay.
MR. KLATZKOW: Am I going to bring this back to the board --
because I'm going to have to tweak it -- or can I just make that one
change and get it to the chairman for signature?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Bring it back to the board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That gets pretty risky.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, I know. That's why I'm asking,
Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: As long as we have a lawyer who makes
sure it's done in accordance with the board's direction.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I'll tell you what, I'll take it back to
the board on consent then.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, you do have two registered public
speakers here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're going to continue this
item.
Page 201
October 23, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, we're not going to continue it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're bringing it back on
consent adding that language.
MR. KLATZKOW: I've got to amend the contract. What I will
do is I will amend the contract and just bring it back on consent; this
way you can see the changes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's fair.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And who's the next speaker?
MR. MILLER: Your speaker is Luis Arredonde, and I believe
he's left, and Marvin Courtright.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, give it a break.
MR. COURTRIGHT: This is fun. It truly is. Marvin Courtright,
resident of Collier County.
For a long time, when I was on the board -- and that was a great
deal -- I enjoyed it. I was proud to be on it. It was actually
autonomous at that time. We didn't have to be an advisor. We had
something to say about what was going on.
Anyway, at this last hiring of an executive director, it was the
most unusual action that I can ever imagine. I'm no expert on it, but
having watched all of it go on, one of the things that I questioned was
how did the pay scale for the new hire go from what he agreed to to
$130,000 when the -- when the actual proposal that was submitted for
people to consider the job was, like, 85,000 -- 85,000 to $90,000.
But in talking to human resources and other departments, no one
seemed to want to discuss who or how he went from 130- -- from, say,
80,000 to $130,000. We're talking about money. We're talking about
now, that airport.
And, Mr. Coyle, your primary interest -- and I respect you for it
-- is making money, making money for the county. And you look at
that Immokalee airport as a cash cow. It's no cash cow, and it never
will be, because all the money gets siphoned off to Marco Island for
other sources.
Page 202
October 23, 2012
And I'll give you an example. I was asked many times, where's
the money? Where's the money? I have here a copy of all the grants
that have been provided to the Immokalee airport. Where did that
money go? There's no evidence of it having been properly applied.
So then you take a grant and you say, here's the last one,
$736,000 in regard to the east/west runway. Why did you want that
money so avidly?
Because if you go back and look at the previous grants, whether
it be from DOT or FAA or whoever else, once that money is in your
hands, no one has ever come back in Immokalee -- we'll stay with
Immokalee. I love Immokalee. I like that airport. I like the
community, and I'd like to see it grow.
But the FAA isn't interested. DOT isn't interested. Nobody
comes back and does an oversight as to was the conditions of this
grant complied with. That's where your money is, Mr. Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How much money are we talking
-- Marvin, I'm over here.
MR. COURTRIGHT: Twenty-nine million.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Twenty-nine million?
MR. COURTRIGHT: I think so, something like that. It's in the
papers. Millions of dollars, and --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Since what period of time?
MR. COURTRIGHT: In the 10 years --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Hey, we're all up here. You don't need
to listen to the speakers in the back.
MR. COURTRIGHT: It sounds like it's coming from back there,
so thank you. The entire period of time --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What period of time?
MR. COURTRIGHT: Since the airport authority took over the
airport in the '40s, in '48 or '49.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: My goodness, we need to go back there
and investigate that, Marvin.
Page 203
October 23, 2012
MR. COURTRIGHT: No, sir, you don't.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We need to find out who was responsible
for that, don't we?
MR. COURTRIGHT: No. What you need to do, sir, is start
right here, start from now on. If you get grant money, establish an
oversight committee or something to make sure that money goes to the
project it was assigned to, not into the General Fund and then
siphoned off to Marco Island.
You're bragging about how great Marco Island is; take a look at
Immokalee and how they've been short-changed since day one. Look
at the project --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you serious?
MR. COURTRIGHT: I'm serious. And I'll be glad to document
it for you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Please do, please do. Your time has
expired.
MR. COURTRIGHT: Thank you, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How did you get so much money?
MR. CURRY: Well, let me say, when I came from Indiana and I
sent my resume in for the position that was nationally advertised for
the Collier County Airport Authority, the salary range was open, open
for negotiation.
My salary at Gary at the time was 152,000 a year. So we entered
into a negotiation, and we agreed on the terms of the contract.
So I don't know anything about 87,000 or anything like that. I
just know that between myself and the county attorney, that -- and Mr.
Ochs, we negotiated a contract. So here I am.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Okay. Nothing nefarious about
that at all, right?
MR. CURRY: Not as I know of. And, you know, back in 1948,
I wasn't even born at that time, so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, you assume responsibility for all
Page 204
October 23, 2012
that money that was wasted back in those days, even though Mr.
Courtright was on the board, Airport Authority Board, for a while.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we move on?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, we can. All in favor -- did we --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does Marco Island actually help
support the other airports?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
MR. CURRY: Indirectly, it does.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How does "indirectly" mean?
MR. CURRY: Well, indirectly is that Marco Island is the
profitable airport in the system. And there are times, even within the
system, all three airports get entitlement money; basically $150,000 a
year. And sometimes we move that around. Sometimes we use it
more to support Immokalee; sometimes we use it more to support
Everglades or Marco.
But out of the three airports, Marco Island is the profitable one.
And we look at it as a system of airports. Even as much as everyone
tries to divide them into three, for us it's a system of airports. So
Marco is profitable; the other two are not.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Coyle, may I
respond to Commissioner Fiala?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you have to.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I do. In the back of your book
under where my evaluation was, I attached the financial summary of
the profitability of the airports. So if you go to my evaluation --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's break time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It should be in the backup. Oh,
okay. In the other book?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can you hold out for another 20
minutes?
THE COURT REPORTER: (Nods head.)
Page 205
October 23, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta has to
leave in 20 minutes. Have we voted on your --
MR. OCHS: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Have we voted on this item yet?
MR. OCHS: No.
MR. CURRY: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor of the motion, please
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. Speak up,
Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. This passes 4-1 with
Commissioner Hiller dissenting.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you so much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I know we're not going to get a positive
vote out of her. So, nevertheless, we just want to keep the record
straight.
MR. CURRY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So thank you very much, Chris.
Now, where do we go now? We have a lady who's been waiting
here all day.
Item #11J
DENY THE NEGLIGENCE CLAIM OF LIZ PFUNDER, CLAIM
#22-02151201177 IN THE AMOUNT OF $46,288.51 — MOTION
TO CONTINUE TO THE NOVEMBER 13TH OR DECEMBER
11TH MEETING — APPROVED
Page 206
October 23, 2012
MR. OCHS: Yes, Item 11J. This is a recommendation to deny
the negligence claim of Ms. Liz Pfunder, Claim No. 2202151201177.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, do you think you have problems?
After sitting here through today, don't you really feel bad?
MS. PFUNDER: I was really looking forward to my three
minutes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Were you? Okay. Go ahead.
MS. PFUNDER: I'm a year-round resident here in Collier
County since 12 years. I have suffered an enormous amount of
expense due to a sewer backup that occurred to my home, which is my
primary residence.
While I was bringing my four-year-old granddaughter to bed on
the second floor of my house, my -- the sewer backed up, and water
came through the shower and flooded the first floor.
I came back downstairs about 45 minutes to an hour, and there
was water two inch high at least.
I panicked, and I called Roto Rooter; I thought that's a big
company. And they have an emergency team or they come at night
and they come fast, so I called them.
He was here within 20 minutes and blew through the -- opened
the county cleanup and blew it through so that no more water comes
into my house.
He told me that I have to call the county the next day because it's
a county problem, which I did. I called in, and somebody came the
next day and asked, in my door, if I'm flowing.
And I said, what do you mean?
And he said, well, is the water draining? And I said, yes, it's
okay, and I said, but I have damage. And he said he's not allowed to
come in. Somebody else from risk management will come.
Nobody came for two days. So on the 17th, I called again, and I
said, why is nobody coming?
Page 207
October 23, 2012
And then Mr. Jerry Tharp from risk management came. He was
the only person from the county who entered my house and looked at
the damage.
He wrote down, you know, in a report or whatever, what he saw.
And I asked him if somebody else is coming to assess the damage.
And he says, well, you will hear from Michael Powers from the
insurance.
And when he called, he said, oh, no, nobody has to come. That's
fine. So nobody really looked at the damage to my house.
And in that -- in that summary I got, there are so many
discrepancies, and they're just not true.
I sent you all an email with my remarks in it and, you know, just
for you to better understand my problem.
I -- I paid $42,000 so far, and I have to pay back my friends.
And my 401(K) is gone, too. I really ask you to approve my claim.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you. Do we have -- we
have public speakers?
MR. MILLER: She was your only public speaker. She was the
public speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. What can you tell us about this?
MR. WALKER: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, for the record,
Jeff Walker, risk management director.
I've included an extensive executive summary within your
packet, and there's probably 40 attachments to that. You know, we are
sympathetic to Ms. Pfunder; there's no question about it.
The problem that we have in this case is that we cannot verify
negligence simply because we were not called in a timely manner to
come to the site. By the time our people got there, it was clear and
flowing.
Unfortunately, the Roto Rooter technician, when he came to the
site, entered our site without calling us, which is what he should have
done. We would have come to the site; we would have verified the
Page 208
October 23, 2012
blockage. We would have fixed whatever needed to be repaired.
Unfortunately, he didn't go in through her cleanout. He went in
through our cleanout. We don't know if there was a blockage on her
side.
The other issue we have is that he put a 3,200 PSI jet into our
line, and he says he blew out a blockage, but he puts the camera in
after the fact.
There's no photographic evidence of a blockage; therefore, we
cannot confirm that a blockage existed on our side of the line. It's
unfortunate.
The resolution that I work under says that liability must be
established in order for me to authorize payment.
The situation was investigated by our claims adjustor. Our folks,
who came out on the 15th, put a -- looked at the pipe, and it was clean.
MS. PFUNDER: On the 17th.
MR. WALKER: I'll get there. They sent a camera truck out on
the 17th, so we have a video of it. They put that camera into that pipe,
and they did not substantiate what the Roto Rooter technician said.
What they found was a slight dip in the pipe, but their report to us was
that the pipe was clear and flowing and not in need of repair.
So the evidence that the Roto Rooter technician provided is
counter to what our technicians are saying. We've never had any
complaints about that pipe, so we've got no actual notice. In other
words, nobody ever reported anything to us to fix and, therefore,
negligence can't be established.
And under the resolution that I work under, I could not authorize
at the recommendation of our adjustor, and now at the
recommendation of the county attorney, payment of the claim.
We're very sympathetic to Ms. Pfunder. The truth of the matter
is, if the board chooses to deny the claim today, what I would
recommend to Ms. Pfunder is that she go back to her carrier, take a
videotape of this meeting -- because what they have done is limited
Page 209
October 23, 2012
her to a $5,000 recovery under her homeowners' policy, and they've
done it under a third-party negligence endorsement.
And what she -- what I would recommend she does is she takes
this back to her carrier, use her counsel, get a public adjustor, and talk
to her carrier about -- again, about reimbursing her for her cost.
MS. PFUNDER: My carrier does not pay any claim on sewer
backup, any, and it had nothing to do with the plumber or with Roto
Rooter.
MR. WALKER: Okay. Well, what ended up happening was that
we could not verify negligence in this case.
The other problem we have is -- there are two issues here. One is
liability and one is damages. If you don't find liability, then you don't
find damages. If you do find liability, then damages become an issue.
The problem we have, we received a call on the 17th, two days
later. Mr. Tharp came out, as she said, on that day. No damage was
reported to us prior to that; just so we're clear. We heard about it on
the 17th; we were there on the 17th.
MS. PFUNDER: That's not true.
MR. WALKER: Ma'am, I'm just saying what we received in our
office.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do you have a record of the call?
MS. PFUNDER: I called in the morning. That person from the
county came to my door, and I told him, please come in and look at
the damage. And he said, that's not my call. I have to report it back to
risk management, and then they come, and somebody from risk
management come.
Two days later, nobody was here from risk management.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What time did this happen at
night?
MS. PFUNDER: About nine o'clock.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: At night?
MS. PFUNDER: Yeah. I'm not sure. I was upstairs between
Page 210
October 23, 2012
eight and nine.
MR. WALKER: The wastewater department received a call at
10:15 morning of the 15th.
MS. PFUNDER: Yeah.
MR. WALKER: They came out that morning. They came out,
checked, and found it was clear and flowing. Talked to Ms. --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Should they have left it blocked
and let it flow all through the night?
MR. WALKER: They weren't there. They were there the
following morning. This happened on the evening of the 14th.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, and that's what I'm asking.
Did you want her to let it flow all night to prove her point?
MR. WALKER: I'm just telling you what the facts are,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm just asking.
MR. WALKER: It's not a matter of what I want. It's a matter of
what -- when it was reported to us.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: She called the next morning. It
happened at 9 p.m.
MR. WALKER: They came out the next morning.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And they came out the next
morning. Two minutes ago you said they didn't show up till two days
later.
MR. WALKER: No, no, no. Let me the -- let me get the order
straight here.
She called at 10:50 in the morning on the 15th. This happened at
about nine o'clock at night on the 14th.
She had a plumber out that night; she had Dry Zone out that
night. We got -- Wastewater got the call on the morning of the 15th.
They were there. They went to her house.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It seems to be all very reasonable.
MR. WALKER: Okay. They found it flowing.
Page 211
October 23, 2012
The report that came back to our office was that no damage was
reported to the staff when they came there. Just telling you what was
reported to us.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's because staff didn't report it.
MS. PFUNDER: Yeah.
MR. WALKER: Well, what ended up happening was, we
received a call on the 17th saying there was damage in our office. Mr.
Tharp went there that -- he was there within 45 minutes of the call.
MS. PFUNDER: Yeah. After I said there's nobody coming.
MR. WALKER: When he got there --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are you --
MR. WALKER: -- the walls were ripped out, the baseboards
were gone, the carpets were ripped out, the vanities were ripped out;
therefore, by the time we get the call in our office, there was no
opportunity to witness the damage.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So you're saying, first of all, on the
15th one of our other departments went there?
MR. WALKER: Wastewater collections.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you're saying on the 17th your
department went there?
MR. WALKER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think there's a little confusion here
with who went when, okay.
MR. WALKER: And the problem is, we never saw the damage.
The damage had been removed by the time our staff got there. The
only evidence we have of damage is the Dry Zone bill that came to us
for $46,000 that has some pictures in it.
And we -- so we didn't have an opportunity to get an appraiser
there, an estimator. Anybody who could -- who could verify that
damage separate and apart from Dry --
MS. PFUNDER: Can I say something?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wait a minute. I'm getting
Page 212
October 23, 2012
really confused here. We've got too many people talking. I'll take a
break on this item unless we can hear one person talking. Okay?
MS. PFUNDER: Sorry.
MR. WALKER: Therefore -- then in March we received two
letters from her attorney, one a demand for $8,600, $8,800 for the
restoration of the initial response. Then we got a second one for
$46,000 for the work done inside her house. That was the part that
was ripped out that we witnessed when we got in there.
We also received on June 4th a copy of a videotape that was
produced two months after this date, April 17th by -- I assume it was
Roto Rooter, but it was not the same technician who showed up on the
day of -- the night of the event.
That was sent to our adjustor that -- that tape was sent to the
wastewater collections staff. They reviewed that tape. They reported
back to us that they did not find fault in the pipe based upon that
videotape.
So we've got two videotapes of the pipe. And the opinion of the
wastewater staff is that neither of those videos show evidence of a
fault in the pipe.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. There's almost $50,000 worth of
damage here. There's a bill for repairs.
MR. WALKER: It's $55,148.53.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's a lot of money.
MR. WALKER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's a lot of repairs, a lot of damage.
What I don't understand is if anybody went inside the house they
should have seen some evidence of damage or water somewhere.
So you're telling me that for, what, two or three days after this
was reported nobody was in the house, none of -- no county
representative was inside the house to look at damage?
MR. WALKER: Correct. We did not get the call till the
afternoon of the 17th, and our representative --
Page 213
October 23, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I thought it was 10:29 on the 17th.
MS. PFUNDER: Yes.
MR. WALKER: No, the first call came to wastewater collections
at 10:50 in the morning on the 15th. They were there that morning.
What their report is to us is when they met with Ms. Pfunder, she did
not report damage, she did not say anything about wanting to file a
claim. That's what was reported to us. Now, this is afterwards,
understand.
We got a call on the 17th. That's when we learned about it. We
had a representative out there in 45 minutes. When they got there, the
walls were ripped out; the carpet was gone; the vanities were ripped
out; the damage was removed; therefore, we could not independently
view the damage; we couldn't appraise the damage. We would have
had Johns Eastern down here to do an estimate. We would have had a
separate estimate. We didn't have that opportunity.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Ms. Pfunder.
MS. PFUNDER: Yes, sir, please.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: In looking through the detail of these
things, there are replacements for granite or marble countertops.
MS. PFUNDER: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that's what it says.
MS. PFUNDER: That's not. I bought it at the flea market in Fort
Myers --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, wait a minute.
MS. PFUNDER: -- myself.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This is a --
MS. PFUNDER: I know.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- an invoice from Dry Zone repairs.
MS. PFUNDER: I know, I know. I cut back on a lot of things to
make it cheaper. I paid 42,000, and I'm asking only for the money I
spent.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well, please understand, we're
Page 214
October 23, 2012
looking at this as a vendor's bill to you for replacement, and it's saying
repair and replace a countertop, granite or marble, $692; a backsplash,
146; add an undermount sink, single basin, $265; a sink faucet,
bathroom, for $353. There are two of those.
It's hard to understand how a sink and sink faucets and granite or
marble countertops can be damaged with water.
MS. PFUNDER: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No what?
MS. PFUNDER: The countertops -- you know, the whole
cabinets and everything was damaged.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't understand that.
MS. PFUNDER: I didn't have countertops before, marble
countertops.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But you had marble or granite
countertops installed.
MS. PFUNDER: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, wait a minute, now. That's what
you have given us. You've told us this is what you did.
MS. PFUNDER: This was the estimate from Dry Zone. I was
sitting down with Dry Zone and cut back on the amount, because I had
to pay in advance. I said, I can't do marble. I can't -- I can't have a
faucet for $300. I bought those stuff online for less money, and I
came up with $42,000 because I cut back on many things.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I understand, but we can't make a
decision based upon an estimate. You must have receipts for these
things.
MS. PFUNDER: I -- well, that's what Dry Zone has. But I did
not buy the granite countertops. I bought --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This is Dry Zone.
MS. PFUNDER: -- I bought vanities at the flea market in Fort
Myers, faucet included.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're not communicating here, okay?
Page 215
October 23, 2012
MS. PFUNDER: I know.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: When I pay for something, I get a receipt
for it, okay.
MS. PFUNDER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't --
MS. PFUNDER: I can get you the bills I paid.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that's what we asked for. But
we've got pages and pages and pages of stuff from Dry Zone that you
now tell us are not really what you spent.
MS. PFUNDER: Not all of it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They are estimates that they proposed.
You rejected some of those estimates.
MS. PFUNDER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And, you see, we can't make a decision
on that basis.
MS. PFUNDER: I only asked for the amount I have paid.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, give us proof that you paid it.
MS. PFUNDER: Yes, I can give you proof.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. WALKER: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. WALKER: I don't mean to interrupt. There is one other
issue that we need to talk about on damages.
When we got the Dry Zone pictures, one of the things that we
noticed in one of the Dry Zone pictures was that there was one picture
that showed a significant amount of mold in a closet running up about
three feet.
MS. PFUNDER: Yes.
MR. WALKER: This -- we checked the property. It's on the
picture. It was taken at 12:58 in the morning of the 15th. So this was
taken within about three hours of the flood. There's no way that mold
came that fast.
Page 216
October 23, 2012
MS. PFUNDER: No.
MR. WALKER: We believe there's a preexisting mold problem
in the house. I'm not accusing anybody of anything. I'm just saying,
that's the picture. Even if you find liability, you shouldn't pay for that.
MS. PFUNDER: No.
MR. WALKER: And that's in that bill.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You say no, Mrs. Pfunder. What does
that mean?
MS. PFUNDER: That mold behind the drywall, when I opened
the drywall in the bottom where it was wet, they saw that it was moldy
in the back, and they opened a little bit further up, and they saw it
came from a pipe that goes to the outdoor faucet.
It was punctured with a nail. That nail was in place probably for
20 years, and it rusted now, and it got a little bit wet.
This is not something that is included there, that piece of drywall.
Those -- this much drywall extra.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that upstairs?
MS. PFUNDER: No, it's downstairs.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. You know, you guys have
had, what, two weeks to sit down and talk about this? This was
brought up at -- two weeks ago at the last meeting, right, under
presentation, or when was this --
MR. WALKER: It was a public petition.
MR. OCHS: Public petition.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. And as part of the public
petition we said that you ought to bring in the receipts and you should
sit down and --
MR. WALKER: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no discussion?
MR. WALKER: No. And that was not the direction of the
Page 217
October 23, 2012
board.
(Commissioner Coletta is leaving the boardroom for the
remainder of the meeting.)
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what was the direction of the
board?
MR. WALKER: The direction of the board was to bring this
back as a regular agenda item.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So you've never spoken?
MR. WALKER: Not beyond that, ma'am, no.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you had no idea that what was
in here was estimates or actual bills?
MR. WALKER: Yes, we knew that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You knew they were just
estimates?
MR. WALKER: Well, we knew that those were the bills that
Dry Zone presented, and those were the bills --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Those are --
MR. WALKER: Those were the bills that her attorney presented
to us and --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Those are bills?
MR. WALKER: Well, that's what he presented to us and
demanded payment under threat of lawsuit.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The total?
MR. WALKER: That total.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The total of the 55-?
MR. WALKER: Including this.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The 55- included?
MR. WALKER: Including. So, I mean, you know, there are
really two issues here. The first issue is liability.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, the first issue really is, in my
mind, when wastewater went out there and wastewater was told that
Roto Rooter was there and was making a claim that there was a
Page 218
October 23, 2012
problem with the system.
What I don't understand, why wastewater didn't contact you and
tell you right away and why you didn't go out to ensure for yourself
that there was no liability, why she had to call you.
I mean, I would think that you would have some, you know,
measure in place to go out to ascertain that we don't have liability.
MR. WALKER: What I would say other than that is that the
reports that we got back from wastewater collections was when they
met with her --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you think Roto Rooter is lying?
MR. WALKER: No, ma'am. I'm not accusing anybody of lying.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, you must be because you're
saying --
MR. WALKER: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- that what they're saying isn't
true.
MR. WALKER: I don't accuse people of lying.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
MR. WALKER: What I'm saying is that I have to deal with the
facts. I have to deal with the objective facts in the case. The objective
facts are, from Roto Rooter's own words, they blew out the blockage,
then they put a camera in. They don't know where that blockage was.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is that what they told you?
MR. WALKER: They say it on her video.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What did they say?
MS. PFUNDER: They said there was an inward dent in the pipe.
And the county people who put the camera in, they said, yes, I see
what you mean, because I was standing right next to the truck when
they put the camera in on the 17th.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's an inward dent?
MR. WALKER: Well, when pipes go through the ground,
they're not perfect. They don't remain perfectly straight. Again, I'm
Page 219
October 23, 2012
not a wastewater expert on this; this is as I understand it.
So as they settle, they can -- they can have slight bends in them.
However, the camera footage that goes 40 feet into this pipe, there's
one area that has a slight dip to it. And in the opinion of the
wastewater collections folks, that does not constitute a serviceable
repair; in other words, they didn't need to repair that pipe; that it was
still serviceable. That's what they said.
And then when they reviewed her video, they said the same thing
about her video. So that's -- that was the basis upon which -- the Roto
Rooter technician is saying there's a dip, a dent, a hump, and that must
have caused the blockage. He never saw it. He never saw the
blockage, and that's the problem.
There's no photographic evidence of it. There's no evidence
whatsoever that he can point to which identifies that there was a
blockage in a dent or a hump or whatever.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But there is the hump there, right?
MR. WALKER: Not -- there is a slight dip, but it is not
significant enough, in the opinion of the wastewater collections folks,
to need repair. They say that pipe -- and we've never had any previous
problems with that pipe.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Ms. Pfunder -- excuse me for just
a minute. Let me ask this question. If we approve payment for this,
it's going to come out of other taxpayers' pockets.
MS. PFUNDER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. PFUNDER: I pay taxes, too.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We all pay taxes. And so we
have a responsibility to make sure that we don't inappropriately spend
taxpayer money.
MS. PFUNDER: I understand.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So you need to help us help you. You
can't give us an estimate from Dry Zone repairs that isn't accurate. We
Page 220
October 23, 2012
must have an accurate list of expenditures and proof of your payment
MS. PFUNDER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- for everything that was done here.
And I'm sure, in your view of the large cost that you've incurred, that
you must have kept records of payment. But what we have here is not
adequate for us to justify spending other taxpayers' money to
reimburse you for them. We need receipts and proof of payment.
MS. PFUNDER: I can do that for 42,200 or whatever.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, if you will give that to staff and, if
necessary, we'll continue this discussion until later, and we'll have a
chance to review it.
But I think Commissioner Fiala was first.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I was.
Is this -- was this damage on the first floor or second floor?
MS. PFUNDER: First floor.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: First floor. I'm just curious, when
you bring this back, it shows replacing ceilings for $6,000.
MS. PFUNDER: What?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, that's what it says. Walls and
ceiling, $6,000.
MS. PFUNDER: That was the painting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It talks about -- for $6,000?
MS. PFUNDER: I don't know. It's the whole first floor that had
to be painted.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: All I can tell you is what is says
here. It also is talking about replacing the tile shower, but that
wouldn't be -- I'm not quite sure about that.
And then cement board, I don't know -- you know, there's so
many things that -- if it was downstairs, there were a number of
ceilings that were mentioned on here somewhere over here. Walls and
ceiling, walls and ceiling.
Page 221
October 23, 2012
MS. PFUNDER: That was the painting at the end.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Boy, they sure charged $6,000 to
paint a ceiling. That was amazing.
MS. PFUNDER: I sat down with Dry Zone, I think, a hundred
times and cut back on stuff and made it less expensive.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, then what we need is your
total, not what their estimates are. This is what Commissioner Coyle
is trying to say.
MS. PFUNDER: From the beginning, I said I paid 42,000.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but this is only 46,000.
MS. PFUNDER: Yes, that's 46-.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have two things that I'd like to
see. Well -- actually, one thing I'd like to see and a concern that I
want to raise.
What I would like to see is some sort of a report from Rotor, or
whichever company you used, that they have prepared that
summarizes for us what they did, when they did it, how they did it, so
forth. I want -- you know, I want a piece of document prepared by
them, not from you, that you would have to --
MS. PFUNDER: This is not enough, what he wrote in the
report?
MR. WALKER: There's a document in your backup.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, let me see it. I didn't see it.
The second thing that I'm concerned about, when I hear about all
these, you know, excessive costs, you know, there is a problem with
sometimes -- and I don't know if this is true in this case -- where
contractors gouge individuals because they're in trouble. I mean, we
have that all the time, like during hurricanes where sometimes the
contractors come in and they just jack the prices up and make things
far more expensive than they actually ought to.
Now, I don't know if this is happening here, and I don't know,
Page 222
October 23, 2012
you know, whether what you were charged is fair in terms of what you
got, and I don't know what the laws are with respect to protecting you
as a consumer from being gouged, but I think that somehow there
should be some sort of review of whether or not the pricing that, you
know, you were faced with was reasonable.
And no, you know, the law doesn't protect you against making a
bad decision, but there's also the issue of you being, obviously, in
crisis. And if you have sewage backing up throughout your entire
house, I mean, that is a very different situation than, you know --
you're really dependent on that contractor to pull all these things out
and replace them.
So I'm not quite sure, because I don't know the law on this. But I
think it's worthy of looking into, because the numbers that
Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner Coyle are pulling out don't
make a whole lot of sense.
Where is the -- I didn't see that. And I want -- what I want is
from Roto Rooter. Yeah, I didn't see that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I ask, while Commissioner
Hiller is studying that -- it mentions somewhere in the backup material
here that you've had problems with that toilet before, and it's stuck?
MS. PFUNDER: Yes. The handle, sometimes it -- you know, it
kind of got stuck. But when I flush the toilet, I always wait until the
flushing stops and see if the handle is stuck. I never leave the
bathroom.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Your granddaughter didn't realize
that, right?
MS. PFUNDER: She didn't, and --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have the same problem with the
toilet here, too.
MS. PFUNDER: Yes. And, you know, it was just running. It
was --
MR. WALKER: Commissioner Fiala, that's an important point --
Page 223
October 23, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, it is.
MR. WALKER: -- because had that toilet not stuck, we might be
talking about a small spill as opposed to a large spill. That's
comparative negligence; in other words, the claimant has a duty to
maintain their property and, therefore, they contribute to the damages
by the flood. That's something that needs to be taken into account as
well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioners, we clearly don't have
the information to make a final decision on this. Could we continue
this --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- until Ms. Pfunder presents us with the
actual costs of repair and proof of actual costs of repair, and then we'll
be in a better position to make an informed decision?
MR. WALKER: Can I make a suggestion?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. WALKER: Let us get with Ms. Pfunder separately, work
through all of these billings.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think you need to.
MR. WALKER: And we'd be happy to do that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And if I may?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, wait a minute. Let him finish,
Commissioner Hiller.
MR. WALKER: And -- because there's a lot of detailed
information in this that needs to be worked through. As you gathered,
there are granite, marble -- there are a lot of items that seem to be
upgrades in this bill.
We never had the opportunity to look at the damage, so we're
going to be making guesses about what things should cost.
The first issue I need to have is a liability.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
MR. WALKER: That's -- the first and foremost issue that has to
Page 224
October 23, 2012
be established is liability. And if there -- if you don't accept liability,
the damages are moot.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did she replace that toilet?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, here -- may I say
something? I mean, I think you've got a third party that's asserting
that you're liable. I mean -- and I think this really should be
expounded on by Rooter. But they have stated here that they ran the
camera, and it showed a large -- I can't read that -- hump or inward
dent in 6-inch pipe that must have caused the breakup.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It said that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Then there's something else I can't
read. But -- yeah.
MR. WALKER: The problem is, we have video footage of that
same pipe on the 17th, and in the opinion of staff, that large hump or
dent --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You've got a dispute of facts. So,
you know --
MR. WALKER: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- bring in Roto Rooter and ask
them to, you know, testify as to what they saw, and your staff can
refute it. But, I mean, you've got a guy who signed off that that's what
he -- that's what he saw.
MS. PFUNDER: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So, I mean, you've got someone
independent of her who is supposed to be an expert, you know, Rooter
Plumbing and Drain Service, that is basically -- and the other thing
they say is that this problem appears to be off property in a 6-inch
pipe.
So I don't know why Rooter would have any interest in
misrepresenting, and it would be actually very bad if they did.
So in terms of the fact that you don't have a photograph and you
Page 225
October 23, 2012
weren't there when it happened, that's really irrelevant because, like I
said, you've got an expert over here that says they saw it.
MR. WALKER: The only thing I would caution the board --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wait a minute, wait a minute,
wait a minute. They didn't say they seen it. They said they must have
caused it because of the dent.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, they ran a camera.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. They ran a camera down
there and found the dent or curvature in the pipe, and they said it must
have caused the blockage. That's a big difference between "this is
where the blockage is." They're saying it must have caused the
blockage.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, let them come and testify.
Let them --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They did.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let's have a workshop on
this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, that's right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's take a road trip to look at
the marble countertops and the cabinets.
MS. PFUNDER: You're welcome.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let me just say this. We're talking
about a poor woman who is -- you know, who is losing her retirement
savings. And if we're not liable, we're not liable; I understand that.
But we owe her the respect of doing a fair job to make sure that we're
not liable. And if we are, we need to make her whole, because this is
a woman who's crying up at the stand there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, I realize that, and I'm going
to start crying if I keep on hearing this issue that you have no evidence
of --
Page 226
October 23, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, that's why we're asking --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- damage. You have no
concrete --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We're asking them to bring it in.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- evidence of items that are
requested for payment.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Which is why we're asking for
them to bring it in.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, wait.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So we're discussing an
item you don't have enough information on.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And we're making assumptions
that there must have been a blockage; it's not a factual statement.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, we don't know that. I mean,
we have a report here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's the point; we don't know it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's what we're waiting for.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's why we want to bring it back and
get the answers.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So you're going to get with Ms.
Pfunder and work through what?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The actual costs? Receipts?
MR. WALKER: We can certainly work through receipts. That's
not a problem.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Work through receipts.
MR. WALKER: But there's the issue of liability.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I understand that, okay.
MR. OCHS: Still to be determined.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We don't even have enough information
Page 227
October 23, 2012
to determine what was done here, okay. We need to find out.
MR. WALKER: The only other issue I'd like to determine is
whether she's represented by counsel.
MR. OCHS: That's what I was going to say. If we meet with her
and she claims she's still represented by counsel --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. You write to the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You have --
THE COURT REPORTER: I can only get one at a time. I'm
sorry. I didn't hear what you said.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. I've got the floor right now, so only
transcribe what I'm saying.
You write to the attorneys and ask them if they're representing
Ms. Pfunder. It's simple, okay. They're going to say yes or no.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's correct.
MS. PFUNDER: Yes.
MR. WALKER: We have an email from Ms. Pfunder on
October 9th. I have contacted a local attorney to help guide me
through the potential courses of alternatives to litigation.
At this time I have instructed her not to initiate or engage in any
form of litigation but instead to wait and see if the county is willing to
take responsibility for its utility services or until it becomes apparent
that the county will not pursue out-of-court resolution.
This is -- what that says to me is, I have an attorney.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: When did that come in?
MR. WALKER: October 9th.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's two-and-a-half weeks ago.
MR. WALKER: Right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Were you talking to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So write the attorney a letter and say,
"Are you representing Ms. Pfunder on this issue?"
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You already have the answer.
MS. PFUNDER: I stated it in my email that I asked a lawyer
Page 228
October 23, 2012
what to do out of court, just -- I don't know what to do anymore.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't know either.
MS. PFUNDER: I asked a lawyer. She lives in my community.
I asked her, what can I do? She told me, go to the -- to that meeting
here. I made a petition to speak on September 9th. I told her not to do
anything, because I just want to have the options what I can do to do
that outside of court. I can't -- I cannot afford court, believe me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, we're trying to avoid that, but --
MR. OCHS: Sir, that's fine. We'll write the attorney.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is it too much of a burden just to a write
a letter to a lawyer and say, are you representing this lady --
MR. OCHS: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- in the lawsuit?
MR. OCHS: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And receive the receipts and see
what proof there is that this much money was spent. You know, that's
not a big deal.
MR. WALKER: No, sir. We will do that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So let's just do it, and then we'll
try to reach the bottom of this, okay?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I'd like a statement from
Rooter.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So what we're going to do is
we're going to continue this --
MR. OCHS: Till --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is Commissioner Henning here?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We've still got a quorum. That's
all right. You can stay there, as long as you're in the room.
We're going to continue this till what time? When do you think
we could reasonably work through this?
MR. OCHS: Go ahead, Jeff.
Page 229
October 23, 2012
MR. WALKER: We will try to make the November meeting, but
I can't guarantee that. We certainly can make the December meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Try to do it as quickly as
possible.
MR. WALKER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Just keep us informed. And then,
County Manager, schedule it whenever you can.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Try to do it quickly.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Absent.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes 3-0 --
MS. PFUNDER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- with the other commissioners being
absent.
We're going to take a break for 10 minutes. We'll be back here at
5:29.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. SHEFFIELD: You have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, the Board of
County Commission meeting is back in session.
We are now going to Item 11I.
Item #11I
HEAR TESTIMONY FROM AMERICAN MEDICAL
TRANSPORT AND THE PUBLIC TO DETERMINE THE NEED
Page 230
October 23, 2012
FOR AN ADDITIONAL CLASS 2 POST-HOSPITAL INTER-
FACILITY TRANSPORT AMBULANCE TRANSFER SERVICE
IN COLLIER COUNTY — MOTION TO DENY — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 11I, yes, sir. This item requires ex parte disclosure
be provided by commission members. All participants are required to
be sworn in.
It's a recommendation to hear testimony from American Medical
Transport and the public to determine the need for an additional Class
2 post hospital interfacility transport ambulance transfer service in
Collier County.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Motion to approve. Wait, motion
not to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to deny.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion not to approve. That
sounds better.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I said motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But first let's swear everybody in.
Would everyone who is going to give testimony in this petition please
stand to be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now for ex parte disclosure by
commissioners. We'll start with Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. Is this the one that Burt
Saunders was working with?
MR. SUMMERS: No, sir, not to my knowledge.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let's say that I did talk to
Burt Saunders about this company, and maybe Mike Brennan, and I
talked to staff about the item on the agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And I don't recall talking with
anyone about this since our last discussions concerning COPCNs.
Commissioner Fiala?
Page 231
October 23, 2012
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I had -- I had no discussions
with anyone.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And, Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No discussions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then let's proceed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to deny?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't know. I don't know. I don't know
who's even going to be presenting.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: All right. In that case, if you say
-- okay. You say motion to deny and I say no, and so it passes that
they get it?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead, Dan.
MR. SUMMERS: Commissioners, for the record, Dan Summers
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They've been here too long.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So have we.
MR. SUMMERS: For the record, Dan Summers, director of the
Bureau of Emergency Services and Emergency Management.
Before you is a Class 2 advanced life support interfacility
certificate for public convenience and necessity being submitted under
the name of American Medical Transport.
There are some speakers here, as you so noted. The applicant was
-- had reported to me yesterday he would be on site for this discussion.
He is ill. He had a representative here, but he had to leave.
The applicant, just briefly -- for the sake of the length of the
executive summary, the applicant is a long-standing provider in
Danbury, Connecticut.
I bring to you two concerns about this additional company
coming to Naples, Collier County, and those concerns are simply
would the impact of an additional service dilute the volume for the
Page 232
October 23, 2012
existing provider, which could have service delivery effects in terms
of call volume and even profitability.
Second, we have no experience with how to best gauge this
applicant since he has not operated in the State of Florida; however, I
think it's important that you realize that we're certainly sensitive to
being business friendly and having new businesses here within Collier
County.
It's important to note that the applicant reported to us that he had
a license in the State of Florida at one time. As he reported to me, he
purchased a failing business organization in Lee County, but to the
best of our knowledge the applicant did not restart the business nor
operate in Lee.
At the conclusion of the public hearing, let me remind you that
just as we have done in the last COPCN letting that you granted, that
staff made some requirements or recommendations to you to allow
you to require some stipulations. Those are on the last page of your
executive summary. I think those stipulations are important should
you grant the letting of this COPCN. That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many public speakers do we have?
MR. MILLER: Four, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, would you want
to wait?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I want to make a motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I want to make a motion to deny
the request for a license for transport. And there's no -- there's no
history here in the State of Florida.
I'm concerned that it will dilute the services to our citizens. I
think there's -- aside from the motion -- that's my motion.
Aside from the motion, I think there could be maybe a better
process in the future so that we have a provider that's going to be
responsive by not diluting the customer base or the service base and
Page 233
October 23, 2012
provide a great product to our citizens and a cost savings to the
citizens, and this is not the way to do it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second your motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to deny by Commissioner
Henning, seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
Are any of the speakers opposed to this motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MILLER: Would you like me to call the names, sir?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, please.
MR. MILLER: Tim Glen.
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You could waive or get up and
speak.
MR. MILLER: Michael Grant?
MR. GRANT: Waive in support of the motion.
MR. MILLER: Vanessa Grant Oliver?
MS. OLIVER: Waive in support of the motion.
MR. MILLER: Alan Skavroneck?
MR. SKAVRONECK: Waive in support of the motion.
MR. MILLER: Sorry about that.
MR. SKAVRONECK: That's okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Very well.
All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously 4-0.
MR. GRANT: Thank you.
Page 234
October 23, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Have a good day. I'm sorry you had to
wait so long to hear this. Thank you.
MS. GRANT: Thank you.
Item #11D
RESOLUTION 2012-203 (PARCEL 101TCE); RESOLUTION
2012-204 (PARCEL 102FEE 1, 102FEE2 & 102TCE);
RESOLUTION 2012-205 (PARCEL 103FEE & 103TCE);
RESOLUTION 2012-206 (PARCEL 104FEE & 104TCE);
RESOLUTION 2012-207 (PARCEL 105F'EE 1-105FEE3 &
105TCE 1-105TCE4); RESOLUTION 2012- 208 (PARCEL 1061-EE
& 106TCE); RESOLUTION 2012-209 (PARCEL 107FEE,
107TCE 1 & 107TCE2); RESOLUTION 2012-210 (PARCEL
108FEE, 108TCE 1, 108TCE2); RESOLUTION 2012-211 (PARCEL
109FEE); RESOLUTION 2012-212 (PARCEL 112FEE);
RESOLUTION 2012-213 (PARCEL 113FEE, 113TCE);
RESOLUTION 2012-214 (PARCEL 114FEE); RESOLUTION
2012-215 (PARCEL 115FEE); RESOLUTION 2012-216 (PARCEL
116FEE, 116TCE1, 116TCE2 & 116TCE3); RESOLUTION 2012-
217 (PARCEL 117FEE); RESOLUTION 2012-218 (PARCEL
118FEE); RESOLUTION 2012-219 (PARCEL 119FEE, 119TCE);
RESOLUTION 2012-220 (PARCEL 120FEE); RESOLUTION
2012-221 (PARCEL 121TCE); RESOLUTION 2012-222 (PARCEL
122TCE); RESOLUTION 2012-223 (PARCEL 123FEE);
RESOLUTION 2012-224 (PARCEL 124FEE): RESOLUTIONS
AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION OF LAND AND
EASEMENTS NECESSARY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AT THE US41 AND COLLIER
BOULEVARD INTERSECTION — ALL ADOPTED UNDER ONE
MOTION
Page 235
October 23, 2012
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 11D on your
agenda. It was continued from the October 9, 2012.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You said D, delta?
MR. OCHS: 11D, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve by me, second
by Commissioner Henning.
Does anyone have any comments or discussion?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sir, we just need to put a few things
on the record. I know we put them on last meeting, but I'll have Jay
put them on the record for you, if you'd be so kind. Sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Be brief, Jay.
MR. AHMAD: Yes, sir.
Good afternoon, I'm Jay Ahmad, for the record, your director of
transportation engineer.
I put this, before, on the visualizer, that I hope you consider
alternative alignments, the cost of competing alternatives,
improvements to public health, safety, and welfare, long-range
transportation planning, and environmental factors and impacts.
And the last slide I want to put on the record -- okay. I know
Commissioner Hiller asked about comparison matrix, that we have
considered all the competing alternative costs, and that's part of what
the Court requires us to consider, and we certainly have, and we've
provided her a copy of this, and now that -- you have it as well, so --
that's it, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor of the motion, please
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (No verbal response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Page 236
October 23, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just also wanted to put something
on the record. This vote, even though I'm voting for it, does allow
another affordable housing community of 150 or more to be built by
right. They don't even have to come back to us because of the DCA.
It's -- again, it's all just in another area that's all just oversaturated.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But -- can I ask a question about
that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I thought that we had eliminated
those type of units from the DCA. I mean, they do have -- I mean, it's
actually -- wasn't it something that we required of them that they now
don't have to do?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But are you saying they still want
to do it; is that your issue?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: When the DCA -- when the
developer purchased -- chipped in with their section of the DCA --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and I did not understand this until
I asked the question the other day -- they also bought into the right to
build by right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can you explain to us what's going on?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure, Commissioner.
Me and Commissioner Fiala discussed the 2008 DCA. It's been a
long time ago, Commissioner Hiller. Not the recent DCA with Naples
Reserve.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: This is not the 4 million? This is
Page 237
October 23, 2012
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am. That's the prior 8 million
that was a while back.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Part of that consortium group was the
Habitat group. There was several developers. They were a rezone
property, Regal Acres. They could not move forward with
concurrency, and they did the same thing the rest of the developers
did, which was pay their impact fees so we could do this project so
they could pay for their concurrency, so -- and that goes back to 2008,
sir (sic).
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And what was the provision in that
DCA?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Just that they were -- there was no
capacity on 41 and that this project was putting capacity on and that
we banked those trips in with the rest of the developers, which was the
Lowe's site, the Target site, and I believe even the CVS site. Those
four corners. They just prepaid their impact fees so we could fund this
project, which allowed them to purchase the concurrency at that time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But -- can I ask --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This did pass unanimously, right?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead. Let's -- we need to
move on to get some of the stuff done.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Just to clarify -- just to clarify with
that development by right, until the infrastructure is put in place,
which is not -- I mean, this is not expected to be done for, like, 20
years.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am. Your concurrency -- if
you have a project in your capital improvement --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's sufficient to --
Page 238
October 23, 2012
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- that's sufficient --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- allow for concurrency, all right.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- to allow them to go forward, yes,
ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So that they can develop
now even though the capacity isn't there?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not yet in place, because we have
banked trips that we accounted for that haven't come online either, so
you've got to --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you have a lag?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, we have to be very careful
about that prospectively and ensure that we don't approve anything
unless it's actually in the works because, I mean, obviously even if the
lagging starts catching up, we're going to have a problem even more
than we already have at that intersection.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am. That was anticipated
when we did the agreement.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, was it?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh. Well, then you're okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That takes us to Item No. F, right?
Item #11F
AWARD BID NUMBERS 12-5845 AND 12-5845R,
"COUNTYWIDE CHEMICALS," FOR THE PURCHASE OF
VARIOUS CHEMICALS REQUIRED FOR POTABLE WATER,
WASTEWATER, AND IRRIGATION QUALITY WATER
TREATMENT BY WATER AND WASTEWATER
DEPARTMENTS, TO VARIOUS VENDORS IN THE ANNUAL
ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $5,500,000 — APPROVED
Page 239
October 23, 2012
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. It's a recommendation to award Bid
12-5845 and 12-5845R for Countywide Chemicals for the purchase of
various chemicals required for potable water, wastewater, and
irrigation-quality water treatment by the water and wastewater
departments to various vendors in the estimated annual amount of $5.5
million.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any commissioners have a problem with
this item?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. I just have a question, though.
The four chemicals that didn't receive any offers, have we gone back
to the --
MS. MARKIEWICZ: (Nods head.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. Then I make a motion
to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Fiala, second by Commissioner Henning.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes unanimously.
Now we go to G.
Item #11G
APPROVE SEPARATE WORK ORDERS TO KYLE
CONSTRUCTION INC., QUALITY ENTERPRISES USA, AND
Page 240
October 23, 2012
HASKINS INC., UNDER THE FIXED-TERM UNDERGROUND
UTILITIES CONTRACT #08-5011, IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF
$2,052,336 TO REPLACE AIR RELEASE VALVES UNDER
PROJECT #70044, FORCE MAIN TECHNICAL SUPPORT —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 11G is a recommendation to approve a work order
to Kyle Construction -- separate work orders to Kyle Construction,
Incorporated; Quality Enterprises USA; and Haskins Inc. under the
fixed term underground utilities contract in the total amount of
$2,052,336 for the replacement of air release valves under Project No.
70044 Force Main Technical Support.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Anybody have a problem with
this one?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I have a question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we get a hot-air
containment valve for this room?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They don't make them that big.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
MR. CHMELIK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. 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 HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Page 241
October 23, 2012
That brings us to 11H.
Item #11H
AWARD BID NUMBER 12-5964, "SRO WELLFIELD RAW
WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN REPAIR," TO SOUTHWEST
UTILITY SYSTEMS, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,131,450, TO
COMPLETE THE SECOND STAGE OF PHASE IV OF THE
SOUTH RO WELLFIELD RAW WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN
REPAIR, PROJECT NO. 70030 — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 11H is a recommendation to award Bid No.
12-5964 SRO wellfield raw water transmission main repair to
Southwest Utility System, Incorporated, in the amount of $1,131,450
to complete the second stage of Phase IV of the south RO wellfield
raw water transmission main repair project.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Fiala.
Seconded by? Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Hiller.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, okay.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Page 242
October 23, 2012
MR. CHMELIK: Commissioners, thank you very much.
Item #11K
TO APPROVE THE FISCAL YEAR 2013 STRATEGIC PLAN
FOR THE NAPLES MARCO ISLAND, EVERGLADES
CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU (CVB) — MOTION TO
APPROVE AND WILL BE BROUGHT BACK FOR FURTHER
DISCUSSION REGARDING ADDING STAFF AT A FUTURE
MEETING — APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That brings us to 11K.
Commissioner Hiller, you moved this item off the consent
agenda.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I wanted it presented. It seemed to
have created quite a bit of discussion in light of the fact that it was
proposing additional employees, and I think it's important that it be
presented for discussion for the board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You're on, Jack. Be brief.
MR. OCHS: Go ahead, Jack.
MR. WERT: Thank you, sir; thank you, sir.
This is the presentation of the strategic marketing plan for the
Convention and Visitors Bureau. Just a quick look at how we've done
this past year.
We got a lot of good response from the media as we were
negotiating our various media contracts. You can see that about
$850,000 of added value, which means we don't have to pay any more
dollars out for what we were able to negotiate.
We also had excellent participation, a record year from our
partners with our co-op on advertising and promotion program,
Page 243
October 23, 2012
170,000, which really added a little over a million dollars.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why do you need three employees?
MR. WERT: There you go.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That's what we need to find out.
Why do you need three employees? It is three, right?
MR. WERT: Let me go to that slide, commissioner.
This came from a recommendation from the tourism industry.
This wasn't something that our department -- although we've said for
some time that we needed staff, but we were certainly under the hiring
freeze.
The industry -- and this would be hotels, both group-meeting
hotels and leisure hotels, have pretty much, across the board, indicated
all through our planning process here that our tourism department staff
does need additional staff members.
And you see below there the positions that have been suggested
are, first of all and probably most important, is an additional sales
manager. We currently have -- we're in a sales and marketing
environment. That's what we do to promote our area. We have one
sales manager for a much bigger task than one person can handle.
So the hotels certainly have indicated -- and they know because
they use direct sales as part of their marketing effort -- that another
sales manager would more than pay for themselves in additional
group-meeting business that we might be able to bring to the county.
Another position that has been discussed -- and we've
documented pretty accurately throughout the last couple of years the
importance of sports marketing. We feel that adding another sports
marketing salesperson, again, would help us bring many more events
to the area, and not just field events, but events on our beaches,
offshore, lots of different things that they could help us, all of which
generate room nights. We've documented that over the past year as
how that -- well that works.
The physical support person, actually, was in our budget, so that
Page 244
October 23, 2012
is something that they had -- we have been identifying, and they know
we need help in administering our contracts and grants. That is
actually already in the works.
And, finally -- and this, again, came from the tourism industry --
was a social media specialist. We currently have people both in the ad
agency and the public relations firm that are pretty much doing that.
It is a bit disjointed because we've got several outside firms doing
it. So we feel we need a media specialist on staff to coordinate all
those efforts.
Those are the additional positions. The way we would -- are
suggesting --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What do you think of that, County
Manager?
MR. OCHS: Sir, I'm supportive of the first two based on my
feedback from the industry and my discussions with Jack.
We -- I told him to wait until we got to year end and we got the
final numbers on TDC receipts, which we now have. And as he
indicated and as the report indicates, Mr. Isackson and I are meeting
with Jack and putting the final details on an item that we can bring
back to this board for consideration.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I've got a question for you. This
is one of the more interesting fiscal impact descriptions I've ever
heard.
The marketing budget for 2013 to support this strategic plan total
is $2.3 million. You're not spending $2.3 million on three employees,
are you?
MR. WERT: No, no.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then you're asking for three employees.
Can you tell us how much it's going to cost?
MR. WERT: We are requesting up to -- if it's two employees, I
would say around $200,000 is what we would need for a full benefits
package and everything, maybe a little less. But I'm saying up to. I
Page 245
October 23, 2012
need to get those figures from HR to be absolutely sure.
But -- and just so you know, Commissioner Coyle, the way we
are suggesting we fund this is not from the current revenue. We have
that budgeted. This is excess revenue, as the county manager
indicated, above and beyond what we projected, what the budget
office projected we would get in tourist tax revenue.
So these are excess FY12 funds that we would like to invest in
staff for direct sales. And we want to put some of the dollars into
additional incentives in the group-meeting market, because that has
really worked well, and our hotels are telling us that is one of the best
programs we've had, so that's how we want to use it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, what do you
think?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The Tourist Development
Council talked about these positions at the last meeting. That -- that
item needs to be reported to the board at a future date.
MR. WERT: Yes, sir.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: However, Jack's been doing a
phenomenal job each and every year. As we -- as we go on, his
revenues are increasing, and it's because of the industry specialists
such as Rick Medwedeff and Clark Hill and their input of pushing
things for more marketing.
And I trust in Jack; however, I do question some of these things
in these further discussion and scrutiny.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Do you want to approve the 2013
strategic plan and then make the decision concerning additional
personnel and save that for a later discussion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's what we're going to
do.
MR. WERT: That would be fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Is that your motion?
Page 246
October 23, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Hiller pulled
this. Do you have any other questions?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. I think that -- to me that was
the most significant. You know, and the reason I raised it is, while I
understand that, you know, we have limitations on staff, we do use all
these different outside vendors to perform tasks for us.
So, you know, in effect, what we're doing is leveraging the staff
we have with these other companies we hire. So I'm just not sure, you
know, how much we need more staff in light of our service providers.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not sure either, but we're
going to get into details.
MR. WERT: We'll bring that back, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, one of the things that would be
helpful for me would be an explanation as to why we can't use some
of our existing grant specialists for the purpose of providing contracts
and grant applications here. Why do we need to get you a special
person when we're doing this in the county already and they're
servicing a fairly wide range of grant requests?
So if you're going to bring that back to us, I'd appreciate at least
some consideration for that.
MR. OCHS: Absolutely, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. OCHS: When we come back with whatever conditions we
come back with, we'll provide what we believe to be justification.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then we have a motion by
Commissioner Henning to approve the strategic plan --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and bring back the more detailed
discussion on staff at a later time, and it's seconded by Commissioner
Hiller.
And Commissioner Fiala wants to make a --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a fast question, Jack.
Page 247
October 23, 2012
MR. WERT: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I studied it the other night, but I'll be
doggone if I can find out where it said this. But I remember reading
somewhere in here that surprised me that the social media isn't taking
off as you had thought but yet we're going to be hiring a social media
person. Is that to try and augment what you're doing or --
MR. WERT: I think the -- Commissioner, the point that you may
have read there is our partners are indicating that they don't understand
social media, really, as well as we do. So one of the recommendations
and something we want to implement are some workshops for the --
our tourism industry folks on how to better use social media to help
support what we're doing. Our efforts and what agency and PR firm is
doing are outstanding.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. Thank you for clearing
that up.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay.
MR. WERT: Yes, they are.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now I understand it better.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion carries unanimously.
MR. WERT: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That takes us to Item 12A, I believe.
Right, County Manager?
Page 248
October 23, 2012
Item #11L
REVIEW AND APPROVE THE PROPOSED FY2012-2013
ACTION PLAN FOR LEO E. OCHS, JR., COUNTY MANAGER —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: No, sir. We have one more, 11L, which was
previously 16F4. Commissioner Hiller had asked that the action plan
be moved --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. OCHS: -- to the regular agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. And the reason I did that is
because I think it's important for the public to know what the plan is.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Here.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. And I would very
much like for you to present it. And while I understand it's in the
backup material, you know, a lot of people don't know how to access
the backup material. You know, it's a lot of effort for them to do it. It
just makes sense for us to have you present it so everybody knows
what you intend on doing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, he's going to get low ratings on it
no matter what he says or does.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Not necessarily.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The positive thing about a low
rating is you always have an opportunity to be better. When you're up
at the top, you can't be any better than you already are.
MR. OCHS: The action plan consists of a series of goals and
objectives. I'll go through these from top to bottom.
Leadership and organizational direction, operational
effectiveness of the agency, performance management and workforce
Page 249
October 23, 2012
development, policy execution and support to the board, budget and
financial management, capital improvements and asset management,
public information and community relations.
And then four operational initiatives for priority in 2013. Some
of these are carryovers from the current -- the previous fiscal year,
continuing to develop our local economic development program
initiative.
Next item is continue the focus on Emergency Medical Services,
not only county EMS, but cooperation with our partners in fire and
law enforcement; continuing to pursue the asset management total
solution that we've talked about earlier today; and then a continued
focus in moving forward to improve our grant management programs
in the coming year.
Those are the broad goals. I also have, as I've mentioned to you
before, a complete binder of five-year work program objectives for
each division and each executive office, annual action plans and
individual goals and measurements for each one of those divisions.
Be happy to share this at any time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. And I'd like to make a
motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Fiala. Question by Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I'll second it if we can
amend it. A lot of these, County Manager, are given. You've got to
bring us a balanced budget. That's a no-brainer; however, I think
there's an opportunity over the next year or two, provide things like,
you know, government processes, permitting processes, enhanced
permitting processes, or enhanced services to our customers.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. I'll add that as a --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Which one do you like; both or
Page 250
October 23, 2012
MR. OCHS: Yes, I do, as a matter of fact.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's something you're doing
already, right? And wouldn't it be great to tell the public on the things
that you and your staff have done to enhance regulations -- not
enhance regulations.
MR. OCHS: Streamline.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- streamline the regulations and
enhance services to the citizens?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. I've tried to get to those under operational
effectiveness and also community relations in meeting with some of
the outside industry organizations, like working with CBIA and
NABOR and others.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I like Commissioner Henning's way
of doing it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He's doing it.
MR. OCHS: We'll do it separate.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Well, good. I'll -- with
that amendment, I'll second your motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion passes unanimously.
MR. OCHS: Now, we -- thank you, Commissioners.
Item #12A
Page 251
October 23, 2012
APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO SIGN, AN
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT RELATING TO
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE GULF CONSORTIUM TO ACT ON
BEHALF OF COLLIER COUNTY IN THE IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE RESTORE ACT (RESOURCES AND ECOSYSTEMS
SUSTAINABILITY TOURIST OPPORTUNITIES AND REVISED
ECONOMIES OF THE GULF COAST STATES ACT OF 2012) —
MOTION TO APPROVE — FAILED FOR LACK OF A MAJORITY
MR. OCHS: Now we move to Item 12A, county attorney's
report. It's a recommendation to approve and authorize the chairman
to sign an interlocal agreement relating to the establishment of the
Gulf Consortium to act on behalf of Collier County in the
implementation of the Restore Act.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I comment on that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. The concern I have
here is that if we enter into this interlocal agreement before we know
where the state stands on this, we might be expending monies which,
at the end of the day, could be wasted, and we may be making
commitments that, you know, in effect, are moot. And that latter part
I understand is not a big deal, because if they're moot, they'll just drop
by the wayside, and that will be that.
But I think -- you know, if FAC ultimately becomes, you know,
the heart of the consortium and the legislature and the governor think
that's great, well, I think it's great, too. But I think we're, you know,
putting the cart before the horse.
FAC did say that they were in discussions with the governor's
office and that there was no finality on this yet. So I don't see the rush
in signing this interlocal agreement. It won't hurt us in any way at this
point if we don't.
Page 252
October 23, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, did you have
your light on?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Uh-uh.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's about what I understand, too,
is that we don't have to rush into it, but we should have a person
sitting at the table.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'd like to be that person, being
that I started with them. But, you know, just to make sure that we're
listening in, and in case we're needed we're there. And we want to
protect our interests for the future and yet, you know, it's -- it really
centers around the eight counties that have lost a great deal. They're
going to be at everything. But I would like to be represent -- I would
like to represent our county there as well, even if we don't
immediately join.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The initial financial impact is only
$1,120.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's not too much to pay for --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So just sign nothing but show our
presence --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yep.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So the motion is --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute.
MR. KLATZKOW: You won't have a vote unless you sign this.
You can be present, but you'll be a spectator.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What is there to vote on?
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know. But, quite frankly, I think
most of these things are going to be held in Tallahassee, and the costs
of going up and down are going to exceed the $1,100 costs anyway to
join.
Page 253
October 23, 2012
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But then again, I don't think
anything's going to happen yet.
MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing's going to happen, I agree.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we can continue this item to,
for example, the next meeting, and maybe you could follow up with
FAC -- you've got a close relationship with Ginger -- and find out
what the governor is saying and where we're going with this rather
than --
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, you know, I don't agree with that.
You know, I think we need to make a decision that we want a place at
the table here. We can't just sit on the sideline and let all the other
states -- counties band together. And we should be participating in
this. It costs us nothing, relatively speaking.
So why don't we just say we're going to have a representative
there, it's going to be Commissioner Fiala, and get it done? Why keep
bringing this up every other meeting and postponing it?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: There's one important thing to add
to what you just said, and that is if, for instance, that they decide that
instead of going to the federal government, the dollars do get
distributed to the states, we want to make sure that we're a part of that
distribution rather than the legislature -- that's what this is all about --
so that it comes to us rather than goes through, you know, the sausage
maker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And we have to be able to act on
that quickly if the time is right.
So it's up to you guys. I mean, I don't want to -- I don't want to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I'd be willing to support
membership in this organization. It's not going to cost us anything.
There's no downside to this, and we get a chance to help guide or at
least have input that will hopefully guide what they ultimately do with
Page 254
October 23, 2012
this. But just to ignore it --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I can save you a little bit of
money. When I -- if I -- when I go up to Tallahassee, I can stay with
daughter-in-law, and I could have her drive me around, so I don't even
have to rent a car. I'll try and do everything I can to reduce the
expenses. If I could go up and back in one day, that would be good,
you know, but --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you throw in just one meal a day, I'd
vote for it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I could probably do that easily.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I've got plenty to last me the rest of
the time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But now that you're saying that,
you know, my son is up there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is he?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So maybe we should share.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I could go visit him.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh. That wasn't exactly what I
had in mind.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Go visit him. I think he would
love that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You can take him out for lunch.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's a motion, by the way. Is there a
second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What is the motion?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion is that we approve Collier
County's membership into the Gulf Consortium that authorizes --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, you made that motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- yeah, authorizes me to execute the
Page 255
October 23, 2012
interlocal agreement establishing the said entity. We can withdraw
from it anytime we want to, right?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There's nothing that --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nothing holds us --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If somebody says, well, it's going to cost
you 25,000 a year, then you say goodbye.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's a long drive not to have a vote.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry?
MR. KLATZKOW: It's a long drive not to have a vote.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right, yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So then I'll second --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you do that every time
you visit the legislators.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I can't see a downside.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
And I'm afraid it's going to be tied, or it's going to fail.
So anybody who's opposed, please signify by saying no.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Or aye. Okay. So it fails. So --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we have to tell Tallahassee or
our state legislators that we've decided not to be a part of it; is that
what it says then?
MR. KLATZKOW: I'll get with Ginger and let her know.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So then that means I don't
need to go to any meetings?
Page 256
October 23, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's it. Okay. There's no point in
going to something you can't vote on.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. All righty.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there anything else, County Manager?
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. OCHS: No. We're on 15, Commissioners, staff and
commission general communications.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead. Do you have anything?
MR. OCHS: Just one item, sir.
Commissioners, our office of Communications and Customer
Relations, which is the contact point for public records requests
received an email public records request on October 13th requesting
security videos from our campus. And I had some initial concern
about whether we were required under law to release those, number
one, and if we were, whether the board, as a policy matter, would
object to the releasing of that kind of information.
I consulted with the County Attorney. He was good enough to
contact his sources in the Attorney General's Office for some direction
or guidance.
And, Jeff, please feel free to jump in if I'm missing something
here. But, essentially, the AG's office is telling us that they believe
that it does constitute a public record and that we should release those
videos.
Of course, the other course of action would be to take the
position that because they're security videos we don't want to release
them, and we would not do that absent a court order. I didn't want to
take that position unless I knew the board supported that, so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, wait a minute. What about
Page 257
October 23, 2012
our security system at the airport? Wouldn't that be the same thing?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, there's a separate statute dealing with
the airport. This was a public-records request for a videotape of the
parking lot --
MR. OCHS: Two floors of this building, D1, and the parking lot.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the airports -- the statute for
the airport is -- the security plan is part of the agency's plan, cannot be
shared by anybody else; is that right?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Who's requesting these?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It doesn't say it can't be shared. It says --
there's a degree of discretion about disseminating the plan, but it can
be shared with any of us.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It can be shared.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: With any of the agencies?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any of the county commissioners.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I seem to be out of this loop.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The airport authority.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't even understand. Is this
because of the homeless that wander around here at night, or is it
something else?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
MR. OCHS: We did not get any explanation by the individual
who requested it by email. We simply said -- it simply said, may I
please have the security videos from the following locations.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I spoke to -- and I don't want to
name whom, but I spoke to a staff member that suggested that it might
be a litigant, and that was one of the speculations that it possibly was a
litigant who was upset with the county attorney, actually. That's what
someone suggested. I mean, there are any possible --
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- options.
MR. KLATZKOW: The issue the county manager's addressing
Page 258
October 23, 2012
to you is that under the Attorney General's impression --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Who did you speak to there?
MR. KLATZKOW: Oh, I forget her name. She's in the --
MR. OCHS: Joslin Wilson.
MR. KLATZKOW: Joslin Wilson. She's in the opinions office
there.
At the end of the day, they took a very broad view of what
constitutes a public record and a very narrow view of what constitutes
an exemption. The courts from time to time have disagreed with the
attorney general. I guess the question is, are you willing to pick a
fight on this one, worse comes to worst, by not releasing the security
tapes?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I'll tell you what my position is.
We have security for a reason here. And there have been several
assaults on elected officials in Southwest Florida dating back for the
last couple of years, and there have been shootings of public officials.
And security systems are created to try to guard against that sort
of stuff. And if we start handing out security information to people, it
makes it a lot easier for them to plan ways of avoiding detection. And
I would be very prepared to defend our right to keep that confidential.
Now, if somebody is asking for that as a result of some sort of
investigation, I think they should have it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But I think that unless it comes from a
recognized agency that is conducting the investigation, I think we
keep those things to ourselves.
I can't imagine any information that someone could get from a
security tape that would serve any useful purpose other than trying to
find ways of avoiding our security system and/or maybe targeting
somebody. They might want to know, you know, who is going where
at what time and establish a pattern for that individual or individuals.
So I think it's -- it's unreasonable for us to have -- for us to
Page 259
October 23, 2012
disclose that sort of information, and I would be happy to defend
against that.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, one approach to take is that the
County Manager's Office simply denied the request saying that it's
exempt and then, should they file suit, I can come back to you and
make a decision.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right, that's right, exactly. At least
in that case we know who it is who's requesting it, wouldn't we?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Right now we don't even know who it is
that's requesting this.
MR. KLATZKOW: We have a name.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've got a name, but nobody's been
able to track it down. Nobody has been able to find out who this
person is.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, there's also no way to know
that -- if the person requesting is really the person that's ultimately
going to be using the information.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's exactly right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So there's a problem.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So I vote to deny the request, consider it
sensitive information for the security of the employees and elected
officials, and not divulge it.
MR. OCHS: Is that the consensus of the board?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do we have three nods? Yeah, it looks
that way.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I concur with Commissioner
Coyle. I'm concerned about his safety also.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I'm concerned about my safety.
MR. OCHS: Very well. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing, sir.
Page 260
October 23, 2012
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I wanted to address two
issues. And the one thing I want -- the first thing I wanted to address
was an article that Brent Batten had written where he failed to include
certain information that, had he included it, would have portrayed the
story in a very different light.
And I told Brent that I would respond on the public record,
because I believe that the response should be a public answer with
everyone being able to hear the facts.
And, essentially, what happened was Brent Batten wrote an
article saying that I had lied about Ian's evaluation, and that was
precipitated by a statement that Commissioner Coyle made that I, in
his opinion, had misrepresented how I had calculated Ian's evaluation.
In Commissioner Coyle's opinion, he believed that I had given
Ian a bad evaluation when, in fact, I swear on a Bible that I gave him a
very good evaluation.
And here are facts that Brent omitted -- and if he had done his
research, it was all on the record, and he could have readily obtained it
and could have readily presented the truth -- and that is that I gave Ian
his evaluation before he made the decision to announce his desire to
resign or to be terminated, however you would like to label his
departure.
And before it ever came to the board for discussion -- in fact,
after I gave him his evaluation, I met with him and told him that I
evaluated him on the basis of a 1, 2, 3 scale because he was a contract
employee like the county attorney and the county manager.
And the reason I did that was for the purposes of being consistent
and showing how he ranked against these other employees. He's a
contract employee by them. And the county says that contract
employees are rated 1, 2, 3. That's the standard.
And just so you know, the 1, 2, 3 on, for example, Jeff
Klatzkow's evaluation means exactly the same thing in terms of
Page 261
October 23, 2012
different numbers on Mr. Mitchell's evaluation, and by that I mean
that the wording used is "needs improvement," "satisfactory," and
"above average." So 1, 2, 3 is equal to 2, 3, 4. In fact, what was odd
about Ian's evaluation form, it didn't have a 1. The scale was 2 to 5.
There is no such thing as a 2 to 5 scale. It's really a 1 to 4 scale.
So what Ian's evaluation had that the other employees didn't have
was this 5 rating, which was exceptional. And, you know, it basically
would serve to inflate his evaluation. And his bonus, his pay, was tied
to his ratings, and it just really wouldn't be fair for comparative
purposes.
But what I found out -- and I found this out after -- was there
really was two ways of evaluating Ian. And the form that Ian
presented for his evaluation was not one of the approved ways that
was used as a measure for an employee in his position.
And the two ways was, as I described, either as a contract
employee, which he was, which was 1, 2, 3, or alternatively there was
a form, because he was known as a Grade 23 employee; in other
words, he was in a class with a number of other managers, and all
those managers were evaluated using a standard form with the
exception of Ian, and that was the white pay plan performance
evaluation instrument.
And that document basically gives these employees evaluations
out of a total of 500 points. And what it looks like, the form that Ian
presented, was some modification of what the county standard is for
an employee in his position.
So, as I said, you know, there was absolutely no intent to do any
sort of change or switch. And, in fact, Mr. Mitchell acknowledged
that, because when his evaluation came up -- and, remember, when he
presented his evaluations, it was with an executive summary that said
that he wanted a raise, a $15,000 raise. Never talking about
termination at all.
And he came forward. And, in fact, it was at that meeting that --
Page 262
October 23, 2012
that first meeting where he, you know, read his statement and,
Commissioner Henning, you turned to him and said, Ian, are you upset
with your evaluations in any way?
And Ian -- and without me having ever said anything or how I
rated him or anything, independently said, oh, no, Commissioner. I
got great evaluations from everyone including Commissioner Hiller,
who spoke to me before this meeting and explained to me how she
rated me and why.
So, you know, evaluations ought to be a measure of performance
as against other employees. You know, we have a standard in the
county. I got the evaluations -- the performance evaluation standards
from the county, and they have a system for the contract employees,
and they have a system for the noncontract employees.
And Ian's evaluation was neither fish nor fowl. So I attempted to
follow what I thought was reasonable, and that is that he was a
contract employee, because I didn't even know about this grading one.
And, like I said, I looked at the words, which is what counted to me,
and the words were, as I said, "needs improvement," "satisfactory," or
"above average," and rated him accordingly. So that's number one.
And, again, it's all on the record.
So the second issue that I wanted to address was another article
that Mr. Batten wrote, and that was about Evelyn Prieto and this issue
of public records and, you know, when is a record a public record and,
you know, whether or not a record that she had that she gave to her
commissioner was somehow a bad thing, an illegal thing, a wrong
thing, a basis for termination.
And the answer to his question of, you know, when is a record a
public record is something that I just explained to Katie Albers, our
government reporter, and that is a public -- a record that is produced
by government is always a public record and is available to the public
unless an exemption, a statutory exemption, applies. And, otherwise,
all our records are public records.
Page 263
October 23, 2012
So when Evelyn received this document, it was a public record.
And since no exemption applied when requested, she could give it to
Commissioner Henning, she could give it to a member of the public
without a problem.
So -- yeah. Is there an issue with information coming into aides
and the risk that that information could be improperly used in some
manner? Yes.
Is it possible that any government employee getting information
in real time could improperly use information? Yes, there is always
that risk. And we have to have protocols in place to ensure that no one
takes information that wouldn't be readily available to the public and
somehow uses it to the advantage of themselves or some other party
simply because they have access to information in real time.
But those are public records and, you know, any citizen can get
them whenever they want. So that document that you had received
from her was absolutely a public record.
And, Jeff, when you said that there was no legal issue with
respect to that, you were right. There was no issue with respect to it.
And should there be some sort of procedure how mail is handled?
Yeah. I mean, every office has to have one. But that's separate and
apart from the fact that that absolutely was a public record and could
be given to Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I didn't ask for it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's still a public record, you know.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is that it?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'm weighing whether I want
to say anything now or not. No, I think I'll just say goodnight.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, me too.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is it my turn?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, it is. Go ahead.
Page 264
October 23, 2012
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Talking about, you know,
evaluations, in Mr. Mitchell's contract it calls for him to develop, by
October 1, an evaluation for --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Actually -- can I interrupt you,
because that's actually not true. This is what's interesting. In -- I found
-- because I went back to the contracts. In light of everything that
happened, I wanted to understand what was going on, and I actually
found that the contract that Commissioner Coyle had executed with
Mr. Mitchell was incorrect and was not the contract that you, as a
board, approved in 2010.
And, in fact, the contract that was approved did say October as
the due date, but the contract that you, as a board, approved -- not the
-- I'm sorry. The contract that was executed said October, but the
contract that the board approved said November.
And he was supposed to bring his evaluation to the board in
November and, basically, just collect the information in October,
because the board -- you had discussion and debate about it, and I read
it in the minutes -- basically provided that you were too busy in
October, you know, coming back from the summer, September and
October were busy months for you and you only wanted to evaluate
him in November.
So, technically, you know, everything was ahead of schedule. So
I just want to mention that. So, I mean, that contract is -- was there
anything else in that contract that --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Stop it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Okay, sorry. I'm sorry. It's
just the facts.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Each year, I don't care what you
call it, he's to prepare a -- an evaluation form and distribute it to the
Board of County Commissioners, just like all the other contracts
provide. There's only two people that really manage their contracts.
In my opinion, that's the county attorney and the county manager.
Page 265
October 23, 2012
But, anyways, I just -- I think it's -- that's something that is a part
of Leo's evaluation that he provides. The things that are in there is a
part of his contract.
And I don't want to have to manage somebody's contract. If I
entered into an agreement with somebody, I think they ought to live
up to their end of the contract. I don't think it's up to -- of me to say,
hey, you didn't live up to your agreement, you know.
If you can't manage your own employee contract, can you really
manage the assets of the county? And that's a concern.
My last comment is I had the opportunity to see Commissioner
Coletta on the Jeff Lytle Show this weekend, and I never realized that
we -- he actually took time off from his vacation going to Alaska and
going hunting up -- to Upstate New York to participate in our meeting,
and I think we owe him a debt of gratitude for doing that.
You know, he went through one heck of a -- well, I should say
hellacious campaign, taking time off, and then feel -- still feel that he
has an obligation to come off his vacation to participate by phone.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's -- okay. I'm going to discuss one
item very briefly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Then I'm going to make a
motion to adjourn.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good, good. Well, that will be a good
idea.
With respect to this business about reviews and times, it is
customary that we do these evaluations before the end of September.
Am I not correct, County Manager?
MR. OCHS: That's been my history with the board with regard
to my contract.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So we generally do them before
September, and the reason for that is that the 1st of October is the
beginning of the new fiscal year.
MR. OCHS: You don't do it before September. You do it in the
Page 266
October 23, 2012
month of September.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: In the month of September, yes. And we
do that because if we're going to grant someone a salary increase, it
can be included in the budget and it can begin with the new fiscal
year.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's why we need to change
it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that not correct, County Manager?
MR. OCHS: Well, I believe that was the history of it, yes, sir.
That was in the prior manager's contract.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So whether somebody had an
anniversary date of November or September or October, it has been
our practice to do those before the end of September.
So there shouldn't be any confusion for anybody about that.
Apparently, there has. But the point is is that --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, that's what you approved --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- in order to try to make our budget
consistent with our personnel compensation decisions, it seems like
the logical time to do these things. So we just should lock in on
September; before the end of September is a time when we do those
evaluations, right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's -- all the contracts we
have today say --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ian's was separate.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, it very well can be separate, but
the point is, if you're going to start changing personnel compensations,
you ought to do it with respect to what the budget allows and with
respect to when it's going to start.
It could very well start in November or December, but the
decision about making the salary increase should be done before the
Page 267
October 23, 2012
new fiscal year starts.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if you're basing it upon
salary increases, based upon added revenue, wouldn't it be saying the
same thing; if we have a decrease in revenue, we should have a
decrease in salary?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't follow that at all, but
nevertheless. It depends on where you want to decrease your costs. In
some cases we've decreased costs by putting off capital expenditures,
not by decreasing salary.
We -- on the other hand, we have decreased costs whenever we
don't have the necessary revenues by not giving salary increases for
years. So there is no standard rule as to how you go about that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the contracts that we have
now are based upon September -- or September 1 those evaluations
are to be given to the Board of Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They should be.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Individuals.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They should be.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's per the contract
today, Commissioner Coyle. That's what I'm telling you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The only anomaly was Ian
Mitchell's, based upon the record.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. And the record was a
meeting in -- May 11, 2010. It was actually you, Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know. I remember.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You said, my only input is on --
the contract state the evaluation will be done in October, so that means
September we'd get the county manager's, county attorney, and office
manager contract, make comments, blah-blah-blah. Also, that's the
same time we do budgets. I'd like to do it at some time other -- time
Page 268
October 23, 2012
what we --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's time for the motion to adjourn.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But let me -- just -- before we
adjourn, can I comment on --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I want to say one thing real quick.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- to --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think it's a really good idea. I
mean, the whole point of evaluations is, you know, to establish some
standard approach so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- adjourn.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- you know, these employees can
be prepared. I think it should be at -- all come at the same time and all
using the same formula.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And we have that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: September; present it in October;
1, 2, 3 for contract employees.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're adjourned.
*****
**** Commissioner Henning moved, seconded by Commissioner
Fiala and carried unanimously that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted ****
Item #16A1
CLERK OF COURTS RELEASE OF AN EXCAVATION BOND
IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,000 POSTED AS A DEVELOPMENT
GUARANTY FOR WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THE BOYS &
GIRLS CLUB OF COLLIER COUNTY PL20110002178 — WORK
Page 269
October 23, 2012
ASSOCIATED WITH THE SECURITY HAS BEEN INSPECTED
AND THE DEVELOPER HAS FULFILLED HIS COMMITMENTS
WITH RESPECT TO THE SECURITY
Item #16A2
A LEASE AND RENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COLLIER
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO) AND
COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS —
AT AN ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $13,260 FOR A 663 SQUARE
FOOT OFFICE IN THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT BUILDING,
2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE AND TERMINATING JUNE 26, 2012
UNLESS OTHERWISE RENEWED BY PARTIES
Item #16A3
RELEASING A $17,811.26 LIEN FOR PAYMENT OF $1,511.26,
IN CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION ENTITLED BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS VS. EDWARD A. KAULBARS &
PAULA A. KAULBARS, CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE
NUMBER CEPM20090013071, FOR PROPERTY AT 1579
WHISPERING OAKS CIRCLE, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA —
BASED ON 67 DAYS OF ACCRUED FINES FOR AN
UNMAINTAINED POOL BROUGHT IN COMPLIANCE BY
COLLIER COUNTY AUGUST 17, 2010 AND WITH CURRENT
PROPERTY OWNERS PAYING OPERATIONAL COSTS
Item #16A4
RELEASING A $17,612.29 LIEN FOR PAYMENT OF $562.29,
IN CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION ENTITLED BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS VS. MICHAEL MOTTO, CODE
Page 270
October 23, 2012
ENFORCEMENT CASE NUMBER CESD20110006565, FOR
PROPERTY AT 4160 23RD PLACE SW, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA — BASED ON 175 DAYS OF ACCRUED FINES FOR
AN INCOMPLETE POOL PERMIT AND BROUGHT INTO
COMPLIANCE ON MAY 24, 2012
Item #16A5
RELEASING TWO LIENS WITH A COMBINED AMOUNT OF
$56,509.04 FOR PAYMENT OF $1,609.04, IN CODE
ENFORCEMENT ACTION ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS VS. ABEL D. ACCILIO & SARA ACCILIO,
SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CASE NUMBERS CEPM20100003242
& CEPM20100004034 FOR PROPERTY AT 907 SUMMERFIELD
DRIVE, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA — BASED ON 301 DAYS
OF ACCRUED FINES IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,212.56 FOR
A DAMAGED ROOF BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE
NOVEMBER 16, 2011 AND $25,250 FOR AN UNMAINTAINED
POOL FOR 101 DAYS THAT WAS SUBSEQUENLY BROUGHT
INTO COMPLIANCE BY THE COUNTY ON MAY 23, 2011
Item #16A6
RELEASING A $111,900 LIEN FOR PAYMENT OF $567.61, IN
CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION ENTITLED BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS VS. ESTER M. TORRES AND JORGE
L. TORRES, CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE CEPM20080014195,
FOR PROPERTY AT 1340 CENTER LANE, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA — BASED ON 1,119 DAYS OF ACCRUED FINES
REGARDING AN UNPERMITTED POOL ENCLOSURE
BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE MAY 2, 2012 WITH THE
CURRENT OWNERS HAVING PAID OPERATIONAL COSTS
Page 271
October 23, 2012
Item #16A7
A COMPLETE DATA UPDATE REQUIRED FOR THE
FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PLAN THAT WILL BE
BROUGHT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR APPROVAL AND
ADOPTION AT THE DECEMBER 11, 2012 MEETING — AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A8
CONTRACT #13-5994 WITH EASTMAN AGGREGATE
ENTERPRISE, LLC FOR SAND DELIVERY AND PLACEMENT
FOR THE COMBINATION UNIT COST/LUMP SUM PRICE OF
$430,828 AND THE DIRECT PURCHASE OF 33,600 TONS OF
SAND FROM STEWART MINING FOR THE AMOUNT OF
$243,600 FOR THE VANDERBILT & NAPLES BEACH
EMERGENCY BEACH RENOURISHMENT PROJECT FOR A
$674,428 TOTAL COST THAT EXCEEDS ESTIMATES BY
$24,428 — RENOURISHING THE BEACH FROM LA PLAYA TO
JUST SOUTH OF THE RITZ, APPROXIMATELY 4,000 LINEAR
FEET ON VANDERBILT BEACH; AND 2,500 LINEAR FEET ON
NAPLES BEACH FROM LOWDERMILK PARK TO JUST
SOUTH OF NAPLES GOLF AND BEACH CLUB OF BEACH
Item #16C1
WAIVE A NOTICE TO PROCEED REQUIREMENT TO
APPROVE A PAYMENT OF $16,956.05 TO KYLE
CONSTRUCTION FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO MASTER
PUMPING STATION 321, PROJECT #70050 — UNDER TERMS
OF CONTRACT #08-5011 THE PROJECT WAS STARTED
Page 272
October 23, 2012
PRIOR TO COUNTY STAFF ISSUING NOTICE TO PROCEED
Item #16D1
MODIFICATION #6 TO THE SUBGRANT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN FLORIDA'S DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC
OPPORTUNITY AND COLLIER COUNTY, FOR DISASTER
RECOVERY INITIATIVE GRANT AGREEMENT #10DB-D4-09-
21-01-K09, ADDING A NEW HURRICANE HARDENING
PROJECT FOR COUNTY-OWNED GILCHRIST APARTMENTS,
EXTENDING THE SUBGRANT AGREEMENT & AMENDING
ASSOCIATED SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENTS TO EXTEND
THE COMPLETION DEADLINES AND MODIFY WORK PLANS
— AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16D2
CORRECTING THE MORTGAGE AND NOTE MODIFICATION
TO A STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP (SHIP)
PROGRAM LOAN AGREEMENT WITH THE SHELTER FOR
ABUSED WOMEN OF COLLIER COUNTY TO CORRECT A
SCRIVENER'S ERROR IN THE REPAYMENT TERMS,
CHANGING THE LEGAL NAME AND CONSIDER THE
SHELTER IN GOOD STANDING WITH THEIR MORTGAGE —
AN ERROR WAS MADE THAT STATED THE PROMISSORY
REPAYMENT WOULD BE PAYABLE MONTHLY RATHER
THAN ANNUALLY AS ORIGINALLY APPROVED
Item #16D3
RELEASE OF LIEN ON A 2006 100 % IMPACT FEE DEFERRAL
AGREEMENT FOR OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE
Page 273
October 23, 2012
HOUSING THAT WAS REPAID IN FULL — FOR PAYMENT OF
$8,712.70 IN RELATION TO FORECLOSURE CASE #10-51-7-CA
ON PROPERTY AT 4510 BOTANICAL PLACE CIRCLE, UNIT
404 AND DISMISSING THE COUNTY IN FORECLOSURE
ACTION
Item #16D4
CONSERVATION COLLIER'S ANNUAL REPORT PROVIDING
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND PUBLIC
AN UPDATE ON THE PROGRAM'S PAST ACTIVITIES — AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16D5
APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY AND DAVID LAWRENCE MENTAL
HEALTH CENTER, INC. BY EXTENDING THE GRANT
AGREEMENT PERIOD, REQUIRING COMPLIANCE WITH
HUD GRANT B-11-UC-12-0016, AND UPDATING THE
PROJECT WORK PLAN — EXTENDING THE PROJECT DATE
TO MARCH 31, 2012
Item #16D6 — Continued to the November 13, 2012 BCC Meeting
(Per Agenda Change Sheet)
RECOGNIZING $199,478.74 IN PROGRAM REVENUE
GENERATED WHEN CONVEYING PROPERTIES ACQUIRED
UNDER THE NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PROGRAM
(NSP1) — FOR PROPERTY SOLD AT 4437 54TH AVENUE NE,
NAPLES; 4910 42ND STREET NE, NAPLES AND 5031 32ND
Page 274
October 23, 2012
AVENUE SW, NAPLES AND $19,947.87 IN ADMINISTRATIVE
COSTS FOR NET PROCEEDS OF $179,530.87 THAT WILL BE
USED FOR OTHER ELIGIBLE NSP ACTIVITIES
Item #16D7
THREE MEMORANDUMS OF AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA
FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION (FWC)
ALLOWING FWC TO CONDUCT YOUTH HUNTS FOR
COLLIER COUNTY RESIDENTS AT THE PEPPER RANCH
PRESERVE IN NOVEMBER 2012, JANUARY 2013 AND
FEBRUARY 2013 — FOR THE DATES NOVEMBER 9-11, 2012;
JANUARY 11-13, 2013 AND FEBRUARY 22-24, 2013
Item #16D8
RESOLUTION 2012-192: ESTABLISHING FEES FOR THE
NEW SMARTCARD PROGRAM, MEMORIALIZING A FARE
INCREASE AND MONTHLY DISCOUNT FOR COUNTY
EMPLOYEES PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE BOARD IN
2006 AND ESTABLISHING THE CAT FEE SCHEDULE — THE
SMARTCARD IS SIMILAR TO A PREPAID BUS PASS THAT A
PASSENGER CAN LOAD MONEY ON TO USE ON WEEKLY
OR MONTHLY PASSES WITH INITIAL FEES COLLECTED TO
COVER ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AND THE COUNTY'S
COST TO PURCHASE THE CARDS
Item #16D9
AFTER-THE-FACT SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT OF THE
FY2008 HUD ACTION PLAN TO ALLOW PAYMENT TO THE
CITY OF NAPLES FOR A COMPLETED COMMUNITY
Page 275
October 23, 2012
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT-RECOVERY (CDBG-R)
PROJECT — TO FINALIZE THE GRANT FUNDED SIDEWALK
INSTALLATION PROJECT ON THIRD AVENUE NORTH IN
THE RIVER PARK COMMUNITY
Item #16D10
ACCEPTING A SAFE HAVENS SUPERVISED VISITATION
AND SAFE EXCHANGE GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $350,000
FROM US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE ON VIOLENCE
AGAINST WOMEN AND A BUDGET AMENDMENT
RECOGNIZING REVENUE — COLLIER COUNTY'S HOUSING,
HUMAN AND VETERAN SERVICES WILL SERVE AS FISCAL
ENTITY AND RECEIVE $31,015.00 FOR ADMINISTRATION
AND PARTNER WITH THE SHELTER OF ABUSED WOMEN &
CHILDREN, THE DAVID LAWRENCE CENTER, LEGAL AID
SERVICES, THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT
AND COLLIER COUNTY'S CHILD ADVOCACY COUNCIL
TO PROVIDE: VISITATION SERVICES FOR A MINIMUM OF
255 FAMILIES; ADVOCACY SERVICES FOR 100% OF ADULT
VICTIMS; TRAINING FOR VISITATION STAFF, LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT AND COURT REPRESENTATIVES ON
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT
Item #16D1 I
LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING WITH LARRY RAY, COLLIER
COUNTY'S TAX COLLECTOR, OUTLINING THE TAX
COLLECTOR'S AND LIBRARY'S JOINT USE OF THE
SATELLITE FACILITY IN EVERGLADES CITY, FLORIDA —
FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBER 1, 2012 — SEPTEMBER 30, 2013
Page 276
October 23, 2012
Item #16D12
AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND AGENCY FOR
HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION FOR ADDITIONAL
ELIGIBLE FUNDING THAT MAY BE LEVERAGED UNDER
ALTERNATIVE INTERGOVERNMENTAL TRANSFER
PROGRAMS; ANY ADDITIONAL FUNDING IS BUDGETED IN
THE FY 13 APPROVED BUDGET & EXECUTED AGREEMENTS
WILL BE BROUGHT TO THE BOARD FOR RATIFICATION —
REVISING AGREEMENTS APPROVED OCTOBER 9, 2012 TO
ACQUIRE ADDITIONAL FUNDING
Item #16E1
CONTRACT #12-5813 "WELLNESS PROGRAM BIOMETRIC
MEASUREMENT AND LABORATORY TESTING SERVICES
WITH QUEST DIAGNOSTICS" IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT
OF $259,380 PER YEAR — FOR COLLIER COUNTY GROUP
HEALTH PLAN SERVICES FOR THE AGREEMENT PERIOD
OF OCTOBER 1, 2012 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2016
Item #16E2
CONTRACT #12-5920 — 3RD PARTY ADMINISTRATION OF
PROPERTY, CASUALTY AND WORKERS' COMPENSATION
INSURANCE WITH JOHNS EASTERN COMPANY, INC. IN
THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $113,278 PER YEAR AND
RETROACTIVELY APPROVE EXTENDING THE CURRENT
AGREEMENT WITH JOHNS EASTERN COMPANY FROM
10/1/12 TO 12/31/12 FOR THE AMOUNT OF $20,200 — A THREE
(3) YEAR AGREEMENT BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2013
WITH AN OPTION TO RENEW FOR TWO (2) ADDITIONAL
Page 277
October 23, 2012
1-YEAR PERIODS
Item #16E3
AFTER-THE-FACT APPROVAL OF A FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY STAFFING FOR ADEQUATE FIRE &
EMERGENCY RESPONSE (SAFER) GRANT APPLICATION IN
THE AMOUNT OF $610,720 TO HIRE FOUR FIREFIGHTERS
FOR A LIMITED TIME PERIOD FOR THE ISLES OF CAPRI
FIRE RESCUE DISTRICT — FOR A 2-YEAR PERIOD FUNDED
100% BY THE FEMA GRANT THAT IF AWARDED WILL BE
APPLIED FOR AGAIN IN 2-YEARS TO MAINTAIN THE
HIGHER LEVEL OF SERVICE
Item #16E4
AFTER-THE-FACT APPROVAL OF A FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY STAFFING FOR ADEQUATE FIRE &
EMERGENCY RESPONSE (SAFER) GRANT APPLICATION IN
THE AMOUNT OF $916,080 TO HIRE SIX FIREFIGHTERS FOR
A LIMITED TIME PERIOD FOR THE OCHOPEE FIRE
CONTROL DISTRICT — WILL HELP PROVIDE ADDITIONAL
MANPOWER FOR SIMULTANEOUS EMERGENCIES IN
EVERGLADES AND PORT OF THE ISLES COMMUNITIES
WHEN RESPONSE TIMES ARE PROLONGED BECAUSE OF
TRAVEL DISTANCE AND IF AWARDED WILL BE APPLIED
FOR AGAIN IN 2-YEARS TO MAINTAIN THIS HIGHER LEVEL
OF SERVICE
Item #16E5
PURCHASING CISCO SMARTNET MAINTENANCE
Page 278
October 23, 2012
AGREEMENTS FROM CDW-G FOR CISCO HARDWARE AND
SOFTWARE IN THE AMOUNT OF $158,242 UTILIZING STATE
OF FLORIDA'S CONTRACT #250-000-09-1 — USED BY THE IT
DEPARTMENT FOR TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE AND
MAINTENANCE SUPPORT
Item #16E6
AWARDING GROUP VISION DISCOUNT COVERAGE TO
VISION SERVICE PLAN (VSP) FOR A 3-YEAR PERIOD THAT
BEGINS JANUARY 1, 2013 IN AN ESTIMATED ANNUAL
AMOUNT OF $40,930 — VSP PROVIDED THE LOWEST RATE,
COVERAGE TERMS MEETING OR EXCEEDING THE
CURRENT PROGRAM, A HIGHER OUT OF NETWORK
PAYMENT AND THE BROADEST PROVIDER NETWORK
INCLUDING ACCESS TO WALMART AND SAM'S CLUB
(UNAVAILABLE UNDER THE CURRENT PROGRAM)
Item #16E7
ACCEPT REPORTS & RATIFY STAFF-APPROVED CHANGE
ORDERS AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS — FOR THE
PERIOD AUGUST 23, 2012 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 19, 2012
Item #16E8
RESOLUTION 2012-193: AUTHORIZING REMOVAL OF 8,408
AMBULANCE SERVICE ACCOUNTS AND THEIR ACCOUNTS
RECEIVABLE BALANCES THAT TOTAL $5,515,177.55 AND
RECORDED AS A BAD DEBT EXPENSE DURING FY09 —
DEBT THAT'S CONSIDERED UNCOLLECTIBLE FOR
REASONS INCLUDING PATIENTS WHO CAN'T BE LOCATED,
Page 279
October 23, 2012
SERVICES FOR TRANSIENTS OR MIGRANTS, PATIENTS
WHO DIE WITH NO ASSETS, BANKRUPTCIES, ETC.
Item #16E9
BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING $944.95 IN
CARRYFORWARD FROM FY12 FOR GOODLAND HORR'S
ISLAND MSTU FUND — DUE TO INCREASED AD VALOREM
REVENUE AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH AN INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND CITY OF
MARCO ISLAND FOR FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES
Item #16E10 — Added (Per the Agenda Change Sheet)
EXTENDING THE CURRENT AMBITRANS CERTIFICATE OF
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FROM OCTOBER
24, 2012 TO DECEMBER 13, 2012 OR UNTIL RENEWAL CAN
BE SCHEDULED ON A BOARD AGENDA
Item #16F1 — Moved to Item #11K (Per the Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16F2
CONTRACT #12-5895, "IMPACT FEE STUDY" TO TINDALE-
OLIVER AND ASSOCIATES, INC. — A 4-YEAR CONTRACT
NOT EXCEEDING THE $950,000 ESTIMATED AMOUNT FOR
CONSULTING SERVICES INCLUDING IMPACT PEE UPDATE
STUDIES, INDEX CALCULATION UPDATES, INDEPENDENT
AND ALTERNATIVE FEE CALCULATION REVIEW AND
ATTENDANCE AND PRESENTATIONS AT MEETINGS
Item #16F3
Page 280
October 23, 2012
RESOLUTION 2012-194: APPROVING AMENDMENTS
(APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS
OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE FY2012-2013 ADOPTED
BUDGET
Item #16F4 — Moved to Item #11L (Per the Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16G1
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, ACTING IN ITS
CAPACITY AS COLLIER COUNTY'S AIRPORT AUTHORITY,
APPROVES AN ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT WITH AIR
EXPEDITIONS, INC. FOR FACILITIES AND SPACE AT THE
MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT— AN AGREEMENT
WAS EXECUTED AUGUST 29, 2012 SELLING MARCO
AVIATION TO ROBERT DELLAERT, PRESIDENT OF AIR
EXPEDITIONS, INC. WITH THE ANTICIPATED CLOSING
DATE OF NOVEMBER 30, 2012 AND AN AMENDMENT IS
NECESSARY THAT WILL REFLECT THE NEW OWNERSHIP
EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 1, 2012
Item #16G2
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, ACTING IN ITS
CAPACITY AS COLLIER COUNTY'S AIRPORT AUTHORITY,
APPROVES THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO A SUB-LEASE
AGREEMENT WITH RAVEN AIR LLC, DB/A ISLAND
HOPPERS AERIAL ADVENTURES FOR FACILITIES AND
SPECIALIZED AVIATION SERVICE OPERATIONS AT THE
MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT — THE RAVEN AIR
3-YEAR SUB-LEASE AGREEMENT HAS BEEN MONTH-TO-
Page 281
October 23, 2012
MONTH SINCE JUNE 1, 2012 AND THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY
AND TENANT WISH TO EXTEND THE AGREEMENT TO
JUNE 1, 2014, AND AMEND OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE
AGREEMENT THAT INCLUDE ALLOWING THE TENANT TO
PROVIDE AIRCRAFT CHARTER & TAXI SERVICE AND GIVE
UP THEIR USE OF T-HANGAR UNIT B-8
Item #16G3
SITE LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH IMMOKALEE CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE AT IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT TO
USE OPEN AREA AT THE SOUTHWEST PORTION OF THE
AIRPORT FOR A HARVEST FESTIVAL APRIL 12-14, 2013
Item #16G4
AIRPORT AUTHORITY'S EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR LEASE OF
EXHIBIT SPACE AT THE 39TH ANNUAL SUN `N FUN FLY-IN
EVENT PARTNERING WITH SEMINOLE CASINO TO CREATE
A COOPERATIVE RELATIONSHIP TO PROMOTE AVIATION
AND THE CASINO THROUGH JOINT ATTENDANCE AT THE
AIR SHOW — WILL BE HELD APRIL 9-14, 2013 IN LAKELAND,
FLORIDA WITH TRAVEL EXPENSES REIMBURSED BY THE
SEMINOLE CASINO
Item #16H1
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT
REGARDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. HE ATTENDED GREATER NAPLES CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE 2012 EXCELLENCE IN INDUSTRY AWARDS
GALA CELEBRATION SEPTEMBER 20, 2012 AT NAPLES
Page 282
October 23, 2012
HILTON. $50 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S
TRAVEL BUDGET — LOCATED AT 5111 TAMIAMI TRAIL N.
Item #16H2
REQUEST APPROVAL TO ATTEND A FUNCTION SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE — FOR COMMISSIONER(S) AND
STAFF TO ATTEND FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
(FAC) LEGISLATIVE CONFERENCE NOVEMBER 28-30, 2012
Item #16H3
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER, 2012 AS
PANCREATIC CANCER AWARENESS MONTH IN COLLIER
SPONSORED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AND WILL BE MAILED TO THE PANCREATIC CANCER
ACTION NETWORK — ADOPTED
Item #16H4
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING A
FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. SHE
ATTENDED THE GOODLAND VILLAGE ARTS ALLIANCE
LUNCHEON ON OCTOBER 5, 2012; $13.25 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET — HELD AT CJ'S
ON THE BAY, 740 NORTH COLLIER BOULEVARD
Item #16H5
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN A LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR THE
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
(SWFRPC) 5-YEAR UPDATE FOR THEIR COMPREHENSIVE
Page 283
October 23, 2012
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY DOCUMENT
APPROVED AT THE SEPTEMBER 20, 2012 SWFRPC MEETING
Item #16H6
COMMISSIONER HILLER'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE WILL ATTEND THE NAPLES EQUESTRIAN
CHALLENGE BOOTSTRAP BOOGIE BARN DANCE ON
NOVEMBER 10, 2012 AT THE NEC ARENA, 206 RIDGE DRIVE,
NAPLES, FL; $100 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
HILLER'S TRAVEL BUDGET
Item #16J1
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 22, 2012
THROUGH SEPTEMBER 28, 2012 AND FOR SUBMISSION
INTO THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J2
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 29, 2012
THROUGH OCTOBER 5, 2012 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J3 — Added (Per the Agenda Change Sheet)
PURSUANT TO SECTION 197.323, FLORIDA STATUTES, THE
TAX COLLECTOR REQUESTS EXTENSION OF THE 2012 TAX
ROLL TO ALLOW HIS OFFICE TIME TO RESOLVE ANY TAX
LIABILITY ISSUES FROM THE DELAYED DELIVERY OF
FINAL TAX INFORMATION BY PROPERTY APPRAISER DUE
Page 284
October 23, 2012
TO VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD HEARINGS CONTINUING
INTO 2013 THAT COULD ALTER FINAL TAX INFORMATION
Item #16K1
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT PRIOR TO TRIAL IN THE
LAWSUIT ENTITLED DARLING ELIE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
GUARDIAN OF JADARRIEN ELIE, A MINOR CHILD V. COLLIER
COUNTY, ET. AL., FILED IN THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CASE
NO. 07-1463-CA FOR THE SUM OF $334, TO SETTLE THE
CONSORTIUM CLAIM FOR THE MINOR CHILD — FOR A 2004
TRAFFIC ACCIDENT AND IN WHICH THE PLAINTIFF'S
CLAIMS REMAIN WITH A TRIAL EXPECTED IN 2013
Item #16K2
COUNTEROFFER OF $2,500 TO THE BUSINESS DAMAGE
CLAIM MADE BY FLORIDAN FOODS, LLC, FOR PARCELS
166DE & 166TCE IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER
COUNTY V. HOLISTIC HEALTH HEALING, INC., ET AL., CASE
NO. 12-CA-1756 (U.S. 41 DITCH/LASIP PROJECT NO. 51101)
(FISCAL IMPACT $2,500) — D/B/A GREEN STORES FOOD
MART #106, ON THE CORNER OF US41 AND MARTIN
STREET IN THE NAPLES MANOR AREA FOR A 649 SQ. FT
DRAINAGE EASEMENT AND A 1,260 SQ. FT. 24-MONTH
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT OWNED BY
L & R, RAM, LLC AND WITH FULL COMPENSATION FOR
THE TAKING STILL PENDING
Item #16K3
Page 285
October 23, 2012
FINAL SETTLEMENT OF A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
TITLED CINQUEGRANA V. COLLIER COUNTY, ET AL.,
INVOLVING RED LIGHT CAMERAS (COLLIER COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT CASE NO. 09-7628-CA) — THE COUNTY'S
PAYMENT UNDER THE SETTLEMENT IS 52% OF THE TOTAL
$224,927.90 OR $116,962.51; THE ATS DEFENDANTS ARE
COLLECTIVELY RESPONSIBLE FOR 48% OF THE AMOUNT
OR $107,965.39; EACH PERSON THAT OPTED INTO THE
LAWSUIT RECEIVED PAYMENT OF $16.16
Item #16K4
AN OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENT, NAPLES
GATEWAY ESTATES, INC. FOR PARCEL NO. 204DAME IN
THE AMOUNT OF $3,860 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER
COUNTY V. JOHN D. LAWRENCE, ET AL., CASE NO. 11-3207-
CA (LASIP OUTFALLS 3 & 4 PROJECT NO. 51101) (FISCAL
IMPACT $1,000) — FOR A 1.03-ACRE DRAINAGE, ACCESS &
MAINTENANCE EASEMENT
Item #16K5
AN OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENT, MYRTLE
CHASE, LLC FOR PARCEL NO. 206DAME IN THE AMOUNT
OF $9,960 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V.
JOHN D. LAWRENCE, ET AL., CASE NO. 11-3207-CA (LASIP
OUTFALLS 3 & 4 PROJECT NO. 51101) (FISCAL IMPACT
$1,660) — FOR A .291 ACRE DRAINAGE, ACCESS &
MAINTENANCE EASEMENT
Item #16K6 — Moved to Item #12B (Per Commissioner Hiller during
Agenda Changes)
Page 286
October 23, 2012
Item #17A
RESOLUTION 2012-195: PETITION VAC-PL20120001606, TO
DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE COUNTY AND
PUBLIC INTEREST IN A PORTION OF STATE ROAD 29,
(A.K.A. COPELAND AVENUE SOUTH) A 200-FOOT PUBLIC
ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, A PART OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP
53 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA
BEING MORE SPECIFICALLY SHOWN IN EXHIBIT A
Item #17B
RESOLUTION 2012-196: APPROVING AMENDMENTS
(APPROPRIATING CARRY FORWARD, TRANSFERS AND
SUPPLEMENTAL REVENUE) TO THE FY2012-13 ADOPTED
BUDGET
Page 287
October 23, 2012
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:28 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UN ►FR ITS CONTROL
)■_, \
FRED COYLE, CHAIRM '\N
ATTEST
DWIP.-IT E. BROCK, CLERK
I 4;1-:(;',i, t _0- .
Tl( e rotes appr ed by the Board on q I) 2012. ,
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT
REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.
Page 288