BCC Minutes 01/22/2013 R BCC
REGULAR
MEETING
MINUTES
JANUARY 22, 2013
January 22, 2013
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida January 22, 2013
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:
CHAIRWOMAN: Georgia Hiller
Fred Coyle
Donna Fiala
Tom Henning
Tim Nance
ALSO PRESENT:
Leo Ochs, County Manager
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney
Crystal Kinzel, Clerk's Finance Director
Mike Sheffield, Business Operations — CMO
Troy Miller, Television Operations Manager
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB)
Airport Authority
r
r4{
AGENDA
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor
Naples FL 34112
January 22, 2013
9:00 AM
Georgia Hiller— BCC Chairwoman, Commissioner, District 2
Tom Henning—BCC Vice-Chairman, Commissioner, District 3
Donna Fiala — BCC Commissioner, District 1; CRAB Chairman
Fred W. Coyle—BCC Commissioner, District 4
Tim Nance—BCC Commissioner, District 5; CRAB Vice-Chairman
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
January 22,2013
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS."
PUBLIC PETITIONS ARE LIMITED TO THE PRESENTER, WITH A
MAXIMUM TIME OF TEN MINUTES.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN
ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3335 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL,
SUITE 1, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Pastor Michael Bannon - Crossroads Community Church of Naples.
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of today's Regular Agenda as amended.
B. Approval of today's Consent Agenda as amended (Ex Parte Disclosure
provided by Commission members for consent agenda.)
C. Approval of today's Summary Agenda as amended (Ex Parte Disclosure
provided by Commission members for summary agenda.)
D. December 11-12, 2012 - BCC/Regular Meeting.
Page 2
January 22,2013
3. SERVICE AWARDS
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation recognizing January 27, 2013 as International Holocaust
Remembrance Day. To be accepted by Jack Nortman, Vice President,
Holocaust Museum & Education Center of Southwest Florida Board.
Sponsored by Commissioner Coyle.
B. Proclamation designating February, 2013 as Literacy Month in Collier
County and recognizing the "Bring a Book, Bring a Friend" program of
the K is for Kids Foundation which provides books to children in need.
To be accepted by Karen Clawson, K is for Kids Founder and Executive
Director and volunteers. Sponsored by the Board of County Commissioners.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Recommendation to recognize Judy Puig, Operations Analyst, Operations
and Regulatory Management Department as Employee of the Year for 2012.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
Items 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 pm unless otherwise noted.
8. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Items 9 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 pm unless otherwise noted.
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of member to the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee.
B. Request the Board set the balloting date for the recommendation of members
to the Pelican Bay Services Division Board by record title owners of
property within Pelican Bay.
Page 3
January 22,2013
C. Recommendation to waive all permit, building inspection, and site
development fees associated with the City of Everglades needed additions to
its water treatment facility, and to reimburse the associated enterprise funds.
(Commissioner Nance)
D. Recommendation that the Collier County Community Redevelopment
Agency (CRA) approve and execute an amendment to the employment
agreement between the CRA and Penny S. Phillippi, the Immokalee CRA
Executive Director, extending the term of employment three years, make
certain changes to the contract, and authorize the Chairman to sign. (This
item was approved for reconsideration at December 11, 2012 BCC Meeting)
E. Recommendation that the Collier Community Redevelopment Agency
(CRA) Board designates the Immokalee Community Redevelopment
Agency Executive Director as Special District Registered Agent for the
Collier County CRA. (This item was approved for reconsideration at the
December 11, 2012 BCC Meeting.)
F. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners acting as
the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) authorize continued
operation of the Immokalee Business Development Center (IBDC) under
the auspice of the Immokalee Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
and exclusive of the partnership with the Collier County Airport Authority
and the Immokalee Airport. (This item was approved for reconsideration at
the December 11, 2012 BCC Meeting.)
G. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners acting as the
Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) approve amending the
Immokalee Business Development Center's (IBDC) Proposal, IBDC
Application, and the IBDC Policies and Procedures Handbook. (This item
was approved for reconsideration at the December 11, 2012 BCC Meeting.)
H. Recommendation to award Agreement#12-5896 for Design Construction
Documents, Civil Site Design (SDP Permitting), Permit and Bid Services
and Construction Administration and Related Services for the First Street
Zocalo in Immokalee to David Corban Architect, Inc. Fiscal Impact:
$113,450. (This item was approved for reconsideration at the December 11,
2012 BCC Meeting.)
Page 4
January 22,2013
Recommendation to reconsider 2012 combined Annual Update and
Inventory Report (AUIR) on Public Facilities and Capital Improvements
Element (CIE) amendment as provided for in Chapter 6.02.02 of the Collier
County Land Development Code and Section 163.3177(3)(b), Florida
Statutes. (This item was approved for reconsideration at the December 11,
2012 BCC Meeting.)
J. Recommendation to approve final beach access sign renderings for
installation throughout the Gulf Shore Drive corridor for direct public beach
access via county easements. (This item was approved for reconsideration at
the December 11, 2012 BCC Meeting.)
11. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to accept the Atkins North America peer review of the
Coastal Planning and Engineering volume design for the 2013/14 beach
renourishment project and approve the proposed project bid form and
bidding approach. (Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone)
B. Recommendation to approve a work plan for the permitting, design, and
construction of bathrooms at Vanderbilt Beach Park and approve the
rehabilitation and retention of the existing bathrooms. (Barry Williams,
Parks and Recreation Director
C. Recommendation to review the permitting history of landscape changes
approved for Riverchase Shopping Center, the current applicable code for
landscaping requirements and provide direction to the County Manager or
his designee relating to options on amending the code. (Mike Bosi, Growth
Management Division Interim Planning and Zoning Director)
D. Recommendation to a) approve a Utility Work by Highway Contractor
Agreement with Florida Department of Transportation; b) approve a Florida
Department of Transportation standard form Resolution authorizing the
Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to execute the agreement;
c) approve a Memorandum of Agreement with Florida Department of
Transportation and Florida Department of Financial Services, Division of
Treasury to establish an interest bearing escrow account; and, d) authorize a
budget amendment in the amount of$963,000. (Tom Chmelik, Public
Utilities Planning and Project Management Director)
Page 5
January 22,2013
E. Recommendation to review and approve recommendations from the 2012
Bus Shelter Design report for the Collier Area Transit bus shelter. (Michelle
Arnold, Alternative Transportation Modes Director)
F. Recommendation to review Growth Management Division's (GMD)
progress on implementing an electronic plan submittal and digital plan
review system and further; to authorize one additional Full Time Employee
(FTE) to manage the system. (James French, Growth Management Division
Operations and Regulatory Management Director)
G. Recommendation to accept the 2012 countywide affordable housing
inventory report. (Michele Mosca, Growth Management Division Principal
Planner)
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
A. This item was continued from the January 8, 2013 BCC Meeting.
Request by the Clerk for additional funding for pay plan adjustments
and/or COLA increases consistent with the County Pay Plan.
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
A. AIRPORT
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation for the Collier County Community Redevelopment
Agency (CRA) to accept an offer to purchase five (5) CRA owned
mobile home lots; authorize the CRA Interim Director to work with
the County Attorney's Office and Real Estate Services Department to
prepare all necessary documents to facilitate the purchase, subject to
the CRA's final review.
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
Page 6
January 22,2013
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve and authorize a modification to Subgrant
Agreement#HMGP 1785-027-R between the Division of Emergency
Management and Collier County to add construction funding for the
Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project (LASIP) Haldeman
Creek Stormwater Improvement and Lock Louise Weir
Reconstruction Project in the amount of$452,365 and approve all
necessary budget amendments recognizing revenue for the project.
2) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
adopt a Resolution to hold a public hearing to consider removing
Collier County's interest in an existing Drainage Easement, being a
part of Tract "A" of 3500 Corporate Plaza, Plat Book 44, pages 23
through 24 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida,
Application No. VAC-PL20120002591.
3) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water utility
facilities for The Quarry— Club House-Tract U (PL-20120000596),
Golf Course and Amenities (PL-2011000013) and to release the
Utilities Performance Security (UPS) in the total amount of
$14,695.31 and Final Obligation Bond in the total amount of$8,000
to the Project Engineer or the Developer's Designated Agent.
4) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for The Quarry Block E Re-Plat, Phase 1 (PL-
20110000015) and authorize the County Manager, or his designee,
to release the Utilities Performance Security (UPS) in the amount of
$5,769.60 to the Project Engineer or Developer's Designated Agent.
5) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
Page 7
January 22,2013
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
adopt a Resolution to hold a public hearing to consider vacating a
portion of a 12 foot wide Drainage & Utility Easement, being a part
of Lots 30 and 31, Block 217 of Golden Gate Unit 6, Plat Book 5,
Pages 124 through 134 of the Public Records of Collier County,
Florida. Application No. VAC-PL20120002673.
6) Recommendation to approve release of two liens with a combined
value of$514,933.41 for payment of$1,633.41, in the Code
Enforcement Action entitled Board of County Commissioners vs.
Alexander and Joanka C. Diaz Dominguez, Code Enforcement Case
Numbers CESD20090015779 and CEPM20090015776, relating to
property located at 669 99th Ave N, Collier County, Florida.
7) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
adopt a Resolution authorizing a public hearing to consider vacating
a portion of the southerly 10 feet of an existing 20-foot drainage
easement located in Tracts D and E, Northbrooke Plaza, as recorded
in Plat Book 31, Pages 65 through 66, of the Public Records of Collier
County, Florida. Application No. AVPLAT-PL20120002420.
8) Recommendation to uphold the County Manager's decision and deny
the protest objection by Amera-Tech, Inc. dba Florida Evergreen
Landscape and Lawncare, Inc. and award Invitation to Bid (ITB)
#13-6002 for Radio Road MSTD Maintenance (Santa Barbara and
Airport Pulling Road) to Affordable Landscaping Service & Design,
LLC; authorize the Chairperson to execute the contract.
9) Recommendation to execute a public utility easement in favor of the
City of Marco Island to permit the City to maintain an existing
wastewater line on Palm Avenue, in Goodland, in connection with
the turnover of privately owned utility facilities to the City.
10) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
adopt a Resolution to hold a public hearing to consider vacating an
unimproved Davila Street Right-of-Way, Recorded in Official Record
Page 8
January 22, 2013
Book 144, Pages 634-635, Official Record Book 183, Page 359, and
that part of Davila Street shown on the plat of Green Heron Acres,
recorded in Plat Book 22, Page 70 of the Public Records of Collier
County, Florida. All being a part of the Buttonwood Preserve RPUD.
Application No. VAC-PL20120002180.
11) Recommendation to accept specific past staff clarifications of the
Land Development Code (LDC) attached to the Executive Summary.
12) Recommendation to approve the proposed adoption schedule for the
Collier County Administrative Code and direct the County Manager
or designee to develop a new land use petition type to address
redevelopment in an expedient and cost efficient manner.
13) Recommendation to approve Agreement #4600002771 with South
Florida Water Management District in the amount of$75,000 for the
continued collection of ground water quality samples in the County.
14) Recommendation to approve a release of lien in the amount of
$48,080.57 for payment of$530.57, in the Code Enforcement Action
entitled Board of County Commissioners vs. Herbert A. Salgat Jr.,
Code Enforcement Case Number CESD20100002534, relating to
property located at 5941 Cedar Tree Lane, Collier County, Florida.
15) Recommendation to approve waiving the Right-Of-Way Permit fee
for two annual events held by the Immokalee Chamber of Commerce
for as long as these events are held. The two events are "Community
Friendship Day Block Party" and the "Christmas Around The World
Parade and Gala".
16) 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 recording the final plat of Lantana, (PL20120001529),
approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security.
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Page 9
January 22, 2013
1) Recommendation the Collier County Board of County Commissioners
(BCC) acting in its capacity as the Community Redevelopment
Agency (CRA) to award Contract#12-5970, Immokalee Pavement
Overlay to AJAX Paving Industries of Florida, LLC in the amount of
$225,314.50 and authorize the Chairperson to sign the contract after
review by the Office of the County Attorney. This is the final task
related to the Immokalee Downtown Stormwater Drainage
Improvement Project.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to modify estimated annual expenditures under Bid
#12-5902, "Sewage Hauling" with Dixie Drainfields, Inc. and
Southern Sanitation, Inc. by $90,000.
2) Recommendation to award Bid #12-5955 for the purchase and
delivery of cartridge filters for the North and South County Regional
Water Treatment Plant to Tri-Dim Filter Corporation. (Estimated
Annual Expenditure: $200,000)
3) Recommendation to award Bid #12-5951, "Collier County Leachate
Pipe" in the amount of$75,960 to Andrew Site Work, LLC, to install
leachate pipe at the Collier County Landfill Project.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve an amendment to a Subrecipient
agreement between Collier County and David Lawrence Center
(DLC) to operate the Collier County Drug Court Program and
authorize staff to request a Grant Adjustment Notice (GAN) to initiate
a budget amendment to Drug Court Grant #2010-DC-BX-0016 to pay
Collier County for administrative costs. (Fiscal impact: $6,240)
2) Recommendation to approve an after-the-fact amendment between
Collier County and the Area Agency on Aging for Southwest Florida,
Inc. d/b/a Senior Choices of Southwest Florida for FY 11/12 to reflect
additional grant funding in the amount of$10,482 and corresponding
unit rate increase for the Nutritional Services Incentive Program
(NSIP) and authorize the necessary Budget Amendment.
Page 10
January 22,2013
3) Recommendation to approve an amendment between Collier County
and the Area Agency on Aging for Southwest Florida, Inc. d/b/a
Senior Choices of Southwest Florida to reflect a unit rate increase per
meal from $0.68 to $0.72 for each meal served in the Nutritional
Services Incentive Program (NSIP) for FY 2012/2013.
4) Recommendation to approve a change order request for a zero dollar
time extension for contractor OAC, Inc. to complete Tigertail Beach
Boardwalk Replacement & New Dune Walkover Project #183-90093
and authorize the County Manager or his designee to execute the
Change Order.
5) Recommendation to approve an Area Agency on Aging for Southwest
Florida, Inc., dba Seniors Choices of Southwest Florida Standard
Contract and Attestation Statement, and authorize associated budget
amendments for the FY13 Older Americans Act Title III Program in
the amount of$706,053 and local match funding of$78,450.33.
6) Recommendation to approve a resolution superseding Resolution
No. 2004-66 and all prior rate resolutions and schedules for the
Collier County Health Department, allowing the Collier County
Health Department to establish a proposed fee schedule.
7) Recommendation to establish a Transit Advisory Committee.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to increase the limit of aircraft liability
insurance coverage on the Medflight helicopter from $20,000,000
to $30,000,000 per occurrence, to comply with CAMTS
(Commission on Accreditation of Medical Transport Systems)
accreditation requirements in the amount of$1,380.
2) Recommendation to authorize the sale of Collier County's surplus
property on March 23, 2013.
3) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign an
Assumption Agreement from WilsonMiller, Inc. to Stantec Consulting
Services, Contract #09-5262-S, "County-Wide Engineering Services."
Page 11
January 22,2013
4) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign an
Assumption Agreement from WilsonMiller, Inc. to Stantec Consulting
Services, Inc. for Contract #09-5262 "County-Wide Engineering
Services.
5) Recommendation to approve and ratify the reinstatement of one
classification specification, one reclassification and one new
classification specification in the 2013 FY Pay and Classification
Plan made from October 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012.
6) This item continued from the October 23, 2012 BCC Meeting.
Recommendation to deny the negligence claim of Liz Pfunder, Claim
#22-02151201177 in the amount of$38,093.52.
F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
She will attend the Marco Island Kiwanis Fashion Show Event on
February 7, 2013. The sum of$55 to be paid from Commissioner
Fiala's travel budget.
2) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
She will attend Catholic Charities 45th Anniversary January 30, 2013.
The sum of$20 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
3) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
She attended the US Coast Guard Auxiliary's Change of Watch Event
January 5, 2013. The sum of$50 to be paid from Commissioner
Fiala's travel budget.
4) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
She attended the East Naples Civic Association's Luncheon on
Page 12
January 22, 2013
December 20, 2012. The sum of$18 to be paid from Commissioner
Fiala's travel budget.
5) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
She attended the East Naples Civic Association's Annual Banquet
January 21, 2013. The sum of$40 to be paid from Commissioner
Fiala's travel budget.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous correspondence to file with action as directed.
Document(s) have been routed to all Commissioners and are available
for review in the BCC Office until approval.
2) Advisory Board minutes and agendas to file with action as directed.
Document(s) have been routed to all Commissioners and are available
for review in the BCC Office until approval.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
December 22, 2012 through December 29, 2012 and for submission
into the official records of the Board.
2) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
December 30, 2012 through January 4, 2013 and for submission into
the official records of the Board.
3) Recommendation to approve an increase of one-quarter (.25)
Full-time Equivalent (FTE) in Court Administration for an existing
employee.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to approve second amendments to agreements for
legal services for Contract #06-4047, Eminent Domain Legal Services
with the law firms of Fixel, Maguire & Willis and Bricklemyer,
Smolker & Bolves, extending expiration dates to April 22, 2015.
Page 13
January 22,2013
2) Recommendation to authorize an increase in the purchase order for
Carlton Fields, P.A., in the case of Collier County v. John Reynolds &
Sons, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-6658-CA, South Reverse Osmosis Raw
Water Wellfield Pipeline Project No. 70030. (Fiscal Impact: an
additional $200,000)
3) Recommendation the Board approves and authorizes the Chairman to
sign, a Settlement Agreement and a Confidentiality Agreement with
Ian Mitchel.
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS WHICH ARE QUASI-
JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
A. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are
required to be sworn in. Recommendation to consider an Ordinance of
the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending
Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, Collier County's Land Development
Code which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for
unincorporated areas of Collier County, Florida, by amending appropriate
zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein
described real property from a Residential Planned Unit Development
zoning district (RPUD) to an RPUD zoning district, for a project known as
Buttonwood Preserve RPUD (Petition Number PUDA-PL20120001105) to
allow up to 220 residential dwelling units on property located southeast of
the Immokalee Road (CR 846) and Collier Boulevard (CR 951) intersection
on Tree Farm Road approximately .07 miles east of Collier Boulevard in
Section 35, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida,
Page 14
January 22,2013
consisting of 53.8+ acres; providing for repeal of Ordinance 2007-42, the
former Buttonwood Preserve RPUD; and by providing an effective date.
B. 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 a resolution
changing the name of Olde Cypress Boulevard to Logan Boulevard North.
The subject roadway is located in Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 26
East, in Collier County, Florida.
C. Recommendation to adopt an ordinance which would amend Ordinance No.
2002-27, as amended, relating to the Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing
and Benefit Unit.
D. This item was continued from the December 11, 2012 BCCMeetinji.
Recommendation to adopt an ordinance which would establish limitations,
in addition to those set forth in Chapter 538, Part I, Florida Statutes, on the
sale and/or purchase of secondhand goods. (secondhand dealers)
E. 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 15
January 22,2013
January 22, 2013
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have a live mic.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. Good morning. We'd
like to begin with the invocation and follow that with the pledge. The
invocation this morning will be administered by Pastor Michael
Bannon from Crossroads Community Church of Naples.
And then I'd like to ask if County Attorney Klatzkow would lead
us in the invocation --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Invocation?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sorry, in the pledge. Right,
invocation would be a bad thing. You'd probably cite the code or
something. Sorry, church and state.
MR. KLATZKOW: I have one just in case.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Separation of church and state.
Item #1A
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
PASTOR BANNON: Let's pray.
Lord God, how fitting it is for us to look to you and ask you to
help us. I pray Lord God for our Commissioners, that you would bless
them this day with great wisdom and incite and creativity that as they
seek to govern the matters and concerns that are about us here in this
fine county that you've given us.
We pray for ourselves as the citizens of this county, that you
would give us a heart for it, that we would seek to do well in it, to
prosper in it, to care for it.
Lord, I pray that all that happens here in this meeting would
bring great glory to your name. Amen.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: County Manager?
Page 2
January 22, 2013
Item #2A
APPROVAL OF TODAY'S REGULAR AGENDA AS AMENDED
— APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Good morning, Madam Chairwoman, members of
the Board. These are the proposed agenda changes for the Board of
County Commissioners meeting of January 22nd, 2013.
First proposed change is to add on Item 11.H. It's a
recommendation to approve an expedited solicitation process to allow
for construction dredging of Clam Pass. That item is added at the
staffs request. And that executive summary and the backup
engineering drawings went out to the Board members this past Friday.
The next proposed change is to remove Item 16.D.7 to become
Item 11.1 under the County Manager's regular agenda. It's a
recommendation to establish a transit advisory committee. That item
was being moved at Commissioner Henning's request.
Next change is -- proposed change is to continue Item 17.0 to the
February 12th, 2013 Board of County Commissioners meeting. That's
an ordinance amendment relating to the Pelican Bay Municipal
Service Taxing and Benefit Unit. That item is made at Commissioner
Fiala's request. It says petitioner's request, I don't believe that's
correct, it should be Commissioner Fiala's request.
Next change is to continue Item 17.D to the February 12th, 2013
Board of County Commissioners meeting. It's the -- this is an item
that was placed on the agenda as second reading to adopt an ordinance
establishing limitations on the sale and purchase of secondhand goods.
That continuance is made at the County Attorney's request.
We have one agenda note this morning, Commissioners. It has to
do with Item 16.K.3. On Page 2 of that executive summary we have a
transposition of dates, an incorrect date. Instead of October 9th, 2012,
Page 3
January 22, 2013
it should read October 23rd, 2012. And that noted correction's at the
County Attorney's request.
Then we have several changes to the time certain items, and I'll
take you through these in order. We have a 10:00 a.m. time certain
hearing on 11.B. That is the item having to do with the Vanderbilt
Beach restrooms. That item will be immediately followed by Item
10.J. That item has to do with the installation of beach access signs
along Gulfshore Drive.
Immediately following 10.J we will hear 11.H, which was your
add-on item, and that is the item having to do with the Clam Pass
dredging project.
Then at 11 :00 a.m. we will hear Item 11.A, and that is the item
having to do with the peer review on the major beach renourishment
project and the approval of the bid form for that construction letting
later this year.
We have two other time certain requests that aren't on your sheet,
Commissioners. Eleven -- excuse me, 13.A, that is the Clerk's item
having to do with pay plan adjustments is to be heard at 2:00 p.m.
And that would be immediately followed by Item 11.D on your
agenda. That is the item having to do with the proposed memorandum
of agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation relating
to the expansion of U.S. 41 east and the related utility relocation. So
we'll hear that immediately following 13.A.
So those are all the time certains that I had, Madam Chairwoman.
Does that comport with your list?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: With one exception. The
continuance of 17.C, that is something I think we need to open up for
discussion. That item I would like to have heard today. So we can
move it from consent to the general, if Commissioner Fiala would like
to address it. But this is the final reading on the ordinance, and it
would be the passing of the ordinance as amended. So there's no
reason to continue it. But we can have it on the general.
Page 4
January 22, 2013
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, we can discuss it on the
regular agenda.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sure, that's fine, we can do that.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chairman, then that would become Item
9.A on your advertised public hearings. And that item is heard any
time after 1:00 p.m. Can't be heard before 1 :00.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's fine.
MR. OCHS: Those are all the changes that I have this morning.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Is there any discussion?
Yes, Commissioner Nance.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah -- oh.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Excuse me, sir, go ahead.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I am concerned about
continuing 17.C. We need to move on that dredge. And we already
made steps to do so. And to do any changes midstream would only
delay the process, so --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, which is why -- and thank
you for your support on that. That's why I think Mr. Ochs has moved
17.0 to 9.A.
MR. OCHS: That's correct.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Which will be heard after 1 :00.
And I agree with you, there's really no reason to continue that.
Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes. I have a concern about
Item 16.K.3 on the consent agenda. I think we should pull that from
the consent agenda and perhaps even continue the agenda item in light
of correspondence that I've recently become aware of that I wasn't
aware of before today regarding other pending litigation that perhaps
could involve Mr. Mitchell. So I would like to have a complete
understanding. And I think maybe some discussion may be in order
before we finalize our agreement with him.
Page 5
January 22, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Nance, what's your
preference? Would you rather see it on the general or would you like
to continue it and speak to the County Attorney?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I would like to speak to Mr.
Klatzkow, because I don't understand what exactly is taking place
here. So rather than -- we can talk about it now or we can talk about it
later, but I would certainly prefer, since I had suggested the settlement
with Mr. Klatzkow, and I'm having some reservations now that that's
appropriate, in light of what's going on. So if I could speak to him or
maybe others would like to speak to him as well kind of where we're
going on this. Because it's unclear to me.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Mr. Klatzkow?
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioners, it's up to you. We can go
forward with this now or I could talk separately with the
Commissioners. I don't believe that there's any outstanding issue.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, is there any discussion on this
from the Board?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And we all received communication
this morning. I received a letter from Evelyn Prieto's attorney and
requested that the County Attorney forward it to all members of the
Board, and I believe you received it this morning.
Mr. Klatzkow, Commissioner Fiala didn't receive it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, that's because I haven't seen it.
It's probably still in there.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Oh, it's in your in box, okay.
So if I understand correctly what Commissioner Nance is saying
is that in light of the letter that we had received, he would like to
either put 16.K.3 on the general agenda or continue it.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would support putting it on the
general agenda. I'm familiar with the case that Commissioner Nance
Page 6
January 22, 2013
is concerned about. I agree with the County Attorney, I don't think
there's an outstanding issue there. And if we could bring it onto the
general agenda and let the County Attorney explain whatever he feels
comfortable explaining with respect to the legal case, we could do
that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala, your thoughts
on that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, being that I haven't seen the
letter that you're referring to, I'm happy to bring it onto the regular
agenda.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I think it's important that that letter
be produced immediately for Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I can have my aide bring it up.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I want to make sure -- I'd like you to
see it before you --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- make a decision to give you the
opportunity, because it is first impression.
Okay, thank you. Actually, it's right here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve the agenda as
amended.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that item then, if I understand the
desire of the Board, will become 12.A. 16.K.3 will become 12.A
under your County Attorney's report.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's fine.
Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There being no further discussion,
all in favor?
Page 7
January 22, 2013
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
Page 8
Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
January 22,2013
Add-On Item 11H: Recommendation to approve the expedited solicitation process for the
construction dredging of Clam Pass and direct the County Manager to issue work order(s) under
current Board approved contract(s)to the firm(s)who submit the lowest responsive price for the
Clam Pass project. (Staff's request)
Move Item 16D7 to Item 11I: Recommendation to establish a Transit Advisory Committee.
(Commissioner Henning's request)
Continue Item 17C to the February 12,2013 BCC Meeting: Recommendation to adopt an
ordinance which would amend Ordinance No.2002-27,as amended, relating to the Pelican Bay
Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit. (Commissioner Fiala and Petitioner's requests)
Continue Item 17D to the February 12,2013 BCC Meeting: This item continued from the
December 11, 2012 BCC Meeting. Recommendation to adopt an ordinance which would establish
limitations,in addition to those set forth in Chapter 538,Part I,Florida Statutes,on the sale and/or
purchase of secondhand goods (secondhand dealers). (County Attorney's request)
Note:
Item 16K3: Page two of the Executive Summary should read "The Board's offer was to settle
for back pay from the date of termination(October 9 23,2012) to January 9,2013 plus 6 weeks of
severance(similar to the settlement with David Jackson)for a total of 17 weeks,plus signing the
required Confidentiality Agreement. Mr.Mitchell's counsel has advised the County Attorney that
Mr. Mitchell does not desire to return to his position as Executive Manager to the Board of County
Commissioners,believes he is entitled to his full 6 month severance package,but is willing to accept
back pay from the date of termination (October 9 23,2012)to January 23,2013 plus 6 weeks of
severance for a total of 19 weeks. (County Attorney's request)
Time Certain Items:
Item 11B to be heard at 10:00 a.m.immediately followed by Item 10J
Item 11A to be heard at 11:00 a.m.
1/22/2013 8:37 AM
January 22, 2013
Item #2B
APPROVAL OF TODAY'S CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED
— APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
MR. MILLER: Madam Chairwoman, you have a registered
public speaker on the consent agenda who wants to speak to one of
those items.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Is there anything on the
consent that anyone would like to pull forward as of this time, beyond
what we've already discussed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Would you like to bring the public
speaker forward.
MR. MILLER: Sure. Liz Pfunder.
MS. PFUNDER: Hello. I was hoping to receive a positive
recommendation for today, but I see I'm the only item recommended
to deny. Can I ask the Commissioners to put it on the regular agenda
to talk?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Mr. Klatzkow, can you comment on
that?
MR. KLATZKOW: Which item?
MR. MILLER: 16.E.6.
MR. OCHS: 16.E.6.
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioners, it's your prerogative
whether you want to add it or not.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: As a courtesy, I'm going to move
that we amend the general agenda to include that item to give Mrs.
Pfunder the opportunity to hear why the county is denying her claim.
MS. PFUNDER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That is item number what?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Jeff?
Page 9
January 22, 2013
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that is Item 16.E.6. It will become
Item 11.J.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Jeff, is that acceptable?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MS. PFUNDER: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: May I have a motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve -- you know
what, we haven't done our --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Oh, the ex parte. Yeah, go -- any ex
parte on the consent? Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not on the consent. But I have ex
parte on the summary agenda for Item No. 17.A, and I have read the
staff report dated 12/6/12.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I have nothing to declare on
the consent agenda, but on the summary agenda I too have received
the staff report on 17.A. That's the only thing I have to declare.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: On 17.A I have talked to Bruce
Anderson and received the staff report.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I have no ex parte disclosure on the
consent agenda. On the summary agenda I also have read the staff
report on the Buttonwood Preserve RPUD Item 17.A.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And my disclosures are the same as
Commissioner Nance's.
Again, any further discussion on the consent as amended?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve today's regular
Page 10
January 22, 2013
agenda as amended.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Consent agenda as amended.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
Item #2C
APPROVAL OF TODAY'S SUMMARY AGENDA AS AMENDED
(EX PARTE DISCLOSURE PROVIDED BY COMMISSION
MEMBERS) — ADOPTED
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The next item is the approval of the
summary agenda as amended. Is there any discussion?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Motion to approve.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #2D
Page 11
January 22, 2013
MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 11-12, 2012, BCC/REGULAR
MEETING — APPROVED AS PRESENTED
The December 11th, 12th, 2012 BCC meeting minutes are
presented. Any discussion?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
Item #4
PROCLAMATIONS — ONE MOTION WAS TAKEN TO ADOPT
BOTH OF THE PROCLAMATIONS — ADOPTED
Item #4A
A PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING JANUARY 27, 2013 AS
INTERNATIONAL HOLOCAUST REMEMBRANCE DAY.
ACCEPTED BY JACK NORTMAN, VICE PRESIDENT,
HOLOCAUST MUSEUM & EDUCATION CENTER OF
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA BOARD — ADOPTED
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
Page 12
January 22, 2013
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have no service awards today,
so that takes you to Item 4 on this morning's agenda, Proclamations.
Item 4.A is a proclamation recognizing January 27, 2013 as
International Holocaust Remembrance Day, to be accepted by Jack
Nortman, vice-president, Holocaust Museum and Education Center of
Southwest Florida Board. This item is sponsored by Commissioner
Coyle. If you would please step forward.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Joan Hogan is accepting.
MS. HOGAN: Good morning. Thank you, Commissioners, for
the proclamation.
This coming Sunday at The Green in Mercado from 1 :00 to 3:00
we're having an International Holocaust Remembrance service. It's
open to the public free of charge. We will have a small exhibit of
black-and-white photographs of local Southwest Florida Holocaust
survivors, along with examples of letters children have written to them
and poems they wrote about when they had met them through our
educational program. We'll also have a musical program by Voices of
Naples. We invite everyone to come and thank you again for your
time this morning.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And again, I want to commend you
for all you do. As you know, my mother was a survivor. So we
appreciate that everyone keeps remembering. Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4B
A PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING FEBRUARY, 2013 AS
LITERACY MONTH IN COLLIER COUNTY AND
RECOGNIZING THE "BRING A BOOK, BRING A FRIEND"
PROGRAM OF THE K IS FOR KIDS FOUNDATION WHICH
PROVIDES BOOKS TO CHILDREN IN NEED. ACCEPTED BY
Page 13
January 22, 2013
KAREN CLAWSON, K IS FOR KIDS FOUNDER AND
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND VOLUNTEERS — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4.B is a proclamation designating February,
2013 as Literacy Month in Collier County, and recognizing the Bring
a Book, Bring a Friend Program of the K is for Kids Foundation,
which provides books to children in need. This item is to be accepted
by Karen Clawson, K is for Kids founder and executive director, and
numerous volunteers. And this item is sponsored by the entire Board
of County Commissioners. Please step forward.
(Applause.)
MS. KLAWSON: Actually, the students, they're student leaders
from Lorenzo Walker, and they will be accepting this. One of their
first public speaking opportunities --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Excuse me, you need to say that
again in the microphone.
MS. CLAWSON: Accepting this proclamation on behalf of K is
for Kids Foundation are three of our top student leaders from Lorenzo
Walker. It is one of their first public speaking engagements so they'll
say something after the picture, if there's time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you want to be in the picture?
MS. CLAWSON: No, that's okay.
I was going to ask them to say something really quickly about
themselves. They're representing the team. Our primary volunteers
are teenagers. Starting with Alexandra Almora.
MS. ALMORA: Good morning. I'm Alexandra Almora. I go to
Lorenzo Walker Institute of Technology on the high school side. I am
part of the public relations team with Ms. Karen Clawson for the K is
for Kids Foundation.
This February we're having a teens fashion show, along with my
other members of the PR team.
This is Ninfa Antunez and Miriam Romero.
Page 14
January 22, 2013
MS. ROMERO: You guys are all invited to the show. And
come and bring a friend and bring a book.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's great. Thank you so much.
MS. CLAWSON: Ninfa Antunez is our quietest member of the
team. Do you want to say something?
MS. ANTUNEZ: I'm part of the PR team also. Well, we're all
part of it and we're happy to be here. Thank you for the award.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It's a wonderful program. My son
actually participated in it last year. He was standing in your shoes, not
doing quite as well as you, so you guys are fantastic. And we look
forward to the fashion show. I hope you can give me some good style
tips. I look forward to it. Congratulations.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, if I could get a motion to approve
today's proclamations, please?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: May I have a motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve today's
proclamations.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: May I have a second?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #5A
RECOMMENDATION TO RECOGNIZE JUDY PUIG,
OPERATIONS ANALYST, OPERATIONS AND REGULATORY
Page 15
January 22, 2013
MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT AS EMPLOYEE OF THE YEAR
FOR 2012 — PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, the next item is Item 5 on your
agenda, Presentations. We have a very special presentation this
morning, and that is to recognize Judy Puig, Operations Analyst in our
Growth Management Division as Employee of the Year for 2012.
Judy, if you'd please come forward.
(Applause.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you for everything you're
doing for the county, we appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Much deserved, Judy.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, I'm going to tell the audience a
little bit about Judy.
Judy Puig has been a county employee for over 25 years and she
works currently as our Operations and Regulatory Management
Officer in the Division of Growth Management. Judy touches almost
every aspect of that particular division on a daily basis. She has a
wide range of knowledge about various sections and departments.
She's always willing to volunteer to help other departments when
needed.
Among many of her duties includes managing items in our
agenda central, responsible for preparing agendas and packets for
board meetings and also for the advisory boards that she supports in
Growth Management.
She's held in high regard by her peers and of course by upper
management, and has really set the standard for excellence in
customer service, both internally and with our external customers.
She's always willing to provide guidance and assistance to anyone in
need. She truly is a valuable asset to the county and most deserving of
this special recognition.
Judy, it's my privilege, and Commissioners, it's my privilege to
Page 16
January 22, 2013
present Judy Puig, Employee of the Year for 2012. Congratulations.
(Applause.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Would you like to speak?
MS. PUIG: I'd just like to thank Jeanne Marcella for nominating
me and everyone at Growth Management Division for all their support
over the years, they're a great team. And facilities management, IT, all
of the other divisions, they're just wonderful when I do work orders
and communication and just team work. So I just want to thank
everybody.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #7
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we have no public petitions today.
That moves us to Item 7, which is Public Comments on General
Topics.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chairwoman, your first public comment
is from Sam Saad, Jr. He'll be followed by Bob Krasowski.
MR. SAAD: Good morning, Commissioners, how are you
today?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Good morning.
MR. SAAD: I'm here on behalf of the Collier County
Republican Executive Committee. I want to make an announcement
about a fabulous event we have planned for February 9th. My good
friend Michael Reagan is coming in as our speaker. This is going to
be to benefit the Collier County Republican Party as well as we're
creating a youth initiative. And we need to bring the youth in to
understand more about how our government runs, how our politics,
how our system operates. Kids are smart enough to make a decision
Page 17
January 22, 2013
after they see both sides of the story, and that's what we want to try
and create.
Tickets are $175. Tables are $1,200 for a table of eight. You
may add $15 to your ticket and sponsor a student, which will get you
priority seating in this fabulous theater in the round we're going to
have at the Waldorf Astoria. So all the seats will be good seats.
Michael will be up close and personal. He's a personable friendly
guy, so you'll have a great time there. And I encourage everyone to
come, get a table together, please join us. It's going to be very well
attended. I know we have several hundred reservations already sold
and it's going to be a big deal and a lot of fun. And I encourage you
all to come. And I'd be happy to answer any questions you might
have.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any questions?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes.
Mr. Saad, how many students and young people can we
accommodate at this event?
MR. SAAD: Right now we're anticipating probably 100. Erika
Donalds, who is the wife of a former Republican congressional
candidate, Byron Donalds, is handling that initiative. We have on our
website, CollierGOP.org, you can find an application for high school
students, you can find an application for college students, and we will
try to get as many of those approved as possible.
The students, when they arrive, will have a particular area where
we will have some refreshments for them. And at the conclusion of
dinner, just as dessert is being served, the students will come in and sit
around the outside of the room, around the edge of the room and be
able to listen.
We want to hopefully take the speakers into a speaker series,
create a foundation to start helping youth understand both sides of
politics.
Any questions from anyone else?
Page 18
January 22, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Thank you, sir.
MR. SAAD: I appreciate your allowing me to have this moment.
Thank you very much. Keep up the good work.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next public speaker is Bob Krasowski.
He'll be followed by Tom Graham.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners. Bob
Krasowski for the record.
At your last meeting, 10.P was the item, I wasn't able to be here.
It was a -- Commissioner Nance had proposed some workshops or
putting more meetings on the calendar for workshops. And I just
wanted to say that I think workshops are a great idea. I know that you
do them occasionally, but I think particularly for complicated issues
that have large budgets that initially have a representation on how to
do the work from the staff, the good ideas from them need to be aired
in the public and you -- maybe you'd have different levels of
workshop; a workshop where you'd be just hearing from the staff,
other workshop which would just be really open to the public just to
gather ideas. Usually workshops you don't take action, that's pretty
much their purpose. But even on the bigger issues you could have a
number of workshops; you know, the first to gather ideas and the other
to kind of hone in on what your options are. It's really important and
necessary on the big, big ticket items. And you know what I'm talking
about. Okay, well, thank you very much.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next public speaker is Tom Graham. He'll
be followed by David Bolduc. Hope I'm saying that right.
MR. GRAHAM: Good morning, Commissioners. Thank you
again for allowing me to speak. Tom Graham from Colliers Reserve.
You're subsequently going to be concerning the Riverchase
matter later on, but I wanted to give you some bullet points to please
Page 19
January 22, 2013
consider at the time that it's being presented.
In July of 1992, the initial Riverchase landscaping plan was
submitted and approved and had 325 live oaks and 170 cabbage
palms. In December of 1992 Collier Enterprises, developing both the
Riverchase, Colliers Reserve and the Health Park established an
agreement in which concerning all three of these entities, Riverchase,
Collier's Reserve and Health Park in which it was to maintain the
esthetic standards and compatibility of each of the properties. And it
was supposed to be good and attractive -- maintained in a good and
attractive condition. This was recorded in the public records of Collier
County.
Well, and for 20 years after that we lived with beautiful, lush,
attractive landscaping in the Riverchase Shopping Center. And then
in March -- and that was providing -- excuse me, providing a nice
shade for the concrete parking lot.
Then in March 28th of 2012, Robert Mitchell of Weston and
Sampson emails Michael Sawyer at the County Land Management
Division at 3:11 p.m., asking him to review the attached landscape
plan to see if it satisfied the requirement to be considered as an
insubstantial change.
Now the county has a policy called Insubstantial Changes to Site
Development Plans, and that plan called for minor changes. The site
plan that was submitted to Mr. Sawyer was a significant change in that
now it included 45 slash pines and 51 bald cypress trees.
On March 28th, the same day at, 3:34 p.m., Mr. Sawyer, the
project manager, emails Robert Mitchell, thanking him for the email
and advising landscape changes can be submitted as an insubstantial
change. He told him to bring a copy of this response to the submittal
meeting.
Well, I doubt that during this period of time that Mr. Sawyer took
his county car and drove up to Riverchase to see what the landscaping
was at that particular time and whether this was in fact a minor
Page 20
January 22, 2013
change. So I don't know whether -- and he certainly didn't check the
public records to see if there was any kind of agreement. So you look
at it and you say well, what's going on at this particular time between
this. Because on April the 2nd the plans were submitted for an
insubstantial change.
I have just a few seconds left.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Was that three?
MR. MILLER: Three.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Let me suggest that you can bring
back the balance of your comments under the agenda items.
MR. GRAHAM: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: If you have any other members of
your community here that choose to speak at that time, whatever you
can't say, they can pick up and we can hear the whole story at that
time.
MR. GRAHAM: Thank you. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We've heard it once.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It's reinforcement.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: This is the second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It's reinforcement.
MR. MILLER: Your last public speaker is David Bolduc. Am I
saying that right?
MR. BOLDUC: Good morning. For the record, David Bolduc.
Back in September 13th of 2011, Dr. Scott Tomar from the
University of Florida College of Dentistry provided the presentation to
the County Commissioners regarding the effectiveness and safety of
fluoride, adding it to the drinking water.
Well, there's been some information that's come to light
subsequent to that presentation I think the Commissioners should be
aware.
First, the same Dr. Tomar provided the similar presentation to
Naples City Council on April 18th of last year. And when he was
Page 21
January 22, 2013
asked by one of the council members, what is the most robust study,
most effective study on water fluoridation, he pointed City Council to
the York review which was done by University of York in England.
Well, if you read the York review, first of all they state that the
gold standard for providing the safety and effectiveness of medical
treatment is a randomized control trial. And that they found that no
randomized control trials on the effects of water fluoridation were
found. In fact, in a statement prior to releasing the review, they said:
We were unable to discover any reliable good quality evidence in the
water fluoridation literature worldwide.
In fact, Sir Iain Chalmers, who served on the review of-- the
review board of the York review. As far as your team were able to
determine, there are no randomized control trials for water
fluoridation. It's not that they couldn't have been done, of course they
could have been done, but there are none.
And then -- so that's for the effectiveness of water fluoridation.
Regarding the safety, back in the fall, October of 2012, the
Harvard School of Public Health published a study Developmental
Fluoride Neurotoxicity, a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Now, if you go back to the September presentation from Dr.
Tomar, he had an evidence-based pyramid. And at the pinnacle of the
pyramid is a systematic review and meta-analysis. So this is exactly
what Dr. Tomar is looking for.
They go on to state that thus children in high fluoride areas had
significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low fluoride
areas.
They also stated when they were talking about the results, the
results suggest that fluoride may be a developmental neurotoxin that
affects brain development at exposures much below those that can
cause toxicity in adults. They further go on to say: Supporting our
plausibility of our findings, rats exposed to one part per million of
water fluoride -- by the way, the county fluoridates to .7 parts per
Page 22
January 22, 2013
million, so this is a very similar level of fluoridation and exposure
over the course of the year -- showed morphological alterations in the
brain and increased levels of aluminum in brain tissue compared with
controls.
Given this, I think the public would be well served if county
would bring this back as an agenda item, perhaps late April, early
May. We can line up a panel of experts and discuss what's been
presented subsequent to Dr. Tomar's last presentation.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any discussion on the part of
Board?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I'm okay with doing that.
However, can you forward me the information that -- or forward
to the Board the information that you have?
MR. BOLDUC: Sure. Absolutely. I can email that to you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I agree that bringing this matter
back in light of the information that you are presenting today is
worthwhile. And I'd like a copy of the information as well to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Maybe he could send it to us all.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, actually, if you would,
Commissioner Fiala is correct, if you could send the information to all
of us and then we can make a determination if we would like to bring
this back at a later time based on the new evidence.
MR. BOLDUC: Okay, I will do that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle, you look like
you'd like to speak.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just for the record, I think it's a
waste of time. We heard from our community before very loud and
clearly, and I think this is -- it's crazy. But nevertheless, if you want to
entertain some kind of petition like this, we can do it again. But we've
Page 23
January 22, 2013
already done it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you, David.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We'll have the same doctors in here
that we had before.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And I think there were both very
strong proponents and opponents of this question, and any new
evidence is worthy of consideration, especially when we're
considering public health.
So thank you. If you would --
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes.
MR. OCHS: If I may for --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Did anybody vote?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, we didn't vote. I just --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Who was in favor of bringing it
back?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, my suggestion was that we all
get the information and then if any one of us would like to put it back
on the agenda that we can do so individually. I don't think there's any
need for a vote.
Would you like to have a vote on it?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. No, I just wanted -- you have
made a decision then to bring it back.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, no, no, I think it's worthy of
consideration based on the review. But if the information presented
doesn't rise to the level of changing the information, then maybe we
don't. But I think we should just, you know, be open minded about it.
MR. OCHS: That was the clarification. Thank you, ma'am.
MR. MILLER: That was your final public speaker under public
comment.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Page 24
January 22, 2013
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 2013-23: APPOINTING COUNCILMAN LARRY
HONIG, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND
WITH A TERM EXPIRING MAY 22, 2015, TO THE COLLIER
COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 10 on your
agenda, Board of County Commissioners. Item 10.A is appointment
of member to the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I'd like to make a motion to
approve the City of Marco Island's recommendation of Councilman
Larry Honig.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'll second that.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 2013-24: SETTING MARCH 1, 2013 AS THE
BALLOTING DATE FOR THE RECOMMENDATION OF
MEMBERS TO THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION
BOARD BY RECORD TITLE OWNERS OF PROPERTY WITHIN
PELICAN BAY — ADOPTED; MOTION TO ACCEPT CURRENT
Page 25
January 22, 2013
AMENDED LIST — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 10.B is a request to set the balloting date for the
recommendation of members to the Pelican Bay Services Division
Board by record title owners of property within Pelican Bay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, just one little question. I
thought John Domenie --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Domenie.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He lives in Pelican Bay, right?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It says he's in District 3 --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It's an error.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- but I didn't think he was.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's just a typo.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just to clear that up.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you very much. I appreciate
you bringing that to our attention for the record.
John Domenie does live in Pelican Bay and he is in District 2 and
there was a typographical error in the executive summary.
MR. OCHS: And Commissioners, the date recommended by the
Clerk for the balloting is March 1, 2013.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
Page 26
January 22, 2013
Item #1 OC
RECOMMENDATION TO WAIVE ALL PERMIT, BUILDING
INSPECTION, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT FEES ASSOCIATED
FOR THE CITY OF EVERGLADES NEEDED ADDITIONS TO
ITS WATER TREATMENT FACILITY, AND TO REIMBURSE
THE ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE FUNDS — MOTION TO
APPROVE WAIVER OF FEES AND DIRECTING STAFF TO
DEVELOP A POLICY REGARDING FUTURE WAIVERS THAT
WOULD INCLUDE INCORPORATING ANY POSSIBLE GRANT
FUNDS — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Item 10.0 is a recommendation to waive all permit,
building inspection and site development fees associated with the City
of Everglades needed additions to its water treatment facility and to
reimburse the associated enterprise funds.
This item was brought forward to the agenda by Commissioner
Nance.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Nance, would you
like to comment? And Commissioner Fiala would like to address this
agenda item after you speak.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes. The City of Everglades is
currently upgrading its water treatment facility, which also includes
adjacent communities within Collier County. And they have engaged
Mr. Tears, our ex director of the Big Cypress Basin, to assist them.
And I think it's definitely in the county's interest to have Everglades
upgrade its system and extend its service to people in that area. And I
just thought that we should assist them in every way possible, because
it's going to save the county money and provide good service to our
citizens.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: For the benefit of the public, could
you disclose the amounts in question?
Page 27
January 22, 2013
COMMISSIONER NANCE: The attached amounts, I don't have
them right before me --
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, the total estimated fees is
$8,084.32. That money would come from your general fund reserves
and replenish your enterprise funds in the Growth Management
Division.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, just a quick -- I believe that
this is a good project, and I don't have any problem with it at all. But I
wondered, you named some of the cities. I was wondering if that also
includes Copeland.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Commissioner Fiala, I believe that
it does but I'm not certain that we have sufficient -- maybe somebody
could address that. Is that right, Clarence?
MR. TEARS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, good. It wasn't mentioned
here but I --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Copeland is in your district. I don't
know how that happened. I think it's a really, really good project. It's
excellent to have those sorts of amenities in the eastern part of the
county. It's really remarkable that we do.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I agree that it's a good
project. My only question concerns the issue of setting precedence
with respect to general fund revenue for these kinds of things.
Are we going to do the same thing if the City of Marco comes in
and asks for a waiver of fees for some project they're proceeding with,
or the City of Naples or Immokalee? I just want to think through this
whole process to make sure that we don't have unintended
consequences.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I think that's a very wise remark.
Page 28
January 22, 2013
Leo, could you respond with respect to the precedent and why we
should be doing this for the City of Everglades and not consider the
same standard for any of the other municipalities or special districts?
MR. OCHS: I don't know that I can give those assurances,
Madam Chair. I will say in case, as I understand Commissioner
Nance's memo, that the permitting agency at the state level has also
waived their fees, they understand the importance of getting this done
and some of the hardships that it creates for that small municipality.
So I believe Commissioner Nance was following form behind the state
on this particular request to waive those fees to the City of Everglades.
We may get requests from the other municipalities and that --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And maybe the standard could be
economic hardship and where a municipality has a challenged budget
and the amount is not going to materially impact our general fund that
we consider that as a fair approach?
MR. OCHS: Sure. Either that and/or, you know, if the state
recommends a fee waiver for those municipalities as well, then maybe
that would be the trigger for the Board to consider the local fees being
waived.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I agree with Leo's
comments, if the state is going to waive their fees, why can't we do
that? You know, I believe the Copeland area is economic -- not only
economic (sic) depressed, but there's an income level there that's
probably the same as other communities that receive CDBG monies.
And that might be something that could reimburse the general fund in
a later time.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning, would you
like to direct staff to come back with a policy and look into your
suggestion of possible reimbursement from other sources?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Leo, do you have a problem
taking a look at that and seeing --
Page 29
January 22, 2013
MR. OCHS: No, I'd be happy to, sir, if we can qualify for
reimbursement under one of our Federal grant programs, we certainly
want to do that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
MR. OCHS: If not, we'll take it from general revenues.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, that's -- I think that's what
Commissioner Nance's recommendations are, and I support it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's great.
Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yeah, I'd just like to say one thing.
When we start talking about outlining areas in the county, particularly
rural areas, it's like REA Electric in our country years ago. It's well
known that we're never going to be able to recover the cost for running
electric lines, municipal water lines and things like that to a few
residents that live in outlining areas. And Everglades City has gone
really above and beyond as a municipality to reach out to serve
citizens and unincorporated Collier County.
So I think it's the least we can do to help them out by setting
aside some of our fees, inspection, costs and site development costs to
help them do this. I think it's just good business and it should help us
in rural areas of the county to extend services that otherwise wouldn't
possibly be able to be provided.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I don't intend to interfere
with this. All I'm looking for is a clear policy that will guide our
decisions in the future. And whether it is a definition of an
economically depressed area, whether it is a relatively temporary
condition like maybe some -- an economic recession that creates
severe budget hardship, I can understand those kinds of reasons for
using general fund money to waive these fees. And if we could just
have a policy that we can look to in the future when we wish to make
Page 30
January 22, 2013
decisions such as this, that would be helpful.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I completely agree with
Commissioner Coyle and with Commissioner Henning and with
Commissioner Nance, and I'm sure Commissioner Fiala does too.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I do. And I'd like to make a
motion to approve.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Could you bifurcate the motion in
two parts: One to approve specifically the waiver and secondly to
recommend what Commissioner Henning was suggesting, that a
policy be developed?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can we roll that all into one
motion?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes, please.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I roll that all into one motion.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I will second it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All in favor --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Carries unanimously.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question on the motion. That
includes looking at areas of waiver that is economically deprived and
also direct the County Attorney on this item to see if federal grants can
be used to reimburse.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala, would you be
willing to amend your motion --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Certainly.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- to include that clarification?
Do I have an amended --
Page 31
January 22, 2013
COMMISSIONER NANCE: My second as well.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #1 OD
RECOMMENDATION THE COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) APPROVE AND
EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO THE EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CRA AND PENNY S. PHILLIPPI,
IMMOKALEE CRA'S EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, EXTENDING
THE TERM OF EMPLOYMENT THREE YEARS, MAKE
CERTAIN CHANGES TO THE CONTRACT, AND AUTHORIZE
THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN — MOTION TO RESCIND THE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S 3-YEAR CONTRACT EXTENSION,
OFFERING A 1-YEAR CONTRACT WITH NO ADDITIONAL
CHANGES TO TERMS — APPROVED 3/2; MOTION TO
RESTORE THE OLD CONTRACT AND CHANGING THE
CONTRACT TO A MONTH-TO MONTH BASIS — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners. That takes us to Item
10.D on your agenda this morning. It's a recommendation that the
Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency approve and
execute an amendment to the employee agreement between the CRA
Page 32
January 22, 2013
and Penny S. Phillippi, the Immokalee CRA Executive Director,
extending the term of the employment three years, make certain
changes to the contract and authorize the Chairman to sign. This item
was approved for reconsideration at the December 11, 2012 BCC
meeting.
Mr. Klatzkow, shall the Board go into session as the CRA for this
item?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: The CRA Board is now in
session.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Move to adjourn.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Do we have -- Commissioner
Henning, you brought this back. Would you like to make comments
on it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Commissioner Nance is
the commissioner of the district, so I'm going to yield to him.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Members of the Board and citizens
that are interested, Collier County as a whole has suffered throughout
the economic recession and to gather its resources to decide how we're
going to go forward economically and how we're going to reshape our
communities and our planning, our long-term planning. I don't think
any area of the county has suffered any worse than the blue collar
area, which is my district, which is District 5. Immokalee of course
has been integrally involved with its planning situation. And one of
the things that's occurred is that it's been very contentious over
different -- through these struggles, it's been a very contentious
situation.
I've only been in office for a few months, but in that time I've
talked to many people, and it is clear to me that the citizens of
Immokalee all understand one thing and that is that they have many
challenges ahead.
Page 33
January 22, 2013
I think they also share a desire, and that is to bring their
community back together and work as a whole to resolve some of the
problems that they have to go forward with planning that's beneficial
to everybody, and to get -- have the opportunity to work together with
their CRA, which is integral to their future economic development.
The CRA in Immokalee is money that is their money to a great
degree. They've taxed themselves to put that together. And I think
there's a challenge in leadership on the CRA Board, on the Board of
County Commissioners and a challenge to me personally to try to do
everything I can to bring the community of Immokalee back together.
There's many hurt feelings in Immokalee, there's many hard feelings,
and healing has to take place out there. And I believe that the CRA is
a very valuable vehicle to do that going forward.
That having been said, I want to set aside some of the things that
have gone on and try to make sure that everybody agrees this is the
right way to go forward.
In that regard, I'm going to make a motion to extend Ms.
Phillippi's employment agreement for a period of one year from today
to allow the community of Immokalee to come together with her to
see if we can resolve the contention that we do have, start healing hard
feelings and start moving together as a unit. I've pledged with Ms.
Phillippi my support for her. I have pledged my personal support to
members of the community to do that, and they have to me as well.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I'll second your motion.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. I'll support your
motion, but there really needs to be a clear direction or redirection for
the CRA. The community market that's going on out there, the
outdoor market, is in direct competition -- I talked to a businessman
yesterday -- direct competition with businesses on Main Street, okay.
Now, Main Street CRA -- or the Main Street overlay uses was adopted
by the Board of Commissioners. However, it's too restrictive in its
Page 34
January 22, 2013
uses. You need to -- Commissioner -- I shouldn't say that.
Commissioner, I'm asking you to take a look at that overlay and see if
it's the proper uses. You know, just the other day at the workshop we
heard that (sic) a restaurant located outside that overlay district. That's
what that district is for is retail restaurants.
So if that's -- if they're locating outside that district and there is
businesses that want to locate within the overlay, maybe there should
be a recommendation by you and the CRA director of changes to that
overlay.
The second thing is the minutes that were provided by the CRA
director on taking over the plazas, Parks and Rec, that was not clear at
all that was the direction by the Board of Commissioners. I mean, I
don't even know if I would approve an item like that, knowing that the
county was going to take it over.
The second, and my final thing -- well, I think I'll just leave it
there. I'm looking forward to your guidance on the Immokalee CRA
in the future. Thank you.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
I don't disagree with extending Penny's contract for a year and
giving her an opportunity to prove herself. However, because it has
been a very difficult time out there and there are a great number of
concerns, I think the Board should reserve the right to be able to
terminate Penny during this one-year tenure if it doesn't work out with
30 days' notice.
And I think just as a matter of public policy, we need to eliminate
the golden parachutes that have been introduced into the contracts. It
makes sense to give -- to a termination payout if you will to the
County Attorney and the County Manager, but none of our other staff
receive it. Nick Casalanguida, Dr. George, none of them have
settlements that give them pay if they were to leave their positions,
and I think there's a fundamental inequity in that.
Page 35
January 22, 2013
So my suggestion is to modify that contract to add termination on
30 days' notice, you know, without any sort of pay beyond whatever is
owed up to that final date. If that would be agreeable.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: No, that's not agreeable for my
motion, to be honest with you. Because she's worked very hard.
But Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I don't understand the
philosophy that a person who's been working here for years suddenly
has to prove herself. She has done an excellent job. Everyone who has
worked with her has said that. But I am sure that she prefers having a
one-year extension to not having a contract at all, which is where she
is right now. She has no contract. She could have left in December if
she had wanted to, if she was irresponsible, because she doesn't have a
contract. We let it expire. We didn't give her any advance notice.
So -- and trying to put a termination clause in the contract that
says we can get rid of a person who has worked well for three years
and done everything we asked her to do but we can terminate her with
30 days advance notice sends one clear message and that is I'm going
to go look for another job right now. And if you want a dedicated
employee, I think you need to commit to Penny at least for a minimum
of one year. And if it's -- if it goes that way, I'm willing to vote in
favor of that. But putting additional constraints on her employment I
think is ridiculous.
And I would say, and I know there's a difference of opinion about
this, but had we not had a contentious political environment, the
problems that occurred in Immokalee with respect to the CRA
probably would not have happened. And it simply is bad policy in my
opinion to try to put greater restraints on an employee that has done an
excellent job for Immokalee and for the rest of the county.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, Commissioner Coyle, I agree
with a lot of things that you've said. I would prefer not to put
Page 36
January 22, 2013
additional constraints on Ms. Phillippi.
I am concerned -- one of the things I am concerned about is
apparently with her original contract extension she indicated that she
no longer wanted to live in the Immokalee community. So I am a
little concerned about that. I'm concerned that she is able to work
comfortably and that the people in Immokalee can come to work
comfortably with her. That has to be essential if our CRA's going to
be effective.
So I believe that a year gives her some stability and gives the
Immokalee community a chance to get engaged with our CRA.
There's an indication that business people want to step up a little more
with the CRA. I think it's essential. I don't think we can continue the
way we are, having as little participation as we have in some
instances. And I think that's a challenge to everybody.
But I would prefer if she was given a year under her original
contract conditions to continue to work, and everybody take a leap of
faith together to see if we can get this back on the right track. And if
Commissioner Fiala would support a year, I would second that
motion.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I already did, and you already
seconded it, I think.
And yes, and I do want to make some statements --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: That having been instead -- excuse
me one moment, Commissioner Fiala. I do recognize what you said,
Commissioner Henning, there are many things I think that need to be
looked at so that we can be effective in our business community in
Immokalee. And everybody that I've talked to has indicated that
they're willing to take a look at it.
So I think this is just the beginning of trying to bring the
Immokalee community back together. I will do -- as I indicated, I will
do whatever I can and I will address everything that people think is a
concern to them.
Page 37
January 22, 2013
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
I'm going to go ahead and support this motion, but I do it with
reservation, because while I heard what Commissioner Coyle said,
you know, I look at the back of the room and I see Len Price, Nick
Casalanguida, Steve Carnell, Barry Williams, Dr. George, none of
whom have the same type of protection, none of them who have
severance packages, all of whom can be terminated at will without
notice. And they continue notwithstanding. So I really see there's an
inequity in the treatment between our senior management and our
contract employees, and I wish the Board would, you know,
reconsider how they treat contract employees to be on par with our
senior staff.
So I will support the motion, but I do so with reservation.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
And before I call for the motion, I too would like to make
comments. Being that I'm presiding, I had to wait till everybody else
made theirs. But I do want to -- ah, but the County Attorney has
something to say.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. One of clarity. You do have a
contract with Ms. Phillippi and that was extended by three years. So if
you're going to rescind that contract, you need a separate motion, all
right.
If what you want to do is to amend that contract, we can do that.
But there were other features of that contract that had changed.
Commissioner Nance mentioned the fact that she's no longer living in
Immokalee. And if she's moved based on that, I don't think it would
be fair to ask her to move back. There was also a COLA provision in
there. But I'm very uncomfortable talking about somebody else's
contract, okay. And I don't know if Penny wants to address the Board
on any of this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Penny, you still live in Immokalee,
Page 38
January 22, 2013
right? Would you get up here -- you just moved outside of the
boundary for the CRA; is that correct?
MS. PHILLIPPI: For the record, my name is Penny Phillippi,
I'm the director of the Immokalee CRA.
I asked the provision be taken out of my contract that required
that I live in Immokalee so that if there were space available I could
move to whatever space was available. I still live in Immokalee and
I've recently taken another house in Immokalee so that point is pretty
much moot. I like living in Immokalee.
My only concern with this is I have a three-year contract that's
been signed, sealed and delivered, as far as I'm concerned. So I'm not
really -- and I have five years of outstanding evaluations. Not average
or above average, but outstanding. 2.8 and 2.9 out of threes. So for
me this is completely out of the clear blue sky, this whole revamping
of a contract. And I think it would be fair to give me an opportunity to
sit back and take a little time to think about what you're proposing to
me, since I believe the contract is between two parties.
MR. KLATZKOW: So I guess what I'm getting at is you can
rescind what was there and then make her an offer. Penny may take
the legal position that the contract she signed is viable or we can
negotiate something else. I don't know.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, that would be my proposal,
to rescind the three-year extension and make it a one-year extension
with no other changes to the other amendments to her contract.
MR. KLATZKOW: When you say no other amendments, the --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Her COLA, the fact that she
doesn't want to reside within the --
MR. KLATZKOW: If you don't mind, I can put it on the
monitor. It's Page 1161 of your packet -- Page 30 of your packet.
Paragraph three of the amendment talked about giving her the COLA
and removing the residency. So I take it that that would remain?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, sir.
Page 39
January 22, 2013
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. So what you're doing then is the only
change made to the amendment --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Is the term of employment.
MR. KLATZKOW: Currently December 3rd, 2015, so you're
going to make it December 3rd, 2013.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Or today, if you'd like.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay, we could do that today then. But that
would just be an offer to Penny.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: That she has to think about.
You know, I've heard what this side of the table has said. I don't
know who they've been speaking to in Immokalee. Let me say that
I've been speaking to a lot of people myself. Not only that, but I've
not only been speaking to them in person but I've talked with them on
the phone. And then we even heard from them at the CRA workshop.
And I've heard nothing but praises. Now I haven't talked to a certain
group, but I've heard from residents that are living all around
Immokalee.
You know what they're feeling? Excitement for their
community. They're feeling hope, finally, that it's going to be moving
forward and it's going to be taking a new step up the ladder, rather
than be, you know, down in the doldrums. I don't know how to say
that any better than that. So they feel pride now in their community.
It's coming back to them. And everybody deserves to feel pride in
their community and hope for the betterment of their community and
excitement about what is going on. That's what I hear from these
people.
I attended a luncheon just recently where there were, oh, I would
say at least 35 people from all walks of life in Immokalee. And it was
a wonderful luncheon, and I was so pleased to be invited. And that's
again what I heard, just compliments, feeling good about where they
are and where they're going. The things that are being planned by the
Page 40
January 22, 2013
CRA through Penny's leadership are these Zocalos that are coming up
that are going to give the downtown area a new place, a gathering
place where they can begin to feel like a community coming together.
These are all great things that are coming their way. And it's all
through Penny's leadership.
And maybe there's a couple of people that don't like it because
they like the way it's always been. But in order to improve you've got
to move forward.
And I'm having a tough time going with the one year because I
feel she deserves much more than that. And not only that, we voted
for a three-year contract to be continued. I just -- did you want to
speak on this? Okay.
So anyway, I just -- I have trouble with the one-year contract.
But I'm afraid if I insist on a three-year it's going to go down in
flames. And I don't know what to do about that.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I had understood and in
talking with Penny, Penny, maybe we miscommunicated, that her
contract expired. So obviously I was under the wrong impression
there. But -- so it has been signed. I think a vote to annul the contract
merely exposes the county to additional legal action, and I'm also
reluctant to support that motion.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: So -- and you're right about the
legal aspects of this. And that's correct, right, County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: There's a limitation to the damages. My
recollection is Penny's contract has a three-month severance. And that
would be the extent of the liability.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I personally would like to
continue her contract as it stands.
MR. KLATZKOW: I understand.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I've made a motion to approve a
one-year extension rather than a three-year, but I can't do it that way.
Page 41
January 22, 2013
MR. KLATZKOW: Could we bifurcate this? The first motion
should be whether or not you want to annul the Board's prior action,
understanding that if you do that, she has no contract. And then you
can go to offer her a new contract.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Well, I can't make that motion,
so I'll have to set my motion aside until I hear from others.
Commissioner Henning -- you're done, right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. I'll make a motion
that we rescind the three-year contract and offer Ms. Phillippi with a
one-year contract and the terms explained by Commissioner Nance.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Any further comment?
(No response.)
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: All in favor, signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Opposed?
Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: So that's a 3-2 moving forward.
MR. KLATZKOW: Right. And right now you do not have a
CRA executive director, you have an offer to Ms. Phillippi. I would
strongly suggest that we just continue the former contract as a
month-to-month until we hear back from Ms. Phillippi. Otherwise
you've got a vacuum in leadership.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Yes. And let me just say to
those members that are sitting on this Board -- I'm talking for just a
minute and then I'll call on you -- and that is I don't know where you'll
ever find a better CRA director. Maybe she doesn't want to -- maybe
she wants to pull this community out of the lower strata and move it
Page 42
January 22, 2013
up to a more respectable exciting position and maybe you oppose that,
but I believe strongly that you're wrong.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
We could actually appoint Brad as the interim director pending
the resolution of Penny's contract.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's up to the Board.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Does that mean Penny doesn't get
paid? Is she off the payroll?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, that would not be right. Penny just on a
quantum meruit would be paid through today.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Would be paid for what?
MR. KLATZKOW: Through today.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait a minute. The motion was or
the suggestion was that we should appoint an interim director and then
begin negotiations with Penny. Is she going to get paid beyond today
while those negotiations are occurring?
MR. KLATZKOW: If you appoint Mr. Muckel, then no, she
would not get paid.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, so --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I make a suggestion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, you need to think these things
through a little bit. Right now you've got a very successful CRA
director who is going to walk out here today and immediately get her
resume' in circulation. And she's going to be lost to Collier County.
And then you've got to bring somebody else back in. And I shudder to
think who that's going to be.
But I'm all in favor of letting the commissioner in charge of that
district who represents that district provide us guidance on how that is
going to work.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Madam Chair, do we have any
Page 43
January 22, 2013
public speakers?
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: No.
MR. MILLER: No.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Would anybody in the audience
from Immokalee --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, no.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: -- and I see quite a few, would
you --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's all right, I'm sorry.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: -- I do want to hear from them.
Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Point of order.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Our ordinance is clear that you
must sign up for the item prior to --
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Might I ask people to speak
from the audience?
MR. KLATZKOW: It's the majority will to let people speak.
Commissioner Henning's right, your custom is once an item is started,
unless the speaker slip is in you don't get to speak. I've seen a
majority of the Board though waive that in the past.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You've got my support.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I know. I mean, we've always
wanted to hear from the public.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I speak, please?
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
I'm trying to get back to the -- what was the original question
prior to all the political comments. And it got lost because all the
political comments.
So what was your suggestion, Mr. Klatzkow?
MR. KLATZKOW: If the majority of the Board wishes to hear a
Page 44
January 22, 2013
public speaker --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no, no, no, prior to --
MR. KLATZKOW: My suggestion is that you --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Interim director.
MR. KLATZKOW: My suggestion was that you continue
Penny's older contract, month-to-month basis until the next meeting.
And hopefully she'll be able to get back to whether or not she accepts
the Board's offer.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I'll make a motion that we do that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'll second that motion.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, any discussion on that
motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I clarify it? So we're
rescinding the old contract and basically --
MR. KLATZKOW: You're rescinding the amendment.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We're rescinding the amendment --
well, we have -- not really, because the previous Board approved a
new contract.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, the previous Board approved an
extension.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, an extension. So we're
rescinding any modifications --
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, you rescinded that. That's done.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, so that's done. And now
what we're doing is converting this to a month-to-month.
MR. KLATZKOW: What you're doing is reviving the old
agreement and assuming that's a month-to-month until this issue is
resolved.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Without the termination -- without
the three-year termination.
MR. KLATZKOW: Think of this like a lease where the lease
expires --
Page 45
January 22, 2013
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So a month-to-month tenancy.
MR. KLATZKOW: Right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So basically terminable on
30 days' notice.
MR. KLATZKOW: Or the next Board meeting.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Or the next Board meeting. Okay,
got it.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, all in favor of that
motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Opposed?
Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Let me say, the motion passes
3-2. And I would suggest not only people in our audience, but all over
Immokalee, the three people here have said they've heard that this is
what the people in Immokalee want. Well, I want all of you, no
matter which side, I want you to start writing to us.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Point of order.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: No it isn't.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Point of order. This is not on the
agenda.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I'm asking for them to write to
us and let us know what their opinions are. Is that so wrong?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's not on the agenda.
Commissioners' comments is mostly welcome.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner -- well, you heard me
anyway.
Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Board members, what has to occur
Page 46
January 22, 2013
is we have to begin a process where we can come together. And what
everybody is going to have to do here on this issue, including the
Board, the residents of Immokalee who are trying to direct
themselves, regardless of their opinions, pro or con, and the CRA
director and staff are going to have to make a leap of faith to go
forward with any effectiveness. It's obvious that there are divisions
that have to be healed. People are going to have to step up and come
back together.
There are people -- there are friends in Immokalee that are no
longer talking to one another that have been friends longer than I've
lived in Collier County. And that's a shame. And that has to be
healed. And it's not going to be healed until everybody takes a leap of
faith and gets in the same room and has salad, coffee and cake and
decides to make a new start.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That sounds like a terrible
combination.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, that's a full meal. That's not
just a cup of coffee, that's salad, coffee and cake.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let's do a roast pig in there.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay. Whatever it takes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And come out singing Kumbaya.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, there's going to have to be a
little bit of Kumbaya here, Commissioner Coyle, or we're never going
to get past it. It's going to continue, and I don't want it to continue
without people talking. And people have to begin to talk again.
And like I said, I've made the offer. I've talked to everybody, I've
heard what everybody has said, pro and con and there are extended
hurt feelings out there. Make no mistake about it. Everybody's got
hurt feelings. There's disagreement on this Board. We have to make a
new start. We have to make a fresh start. And we have to all agree
that we want to do that.
Perhaps Ms. Phillippi doesn't want to do it. Maybe she doesn't
Page 47
January 22, 2013
want to work here anymore, I don't know. Perhaps people in
Immokalee don't want her here, I don't know. But everybody has got
to get together and has to get on the same page. I believe there's a lot
of good people here, and I don't believe any of them are at fault. I
think it's a situation. And we have to get beyond a situation. And we
need to agree that we can do that.
And if there's anybody in the audience that agrees with me that
we need to do this, I would like to hear what they have to say.
Because I believe the time is now when --
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I wasn't allowed --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: -- we have to start that process.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: -- to ask for it, but I think you
should be able to.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, I'm just suggesting that we
have a little bit of commentary. If people agree that's possible. If
everybody agrees --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We have a time certain at 10:00.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: We do have a time certain at
10:00. And I apologize. Let's let the Chair figure out how to resolve
this.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I agree with you. And I think
we should do that. I mean, I wasn't allowed to ask for that, but I'm
glad you did. That's your district and so that's fine with me if you'd
like to do that.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, it's not just my district,
Commissioner Fiala, everybody here has got to understand that we do
have some problems and we need to get across them. And we just
have to man up and woman up a little bit here and see if we can get
things back on track. And I believe we can do it.
Nobody has given me any indication in Immokalee, everybody
I've talked to, that we can't do this. But it's a struggle. And I know
people have hurt feelings, but we do have to get beyond them, we
Page 48
January 22, 2013
really honestly do.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
Commissioners, we have a time certain at 10:00 that we have to
revert to. But what I was going to suggest, Commissioner Fiala and
Commissioner Nance, is that this matter is coming back and the
community will have an opportunity to speak in support of whatever
position they'd like at that time. Since we don't have a registered
speaker signed up right now and we do have a time certain, we don't
want to prevent them -- we want to give them the opportunity to do it
when the offer is on the table, if that would be acceptable.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: That's fine by me.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chairwoman, if I may make a suggestion,
that the CRA board go into recess so we can go back to the regular
agenda and then we'll reconvene when we get back to the CRA items,
number one.
Number two, you have 10:00 a.m., followed by two additional
time certains, Madam Chair. So it may appropriate at this point to let
your court reporter have the 10 minutes and then we will get into the
other items.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You were reading my mind.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay. So I will recess the CRA
board meeting at this time. We will reconvene at a later time.
MR. OCHS: And you'd like to take a break, ma'am, right now?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes, we're going to take a break
now for 10 minutes. We'll reconvene at 10:30 and our 10:00 time
certain will start at that time.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
(Recess.)
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have a live mic.
Commissioners, we have a 10:00 a.m. time certain. If I might,
Madam Chair, it's 11.B.
Page 49
January 22, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We have a problem. Most of the
Board is not here. I shouldn't say most of the Board.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Most of the Board is here. That's
three.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Sorry. Good point.
Item #1 1 B
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A WORK PLAN FOR
PERMITTING, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF
BATHROOMS AT VANDERBILT BEACH PARK AND
APPROVE THE REHABILITATION AND RETENTION OF
THE EXISTING BATHROOMS — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 11.B is a recommendation to approve a work plan
for the permitting, design and construction of bathrooms at the
Vanderbilt Beach Park and approve the rehabilitation and retention of
existing bathrooms.
And Mr. Barry Williams, Parks and Recreation Director, will
present.
MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioners, good morning. Barry
Williams, Parks and Recreation Director.
I appreciate the fact that we had a bathroom break just a minute
ago. I think that's appropriate for the item. I'm trying to get this on
the visualizer; I'm having a little difficulty.
MR. OCHS: Let me help you.
MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioners, we are here this morning just
to put forward a plan that staff is proposing regarding the Vanderbilt
Beach bathrooms. I have in your packet a request to approve a work
plan for proposing the new restroom facility but also to renovate the
existing.
On the visualizer what you can see, the existing restroom is the
Page 50
January 22, 2013
little white square closer to the beach. That would be the restroom
that we would propose to renovate. The structure to the east --
southeast about 90 feet is the proposed new facility.
Just to give you a shot of what this might look like as built, this is
a replica of the restroom facility that we're looking -- or we're
proposing. It's a replica to one that was built at Bluebill, recently
opened. You can see how it is tucked away within. And we propose
with this plan landscaping to protect it from the view from -- and
being a good neighbor.
And this is an area as you go north -- or south, rather, on
Vanderbilt -- or Gulfshore, rather, on the corner of Vanderbilt Beach
Road and Gulfshore.
Just to acclimate you to the existing restrooms, this is a
photograph of the ones we just installed at Bluebill. They opened last
week and we're getting very positive comments about those facilities.
Just a few of the milestones in terms of the new facility. I think
the most important one with this -- and we do have representatives
from facilities management, Mr. Hank Jones, professional engineer,
doing work for us as the project manager. We also have Mr. Mike
Delate with Q. Grady Minor who's been involved in these discussions.
But you can see the milestones being proposed. I think the most
important one is the last one, we would seek to over communicate
with both the Board of County Commissioners and our stakeholders as
this project moves forward.
With that, Commissioners, we're asking to approve the work plan
associated with permitting, design and construction of the new
facilities and to approve the rehabilitation of the existing facility.
With that, I'll stop and see if you have questions.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I had a bunch of questions,
actually.
Page 51
January 22, 2013
Do we already have a permit for the original design?
MR. WILLIAMS: For the original design? Let me ask Mr.
Delate, if you don't mind.
MR. DELATE: Good morning. For the record, Mike Delate,
engineer with Q. Grady Minor and Associates.
We have obtained a few permits for the original site, but we did
not obtain the coastal construction control line permit from the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection, and that was a necessary
permit to obtain a prior approval out of facilities.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now, this -- I could see it was
located farther away from the beach than the original one was, right?
MR. DELATE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What did you say, 90 feet farther
back?
MR. DELATE: Approximately 90 feet landward.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So how far is that from, like the
beach area itself, to get there?
MR. DELATE: From the measured mean high water line is
approximately 300 feet. The existing one's about 200 feet.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Being that the tourist tax
dollars are paying for this, can you tell me who has objected to having
the bathroom where it is? Was it the tourists, was it the visitors, was it
guests, or was it local people?
MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioner, couple of points to make.
One is a settlement agreement that the Board reached at the last
meeting regarding the design that we had originally proposed. With
that settlement agreement, there are stipulations that state that the
bathrooms need to be placed in this new proposed location.
In terms of-- we did get a lot of feedback from the neighbors at
Vanderbilt Beach in terms of the design of the existing facility. And
that did certainly influence some of our discussions.
We have had meetings with stakeholder groups, the regulatory
Page 52
January 22, 2013
authorities, as well as the folks associated with Vanderbilt Beach, had
their input in this process and this design, and we do feel like we have
consensus with them on this design.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: With the neighbors.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I can understand the
neighbors. Yeah, they -- I can understand.
MR. WILLIAMS: One other point, ma'am, if I may?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh.
MR. WILLIAMS: What we do like about this design -- and
again, I'm talking fixtures here. What this design allows us to do is to
expand capacity at this location. This is the most important issue that
we're facing right now.
The current facility as you see, we have one toilet, one urinal,
two sinks for the men, two toilets, three sinks for the women. That's
just inadequate. With the -- keeping the existing facility, renovating
it, bringing it up to standard, as well as bringing on the new facility,
that's going to be consistent with what we had originally proposed
regarding expanding capacity at that location.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So we'll keep the existing one,
which is closer to the beach, for the people to be able to get to.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's so important. Because if they
go too much farther they have to pack up all their stuff in order to go
to the bathroom. And then -- you know, then find a new place to stay
or -- you know, if they even pack up all their own stuff. So that's
interesting.
And can you tell me what the cost comparison is between the
new proposal -- and that means, you know, everything including time
wasted in new permitting -- compared to what we already had
permitted? I understand the majority of Commissioners voted to go
for the new permit. I'm just interested in what the cost comparison is.
Page 53
January 22, 2013
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am. I think a couple of points there.
And first of all, to answer your question, what we do know about the
Bluebill restroom is its cost. The cost of just constructing that facility
was in the $300,000 price point.
The other thing that we're hearing, though, in terms of from the
regulatory agencies in particular, they're in favor of looking at a
smaller footprint, as this one is proposed, is that you are taking a fairly
large footprint that was associated with the bathrooms that we're no
longer pursuing and you're shrinking that down to a considerable size.
We do think that it will be much cheaper than the original design
facility. I don't have hard numbers for you at this point. Certainly
what I can do is bring forward cost estimates as we determine them.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Let's see. That was the last
thing I wanted to know.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
Barry, can you explain to me the middle column, the proposed?
Is that what was proposed or what you're proposing for the rehab?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, the first column existing is what we have
now that we would renovate. The third column proposed is what
would be proposed in what we have before you today. That's not the
design of the old facility, that is the proposed new facility that would
be located where I showed you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So if I can clarify, Commissioner
Henning, the existing is what we've got that we're renovating, the
proposed is in addition to the existing which matches what we have at
Bluebill.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And then the total existing proposed
capacity is the total new number of facilities that we'll have. So the
third column tells you by how much, you know, we're going to be
ahead of the game. And it's actually even more than what we would
Page 54
January 22, 2013
have had under the previous design. So it's actually -- we're really
coming out ahead in a big way.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks for the explanation.
Now, a temporary bathroom, would this be a facility that is above
and beyond what you're going to build?
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, the beauty of this plan is if we kept the
existing facility, the renovation of that facility is going to take us one
to three months. So we would put a temporary bathroom as that
facility is being renovated for the public's use. Once the existing
bathroom is completed, that becomes the bathroom de jure. Then you
could build your new facility.
So it would minimize the amount of time that we would need to
have a temporary bathroom facility at that location. I'm not sure if I
answered your question, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, you did.
And there's -- that proposal is better than just building the new
facility and then renovating the existing facility?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It is, if I may answer that question.
The reason it's better is because again, the objective is to keep the
footprint of any new building as small as possible. So by leaving the
existing and renovating that and then adding the other in as small a
footprint as possible, we're satisfying the objective of the Army Corps,
as well as the environmental agencies.
So -- and the other thing is we're going to save a lot of money
because we're actually duplicating Bluebill to a T, so we don't have to
redesign. We're basically using a template.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the temporary facility
that's going to be placed there, my question is why not just go ahead
and build the new facility --
MR. WILLIAMS: I understand your question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And it doesn't really matter to
me, but it's -- you know, it's --
Page 55
January 22, 2013
MR. WILLIAMS: I think it's a timing issue. I think us acquiring
the permits is going to be the most lengthy (sic) time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I see.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Camp and his crew can get in for
renovation as soon as we're ready and complete that fairly quickly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, great. Answered my --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, that's okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'd like to make a motion to
approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'd be happy to second that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you, Barry.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously. Thank
you.
And by the way, Leo, your staff has been outstanding --
MR. OCHS: Thank you, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Absolutely outstanding on this
project.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
Commissioners that takes us --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why weren't they outstanding
when I was Chair? How did you get to be outstanding now?
Item #1 OJ
Page 56
January 22, 2013
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE FINAL BEACH ACCESS
SIGN RENDERINGS FOR INSTALLATION THROUGHOUT
THE GULF SHORE DRIVE CORRIDOR FOR DIRECT PUBLIC
BEACH ACCESS VIA COUNTY EASEMENTS — MOTION TO
APPROVE THE BEACH SIGNS AND LOCATIONS PRESENTED
BY THE MSTU — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Moving right along.
Commissioners that takes us to Item 10.J. That is a
recommendation to approve the final beach access sign renderings for
installation throughout the Gulfshore Drive corridor for direct public
beach access via county easements. This item was approved for
reconsideration at the December 11, 2012 BCC meeting. Mr. Carnell
is going to present.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Leo, if I may, can I start with a few
comments?
MR. OCHS: Sure.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: What we had done is we had
directed the MSTU, Vanderbilt MSTU, to work with staff and come
back with a proposal. And we have the representative of the MSTU
here.
Would you like to come up to the podium? Could you go ahead
and state your name for the record?
MR. ARTHUR: For the record, I'm Charles Arthur, I'm
Chairman of the Vanderbilt Beach MSTU.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The MSTU has put forth a proposal.
Would you please introduce the photographs that you have and put
them on the overhead? If you would walk over, the County Manager
will help you.
These photographs will be introduced into the record after the
presentation to be attached to this agenda item.
MR. ARTHUR: Okay, thank you for bringing this item back for
Page 57
January 22, 2013
reconsideration.
The MSTU, as you probably know, is in the business -- our
mission is to beautify the Vanderbilt Beach area. The major project
we have going today is burying our utility lines.
We've been somewhat involved with this beach access sign issue
for a couple of years. And one of our committee was working with the
county to try and come up with a sign that could be used as the beach
accesses that was agreeable to everyone.
We really never signed off on the signs that were put up. And
what we're proposing is that we put a smaller sign in, similar to what
was really existing at some of the beach accesses already. And that is
a smaller sign on the west side of the sidewalk to be on a post about
four feet high. And in this picture it would be this blue sign. And it
could be any color. And while we like the term beach walk, that may
not be allowable under the settlement agreement that's been reached
with the county. So it may need to say beach access.
So we would have that sign on the west side of the sidewalk at a
height of four feet. The sign would be about the size of a no parking
sign.
Then also suggest another sign at the beach end of the beach
access, which just has rules of the -- it would be the second one, Leo --
which has the beach rules so everybody knows if they're coming in
from the beach what the rules are. No fires, alcohol, so on, so forth.
Some of the problems we have with the current signs are too tall,
too close to the street. They give the impression that there's parking.
And as you know if you've been to Vanderbilt Beach, there's parking
at each end but there's no parking in between. It's a 1.2-mile stretch of
road.
We've had situations already where people stop and ask where's
the parking, and they're told it's all the way at the other end of the
beach and they say what's the point. We also have situations where
people just park their car right in the street and block the street or the
Page 58
January 22, 2013
sidewalk and unload things.
So it is a little bit confusing. And I think that most of those
accesses are really better served by foot traffic or bicycles than
automobiles.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I recall the executive summary
on this, and it said that it was approved by the MSTU?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, and that was false.
MS. ARNOLD: No, that's not true.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. OCHS: May we --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did somebody speak?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'm sorry, go ahead.
MR. OCHS: No, I guess we'll just do the staff presentation after
this.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And if I may respond to that, what
happened was when staff presented earlier they represented that the
MSTU through Mr. Lydon had agreed. And in fact that turned out to
be false. And there was an email from Mr. Lydon, where he clearly
stated after that meeting there was not a meeting of the minds and that
he did not agree with what was being proposed. So it went back to the
MSTU and this was the MSTU's proposal.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, thanks.
MR. ARTHUR: You can review our minutes. You won't find
any kind of approval of that issue.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: If I may, I just want to clarify.
Right now the signs are in the right-of-way, which is a problem from a
public safety standpoint. We cannot have cars stopping on that road.
We very recently had a horrific accident in front of LaPlaya. And so
keeping the flow of traffic and not having pedestrians cross that road
or have pedestrians or individuals getting out of cars with oncoming
Page 59
January 22, 2013
traffic along that narrow corridor is critical.
And if I understand correctly, you're suggesting the first -- can
you go back to the first picture, just so I understand. You want the
sign, which is basically the same size as a -- standard no parking sign?
MR. ARTHUR: Correct.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That states beach access to be at the
entrance of each of the public access points between the condominium
buildings so people know that they have the right to walk across those
paths, that it is not private property.
MR. ARTHUR: Correct.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That it be four feet high. And like I
said, repeating myself, but out of the right-of-way.
And then on the back side, on the beach side you want the public
to know that they have the ability to get back to the sidewalk again
without being concerned that they're trespassing. So I think your idea
of putting the beach access sign on both sides of those walkways, both
the beach side and the roadside or the sidewalk side is a very good
recommendation.
And then on that side putting -- can you turn to the next diagram?
Putting the informational sign which again I think is very good to
show, you know, no alcohol, no littering, no dogs, no -- you know,
basically all the prohibitions, so a more detailed sign on the beach side
so people are aware what they can or can't do on the beach.
MR. ARTHUR: Right. And I might also show you this. This is
an existing -- I don't know if that will show up. It's an existing beach
access sign. It may not show. It's been there for years. It says beach
access, Collier County Parks and Recs. It's on a post about four feet
high and it's about this big around. So, something along those lines.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'd like to make a motion to approve
the signs as you're proposing in the locations that you're proposing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would that be the blue sign that
states beach access?
Page 60
January 22, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes, because we're required to state
beach access by the terms of the settlement agreement.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Is there any -- you know, I had a
couple of calls on this item and people were suggesting to me that
there were folks seeking parking and that people pulling in there or
stopping with vehicles looking for a place to park or whatnot was one
of the issues.
Would it not have some utility to indicate that if it was beach
access it was only bike and pedestrian? Would that help solve some
of this problem? I mean, some clarity may be in order here saying
what it is, or letting people try to decide what it is or what it isn't. If
it's strictly, you know, pedestrian and bike, I would think that that
would be helpful. Now, maybe it would take a little more space on
your sign, but once upon a time I saw where there was some
discussion over a sign of a certain size orientation, but, I mean, if you
want to clear up the issue --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'll amend my motion.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: -- more than willing to put lots of
information on the other sign, maybe, you know, bike/ped only or
something would --
MR. ARTHUR: Well, there was an issue, I think, with -- there
was a settlement agreement for resolving some litigation with some of
the homeowners.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, sir.
MR. ARTHUR: And the agreement between those people and
the county was they would put up identical signs at each of the
accesses. And the only words allowed were beach access, as I
understand it.
But I agree with your point, it would be very helpful if we could
Page 61
January 22, 2013
do that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Jeff, can I just quickly ask for
clarification? Jeff, would it be -- if we had the sign that said beach
access, could we put like a smaller sign underneath that suggested
what Commissioner Nance is saying, you know, pedestrians and, you
know, bikes only, or --
MR. KLATZKOW: Sure.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. So I'd like to amend my
motion to incorporate that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I have a few questions.
We never did hear from staff, we just started right in with the
speaker from the MSTU. I'd like to hear from staff first and then ask
my questions.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Go ahead.
MR. CARNELL: For the record, Steve Carnell, your Interim
Public Services Administrator.
Just to be clear, the settlement agreement that was previously
approved by the Board did state that the signs would be of certain
dimension. It did not speak to the height of the signs other than to say
they need to be consistent with existing code.
And the signs have been placed in a manner that's consistent with
existing code. And specifically the FDOT guidelines, which require a
minimum height of seven feet from the base of the sign --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: If I may clarify, that's just in the
right-of-way, and we don't want them in the right-of-way.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, again, the settlement agreement
specified they be in the right-of-way, I believe. So -- unless I'm
mistaken.
MR. CARNELL: No, I think that's correct.
Page 62
January 22, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I don't think so.
MR. KLATZKOW: Walkway.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It was in the walkway, yeah, not in
the right-of-way.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's in your packet, Page 391.
MR. OCHS: Walkway.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, not the right-of-way, Leo.
MR. CARNELL: Okay. The -- and just to be clear, three of the
seven signs are on the beach side of the walkway presently.
Essentially when we went to place the signs, it had to do with
visibility and essentially the available ground. In a few instances, if
you put the sign on the beach side, it would be blocked by trees and
you wouldn't be able to see it. And so essentially we went site-by-site
and in areas -- we worked around the trees, existing vegetation, and so
in three of the four instances they ended up on the beach side and in
four instances they ended up on the roadside, but all of them are in the
right-of-way on that point.
Just to clarify another point with -- and I came into this process in
April and May. But I will tell you that we were directed by the Board
in May to work with Mr. Lydon specifically, on behalf of the MSTU
advisory board. We were not directed to go back to the advisory
board, we were directed to work with Mr. Lydon directly, which is
what we did.
And Mr. Lydon -- the Chairwoman is correct that Mr. Lydon
wrote an email following a meeting that Mr. McAlpin and I had with
him, this was on July the 5th, indicating objection to the outcome of
the meeting. And he said in the meeting that we were placing them at
a different height than what he thought had been agreed to. And in
fairness to him, we had conversations with Mr. Lydon prior to that
where we were talking about potentially, prospectively placing the
signs at a lower height, and frankly did not reach a determination until
June, working through the transportation group on exactly what the
Page 63
January 22, 2013
required height was.
And so when we sat with Mr. Lydon, we told him it needed to be
a minimum seven feet from the ground. Mr. Lydon I think also -- I
think there was a misunderstanding at that meeting. I think he thought
we were still using the old style pole that had been proposed way back
and the canopy style. And we were not -- never intended to do that.
And I believe the proof is in the pudding today. Because the signs
they got installed are not what Mr. Lydon feared they were in that July
5th email with regard to the design or the layout or the pole or the
stick, the pole holding them up.
So I really think that what we came down to, what I took away
from our discussions with Mr. Lydon, was that the only area of
disagreement was the height at that point.
The settlement agreement was not clear about which side of the
walkway you place it in, as we said. So it was our understanding that
the right-of-way -- that it was to be placed in the right-of-way at either
side. And again, as I said a moment ago, we tried to place it in a place
that made sense site-by-site-by-site. And in some instances if you put
it -- as I said a moment ago, if you put it on the beach side you won't
be able to see it. There's palm trees or other things in the way at given
locations. So that was the logic for placing it where we did.
One more thing, ma'am, if I could. You brought up the point,
Madam Chairwoman, about traffic hazards. And again, we can
possibly mitigate that through adding some signage such as
Commissioner Nance has suggested.
But our suggestion would be to you that you -- well, we monitor
the area and see if there are any complaints or problems. We have
not. The signs went up around Thanksgiving time. So they've been in
place the better part of two months. And we have not received any
traffic related complaints or any indications that they're creating any
kind of a problem.
So it is the kind of thing we could look at and we could revisit if
Page 64
January 22, 2013
there is a problem moving forward. And that's where we are at the
moment.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you, I really appreciate it.
Commissioner Fiala?
MR. KLATZKOW: Let me just clarify, all right. The agreement
provides that we may install signs on poles in the right-of-way at each
walkway. That doesn't mean it has to be in the right-of-way, all right.
The plaintiffs in this case didn't want signs, it was the county's request
that we have signs.
I suppose the reason for the right-of-ways is for two purposes:
One, it allows better visibility to the public; and secondly, you've got
the clear right to place signs within the county right-of-way. Whether
you have the right to place those signs in the walkway, which is a
separate easement, different question, nobody raises the issue.
Nobody raises the issue.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was one of my questions was
would we have to buy the land if we put it inside -- you know, by the
walkway? Does that land belong to somebody or do they have an
easement?
MR. KLATZKOW: There's a public easement through there, all
right? Whether or not you could put signs there is subject to debate.
We clearly could put signs within the right-of-way. The concern here
is the right-of-way may not be appropriate for it. You can always put
it in the right-of-way -- let me take that back. You can always put it in
the walkway and if there are objections move it into the right-of-way.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
I've gotten a couple of emails from people who said that they felt
the signs were tastefully done. They felt it blended in to a point where
you almost can't see them, which they were pleased about.
I went over and took a look and I thought they were beautifully
done. I could not see a problem with them at all. Wasn't quite sure if
Page 65
January 22, 2013
the MSTU also agreed with that, now that they're installed, that they
do look pretty good. And yet you can see where the beach access is,
and it's high enough where people will be able to see where to go.
And then I also wanted to know how much we spent on putting
in those signs and how much it would cost us to take the signs out and
put in new signs.
MR. ARTHUR: Can I address the MSTU issue? I polled the
members of--
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Could you please speak into the
mic?
MR. ARTHUR: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And your name, please.
MR. ARTHUR: Charles Arthur, again.
I polled the members of our MSTU committee, and the majority
did not like the signs. They thought they were too tall and too big.
They are tastefully done, I will give you that. And you could
take something like that and put it on a smaller pole on the other side
of the sidewalk.
I think where we're getting confused here is on this visibility
issue, they need to be visible to bikers and walkers and not necessarily
people driving by at 25 miles an hour because there's nowhere for
them to stop anyway.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
There being no further dis --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wait a minute.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And how far away from the street
did you want them? I mean, would they be hidden?
MR. ARTHUR: No, they wouldn't be hidden. You can see the
beach access sign that I showed with a picture on my phone. It's just
on the other side of the sidewalk. So it's about 10 to 15 feet off the
street. But it's across the sidewalk.
Page 66
January 22, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And tell me also, see, I couldn't see
your sign from your phone. It was pretty well hidden, so -- but maybe
that's your phone, so I'm not going to judge it by that.
MR. ARTHUR: I can show you the phone, if you'd like.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Would you like to walk up to the
podium and allow Commissioner Fiala the ability to see it directly?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And then Steve, you're going to
come up with an answer for me, right, on the cost?
MR. CARNELL: Yes, ma'am, I can answer that now, when
you're ready.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
Yes, go ahead. How much would it -- how much did it cost us to
make the signs and then to get rid of them -- I have one more question
after this -- and to make new signs?
MR. CARNELL: Ma'am, the total cost of the signs to date is
$5,100. And it would cost about the same to replace them. We really
wouldn't be able to save anything we've got if we were changing the
height and the sign.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And what would be the purpose of
reducing the height? I'm not quite sure. I'm trying to figure out --
actually, a four-foot sign I would think could be seen more easily than
a seven-foot sign, but I don't know. What is the purpose of the MSTU
wanting to have the sign structure reduced?
MR. ARTHUR: Well, I think our preference is to have fewer
signs along the street, right along the street, that are these big signs,
and it would be more tastefully done to make it on a smaller pole right
by the beach access.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The purpose is for the pedestrian,
it's not for the car.
MR. ARTHUR: Right.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And so the visibility is intended for
Page 67
January 22, 2013
the person walking to be able directly to eye it to know when they're
walking on that sidewalk that they have the ability to get on that path
and access the beach.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Don't we have bicycle places also
along there to park their bikes so people would have to be able to see
where to go? Especially people who are down here as tourists. And
this is who we're trying to attract to the beach anyway. This is one of
the experiences they have when they come to Collier County. And
even if they're driving by to find a parking space, at least they know
where they have to walk to and which type of parking space to go to,
depending on where the beach accesses are.
And we want them to be visible to people. We want -- I mean,
the people that live along the beach, they know where the beach
accesses are. But these people who are not familiar with our county
need to know. And my opinion is that where they're located allows
the most people to find that beach access and enter there. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you very much.
There being no further discussion, all in favor?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries 3-2 with
Commissioners Fiala and Coyle dissenting.
Item #1 1 H
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE EXPEDITED
SOLICITATION PROCESS FOR CONSTRUCTION DREDGING
OF CLAM PASS AND DIRECTING THE COUNTY MANAGER
Page 68
January 22, 2013
TO ISSUE WORK ORDER(S) UNDER CURRENT BOARD
APPROVED CONTRACT(S) TO FIRM(S) WHO SUBMIT THE
LOWEST RESPONSIVE PRICE FOR THE CLAM PASS
PROJECT — MOTION DIRECTING STAFF TO EXPEDITE
PERMITTING AND TO WORK WITH THE CLERK'S OFFICE
TO ASSURE PROPER TDC FUNDING — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 11.H on your
agenda this morning. It was an add-on item. It's a recommendation to
approve the expedited solicitation process for the construction
dredging of Clam Pass, and direct the County Manager to issue work
orders under current Board approved contracts to the firms who
submit the lowest responsive price for the Clam Pass project.
Mr. Dorrill, your Administrator of Pelican Bay Services
Division, is here to present.
MR. DORRILL: Good morning, Commissioners. Thank you for
the add-on consideration today.
Two weeks ago at your meeting on the 8th, the Board voted to
recognize and declare both the public and ecological state of
emergency at Clam Pass in Pelican Bay.
In response to that, your staff has done a series of things. The
first thing that we did was we went and met with the Army Corps of
Engineers. As you know, the permitting process has been difficult and
contentious in many respects due to a fair amount of public concern
over a 10-year maintenance permit.
As a result of that and in consultation with the section chief for
the Army Corps in Fort Myers, I believe you now know that we're
recommending what is called a nationwide short form type of process.
The Corps has recognized that throughout the country individual
projects have a lot of similarity and as a result of that they have
developed a nationwide short form, project specific permitting
initiative.
Page 69
January 22, 2013
We explored two of those; one being a Type 3 nationwide permit
and then a Type 27. The Type 27 would seem to be in both your and
the public's best interest because we would appear to be eligible under
their environmental enhancement and restoration definition in order to
obtain that type of permit.
I'll stop there just briefly because I think all of us within public
policy or administration initiative should recognize achievement and
success when it occurs. I don't think we do that enough. But in
furtherance of that, I want to recognize several local firms who have
given us the ability to respond to a lot of the specificity concerns and
acknowledge the fact that you think an emergency exists.
When people's local reputations are on the line, I find a great deal
of solace and consolation in that. And I'd like to publicly thank
Agnoli, Barber and Brundage, who performed surveying work late
into the night and on Saturday and Sunday in order to deliver field
surveys. To Humiston and Moore and Turrell Hall and Associates,
who have worked tirelessly over the last two weeks to have been able
to deliver to you last Friday a set of detailed construction drawings.
And in addition to that, concurrent activities have taken place in
Tallahassee with the Department of Environmental Protection and in
Vero Beach with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to get to this thing
project ready as quickly as possible.
You have had the opportunity hopefully to review some of the
surveys and plans. What we're asking the Board to do here today is to
acknowledge the design drawings. We have a very brief presentation
that we would like to make to highlight some of the key elements of
the design. And then take advantage of the fact that you have
previously pre-qualified contractors to do disaster cleanup or
emergency work both for your utility division or your emergency
management agency.
Your purchasing department has been a great deal of help to me
trying to steer me through the procurement initiatives. And it would
Page 70
January 22, 2013
seem to me that once we get a permit, that if we avail ourselves of
previously approved contractors and avoid the lengthy or more
lengthy seal bid process and authorize your manager to execute
contracts, the anticipated means and methods of the construction
would now employ mechanical excavation. And we're looking for
people who have long-reach track hoes and appropriate rough terrain
type earth-moving equipment to physically dig the materials in the
channels to alleviate the three different shoaling areas that have
occurred.
And it is anticipated that they're either going to bring that
equipment down the beach from your Vanderbilt public access point
or the city's public access point in Park Shore Unit 5 at the Verizon
Way parking facility.
We do not want to eliminate opportunities for ingenuity on the
part of the private sector. So if someone thinks that they can at the
best cost get a small hydraulic dredge in there or to load the heavy
equipment on a small barge and bring it up the Gulf and to then launch
it from the beach, a great deal of the actual means and method and
construction I think should be left up to the private sector here. But
that will be coordinated with your consultants, and the
recommendation I think there is very detailed and authorizes the
County Manager to take the necessary follow-up action on your
behalf.
I'll stop there and answer any quick questions. Mr. Humiston and
also Mr. Hall are here today. And we'd like to talk to in terms of some
of the actual characteristics of the design.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: If I may comment, when you talk
about hydraulic dredging, we're considering both mechanical and/or
hydraulic dredging. And I spoke to Leo about that. It seems that the
agencies are amenable to either/or, whichever works better. So when
we go out and get the pricing, it would be for either the hydraulic or
the mechanical.
Page 71
January 22, 2013
MR. DORRILL: Correct. And again, leave the ingenuity up to
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right, to whatever is most --
MR. DORRILL: -- site work contractors or subsurface utility
contractors who do this every day for a living.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And the only other thing I'd like to
add to your presentation is that the design being proposed in the
packet you've given us is for the one-time emergency dredge, and it's
not the template for the future 10-year permit, that that will be
established based on the updated -- the management plan and
whatever science supports that permit separately.
So this is strictly for the nationwide 27 permit as a one-time
emergency dredge.
MR. DORRILL: That's correct.
And in comparison, the last time the pass was cleared, I believe
in 2008, there were 25,000 cubic yards of beach compatible material
that were removed as part of that most recent effort.
The intent -- this time we have a base bid for sections A and B
that would remove 13,000 cubic yards of material. And then an add
alternate bid, if we can reach into portions of Section C, the
consultants feel there may be an additional 7,000 cubic yards of
material that are compatible and are necessary.
The engineer will tell you that he feels that the approach that
we're using could and should last at least two years, perhaps more,
barring unusual storm events, as occurred this summer with tropical
storms, to give the community and other stakeholders two years to go
through a more comprehensive management plan for the entire echo
system that is there. The management plan that has been in place was
developed originally and was specific only to mangrove restoration
and the die-off that had occurred in the late Nineties.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And now we're shifting to strictly
preservation of those mangroves.
Page 72
January 22, 2013
MR. DORRILL: Enhancement and preservation. But again a
project specific event before we restart the 10-year maintenance
permit, which will be a totally different process.
I should say that while there was widespread support within the
community yesterday, we did have an emergency meeting yesterday
morning of the Pelican Bay Advisory Board. They voted 7-1 -- I'm
sorry, they voted 6-1 in support of the project design. There were two
members who were supportive and indicated so publicly but could not
stay until the vote. The two commercial members were not present.
We have one vacancy, and the general manager of the hotel at the
Waldorf had a preexisting event and could not be there.
While there is otherwise wide support in the community, there
does continue to be some opposition, some of which I think that you
will hear today. But I did want you to know that your advisory board
met yesterday morning in an emergency session and voted
overwhelmingly in support of the design that's presented.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I just have some questions of
the engineer. If we're going to get to that, we can go straight to it.
MR. HUMISTON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Tell me if I'm interpreting the
engineering drawings properly for stations 0+50, 1+50 and 2+50. All
show vertical cuts that are about six feet deep. Is that what you intend
to do or is that just a convention you're using to demonstrate
dimensions? But a vertical cut in sand seems like a very strange way
to proceed.
MR. HUMISTON: Yeah, what you're seeing is in part due to the
MR. OCHS: Excuse me. Identify yourself for the record.
MR. HUMISTON: My name is Ken Humiston with Humiston
and Moore Engineers.
What you're seeing is in part convention, because the State of
Page 73
January 22, 2013
Florida in recent years has gone to a datum which is a survey datum.
It's called the North Atlantic Vertical Datum, which is different from
the North -- the National Geodetic Vertical Datum which we used to
use which is different from the mean low water datum which is
commonly used by local people where they navigate.
The depth to which its actually being dredged is minus five feet
below mean low water, which is the depth that would be important to
people for navigation purposes, although this is not a navigation
project. But that's the depth that's probably most easily understood by
most people who look at these plans.
The cut is actually not vertical but it has a one-on-one slide slope.
And I'll explain this a little bit more with the presentation. And the
reason for that -- that's a relatively steep slide slope. But the reason
for that is that within an inlet where you have relatively strong
currents that move sand back and forth, those currents actually do
support a fairly steep slide slope like that and the swift moving
currents of a channel. So that's why we're dredging it to that -- those
dimensions.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do you have a copy of that portion
of the plan that you can put on the overhead and explain it to me a
little bit more clearly?
MR. HUMISTON: I do. I have some excerpts here that I think
will cover your question.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you'll take those same stations
and show me what the cut is really going to look like then?
MR. HUMISTON: In fact, one of the ones that I had put in for
illustration purposes is one of the stations that you asked about, I
believe.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. HUMISTON: While we're bringing this up, I thought I
would just mention that my presentation is fairly short today because
the plans that you have are essentially the same plans that were used
Page 74
January 22, 2013
for implementation in 1999 of the Clam Bay Restoration and
Management Plan, which I think had a fairly significant degree of
success in maintaining the inlet over a 10-year period of time.
There are a couple small changes that we made to those plans.
One of those is related to your question, which I'm going to address.
So I'm going to explain what these differences are. Because that has
been a subject of some of the controversy that Mr. Dorrill mentioned
that's been ongoing.
Before I get into that, I want to make just a brief kind of general
comment about inlets that I think might help to answer some questions
you might have about what it is we're intending to do with these inlets
-- with this inlet. Because inlets can be very complicated, very
dynamic on tidal coasts with sandy shorelines. But there are really
only two criteria that describe a very simple relationship that explains
why inlets will seek a particular size or a range of size. And that is the
Gulf of Mexico bay tide range and the size of the bay. And those two
parameters essentially determine how much water goes through an
inlet on a given tidal exchange. And it's the amount of water that goes
through an inlet on tidal exchange that determines the size of the inlet.
So what we're trying to do is design a project that is going to
have inlet dimensions that are going to be similar to what nature is
going to try to achieve.
All right, this exhibit here shows the segments A, B and C, which
Mr. Dorrill had mentioned. There's A, B, C.
And segment A is really the inlet. That's the cut that goes across
the beach. It's the one that was typically opened mechanically back in
the 1990's when there were many problems with the inlet closing.
Segments B and C are actually part of Clam Bay, the part of
Clam Bay that's closest to the inlet. And they also happen to be the
area closest to the dynamic inlet where sand accumulates the fastest
within the bay system.
And as I talked about, the importance of the amount of water
Page 75
January 22, 2013
going through an inlet to achieve the -- what would be the natural size
that the inlet wants to adjust to. If segments B and C become clogged
with sand, they obstruct the flow of water from the other parts of Clam
Bay. Outer Clam Bay, which is south of this image that's up on the
board and then inner and upper Clam Bay which are north of here.
Large accumulations of sand in B and C will obstruct the flow of
water, reduce the flow through segment A and reduce the dimensions
of segment A to the point where you may get to the situation we have
now where the inlet is actually closed.
This exhibit on the bottom -- the top is the same as the exhibit
you were just looking at. But on the bottom is some data from the
monitoring of this system since the Restoration Management Plan was
implemented in 1999.
The vertical scale on that bottom chart is the inlet size. Here it is
shown in terms of cross-sectional area. And by that I mean the
cross-sectional area through which water flows. Basically the depth
times the width of the inlet gives you that cross-sectional area.
And the significant thing about this is that over the 10 years that
this monitoring data covers, you can see that the cross-sectional area
of segment A fluctuated pretty much between about 200 and 300
square feet. If you talk about a nominal depth of five feet, that
translates into an inlet width of 40 to 60 square feet.
So it seems pretty evident from this data that this is the size that
segment A of the inlet wants to go to, provided that segments B and C
are clear enough to allow the water to get to the inlet. And I would
point out here that in 2002 the system was dredged, but only B and C
were dredged. So by maintaining the flow through B and C, segment
A still maintained itself within that range of approximately 200 to 300
square feet.
Now, based on this data our initial thought was to recommend
dredging it to the wider 60 feet, because with the inlet closed we're
going to be dredging across a fairly high beach berm and there will be
Page 76
January 22, 2013
readjustment after the dredging. And our concern was that
readjustment would result in some sand falling into the cut, causing
some shoaling, kind of counterproductive to what we're trying to
achieve, so that it would give us a little bit of a safety factor to dredge
to the width of A, or to the width of 60 feet.
One of the things that some of the people who are objecting to is
the width of the cut. They want to see it as small as it can be. Partly I
think because the original permit allowed for a width of 80 feet. It
was in fact dredged to a width of 80 feet in 2007, in part because
county staff wanted to see if they could obtain some additional sand
for the serious erosion problem that was going on at Clam Pass Park.
And since it was allowed by the permit, we went ahead and did dredge
it to 80 feet.
It quickly shoaled in, as you can see from this chart. The red
mark on the left and the red mark on the right shows that when the
segment A is dredged to a larger dimension, it quickly closes back
down to that range of 200 to 300 square feet.
So we want to dredge it to within that range; it seems to be the
natural range that the inlet wants to maintain for itself.
And as an example of-- one of the sections, this is within section
A, which Commissioner Coyle I think is the -- I'm not sure if this is
one of the stations that you mentioned, but it's in that area. And here
you can see that we have -- it's a distorted scale, so it makes the size
look very steep. It makes them look vertical, as you had indicated.
But they're actually on a one-to-one slope, which would be a
45-degree, if this was on a one-to-one scale. And we simply use the
distorted scale, because if you use a one-to-one scale, you run off the
paper.
But the cut below mean high water -- the upper horizontal line
there represents mean high water -- is on the one-to-one slope. And
then above that is indicated a much flatter slope, which is what I had
talked about, removing the material from the high beach berm that
Page 77
January 22, 2013
exists now so that as the inlet readjusts, that sand won't fall into
segment A which will have strong enough currents to move that sand
around if we are successful in dredging B and possibly even C, as Mr.
Dorrill indicated. Those currents could carry that sand back into B and
C and essentially hasten the time at which we would have to go in
there and remove it. So by grading the beach above mean high water
to that flatter slope of one-on-20, hopefully we're going to avoid that
problem.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Before you go there, I just want to
continue my line of questioning here.
What would the bottom of the cut width be and what would the
top of the cut at mean high water be?
MR. HUMISTON: The bottom of the cut is 45 feet. When we
talk about the dredging template and width of the cut, it's typical and
customary to talk about the distance from toe to toe on the slope. So
that's the 45 feet. With the one-on-one slide slope and a nominal depth
of five feet, that would make the top width about 10 feet wider or
about 55 feet.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You sure?
MR. HUMISTON: I think so.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. HUMISTON: Now, this exhibit, I know there's a lot of
information. This is actually right from our plans, and it includes all
the survey control information. But there are a couple of things on
here that I wanted to point out. One is that the -- the black line that
you can see here that follows all the way around the -- follows all the
way around the perimeter of the dredge cut is the horizontal limits of
the dredging. This is one thing that differs slightly from the plans
from the 1999 dredging, because the 1999 dredging limits are shown
-- where we've changed it, they're shown in yellow. So you can see
the -- over here the yellow is higher than the black line that's
indicating that we've reduced the width of the cut from 80 to 45 feet.
Page 78
January 22, 2013
The 80 feet that was referred to in the earlier plans was, as I
described it, at the toe of the slope, the bottom of the cut.
The other change is here in section B and section C we've
actually made it slightly wider. And the reason for that is illustrated
by looking at the survey data. On the bottom panel here on the
right-hand side shows the dredging that was done in 2007. The dark
line actually represents the survey profile showing how much sand
was in the cut before the dredging, and then these lines represent the
dredge template. So you can see that the dredge template got most of
that sand out of there, left a little bunk there adjacent to a deep natural
channel that was hugging the south shoreline.
If you were to take this same template with the same width and
superimpose on this, the upper panel which shows the survey data that
was recently collected by AVB, you'll see that the dredge cut would
stop right about here and it would leave this pile of sand right there in
section B.
And as I mentioned before, one of the things that we're trying to
do is to keep parts B and C clear of sand so that they don't obstruct the
flow to A so that A can function naturally as the inlet bay system --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Ken, let me interrupt you at that
point.
MR. HUMISTON: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Provide assurances that the
proximity to the mangroves is not going to hurt them.
MR. HUMISTON: That's correct. What we have in our
specifications for the contractor essentially is dredging the width of
the cut but not going into the mangroves and not going into the
substrate that supports the mangroves. Because for one thing that's a
clay and peat-like material that's not compatible. And we don't want
to -- if we get into that, we don't want that material on the beach. So
the contractors are instructed in the specifications to stay out of any
material that would have any effect on the mangroves at all.
Page 79
January 22, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And you're comfortable that the
proximity to which you are proposing the dredge in B and C will not
in any way impact the health of the mangroves?
MR. HUMISTON: Absolutely.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Is that the end of your presentation?
MR. HUMISTON: It is.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it needs to be done, but
I'm still wondering, how do we determine that this promotes tourism?
Now, what was said was that it's there to preserve the mangroves.
You know, I don't know -- still don't know where the sand is going. I
know a majority of it is going to be to fill in the area that is to the
north. So I don't think that we can make that determination yet where
the funds are going to come from.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Could you please answer the
question -- and one thing I want to clarify for the record, this pass is
not being dredged for purposes of sand mining. And this pass is not
being dredged for purposes of in any way expanding navigation. It is
strictly being dredged to preserve the mangroves to restore the NRPA
to its previous state. And I'm just stating that for the record.
Could you please answer Commissioner Henning's question?
MR. HUMISTON: Yes. To answer Commissioner Henning's
question, the material that will be used to fill in the old channel
meander to the north represents about 4,000 cubic yards. As Mr.
Dorrill indicated, there's about 13,000 cubic yards in A and B for
successful digging mechanically, but are for some reason unable to get
into C. The remainder of about 9,000 cubic yards would go on the
Clam Pass Park beach to the south which has shown erosion over the
years, whereas the beach to the north has been much more stable.
I would also add that the -- Commissioner Hiller is correct. I
mean, this is not being done for sand mining, but it is a statutory
Page 80
January 22, 2013
requirement that sand that is taken from inlets that's beach compatible
has to be placed on the beaches adjacent to the inlet where they're
affected by the inlet.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Could you qualify mean high water
versus --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, wait a minute, wait a
minute.
If it's going to be proportionately -- whether it be for the
mangroves or not, if the sand is going to be proportionately distributed
from the north and south, we can determine that portions of that is
tourist related. You know, we just need all that information, how
much is going to go on the south side and --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I agree with you. I agree with you.
And you're absolutely correct, Commissioner Henning. And it goes to
the Attorney General question of whether or not TDC dollars can be
used to dredge inlets.
And in fact we have a very, very significant issue coming up in
one or two agenda items regarding the general beach renourishment,
and Doctors Pass, more specifically, where the same question is going
to arise.
So I agree, I think we will need that information. We do need to
make sure that we apply TDC funds legally.
And if you could also clarify for the record the statute that
provides that the erosion control line is not considered when you're
placing sand in a situation like this.
MR. HUMISTON: Yeah, I would have to look that up.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah. But that is -- I believe your
partner already sent an email on that point, if I remember correct -- or
he said he was going to, to the County Attorney and to myself. But I
don't recall.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, in the meantime we need
to expedite the solicitation for the construction of the dredge. I mean,
Page 81
January 22, 2013
that's -- and if we can later on determine where the funds come from,
gentlemen? Is that a problem? Purchasing is not going to have a
problem with that?
MR. KLATZKOW: You have a request to the AG that hopefully
will give you some light on this issue. But yes, you can make a
budget amendment down the road and figure out which funds we'll
supply.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. OCHS: But in the interest of time, Commissioners, I'm
looking for some guidance here. I would imagine you'd want us to
move as quickly as we can after the permit is in hand. And if that's
before the AG is delivered --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right.
MR. OCHS: -- I'd remember that we use the traditional source of
funds, which is TDC funds. And then if the AG requires us to do
something differently, then we can do a budget amendment to reverse
the flow of those funds.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think it's important that
we work with the Clerk's Office also. Because there has to be a
determination of legally spending funds. And if we get the
authorization to go do the dredge as soon as we have the permits and
we don't have that AGO, is the contractor going to get paid? So --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning, can I
suggest that you make a motion to that effect and provide that if TDC
funds are impermissible that we draw funds from the general fund to
ensure that the contractor does get paid and the Clerk won't have a
problem?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we're going to have to do
a budget amendment if we do that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So further action is going to
have to be taken.
Page 82
January 22, 2013
So my motion would be to direct staff to expedite the solicitation
for construction, and when they have permits in hand proceed with the
dredge and work with the Clerk's Office to find out what we need to
do to pay everybody, including the professionals.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Hiller?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I think Commissioner Nance was
next.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I just wanted to talk to that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Although you mentioned that it was
specifically to hydrate the mangroves, but it will be used for boaters
too, won't it? And if it will be, then it might be eligible for TDC
funds, right?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The existing riparian rights are
preserved. They're just not expanded. We're not dredging to expand
riparian rights. Because it's against -- we would not be able to do that.
We wouldn't be permitted to do that.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, inlet management projects
heretofore have been paid for with TDC funds. The question in front
of the Attorney General is whether that is permissible without some,
as I understand it, without some finding by the Board, that those
expenditures promote tourism.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, that's what I was just trying --
MR. OCHS: When we get that answer back --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- to do here, but --
MR. OCHS: -- we'll know better what the proper source of
funding for those projects will be.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was trying to put a pitch in for
that.
And the second thing is the sand will then -- it's going to the
private beach on Pelican Bay. But then we were talking about that at
the last meeting and saying maybe there would be some kind of an
Page 83
January 22, 2013
arrangement to be worked out so that, you know, there's some kind of
a compromise between TDC funds and the Pelican Bay Beach on the
north side, right?
MR. OCHS: I recall that discussion, Commissioner. I don't
know what's come of it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: What was that? I didn't understand
that. Can you clarify?
MR. OCHS: The discussion, when we talked about this last, I
believe, Madam Chair, was that dredged sand that goes to the north of
Clam Pass onto the private beach may need to be financed with
private funds.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's the statute. That actually is
the statute that provides that it doesn't matter whether it's public or
private. When you have this type of a dredging event, whether you
place the sand to the north or the south -- or I should say in this case to
the north or the south -- that it becomes a public project, that there is
no distinction between public and private for purposes of sand
placement under those kind of circumstances.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't think it --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And there's a statute --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- would in Hideaway.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There is a statute on point.
Hideaway is a different issue. It's not the same thing.
MR. DORRILL: In response to that, the information that we
have obtained is that the area that eroded on the north side of the
historic channel is considered public and a public benefit. It's almost,
the way that I equate it, is within a road right-of-way there is the
actual road. And as the inlet here migrates constantly to the north and
the south and meanders within what I would as a layperson refer to as
that right-of-way, that is considered a public benefit as though it were
seaward of the mean high water mark and on the face of the beach.
In the event that as part of the 4,000 yards that is intended to
Page 84
January 22, 2013
restore the inlet to its most optimal alignment, it's my understanding
that that is all within the public benefit or public area. To the extent
that it is not, the engineers have recommended that any excess of the
4,000 be placed on the public beach at Clam Pass, in addition to the
remainder of the 13,000 cubic yards.
So as I stand here right now, the preponderance, if not all of the
sand is intended for public areas. To the extent that any is used within
a private beach or parcel, then we would need to make a proration of
that or that we would then place the balance of that all on the public
beach to the south.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, I certainly support the
expedited solicitation process. And in that regard, I will second
Commissioner Henning's motion.
But I will say that the management of the pass as a portion of the
Clam Bay NRPA is clearly in the public interest. I don't think there's
any question that there's -- you know, recreational amenities and the
environmental amenity that is Clam Bay, including Clam Pass, I don't
think there's any argument about that when you consider all the
various and sundry uses. And the various stakeholders have been in
this room many, many times talking about all their various interests,
and many, many of them are in public interest and interest of tourism.
So I think we'll clear this up. I recognize Commissioner
Henning's concern on that. Certainly we're going to get more
information. But I'd like to second his motion.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And I'll say it is ecotourism. That
whole system is an ecotourism unit.
Go ahead, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Neil, what I was talking
about was on our last agenda it had said that they were going to take
this beach sand if it was compatible, and they believe it is, because it
probably came off of the north Pelican Bay beach. And they said it
Page 85
January 22, 2013
was badly eroded, which would then allow them to put the sand back
onto that beach to renourish it. So that's what I was referring to.
MR. DORRILL: The area of erosion is within what I call that
right-of-way area. Perhaps Ken can put that back up on the screen.
And because it is defined as public -- I hate to call it beach, but it is
public area adjacent to a natural inlet, and it's not considered a
separate private parcel or a private beach.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, so what they said last
meeting, and it was in writing, where it said private beach for --
MR. DORRILL: My understanding is that originally a portion
was intended to be within that area that is in front of their south beach
food and beverage facility there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It said north.
MR. DORRILL: I'm sorry, north of the pass. That's no longer in
play at this point.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see. So that's been changed?
MR. DORRILL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see.
MR. DORRILL: In response to I believe Commissioner Nance
too, I did want to alert you in advance of one other thing that we're
contemplating. When we have our free bid conference or our brief
proposal conference we would like to explore the possibility of
working a second or a third shift, or perhaps around the clock. We're
going to be within that window that is peak season in Collier County,
immediately before and during the Easter break, and so the thought is
that we would move and place and stockpile material during the day,
and then at night that we would bring in the bulldozers or front end
loaders and do the rough and finish grading.
There are backup devices and attenuators on all that heavy
equipment that cannot be disconnected. And so we're all exploring
with the community and the Pelican Bay Property Owners Association
the possibility during the course of construction that we would be
Page 86
January 22, 2013
recommending a second or third shift for the work in order to
minimize the effect on the public at peak tourist season.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioners Henning and
Commissioner Nance, would you both modify your --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I'm going to modify --
besides, you have title issues that the contractor has to work under.
Yeah, it makes sense to me.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I'm supportive.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, you have --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do we have public speakers?
MR. OCHS: -- public speakers.
Yes, ma'am.
MR. MILLER: Yes, we have. Your first public speaker is Kathy
Worley.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: How many do we have?
MR. MILLER: I'm sorry, we have seven.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Could you make sure that they line
up back --
MR. MILLER: Sure, absolutely.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- to-back?
MR. MILLER: If we could get the speakers to use both podiums,
please.
The second speaker is Andrew McElwaine.
MS. WORLEY: He couldn't make it.
MR. MILLER: So your next speaker will be Linda Roth. If you
could please wait at the next podium. Thank you.
MS. WORLEY: Hi. Kathy Worley, The Conservancy. Good
morning, Commissioners.
I sent you a rather lengthy letter that I'm not going to go into that
got to the details of what I was trying to say, and I'm going to try to
get straight to the point here.
Everybody wants the Pass open. And the fastest way you can
Page 87
January 22, 2013
achieve this is submit a dredging design that all the stakeholders can
agree to and that doesn't raise any red flags. So that it can pass through
the permitting agencies without challenge. That's the key to the whole
thing. And this is what we all want.
And I strongly suggest that in order to do this, to get this permit
process as quickly as possible, you direct your consultants to perhaps
do the following: As what might be the best hydrologically might not
be the best environmentally. You need to balance things in there.
Because it's not just the mangroves, it's not just the water quality, it's
also the sea-grasses, the fish, everything in there. So you need to have
a little balance in here.
And what I'd suggest is that you include in the permit application
verbiage that clarifies that this is a one-time permit application to open
the Pass that cannot be used to create a precedent for future dredging
in this area. This statement would hopefully allay the fears that
submitting this proposal would create a precedent and that it could be
used in the future. And particularly the one-to-20 part of the design,
which I was happy to hear Mr. Humiston say, that it was a grading and
not dredging. I like the word grading much better than dredging in
that particular sense.
Also to direct -- if possible, to direct the consultants to revise the
engineering plans for dredging that sticks to the limits of the 1998
permit and -- in cut B. And this would put it not so close to the
mangroves and we can hash that issue out later on.
And also, to leave out the segment of C that is -- C cut that is
near the sea-grasses, which is also a point of contention for
environmentalists.
What we want to see is this permit to go through fast and not
raise any red flags. So let's just shelve our contentious issues for later.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Gee, thanks.
MS. WORLEY: And we all want to get the Pass open now. So I
would please -- please consider what I have said and hopefully maybe
Page 88
January 22, 2013
make some directives. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Can I quickly interrupt before we
get to the next speaker?
Ken, could you come to the podium just really quickly.
Do you have a problem stating that this is not a precedent?
MR. HUMISTON: No, not at all.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay, thank you.
The issue of the 1998 permit, you've defined what needs to be
done based on the current survey, the reference to the 1998 permit.
Can you comment on that? Do we need to -- or should we include
that in there?
MR. HUMISTON: I was simply pointing out that what we were
doing is essentially the same thing that was approved in 1998 and in --
or 1997 and was the basis for the 1999 dredging plans with the
exception of those two changes that I've pointed out to you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And are you going to define it as
such in your application?
MR. HUMISTON: Pardon me?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Are you going to state that in your
application?
MR. HUMISTON: Yes, the agencies are aware of that
difference.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. And then the last thing is,
leaving out dredging where the sea-grasses are, are you able to
accommodate protection for sea-grasses to avoid --
MR. HUMISTON: We can accommodate; to some extent we
can. In this area, particularly with the inlet closed, there are no
appreciable currents to deal with. And under circumstances like that,
turbidity curtains function the best. I talked with Kathy about this
yesterday in fact. You know, they're not 100 percent effective, but
they do certainly help.
One of the things that Tim Hall had pointed out is that with the
Page 89
January 22, 2013
inlet closed the turbidity of the entire system is much higher now, that
it would tend to affect sea-grasses throughout the entire 550-acre
system, whereas the footprint of the dredging area is less than a half of
a percent of that entire system.
There always are, usually temporary, but there always are some
environmental impacts associated with dredging. And I think what
needs to be done is to weigh those localized temporary impacts against
the overall good that it's going to do for the system.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, the emphasis is --
MR. HUMISTON: But we can certainly incorporate conditions
in there to do what we can to protect the sea-grasses that are close to
the dredging.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I think they should be included to
state exactly what you just said. Thank you.
Go ahead.
MR. MILLER: Your next public speaker is Linda Roth. She'll
be followed by Ken Dawson.
MS. ROTH: Good morning, Commissioners. Linda Roth,
Pelican Bay.
I have attended all the PBSD meetings regarding Clam Pass, and
I'm happy to report that PBSD is doing an excellent job working with
the regulatory agencies to obtain a permit to open up Clam Pass as
soon as possible.
In a very brief time, PBSD has met with the Army Corps and
FDEP and received advice from them on the fastest way to open up
Clam Pass. The consultants have quickly drawn up construction
drawings and the PBSD met yesterday in a special session to review
the construction plan. Everybody is moving at lightning speed to get
the Pass reopened.
The PBSD report clearly recognizes the importance and urgency
of opening up the Pass for the public. And yesterday they endorsed a
proposed excavation plan to be used one time only, so that sand which
Page 90
January 22, 2013
is now clogging up the Pass can be removed. However, they feel that
this dredge plan is not the best one for the 10-year permit to protect
the health of the Clam Bay Nature Preserve.
The reason being, that the scope of this plan is actually larger
than the prior permit. And so presently I think -- I agree with
everything that Kathy Worley said. To ensure smooth passage and
avoid delay at the state and federal level, I urge the Commission to
direct the consultants to modify the plan, limit the plan's dredge cuts to
the 1998 or 1999 dredge cut level, and possibly to actually avoiding --
as Kathy suggests, to avoid dredging segment C. Then you would not
have any push back from all the environmental and ecological groups.
This plan Mr. Humiston has showed you, that's the yellow line,
was the 1991, but he didn't indicate the present proposal is the black
line that's very, very close. It's wall-to-wall dredging from the -- very
close to the mangroves. And that's why we're all very concerned
about the negative impact on the environment, ecological aspect of the
bay system.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next public speaker is Ken Dawson. He'll
be followed by Diane Lustig.
MR. DAWSON: Hi. My name is Ken Dawson. I live at Oak
Lake Sanctuary in Pelican Bay. I'm one of the volunteers.
So pretty much you can see me in the ditch out there every day
trying to get as much water in as we can. Seems to be one of the
biggest problems we're having -- and I canoe back there as well. It's
mostly fish and dead birds now are all through this Clam Pass. We're
unorganized so what happens is we have little kids throwing sand up
on the sides, and it takes several hours, sometimes five to six, just to
negate what they did.
We're able to get between 10 and 20,000 gallons of seawater in
there.
The problem we're having is because the sand bars in the back
Page 91
January 22, 2013
are so high we can't get any drain out. So we've been able to get two
small drains or two small flushes out of the mangroves itself. And I'd
say approximately somewhere between 1,500 to 2,000 gallons. And
every day we're putting in between 10 and 20,000 gallons. This is all
based on the volunteers that work in the ditch.
And I don't mind telling you, there's been people there eight and
10 hours a day in order to do what we can.
I will state for the record that I am a realtor. I'm state licensed
here. And as far as the tourism, it is definitely a tourism spot. Most of
the people who rent in Pelican Bay just absolutely love to do kayaking
and the canoeing and all that sort of thing.
One thing I'll tell you is that the people who have come by have
expressed the problem with the smell. So yes, we do want to get Clam
Pass open as quick as possible. I'm tired of getting blisters on my
hands. And at the same time I think this can be worked out, but we
really need to do this as quick as possible.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next public speaker is Diane Lustig. She'll
be followed by Keith Dallas.
MS. LUSTIG: I'm Diane Lustig. I live in Pelican Bay, 6350
Pelican Bay Boulevard.
But I'm here today as one of the diggers, like Ken. I could tell
you, I'm one of hundreds of people who've come by, some digging for
hours, some digging for five to 10 minutes.
And it's based on that time down there that's given me really a
much broader emotional support and dedication to the Clam Bay
system.
We are seeing people down there that come, hundreds of people
each day that have come from every one of your districts, as well as
the tourists. I really didn't come to talk about the tourists, but I've
been digging with a young man named Oliver from Immokalee,
seventh grade, who came up with the idea of why not bring the fire
Page 92
January 22, 2013
department in with hoses to pump it over the bump. And I worked
yesterday with a muscle bound teacher from a contract school down at
Marco Island. And we've had people from Seagate,
shoulder-to-shoulder, people from out by Livingston who bring in
coolers of water because they can't dig.
And what we see, as these are all dedicated people who love the
Clam Bay system, it highlights to me that it's more than just a
mangrove forest. It's a mangrove forest that's dependent on an
estuary. And the estuary's dependent on the mangrove forest.
My husband is one of the hundreds of fishermen. He's down
there twice a day, two hours a day. Retirement is difficult.
But then in terms of just, what you brought up with the tourists,
I dug out -- a week ago on Saturday the person -- I'm down there
anywhere from four to eight hours a day, one of which one morning
with the dawn crew was a surgeon. And two surgeons, hand surgeons,
at the Waldorf Astoria. The Astoria sent down shovels with them,
because they read about it in the paper. And tourists who come, some
they said every year for 35 years, and the Pass is no longer available.
What I'd like to highlight and I'm asking you to pass this
resolution, is that time is of the essence. It's stinking, the fish are
dead. It is totally closed. And by postponing it, we're going to make it
worse.
The mangrove trees themselves, from what I understand from
Mr. Hall, can endure a longer stress. The fish are already dying.
And so I'm going to encourage you to go with science, which is
what I think, Ms. Hiller, has been your statement. These are men and
people we trust. They're walking around in the muck with us. And I
think they are doing what they can for Collier County. But thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next public speaker is Keith Dallas. He'll
be followed by Ted Raia.
MR. DALLAS: Good morning. Keith Dallas. I'm on the Pelican
Page 93
January 22, 2013
Bay Service Division Board, but I'm speaking as an individual here.
Please approve these plans in their entirety. We all agree that
something needs to happen quickly. But as you listen to Ken
Humiston and the staff-- what we also want to do is make sure that
after we've dredged it we have a reasonable time that it stays open.
And to the extent we start parsing off what sections we're going
to do and not do, we're just increasing the probability that we're going
to have to come back next year and do it again.
And so if we can increase that, let's go with the science and
please approve it. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you, Keith.
MR. MILLER: Your final public speaker on this item is Ted
Raia.
MR. RAIA: I'm Ted Raia, President of the Mangrove Action
Group.
The Mangrove Action Group is a citizens group whose sole
purpose is the preservation of Clam Bay Mangrove Estuary. It was
founded 20 years ago when the mangrove die-off was first noted and
worked hand-in-hand with the Service Division to develop a
management plan. The results confirmed the success of that plan.
I want to thank you for restoring the care of Clam Bay to the
Pelican Bay Service Division, because they have proven to be the
most qualified and caring county agency to have that responsibility.
I also want to thank you for spearheading the national-wide
permit 27 approval. We do believe that it is the most efficacious way
to get that pass open.
It is unfortunate that in 2008 the county had removed a permit
from the Service Division that was 80 percent complete and paid for
and that would have provided the emergency dredging. It would have
been effective now, and we would not have been in this situation.
We're looking forward with working with the Pelican Bay
Service Division in developing the new 10-year plan that will focus on
Page 94
January 22, 2013
preserving the county's first NRPA.
I was listening to Ken Humiston here in his presentation. We
were hoping, and it is permitted in a nationwide permit, that the berm
of sand that had been built up on the beach would be moved by a front
loader or bulldozer and fill in the artificial channel that has been
created. And that artificial channel is county property, it has nothing
to do with the private beach. And you wouldn't have to use sand as
being taken out of the dredge to fill that artificial channel. That's one
thing.
The other thing that concerns me, and I don't think I'm mistaken,
because I've served on the Service Division for four years beginning in
2007 and I became thoroughly familiar with the permit. And yes, in
1997 a dredge of 80 feet was first submitted. But modifications that
were approved by the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers restricted dredging
to only 30 feet.
So if we're going to refer to the 1998 permit, I would suggest we
leave out the cut dimension. Because my interpretation -- our
interpretation of that cut is that it's 30 feet. Mr. Humiston's
interpretation may be that it's 80. But in reviewing the documents, I'm
afraid that it is 30 feet.
And with that, I hope we move right along and not let any of this
cause any delay but we focus on a good 10-year master plan. Thank
you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
We have a motion and a second on the table. There being no
further discussion, all in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
Page 95
January 22, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously. Thank
you very much.
We will take a break now for lunch. We will resume with the
ongoing series of time certains.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am, you have -- 11.A would be your first
item when you come back.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's great. And then at 2:00 p.m.
we have the Clerk.
MR. OCHS: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So we want to make sure we
address those remaining items within that one-hour slot so we can stay
on schedule.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you very much. So we'll be
back at 1:00.
(Luncheon recess.)
(Commissioner Coyle is absent at this time.)
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have a live mic.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Before we get started, I would just like to mention the Board has
been invited to attend a very important event and that is recognizing
the Collier County Adult Drug Court team in their working with
individuals who have changed their lives. And it's their awards
ceremony. We've been invited to attend at 5:00. So my mission in
life, with the Board's help, is to get us out of here by 5:00. It actually
starts at 4:00, but I told them that wouldn't be possible. So hopefully
Judge Martin will be understanding. And if we can be done by 5:00,
then we can be there to honor those individuals as well.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
Page 96
January 22, 2013
Item #11A
RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT THE ATKINS NORTH
AMERICA PEER REVIEW OF THE COASTAL PLANNING AND
ENGINEERING VOLUME DESIGN FOR THE 2013/14 BEACH
RENOURISHMENT PROJECT AND APPROVE THE PROPOSED
PROJECT BID FORM AND BIDDING APPROACH — MOTION
TO CONTINUE THE PEER REVIEW PORTION UNTIL THE
NEXT BCC MEETING — APPROVED; MOTION DIRECTING
STAFF TO REDESIGN THE BID FORM ACCORDING TO
OPTION #1 — APPROVED
So we're moving on to 11.A. It's a recommendation to accept
the Atkins North American peer review of the Coastal Planning and
Engineering volume design for the 2013/14 beach renourishment
project, and approve the proposed project bid form and bidding
approach.
Mr. McAlpin will present.
MR. McALPIN: Thank you, County Manager.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Mr. McAlpin, would you allow me
to start with a comment before your presentation?
I received a copy of the Atkins peer review and we've only had
this week to review it, so it's been a little difficult to be able to get
with staff to get into the details. And I think because we're looking at
a very large project, a $20 million project. Allowing the Board the
opportunity to meet with staff to review this peer review to make sure
that all our questions are answered before we accept it I think is very
important. And it's one of-- it's a document that really requires
in-depth analysis that we would not have the ability to do sitting up
here in discussion and do it justice.
So I was going to ask, before you do any sort of presentation, if
we could bifurcate what we're discussing today and continue the
Page 97
January 22, 2013
discussion about the peer review to another meeting, allowing for the
Commissioners to talk to either of the consultants or staff as they're
reviewing that document. And then today address the form to allow
the bidding to go forward. If that would be acceptable to the Board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's fine with me.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I will make a motion to continue
the peer review portion of this agenda item.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. And I would --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- encourage --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I just ask, is that a problem
for you, or for our beach renourishment projects?
MR. McALPIN: Commissioner, if we could complete the review
and be able to bring this back at the next meeting, I think that that
would -- I would like to be in a position that we could get the Board's
input and approval on a peer review by the next meeting, that would
allow us to move forward with the permitting that we need to do.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I think that's very reasonable. I
think two weeks to be able to work with everyone and get a better
understanding of what's presented so we can have a reasonable
discussion at the Board level makes sense.
MR. OCHS: If the Board so desires, that's what we'll do. And
I'll bring back --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I'll modify my motion to reflect
that timing, if Commissioner Henning finds that acceptable.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That is very acceptable. Thank
you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Is that okay with you,
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, uh-huh.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Then all in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 98
January 22, 2013
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So motion carries unanimously;
Commissioner Coyle is absent.
So the next item that --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What about the speakers? Looks
like --
MR. MILLER: Well, you're splitting this to two, so you're still
going to have a discussion on the item, correct?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right. What we'll do is anyone who
speaks, now that they know we're continuing the peer review can, you
know, choose not to speak. Or if they'd like us to consider some
comment, you know, for our review they can comment on that.
Because it is a noticed item.
And then the second part of this agenda item is the template that
we're going to be using for purposes of putting this project out to bid.
And Gary, would you like to present as to what the form is? I
know I've already reviewed that form, and I do have a couple of
suggestions for modification.
MR. McALPIN: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just for the record,
Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management.
In the December 11th meeting the Board directed us to go out for
bid and do it in 50,000 cubic yard increments, starting at 200,000
cubic yards and going up to a half million cubic yards.
We had the Atkins peer review. And the reason that was done
was because of concerns associated with the volume amounts and the
correctness of the volume amounts.
We went through that, and it was corroborated by Atkins that the
400,000, 420,000 was a -- was inaccurate (sic) and the design volumes
were acceptable.
So what staff is suggesting is an alternate approach that we come
Page 99
January 22, 2013
back to the Board with, and that alternate approach is what's listed on
the overhead here.
What's listed on the overhead here where we would go in and we
would have a mobilization and demobilization. The bid time line
would be from 11/1 of'13 to 5/1/14, which is the area outside of turtle
nesting season. We would get pricing for the Vanderbilt Beach area,
either on a dredging or a truck haul basis. So depending upon who
you were as a bidder, you would fill this in. The borrow area for the
Pelican -- excuse me, for the City of Naples, and also for the Park
Shore area -- this is the Park Shore, 112,000 cubic yards and 230,000
cubic yards for the Naples Beach.
And then we would have a series of fixed cost items, which if
you were a truck haul contractor, maintenance of traffic would be one
that you would fill in and the only one. But if you were a dredging
contractor, turbidity monitoring and mobilization of the turtle trawler
and the relocation of turtle trawling and the species observers would
be the other items that you would fill in.
(At which time, Commissioner Coyle enters the boardroom.)
MR. McALPIN: And then I think a couple of key comments for
us, is that we would target for a bid volume of 400,000 cubic yards
with plus or minus 25 percent to go in, in terms of no change to unit
costs.
So we would have the ability to go from 300,000 cubic yards to
500,000 cubic yards. And that would preserve the flexibility and the
pricing structure that the Board had asked us to do before.
The reason we would do that is to clean up the bid form and
make it as simple as we could for bidders. With the two caveats that
the Board of County Commissioners reserves the right to select an all
dredge proposal or an all truck haul proposal or any combination of
those two.
And lastly, that we evaluate bids based on the best -- the bids not
only that offer Collier County the most attractive in terms of our
Page 100
January 22, 2013
ability to do that consistent with the bid package.
So that's what we're proposing, Madam Chair, at this point in
time. Preserves the flexibility but allows us to move forward with the
bidding phase.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: With the Board's indulgence, I'd
like to comment on Gary's remarks. Would that be okay?
Gary, first of all, with respect to the truck haul, I think that we
can more narrowly define where it makes sense to do a truck haul.
And we should make clear in our permitting, that it's not or but it is
and/or in that there might be some combination.
Like, for example, the City of Naples has expressed concern over
truck hauling. Well, it may not make sense for the City of Naples but
it may make sense for example in small part in Park Shore,
hypothetically. I'm just throwing that out as an example.
If we narrowed down, if staff were to go in with the help of our
consultants and define where we can use truck hauls when we bit bid
the truck haul portion in combination with the dredging, I think we're
going to get better numbers, rather than just blanket truck hauling,
because I don't think under any circumstances we're planning on, you
know, 230,000 cubic yards of truck hauled sand. So that's suggestion
number one.
Suggestion number two is the Board did direct that it be bid in
50,000 cubic yard increments. And there's a reason for that. When
you go back to that Atkins peer review, which we're not going to
discuss now because the Board needs time to review it in detail, what's
clear is that Atkins' conclusion was to reach the 2006 six-year design
template 120,000 cubic yards was needed.
What's also obvious is that when you look at the numbers
included in the total, you've got numbers that very well relate back to
inlet management, like for example, Doctors Pass, 120,000 of the
400,000 is attributable to the placement of sand just to the south of
Doctors Pass. And it's questionable whether, going back to what
Page 101
January 22, 2013
Commissioner Henning has pointed out, that it is appropriate to
consider that part of general renourishment and fund it with TDC
dollars. I think that would have to be closely examined.
So going back to the 50,000 cubic yard increments is the more
appropriate way to go.
The footnote three, that addresses the plus or minus 25,000
doesn't serve to protect us in any way, because it's at the high end, you
know, between 300 and 500. And more likely than not, when you go
back and properly apply the, you know, 2006 six-year design template
based on the current erosion, you're dealing with substantially less
than that. And that's where we have to protect ourselves on pricing.
And bidding in 50,000 increments based on, you know, the projected
potentially high and low volumes that we're considering is reasonable.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that true?
MR. McALPIN: We have -- we designed a bid form,
Commissioner, that we thought was reasonable and accurate and gave
us the flexibility that we needed. If the Board wishes us to look at a
different form or put the 50,000 increments in there, staff would be
happy to do that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does it affect the cost if you choose
50,000 increments rather than the overall to get a whole picture?
MR. McALPIN: I think what we have seen in the past when we
bid, the pricing tends to change between beach segment because of the
travel time for the dredgers. So you're more likely, and what we have
experienced in the past, you're more likely to get different pricing for
Vanderbilt as opposed to Park Shore. And Park Shore is part of the
City of Naples, or the City of Naples.
And we protected ourselves with the unit price in terms of the
volume so that it's just more sand on that beach segment. But what is
the differentiator is the beach segment. That's been our experience, but
again, we'll do what the Board directs us to do.
Page 102
January 22, 2013
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Last question is, as you get cost
analyses, how do you decide how much affect it will have on our
tourism season? Because of course this must be done during tourist
season. And how will it affect the income of the businesses in that
truck haul route?
MR. McALPIN: Well, obviously there is some concern, but
there's a lot of concern about the truck haul approach. And the City of
Naples has gone on record as saying that for Park Shore and the City
of Naples, they're against truck haul within their area. Obviously that
-- so we do have that.
There's more impact with a truck haul project than with a
dredging project. The Board has directed us to get prices both ways,
Commissioner, in the past, and so what we're trying to do is satisfy the
Board's previous direction.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. Well, my interest is I want to
know how it's going to affect the businesses. I don't know how you
can calculate that -- and how it will affect our tourism season. I don't
know how you can calculate that versus the cost of truck hauling in
general. I don't know how many people are in favor. We know Bob
Krasowski is encouraging truck haul, but I don't know if everybody's
in favor of that. I think we want to get the most expeditious manner
and the least impact on our residents and tourist season.
MR. McALPIN: And that's why traditionally for larger projects
like this that happen during season, Commissioner, we've always had
a dredging approach.
A truck haul tends to be -- you have to look at how many
accesses you have to the beach, and we do not have many accesses
within Collier County, beach access. You have to have how many
operations that you have. You have to look at can your mines provide
the sand and they're limited because of the sortation equipment that
they have. They're subject to inclement weather. And maintenance of
traffic and traffic on the roads and road destruction are terrible issues
Page 103
January 22, 2013
and they're difficult to deal with.
But if the Board directs us to move forward with a project like
that, staff will comply with that direction.
But the city has come on board and said that they're not
interested in the truck haul within their boundaries.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: If I may add one fact. Up until the
2005-2006 dredge renourishment, the beaches were renourished with
truck hauls.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that true?
MR. McALPIN: If I could comment on that. I think that in '98 it
was with a dredge project also. Prior to that, Commissioner, the
beaches were -- we've used truck haul before, but those tended to be
relatively smaller scope volume projects. So we have used truck haul,
but it's been not to the same magnitude that we're talking about with
this project.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And actually what happened was it
was about 50,000 cubic yards annually so there was continuous
renourishment as opposed to allowing for this massive erosion and
then this massive rebuilding.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that true?
MR. McALPIN: So we have proposed a form for the
Commissioners, and we think it's correct. It is an example of the
approach we would use, and we're asking to -- for your comments on
that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'd like to make a motion that we
direct staff to redesign this bid form to, number one, estimate where
sand could be placed with trucks in a reasonable fashion that, you
know, doesn't adversely affect roads or businesses and is cost
effective. And that it be bid in that fashion.
So you go in and you analyze where we could reasonably use
truck hauls and what quantities and when those truck hauls would
Page 104
January 22, 2013
occur and bid the truck hauls accordingly.
And then with respect to the dredging, come up with a template
that allows for the bidding to be in 50,000 cubic yard increments. You
could start at, you know, 150 and go up to 450.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Any further discussion?
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, only that obviously we'll have to try
to apply our best judgment in trying to figure out which areas are
better candidates for truck hauls.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Of course.
MR. OCHS: And moreover, if there's an area in the city, and
we've already had an expression from the City Council that they're not
predisposed to favor truck hauls, do you still want us to identify that
as --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, I think you identify it and we
can always consider objecting to your recommendation. But if for
example there is a small portion that would benefit and the city might
get expeditious service without having to wait and it wouldn't tear up
their roads and they would be agreeable, it's for informational
purposes and we still have to approve the form. And if they don't like
it they can tell us and we'll appropriately deny it.
MR. OCHS: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yeah, I don't understand why this
doesn't -- doesn't this give you tremendous amount of flexibility? It
doesn't say what we're going to decide, it's just asking people to --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, it's about pricing.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yeah, I understand that. But, I
mean, if they're bidding on trucking to deliver to Naples, I don't see
how it relates to whether we decide to do it or not. If you have
increments that work, they will either do it at your direction or not.
Page 105
January 22, 2013
Am I confused?
MR. McALPIN: We think we've designed a very flexible format
that gives the Board a lot -- that addresses their options, and your
options were let's preserve our ability to add sand, say like if an entity
like Pelican Bay comes in, or if we don't have enough funding or
there's reasons that's not right, subtract sand from the beach, it gives
you that flexibility.
And it also addresses other items that you asked us to do, which
would be truck haul and -- as opposed to a dredging. And so we think
we have, but we'll take direction, Commissioner Nance.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala would like to
speak after the speakers.
Can you call the public speakers?
MR. MILLER: Sure. Your first public speaker is Rollin Rhea,
to be followed by Bob Krasowski.
MR. RHEA: For the record, correct pronunciation, my name is
Rollin Rhea.
MR. MILLER: Zero for two. Sorry for that.
MR. RHEA: Appreciate the effort.
I'm here today on behalf of Beachmoor Condominiums, of which
I'm a board member. And I want to address the most recent beach
renourishment, emergency beach renourishment on Vanderbilt Beach.
The Beachmoor is the first condo immediately north of the park
area where the sand was taken onto the beach. And I want to
commend the Commissioners and staff-- (cell phone interruption) and
apologize for that interruption, won't happen again -- for the
expediency and how effective this beach renourishment was at
Vanderbilt Beach.
We have 33 residents living immediately next door to where they
brought that sand onto the beach. And I've got to tell you, it was an
exciting event and very efficiently run, and we didn't have any
complaints from the community that I'm aware of in regards to
Page 106
January 22, 2013
disruption of traffic by the trucks.
Now, they had a lot of trucks in there but it was a JIT system, a
just-in-time management. It was very well done. The community at
large enjoyed seeing the progress made, and we're most grateful for
the bringing the beach back in such an expedient order. Had it not
been for the truck haul system, we at Vanderbilt Beach today would
not have a beach. And it's that simple. We got what we need, we
hope that it was cost effective, and we encourage you to always study
that as a possibility.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. RHEA: It worked for us.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you. Very good job.
MR. MILLER: Your next public speaker is Bob Krasowski, he'll
be followed by Robert Naegele.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Going high tech.
Hello, Commissioners, Bob Krasowski.
Gee, you know, the -- in regards to the beach bid, and I'll be back
in the future when you talk about the other thing, you know, all the
documents including the DEP permit application, the Army Corps of
Engineers application -- today is the last day to respond to it, if
anybody has an interest in that -- and the bid form that you see here up
there, all called for an either/or situation where they say and explain in
the documents that they're either going to -- you're either going to
select the dredge from the ocean and the various equipment that's used
to do that or you're going to use a truck.
Forget the either/or. How many times have we discussed, and I
think you've gone along with it in a large part, looking for the
opportunity to blend the systems.
Now, using truck haul and purchasing sand in Collier County is
no small thing. We have people that are out of work and we've been
in the past for months what can we do that blends with what Collier
County is to expand our economy. You have a big ticket item here,
Page 107
January 22, 2013
and I'm not saying we have to do the whole thing. The city is
objecting to, you know, using some of the roads further south. But
we've used them before up by -- south of Doctors Pass, we've used
truck haul. So we could identify, as you've suggested, where the sand
-- and there's plenty of places, like Vanderbilt Beach, that whole
section of Vanderbilt Beach, and I have it here on my computer, that's
57,000 cubic yards they're identifying. We've already put 12,000
cubic yards, for cheaper than the dredge equipment usually costs when
we did a comparison. So we could potentially do that whole area with
a truck haul.
And as far as impact to the road, how about impact to the hard
bottom, which is irreplaceable off the coast? When you look at the
map it shows the pipelines coming from three miles out off the coast
and they put big tires around them and they drop them on the hard
bottom. You could eliminate that altogether.
So as far as the environmental impact -- I'm sorry the
environmentalists aren't here; they've already concluded their thought
process -- and it might require it. It might require a little more thought
as far as figuring out gee, where can we access the beach. Wow, what
a challenge for the staff to figure out where along the coast that could
be done. And we could blend the two programs, shrinking the
scheduled time, like when you're doing truck haul you could do the
truck haul in November. The guys at the sand pit that I've talked to
said if you give them more lead time they'll set aside the better beach
sand and you get a reduction in price.
So, you know, this is -- you know, it's very frustrating try to deal
with this in reality. This is the type of thing that needs a workshop
where everybody can sit down and take the time to discuss each and
every element of this so you folks have all the information you need to
make a comparison.
So, you know, I've had my three minutes. All I can ask for is that
you -- to do what you suggested, Madam Chair, and send these guys
Page 108
January 22, 2013
back to the drawing board. And I'll be available. Gary's always been
open to me of talking, and you've suggested as well, to go over this
with Nick and Phil and all of them.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The idea of a workshop is a good
one.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Yeah, because, you know, we can relax and
get all the information out and people can talk for more than three
minutes. You know, especially the smart people in the audience.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your final public speaker on this item is Robert
Naegele.
MR. NAEGELE: Madam Chairman and members of the
Commission, I just want to congratulate you for taking on this
head-on. The beach renourishment is very important to us, so we
appreciate the work you've done and the work the staff is doing.
Secondly, I missed the Vanderbilt Beach bathroom discussion
this morning, but I just wanted to say that we are very appreciative of
how the staff has done a very good job of designing an alternative
from what the previous plan had been. So thank you very much.
They've done a great job.
And I wanted to just say that the Vanderbilt Beach Residents
Association, who was one of the petitioners to the variance with the
FDEP also was fully on board and very appreciative of the work that's
been done by the staff to create an alternative. Thank you.
MR. McALPIN: Madam Chair, if I may just add a couple of
comments that Bob mentioned, and he's right to be concerned about
impacts to the hard bottom. But what maybe Bob doesn't know is that
we swim each one of the pipeline corridors, we identify the area where
the pipes go so that there is no hard bottom in those locations.
So in the permitting process, DEP requires us to go through and
do that issue. And so they're very specific. And the pipeline corridors
have to be permitted.
Page 109
January 22, 2013
The second comment that I would say is that we know where the
access points are on the beach. Access points are very, very
structured. We don't have very many access points. As part of this
process that we would look at, and what we would come back to you,
Vanderbilt Beach 57,000 cubic yards, but you have one access point,
which would probably mandate that you shut down that beach access
for that period of time that we're doing the renourishment at that
location, because of safety and concern.
So those are some of the things that we have been looking at that
if you asked us to come back with a truck haul project that we could
bring back to you.
There's two comments that I would like to make on a direction
that you gave us. Previous you said you would like to go from 150 to
450,000 cubic yards in 50,000 increments. Pelican Bay has just
expressed an interest that they may be interested in coming and
participating in this renourishment, similar to what they did before,
they pay for it out of their funds.
And I want to make sure that we have enough of an upfront or
high number on there. And we designed it at a half million because we
thought that -- we looked at what we did at Pelican Bay last time and
50,000 looked to be -- excuse me, a half million looked to be the right
upper limit. So maybe 450 is just too small, Commissioner.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So go up to 500. So what you're
suggesting is if the Pelican Bay foundation would like to renourish
their private beach and participate in this -- to the extent that they
would want to renourish the private portion of their beach, that they
would then participate in this bid and the contractor would be -- in
other words, they would get the benefit of our pricing to do their work.
MR. McALPIN: And they would pay for their work.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And they would pay for their work.
I understand. I don't have a problem. I just want to make it clear
that if we do bid it up to 500 that it's understood it's not all for us, and
Page 110
January 22, 2013
whoever wants to participate can do so on whatever terms we legally
are permitted to partner.
MR. McALPIN: The other point that I would like to make that
the Board has directed us in the past, that doesn't show up on the bid
form, is they also have directed us to look at an option for going on
the shoulder season of turtle nesting season from 9/15 of'13 to 6/1 of
'14.
We intend to do that. It's not listed on the bid form, but we
intend to do that. And we would integrate that into the bid form at
that point in time. So I just want to make sure we get that on the
record, too. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Nance? Sorry, was it
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It was but --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do you mind if I let Commissioner
Fiala go?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, no, no.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Go right ahead.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala, it's your turn.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You can just eliminate me, they
already answered my question.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Oh good. All right, thank you.
Go ahead, Commissioner Nance.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yeah, me too. I just wanted to
make a comment. Didn't we just put signs up noticing where the
access points are? No, calm down, just wanted to --just teasing.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay, I'm holding my breath. Do
not even go there, you're scaring me.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Just teasing.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There being no further discussion,
all in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 111
January 22, 2013
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala, are you aye or
nay?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I ayed.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You're aye.
So the motion carries 4-1 with Commissioner Coyle dissenting.
Item #9A
ORDINANCE 2013-19: RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT AN
ORDINANCE WHICH WOULD AMEND ORDINANCE 2002-27,
AS AMENDED, RELATING TO PELICAN BAY MUNICIPAL
SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, I think at this point we move to your
advertised public hearing section of your agenda. We had one item
moved off your summary agenda. It is now 9.A. It was formerly
17.C. And it's a recommendation to adopt an ordinance which would
amend Ordinance No. 2002-27 as amended, relating to the Pelican
Bay Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit.
This item was brought forward by Commissioner Fiala from the
summary agenda.
MR. MILLER: And Madam Chair, you have one registered
speaker on this item.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala, would you like
to comment since you brought it forward? This was actually a change
to the PBSD ordinance which I had proposed. This is the final hearing
on it. And with this motion -- with a motion to approve, this
Page 112
January 22, 2013
ordinance as amended will be in full force and effect. The ordinance
already exists, this was merely modification to the existing ordinance.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to hear from the
petitioner, if I could, please. That's you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: From me?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, no.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: He's not the petitioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I'm sorry, the representative.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: He's not the representative.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Rich.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Who do you represent?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Pelican Bay Foundation.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But they're not the petitioners.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, Rich, would you come
forward and talk to us, please, on this subject.
MR. MILLER: Maybe this will help, Madam Chair, Rich is your
registered public speaker on this --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That makes sense. You're our
registered public speaker.
Rich, before you start, can you please tell us when the foundation
board voted to have you represent them on this matter? And when
they, you know, they directed that this matter as you're presenting it,
be brought forward to the Board.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I have been working with Mr.
Hoppenstedt, who is the representative of the Pelican Bay Foundation.
And I've been working with Mr. Hoppenstedt for probably seven to 10
days, ballpark, on this particular matter to coordinate the review of the
ordinance and bring forward suggested revisions, to make sure that the
ordinance will withstand a challenge if someone were to challenge
actions taken by the Pelican Bay Services Division Board.
So our direction was to make sure that what we perceived to be
the Board's intent, was in fact codified properly in the ordinance.
Page 113
January 22, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: If I understand correctly, the
foundation board has not publicly voted on your coming forward
today to address us on this matter.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know the answer to that question.
I work directly with Mr. Hoppenstedt. And whatever Mr.
Hoppenstedt's responsibilities and authority to engage me to do work
for the foundation, I leave that to Mr. Hoppenstedt and the board.
There are times I do meet with the board, but I can tell you, I don't go
to their monthly meetings, I don't review their agendas. So that's why
I'm here.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I just want to be sure, because, you
know, if-- we need to understand who you're representing. And as far
as I know, the foundation board has not directed that you come before
us.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to hear from him. I
asked him to come.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, I understand that. But as a
lobbyist, he has to declare who he represents.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I did. And I put on my form that I'm here
on behalf of the Pelican Bay Foundation.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's great, thank you. Go ahead
and proceed.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. For the record, Rich
Yovanovich, on behalf of the Pelican Bay Foundation.
The current Pelican Bay MSTBU ordinance actually has been
adopted for many years and has been revised over the years. And we
believe that the current version of the Pelican Bay ordinance
impermissibly confuses two legal concepts. There's an MSTBU,
which is basically a taxing and benefit unit, that creates a geographic
boundary in which you raise monies to do different projects.
Frequently you'll have an advisory board that advises the Board
of County Commissioners, who is actually the governing body of the
Page 114
January 22, 2013
taxing or benefit unit, as to what projects they might want to have
happen. But it's the Board that takes all of the actions, not advisory
board. That's how the Pelican Bay MSTBU was originally set up.
It then became a dependent district, which is a totally different
legal concept. That actually is a governing body that can and does
take actions. It is -- they become dependent. They could be dependent
under one or two or both of these methods.
Those who are appointed to that board or district board go
through the Board of County Commissioners, or their budget is
approved by the Board of County Commissioners. In this particular
case both of those things happened. The district board is appointed by
the Board of County Commissioners, and the district's budget is
approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
Then the district governing board actually implements day-to-day
operations of the district. Board of County Commissioners basically
delegates that responsibility to this governing board.
That's how they went the district route. There was another
amendment to get away from the dependent district route, but you left
all dependent district types of powers in that board in the ordinance.
What we have provided to the County Attorney and to each of
the Commissioners is minimal changes to the PUD to implement what
the current ordinance says. You'll still appoint the board, you'll still
approve the budget, the governing board of the Pelican Bay Services
District Board will still implement the day-to-day operations, they will
still make a recommendation to you as to what happens in Clam Pass,
you will decide what you want to do with Clam Pass, and then they
will manage whatever you tell them.
So what we're simply doing is taking the ordinance that's in front
of you and making sure that it's legally established as a dependent
district. Because that in our opinion, and we had Ken Van Assenderp
look at this as well, since this is an area that he practices in more than
me. But we've had him look at that and we've crafted for you minimal
Page 115
January 22, 2013
revisions of the ordinance to make sure that the Pelican Bay Services
Division Board is a properly created dependent district, because that's
how it operates. It's a de facto dependent district now.
Our concern is that all of the actions that are going to occur in
Clam Pass that you've been discussing today could somehow be
challenged if the authority to implement those things is given to the
Pelican Bay Services Division Board to do that, which is currently
what it looks like you're intending to do after the Board makes the
policy decisions.
We don't want that to be intact. We understand how the Board
wants it to operate out there and we think we've done this correctly. If
the Board intended for it to be an advisory board, then fix the
ordinance and make it an advisory board. If you intended for it to be
a dependent district, which it currently looks like that's what you're
intending, let's fix the ordinance. And that's all we're simply trying to
do, is fix the ordinance to make sure it's legally sufficient and can't be
challenged, and the actions taken by that Service Division Board
challenged. And we were trying to provide a benefit.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you very much, Rich.
County Attorney, would you comment on what Mr. Yovanovich
is suggesting and give us your position on that?
MR. KLATZKOW: The changes that are being proposed, I'm
not going to comment on whether they're necessary, whether they're
unnecessary, nor will I comment about the helpfulness that's being
offered here.
What I will comment on, is that in order to enact these changes,
we'd have to advertise it. The ordinance before you, the advertising for
it was very, very limited in scope. It's just basically talking about the
composition of the advisory board. This is a rewrite of the entire
ordinance structure.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: What you're -- to clarify, what Mr.
Yovanovich is proposing is a totally different ordinance.
Page 116
January 22, 2013
MR. KLATZKOW: There's enough change here that I do not
believe you can vote on it today, all right. And if we're going to do
such an overhaul of this ordinance, I think going through the typical
process of vetting it with the appropriate advisory board and then
bringing it back with recommendations would be the preferred
mechanism.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: However, I just want to clarify, we
do have the ability to vote on the current amendments that are being
proposed today as to the existing ordinance. And the existence
ordinance as presented is legal and the MSTU has been operating
properly under it.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, it's MSTBU, right? It's a
benefit unit they were taxed --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Both.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon me?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Both, you're correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, are they taxed by
assessment or are they taxed equally?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I believe you do -- and Neil would know
better.
MR. OCHS: They use both, sir.
MR. YOVANOVICH: They use both.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. But PBSD has been in
effect for, you know --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Ten years.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- a long time. What's the
rationale to change it now?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioner, we're not trying to
change anything. When this item was brought forth, I think it was in
December, there was some changes where you were giving the Pelican
Page 117
January 22, 2013
Bay Services Division Board some additional authority.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, no.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We were asking for one member
to be --
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's one of things. But you were also
asking to have Pelican Bay Services Division Board be the sole board
making recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners
regarding Clam Pass and Clam Bay. And then to become -- after those
decisions were made, then they would manage the Clam Bay. That's
the wording that's in the ordinance today.
So what we said was okay, since you all really want to do that
and we're okay with that, let's look at the ordinance and see if there's
any problems with the ordinance in its current format. So we looked
at it and realized that through the transition of years where there had
been amendments made to the ordinance, there were -- you mixed
concepts. You went from an advisory board to a board that actually
makes decisions and manages an asset of the county. That has
changed over the years. And we're just simply saying let's fix it and
make sure you have the right structure in place for the Pelican Bay
Services Division Board to actually manage that asset, which is Clam
Pass and Clam Bay. That's all we're saying.
And that came up in the language that's in front of you today
regarding giving them some additional responsibilities.
MR. KLATZKOW: Again, I'm not going to discuss the merits of
Mr. Yovanovich's argument here. I'm simply stating you can't enact
those changes now. They need to be advertised. And my suggestion
is that you vet them with your advisory boards and then bring it back.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I just want to confirm, if we adopt
the ordinance with the changes proposed today --
MR. KLATZKOW: Then you're worse off than --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: What's that?
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't think you can.
Page 118
January 22, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, not his, what we have.
MR. KLATZKOW: What we have is fine.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: What we have is fine.
I just want to make sure that what we are adopting today that has
been advertised, that has been publicly vetted, conforms with the law
and allows the PBSD -- Mr. Brock, you are rudely interrupting a
conversation we are having.
MR. BROCK: Yeah, I apologize.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Scooch over. I mean, start
whispering in his ear? I mean, really?
MR. BLOCK: He was listening.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You can whisper in one of our ears.
Go ahead. Is that correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: You may vote on this ordinance.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We have the ability -- the ordinance
MR. KLATZKOW: You may enact this ordinance if that is the
will of the Board.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And what we are doing is --
MR. KLATZKOW: I believe it is legally sufficient. I believe
the ordinance was always legally sufficient.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And the modification that we're
making, contrary to what Mr. Yovanovich is saying, is also legal and
enforceable. And PBSD is operating properly under the terms as
proposed.
MR. KLATZKOW: I believe it is now. If the proposal offered
by Mr. Yovanovich has merit, I think that's something the Board
should consider.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We can always bring that back.
MR. KLATZKOW: You can't consider it today.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, that's fine.
So what I would like to do -- I see Commissioner Coyle's light on
Page 119
January 22, 2013
-- I would like to make a motion that we approve the ordinance as
amended today and then, you know, Mr. Yovanovich, you're welcome
to come and talk to me or to any of the other commissioners and we
can discuss what your proposal is and discuss how we can take it
through the community so everybody can have the opportunity to vet
on your suggestions.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll take that back to my client, sure.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'm sorry?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll take that offer back to my client.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sure. And then we'll take it to the
foundation board, the PBSD board, the homeowner's association, the
community at large so they can, you know, review what you're
suggesting and see if, you know, you want to bring something back.
And if the will of the community is to make some sort of change,
whatever that change is, by consensus, I'm willing to put it, you know,
back on the agenda for --
MR. YOVANOVICH: And if I may, we're not -- the ordinance
that -- the revisions we're making are in no way intended to make a
change to how the current operations are.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I understand.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's our concern that the way it's currently
structured is -- the way you have it written, you haven't properly gone
through the process to give the Board that authority. We're trying to
make sure that what you want to do is legally --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I understand. And I really
appreciate you looking out for us. The County Attorney feels that we
are legally --
MR. KLATZKOW: But let me just say one thing. Pelican Bay,
they don't have the authority to do this. There's some authority being
delegated by the Board, but at the end of the day the Board's making
the decisions and the Board is approving all the funding, the Board is
signing off on the contracts.
Page 120
January 22, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And the checks, by the way.
MR. KLATZKOW: So, you know, to say that Pelican Bay is
operating and getting into contracts without consulting the Board, I
don't think that's so.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't think I said that. What I said is
this Pelican Bay Services Division Board is involved in the day-to-day
decision-making and running of the Pelican Bay Services Division
MSTBU, whatever you want to call it. And our concern is in giving
them that authority, that's not an advisory board, what an MSTBU can
do.
I don't mean to belabor it. We're genuinely here to try to make
sure things were actually going to be legally sufficient.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, you're very kind and I really
appreciate, you know, your contributing.
The board is an advisory board. They don't have the authority to
make decisions independent of the Board of County Commissioners.
They cannot direct Mr. Dorrill to do anything that he hasn't been
directed or given permission to do by the County Manager. And the
County Manager can't do anything that the Board hasn't approved. So,
you know, they are an advisory board. You may perceive them as
other than that, but they are truly an advisory board at the end of the
day.
But I totally appreciate you bringing this forward and we look
forward to hearing from you, you know, to vet what you're discussing.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't know that I want to get into
this argument. I don't know that it's going to make any difference.
But let me ask you just one question: Would making the change
that you propose diminish the chances that we would be legally
challenged on this ordinance?
MR. YOVANOVICH: In our opinion, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So by keeping it the way it is, it
Page 121
January 22, 2013
opens up the opportunity for legal challenge; is that correct?
MR. YOVANOVICH: That is our legal opinion and concern.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then I guess we just find out if that
happens.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Jeff, is that your position?
MR. KLATZKOW: What I'm saying is -- I'm very familiar with
who wrote these changes and I respect him very much. I've worked
with him in the past, okay, he's an outstanding attorney up in
Tallahassee.
And it may have merit. I'm just saying that we need to look at
this through the regular channels. And if it has merit, bring it back to
the Board with an advisory, you know, board's recommendation.
Obviously you can't do it right now.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'm going to go back and ask this
question again because I want to be absolutely sure.
If we adopt this ordinance as presented, do you see any legal
problems with the modifications as proposed?
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
Then with that, I make a motion to approve the ordinance as
amended.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There being no further discussion,
all in favor?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 122
January 22, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries 3-2 with
Commissioners Fiala and Coyle dissenting.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chairman, we have a few minutes before
your 2:00 p.m. time certain.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Can we take a few -- what I'd like to
do is, Commissioner Fiala, can you re-gavel us into the CRA?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Because there are a few items that
we can dispense of relatively quickly.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, the CRA Board is now
back in session.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Leo, if you take us to 10.E.
Item #10E
RECOMMENDATION THE COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) BOARD DESIGNATES
THE IMMOKALEE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AS SPECIAL DISTRICT
REGISTERED AGENT FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY CRA —
MOTION FOR THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO ACT AS
REGISTERED AGENT — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: I'd be happy to. Madam Chair, 10.E is the
recommendation that the Collier County -- excuse me, the Collier
Community Redevelopment Agency Board designates the Immokalee
Community Redevelopment Agency Executive Director as the Special
District Registered Agent for the Collier County CRA.
This item was approved for reconsideration at the December
11th, 2012 board meeting.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, I would --
Page 123
January 22, 2013
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Could I -- excuse me, being that
I'm running this part of the show here, should we first hear from our
CRA manager? I always like to hear from the person in charge first
and then hear from our commissioners.
Go ahead.
MS. PHILLIPPI: I'm sorry, Penny Phillippi, Executive Director
of the Immokalee CRA.
This is a reconsideration item, so I'm not sure why it's being
reconsidered.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And I was wondering if you
came up to the podium because you had some comments on it, or no?
MS. PHILLIPPI: No, I got excited, I thought we were going to
the business development center. Sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, I -- this is in no way critical
of Ms. Phillippi or any other individual in the county that serves as a
registered agent.
But in my opinion, our County Attorney should be the registered
agent, since it serves legal notice, for any activities in which the Board
is engaged. That's, you know, my personal opinion, and I would make
a motion that the County Attorney serve as registered agent for not
only this circumstance but all similar circumstances.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: And I have a second.
County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: You have two primary agencies that work
directly for you. One is Leo's agency and one is mine. And I'm more
integrated to the Board under structure than the County Manager is.
I mean, the County Manager takes -- is registered agent for stuff
that affects his staff, whether it's transportation for agents dealing with
FDOT or whatever. So this would fit into that.
Page 124
January 22, 2013
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Into what?
MR. KLATZKOW: Into that general idea where, for example,
service process comes to the Board, comes to my office, we accept
service of process for you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: If you think that's not an idea,
please, sir, elaborate.
MR. KLATZKOW: This fits right -- this fits into the agency
structure is what I'm saying. And it brings everything to the Board of
County Commissioners that way, rather than to outline offices. We
could administer it.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I agree. I think it's absolutely
essential that it be centralized. And you and I have discussed this
where I feel that the service of process for any and all county matters
should be under the County Attorney.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Are we thinking about trying to
move the Immokalee community forward or crippling them? Just tell
me what you think.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Commissioner Fiala, this has got
nothing to do with -- a registered agent receives legal documents
regarding an entity.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: In my opinion any legal document,
whether the State of Florida or anybody, is contacting us for a legal
matter should go to our legal staff and not to a manager.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Penny?
MS. PHILLIPPI: I don't have any problem with the County
Attorney being the registered agent. All that happens is, they notify us
that we need to send them $176 every year. That's really the only role
that this registered agent plays.
And I would again remind you that the CRA and the Board of
Page 125
January 22, 2013
County Commissioners are two separate legal entities. And many
times we do have conflicts when we're both using the same attorney.
So that's my only thought on it. But I have no problem with whatever
you want to do.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, if they're sued, it really should come
to the County Attorney's Office. That's another reason for the special
agent. It's not just the application form.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, Ms. Phillippi is just referring
to the application, but in the event that something else was to occur
that could be substantial, you're being notified that you're a party to a
lawsuit or, you know, there's an issue with one of the properties that
you might or might not know, I would think that it would be in our
interest to start with the legal staff who can immediately return it to
the manager or whoever's, you know, processing whatever it could be.
But I would think it would be in our best interest --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are you making a motion?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I already did.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm sorry. Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I did.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay. And do you feel it's
something you can live with?
MS. PHILLIPPI: Oh, of course.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay. All in favor, signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: It passes 5-0.
Page 126
January 22, 2013
Did you want to go to another one?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Could we go to 10.F and G?
Because we can deal with them as companion items. And I would
actually -- if you would be willing to go to those items, I'd like to talk
about it, because I had the opportunity to meet with Penny Phillippi
and discuss an idea she had with respect to those two items, and I'd
like to carry forward her idea.
Item #1 OF
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS ACTING AS THE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) AUTHORIZE THE
CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE IMMOKALEE BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENT CENTER (IBDC) UNDER THE AUSPICE OF
THE IMMOKALEE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY (CRA) AND EXCLUSIVE OF THE PARTNERSHIP
WITH THE COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND
IMMOKALEE AIRPORT — MOTION TO CONTINUE
OPERATIONS UNDER THE CRA AND FOR THE IBDC TO
TRANSITION INTO A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION —
APPROVED
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, this is a reconsideration
item on the Immokalee business development center is what
Commissioner Hiller is speaking of. And this is Item No. 10.F. So
would you like to --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I comment on it?
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I had the opportunity to meet with
Penny, and we were discussing this idea -- this item, and she came
forward with what I thought was an excellent idea. Her suggestion
Page 127
January 22, 2013
was that rather than the county manage this business development
center that we allow this center to become independent not for profit.
And the reason she recommended that was because one of the
problems we're having with getting grants for the business
development center is that we are limited, since we are government.
But if we're a non-profit -- or if you're a non-profit then you can apply
for all the grants and you can actually grow the business development
center in Immokalee and go much further than we can in-house. And
so that was the recommendation I wanted to support.
As far as assets that would move with the new entity, there was a
bank that had donated a number of desk tops for their educational
facility. I think it was about six desk tops. And I think it would be
appropriate if the new non-profit took those -- if we can legally do
that, and of course we'd have to verify that with the County Attorney
and the Clerk -- to allow you to take that donation with you.
And again, it would have to be, you know, legally reviewed and
reviewed by the Clerk to permit transfer of those six computers we
received for the benefit of the existing business development center.
And this, by the way, ties into G. Because if we do as the Board
agreed to, allowing them to form their own non-profit, which would
be independent of the county's government, then G would no longer
be an issue and we would immediately be able to dispense with that
item because it wouldn't be before us for consideration.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Penny?
MS. PHILLIPPI: Yes. Commissioners, the only other thing I
would mention is that we have a pro bono attorney working on a
501(c)(3). And generally speaking, it takes about six months to
receive a 501(c)(3) through the IRS.
We also have a grant that we received for $61,000 that all we
have to do is bring forward a budget amendment. And that will
probably come on the 12th. That would cover Marie's salary at least
for the next six months so she could finalize this non-profit, finalize
Page 128
January 22, 2013
the 501(c)(3), and allow her to continue operations right where she's at
in the CRA offices. That's the only other request that we would make.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes. Thank you, Commissioner
Fiala.
I will make a motion to authorize the continued operation of the
business development center under the CRA, under the understanding
that Penny is moving in the direction with Marie to do this. And allow
them, rather than cut them off on a deadline, to allow them to proceed
as they've suggested that they should.
I thank Penny for doing this. I spoke with her about this as well.
I think it's going to be a wonderful opportunity to do this and a feather
in the cap of the CRA. And likewise, I would like to say, you know, if
they have the policies and procedures handbook in some sort of form,
where they would like to complete it, to allow them a modest amount
of time to complete it as such, so that they're in good shape and they
can have a very seamless transition. And that would be my motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll second it.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, I have a motion and a
second. Any further comments from Board members?
(No response.)
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Any further comments from
Penny or Marie?
MS. CAPITA: Thank you, Commissioners.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: All in favor, signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
Page 129
January 22, 2013
(No response.)
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Very good. That passes
unanimously, 5-0.
Then we go on to --
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, is that F and G?
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: No, one at a time.
Item #10G
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS ACTING AS THE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) APPROVE AMENDING
IMMOKALEE BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CENTER'S (IBDC)
PROPOSAL, IBDC APPLICATION, AND THE IBDC POLICIES
AND PROCEDURES HANDBOOK — MOTION TO DENY —
APPROVED
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to make a motion with
respect to G that we not approve amending the Immokalee Business
Development Center Proposal, Application, Policies and Procedures
Handbook -- well, sorry, that we not approve amending the IBDC's
proposal, their application, nor their policies and procedures handbook
in light of the anticipated transition to the private sector.
MS. PHILLIPPI: I guess I misunderstood. I thought that was
included in Commissioner Nance's --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, we have to take them as two
separate items.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, and did I hear a second
on that?
(No response.)
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, there's a motion on the
floor but no second.
Page 130
January 22, 2013
Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, I would like to see -- has it
already begun? Has this process already started? Are you in the
process of doing this now, Penny, or no?
MS. PHILLIPPI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I would make the motion, if you're
in the process, to go ahead and do what you need to do to complete it
so that you can transition. Unless there's a huge commitment
necessary. Is there huge additional commitments necessary to do this?
MS. PHILLIPPI: No, basically all it does is take the airport
authority verbiage out of the policies and procedures, basically.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: So the cost is very minimal for you
to do that.
MS. PHILLIPPI: Correct.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Would it be helpful -- if it's helpful
and a modest amount of work, I would say in the spirit of
transitioning, just as we did with Item 10.F, I would say to allow you
time to transition that and just, you know, do it as rapidly as possible
with the idea that you can give us a benchmark for when you expect
Marie to be able to complete it and spin it off.
MS. PHILLIPPI: To complete it -- it was brought to you in
December. They are completed and this simply asks for -- and
approved. So this was a reconsideration of that approval.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay. Are there any other
comments you have to make on that, Penny?
MS. CAPITA: The policies and procedures were already
amended and completed. But the nonprofit procedure we're just
getting started. So it's two different aspects.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Nance, I think
you're confusing the nonprofit proposal application and policies and
procedures with what exists. We don't need what was approved in
light of the transition.
Page 131
January 22, 2013
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay, that's fine.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what they're going to be
working on for the future has nothing to do with this agenda item.
This agenda item was predicated on them continuing in their existing
state. So when Penny and I spoke about it, she said we really don't
need this at all.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay, as long as it doesn't stifle
their smooth transition, I have no problem.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: That's what I wanted to ask,
thank you very much.
Will it stifle you in any way?
MS. PHILLIPPI: Not at all.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: You're okay with it?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Sounds good.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So do you want to restate your
motion?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: No, you made the motion. Go
ahead and make the motion again.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So again, that we, you know, deny
the approval of the amended Immokalee Business Development
Center's Proposal, Application and Policies and Procedures Handbook.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I'll second it.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: No further discussion from you
as well?
MS. CAPITA: Thank you.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: All in favor, signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Aye.
Page 132
January 22, 2013
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Very good. That's -- we now
close the CRA meeting.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Good use of time.
Item #13A
REQUEST BY THE CLERK FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR
PAY PLAN ADJUSTMENTS AND/OR COLA INCREASES
CONSISTENT WITH THE COUNTY PAY PLAN — MOTION FOR
COUNTY MANAGER TO WORK WITH THE CLERK TO
PREPARE A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN AN AMOUNT TO
REACH PARITY BETWEEN THE CLERK AND BOARD AND
FACTOR IN 2% COLA AND RECONCILE THE HEALTH
INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS BACK TO 80/20 — APPROVED;
MOTION FOR THE COUNTY MANAGER AND CLERK'S
OFFICE TO WORK TOGETHER TO ANALYZE PAY
CLASSIFICATIONS — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that takes you to your 2:00 p.m. time
certain item. It's Item 13.A on your agenda. This item was continued
from the January 8th, 2013 Board meeting request by the Clerk for
additional funding for pay plan adjustments and/or COLA increase
that's consistent with the county pay plan.
MR. BROCK: Commissioners, thank you for indulging me
today. My name is Dwight Brock, I'm the Clerk of the Circuit Court.
I have accompanying me here today, who will be speaking to
you, Crystal Kenzel, who is the finance director for the Clerk's Office,
and Tom Whitecotton, who is the personnel department. And I mean
Page 133
January 22, 2013
exclusively, he is the entire department for the Clerk's personnel.
I'm here today to seek some assistance from the Board of County
Commissioners. No, no, that's not really a true and correct statement.
I'm here begging the Board of County Commissioners for some
assistance with a situation in which the Clerk now finds itself.
Over the last few years obviously the economic situation has
been desperate or bad for everyone. And as a consequence funding
available for all county local government has been very difficult. It
has been extremely difficult for the Clerk's Office for several reasons.
We were involved in a process of litigation in which there was a
tremendous reduction in our staff during that process. And just to give
you an example of the situation in which we had over the last few
years, I want to put something on the board.
That is the full-time equivalent positions that existed in the
Clerk's Office. In 2007 we had 292.2 full-time positions. If you go
down through the years, you will see in 2013 we had 200 positions.
That is a reduction of one-third of our staff.
Now, if you think about that, the county has had reductions in
their staff as well. But where have most of the reductions that have
taken place been? They're in -- even though they're all across the
board, the real estate industry in Collier County, the bottom fell out of
it. So as a consequence of the necessity of dealing with that, most of
the reductions that took place were predominantly in the areas
associated with that.
Unfortunately expenditures of taxpayer money, the expenditures
of grant money, the preparation of the financial statements, payment
of the bills and all of those things, they did not diminish appreciably.
But yet our staff has been cut by 292 to 200.
Now, I don't want to suggest to you that that entire reduction has
been as a consequence of reduction of Board funded positions,
because it hasn't. But well over 50 percent of that has been in Board
funded positions.
Page 134
1
January 22, 2013
You will see in 2011 and 2012 the difference was relatively
small. That was a consequence of I think, in 2010, Florida Supreme
Court rejected a review of a Second District opinion, which confirmed
the right of the Clerk of the Circuit Court as the auditor of the county.
We rocked along over the years at bare bones. We have not had
any increase to speak of in our budget at all. As a matter of fact, it has
been a reduction.
And one of the things that we have experienced over the last 15
months is that in my finance staff, we have lost a total of 14 out of 37
employees. In addition to that, five of those losses came at the hands
of the Board of County Commissioners' staff. They were hired by the
Board of County Commissioners' staff.
Now, let me give you the range of difference in pay that occurred
in this process. For example, we had an Accountant I on our staff that
had been there for quite some time who was hired by the Board. She
was making $42,000 with us. Was hired by the Board at $57,000. We
couldn't compete with that.
In addition to that, we had another accountant that was making
40, and was hired at 48.
We had a fiscal specialist that was hired at 34 -- hired at 34-nine
and we were paying her 28-three.
We had an internal auditor that was making 46 for the Clerk and
they were hired at 64. Now, let me tell you who the auditor was. If
you remember some time back, we did an analysis of the FIAM out in
Ave Maria. She was the auditor that did all the work in our analysis
of the FIAM, it was suggested she didn't know what she was doing
and that particular analysis was totally wrong. But apparently her
competency was enough to be hired away from us at about a 40.5
percent increase.
In addition to that, we had another fiscal specialist that was
making 26, and they were hired at 35. Those were all hired by the
Board.
Page 135
1
January 22, 2013
In addition to those people who have been hired away from us by
the Board of County Commissioners, we have actually had three
employees who have been solicited by Board staff to go to work for
the Board. And we have also had three employees who have applied
for Board posted positions and interviewed and that were not hired.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Brock, excuse me, I hate to
interrupt you, but are you talking about people who are hired by the
County Manager or are you talking about us doing hiring? We don't
hire people generally. Are we missing something here?
MR. BROCK: Commissioner, they're hired by the agency of the
Board of County Commissioners who you are the controllers of. You
are the discretionary officers. The County Manager is the one who
actually did the hiring, as I understand it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, I just wanted to make that
clear. This Board isn't going out and hiring your employees. As a
matter of fact, we can't get involved in hiring or firing employees,
except for those who report directly to us. You're familiar with the
County Manager's ordinance --
MR. BROCK: I'm also familiar with the statute that says that the
County Manager has absolutely no discretionary authority. But yes, I
am fully aware of the County Manager's ordinance.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So if some of the people that were
hired by the County Manager or --
MR. BROCK: They were hired by the agency of the Board of
County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I think I understand the
game you're playing now.
MR. BROCK: It's not a game, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. BROCK: Contrary to your representation, there's no game
here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I got it, I got it.
Page 136
January 22, 2013
MR. BROCK: In addition to us having the problem, we began
looking at and evaluating where the Clerk of the Circuit Court fell in
its payroll classifications in relation to, not just the Board of County
Commissioners, but we began looking at the entire governmental
market; that being the City of Naples, the School Board, the other
Constitutional Officers, and the Clerk and the Board of County
Commissioners. And Mr. Whitecotton is going to talk about what he
did in that process and what he found.
In addition to us losing our positions to the agency Board of
County Commissioners, we have had communications with the
Supervisor of Elections who is having the very same concerns that
we're having, because the agency Board of County Commissioners
hired one of their employees.
Leo, not all that long ago, back in October, sent me a letter. And
that letter basically asked us if we were interested in doing an analysis.
Well, we'd already started the analysis, so I immediately responded
back to him that absolutely we were. So I directed my staff to work
with his staff. And we did that.
And in the process, some of the things that we learned were that
the payroll strategy for the Board of County Commissioners agency is
that they are seeking to design their policy at 10 percent above market.
Now, this is what they related to us. In addition to that, as we went
through the process we tried to identify comparable positions and look
at them in relation to where the Clerk was.
Now, one of the things that they pointed out to us, well, you
know, the problem is that you've just not kept up your personnel
payroll standards. Well, that might be a legitimate explanation except
for the fact that I didn't have the money to do that.
In addition to that, it was suggested to us that the Board of
County Commissioners, because it is such a large organization, should
have greater opportunity for advancement. And that is an explanation
for the disparity in prices that they hired the people away from us in.
Page 137
1
January 22, 2013
In addition to that, they suggested to us that we probably should
look at the county and all other counties in relation to the Clerk and all
other clerks within the state, because they thought that we would find
that all of the clerk's offices were paid less than the county's. I don't
know whether that's in fact the case or not. But if it is, let me suggest
to you that that is a fundamentally unsound premise, okay.
In the course of the meetings that we had with Mr. Ochs and his
staff-- and I think Leo just happened to come in one day to one of the
meetings in which we were talking to the budget department -- it was
suggested to us, as opposed to going after the entire amount necessary
to create parity, that what we should do is just raise our pay ranges to
that of the Board and bring our people in at the greater of two percent
or the bottom of the pay range.
Now, if you did that and that was all you did, what in essence
you would be doing is you would be compressing all of our employees
at the bottom of the pay ranges. And that would not help us at all in
terms of preventing people from raiding our personnel.
But that's a lot of money to have to be creating parity all at once.
And we're not opposed to starting out with that, if the Board of County
Commissioners will agree to undertake a comprehensive pay analysis
of the market from which we all draw and invite all of the other
Constitutionals that would be interested, so that we can create parity,
to then the beginning of the next budget cycle we would have that
information available and we could create parity throughout the
organization. If it takes me up, it takes me up, if it takes me down, it
takes me down. I don't care. All I'm looking for is parity. I cannot
survive with people raiding my offices and taking all of my
employees.
I'm going to ask Tom to step forward and show you what he
found as he analyzed the pay ranges for the Board of County
Commissioners and all of the other people in the market.
MR. WHITECOTTON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Tom
Page 138
January 22, 2013
Whitecotton, Human Resources Director.
I haven't been to this podium in 20 years, so let me just say that
upfront.
As Dwight mentioned, we started looking at this earlier, or
excuse me, late last year. And I gathered information from the
Property Appraiser, Tax Collector, the Board, Sheriff, City of Naples
and really compared positions. Certainly the initial focus was on the
fiscal related positions, as Dwight had mentioned, but we also looked
at clerical, IT positions, supervisory, managerial. We looked at job
descriptions. I contacted the HR departments in the various agencies
to make sure that we were doing apples to apples. Candidly, our pay
plan compared to the Board's, as well as the City of Naples and Sheriff
were low. There's no doubt about it. We are low. We have not
adjusted our pay plan for six years. We haven't given salary
adjustments for seven years. So that was certainly the case.
We also sat down with staff and went through, tried to identify
positions that we could agree upon that were comparable. And again,
we initially focused on fiscal specialists, accounting technicians,
accountants, et cetera. And we certainly were able to come to
agreement that there were some issues there.
And you know, through just back and forth, the process, again, as
Dwight mentioned, we found that your desired market position was
10 percent above market. Truthfully, that's what the city does as well.
So in looking at some of our ranges, particularly those that are IT
and finance, we're pretty much behind the eight ball. And in certain
instances, I'll use an example of an accountant, where our entry level
position of accountant starts at 40,000, the Board's position is 48.
That's substantial. That's an apples to apples comparison.
We also looked at fiscal technician, which is our fiscal specialist.
We pay 26,000, Board entry level is 31-eight. So again, close to a
$5,000 difference.
We also tried to look at the career ladders and paths, et cetera,
Page 139
January 22, 2013
that were available.
We are hurting in certain areas, particularly in finance. We
would like to make some changes now to that. That's one of the
reasons why we're here today. And as Dwight indicated, we would
also like to have a joint comprehensive review of salaries. I think we
did that when Tom 011iff was here, didn't we, Leo? You know, many
years ago. I think that would go a long way in terms of parity and
putting us all on the same page.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do we have any public speakers?
MR. MILLER: No, ma'am.
MR. BROCK: As we analyzed -- I just want to show you a
couple of positions, one with the county and one with the City of
Naples in relation to the Clerk of the Circuit Court. The -- with Fiscal
Specialist I, the range for the Clerk was 26 to 42. And the range for
the county was 31 to 49. The position title salary range for accountant
was 40 to 68. The county was accountant from 48.245 to 79.48.
Now, one of the things that I would like to point out to you is
during the period in time in which we were dealing with all of the
issues with -- some confrontational -- with the Board of County
Commissioners and in addition to what was transpiring with Florida
legislature, you know, I was having to lay people off. And I was also
having to give people basically a leave for about six days a year. So
we were reducing their salary by six days a year. We've not given any
of our employees a pay increase to speak of in seven years, as Tom
had mentioned.
One of the things that I do want to point out to you, over the
history of my tenure as the Clerk, we've tried to follow the policies of
the Board of County Commissioners as it relates to insurance and
perks and things of that nature. Now, unlike the county we do not
give any of our employees vehicles to be driving around or gas for
them to burn.
And this last fiscal year the Board of County Commissioners
Page 140
1
January 22, 2013
approved the county actually paying a portion of the employees' share
of hospital or medical insurance.
At the beginning of this year, after the budget cycle, the county
decided that as opposed to doing that, what they would do is they
would take the portion that they had been paying of the employees'
insurance, require them to pay it and then give them a two percent
raise.
Now, we submit our budget in -- May? In May. This wasn't
done until after the beginning of the fiscal year. So we obviously
were not capable of making that change because we had not prepared
for that in our budget. But if you look at the differential in what it
costs to pay for insurance versus the two percent raise to all of the
employees, the taxpayer actually benefited to the tune of-- Crystal,
what was it, 40,000? About $40,000.
Having gone through many of the things that we perceive we
need to deal with, we went through and analyzed exactly where it was
that we would need to fund in order to address all of the issues.
Do you have a copy of that, Crystal? No, not that one, the
amount, total amount. Yeah, that's it.
Okay. We are not looking at any positions that are not funded by
a transfer from the Board of County Commissioners. My recording
department is not in this, my court departments are not in this. Those
positions that are partially funded by both, we are only taking the
percentage that is funded by the transfer.
If you look at the total amount to bump us up to the ranges of the
Board of County Commissioners and contain and maintain the same
separation for longevity or performance that exists today within those
ranges, it would be $342,000, based upon our analysis. Okay?
If you then on the other hand took the suggestion that Mr. Ochs
made to us of going to the base, compressing them, our ranges, and
only giving the employees the -- up to the base or two percent increase
in their pay, which is above the base, then it would only be $212,000.
Page 141
January 22, 2013
If the Board of County Commissioners would be generous
enough to give us the $212,000 so I can stop some of the mass exodus
of my employees and agree to do an analysis countywide and use a
consultant that was agreeable to everyone as opposed to agreeable just
to one or me or Leo or anybody else, but somebody that was agreeable
to everybody, including this Board, then we could do the analysis
between now and the next budget cycle. And we would have an
opportunity to bring some parity within the entire county-wide local
government system. Invite those Constitutional officers who desire to,
to participate.
I can assure you, I will be standing there waiting to participate.
And we will have an opportunity then to look at it organization wide.
I thank you and I will answer any questions that you might have.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: To bring your employees to the
Board, what the Board covers as far as funding, your employees to
create that parity, you're only talking 120,000 difference between the
two percent base and what -- and bring everybody up to the proper
level is my understanding. Is my understanding correct?
MR. BROCK: That is correct. I mean, the reason I'm suggesting
the alternate position is, you know, even though I don't want to get
along with Leo with everything, I would like to agree with him and
I'm willing to compromise as long as we look at it from a total
perspective before the next budget cycle. And I think he was
concerned about the funding.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, we can also talk
about that. But one of your auditors was hired by the county for a
difference of 18,000?
MR. BROCK: 19,000.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 19,000. I thought she was going
to work for a non-for-profit organization.
MR. BROCK: That was one of the offers that were made during
Page 142
I
January 22, 2013
her work on the FIAM.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Leo, you know, I
mentioned this to you before, that we need to take a look at that.
However, I don't want anybody to take a look at okay, here's the top
person being paid and let's all adjust up there. I want to look at what
the market should be in the community. Not high or low, what it
should be. You know, what everybody's paying and what it should be.
But why would you be objected to a difference of, you know,
$120,000?
MR. OCHS: No, I asked Mr. Whitecotton to look at that as an
alternative. So, you know, if the Board was concerned about the cost,
I mean, these are recurring dollars, of course, and you fund the Clerk
to the Board through an interlocal agreement every year. You just
need to understand that whatever you take on, it's a recurring burden.
And so I ask -- and Tom and I worked together, you know 20
years ago when we first did the pay plan and we looked at different
ways to implement based on the dollars available. And this was an
alternative way to implement that, was initially less costly than if you
had someone who was 80 percent in their pay range and the minimum
went up by $5,000, but this person was still in the maximum of the
new range, the more expensive proposal is to take that person who's
already 80 percent into the range and move them another $5,000. So
that avoids the compression that Mr. Brock talked about certainly, but
it is a more expensive way to implement the plan.
So I asked Tom if he would look at the alternative that the Clerk
has indicated he'd be willing to entertain, provided that we all go out,
which I wholeheartedly support, and do a full, not only compensation
but a classification review for whatever agencies want to get involved.
Because part of the art of this, of course, is not only matching
titles and pay rates, it's understanding experience, education,
complexity, managerial responsibilities. So it's a large undertaking.
The last time we did this for the whole agency, Tom, you know, it
Page 143
January 22, 2013
took us almost a year to get it all done. We could try to compress that.
But I'm in full support of the Clerk's people getting their two percent
raise. I'm in full support of doing a pay plan study. If any of the
constitutionals want to join in, that would be great.
I would only say to you, Commissioners, that the parity, it cuts
both ways and it's a two-way street. And when your employees
comply with your guidance on health care contributions and you don't
have that same level of compliance from other constitutional agencies
-- and I'm not singling out the Clerk here, he's closer than most,
frankly. But it would be very easy to fund that if I had the $3.2
million that you sent -- the Board sent in transfers in FY13 to cover
additional health insurance costs for their employees that your
employees paid for.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wouldn't that be part of the
study?
MR. OCHS: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It should be, because it benefits
-- you know, some employees or some people look at strictly pay.
MR. OCHS: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay? And some people look
at the long term and, you know, what the benefits are and what's
coming out of my pocket. Wouldn't it be fair to also consider those
factors when you're looking at, you know, job --
MR. OCHS: Certainly. Yeah, we can do that. We can do that.
MR. BROCK: May I comment?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would like your input on that
item.
MR. BROCK: My input is it would be absolutely unfair not to
look at the full compensation package.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure, sure.
MR. BROCK: I don't think Leo is suggesting that, you know,
we're doing something different than what he is, other than the
Page 144
January 22, 2013
insurance that was changed after the fiscal year that we have not
changed. But at the same time we have not implemented the two
percent he gave all of his county -- the county employees, correct?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's beyond the pay range.
MR. BROCK: In fact, if we'd done that it would have increased
the hit on the taxpayers to the tune of about $40,000. So we figured
we would deal with all of these issues at once in this analysis that we
were going to do. And we haven't made any changes. But I mean,
we're essentially standing in the same footprint.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioners, I mean, I've
said in the recent past is, you know, we need to take a look at, you
know, what county employees are compensated versus constitutional
officers, so that we can get to the parity. And I think a difference of
$120,000 is not going to hurt the budget considering the turn-back
monies that we receive from the constitutional officers. That's where
I'm going with it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Are you done, Commissioner
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I'm missing something here,
Leo.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You've been talking about getting
parity from the standpoint of health insurance ever since I've been on
this Board. Have you not been asking the constitutionals to do this for
a long time?
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, each year the Board in February
adopts a budget policy that guides development of the ensuing years'
budget feel, and every year there's a policy directive in there as part of
budget guidance, where the Board says that the employer will pay 80
Page 145
January 22, 2013
percent of the premiums, the employees will pay 20 percent. And that
is supposed to apply to all agencies equitably. But in matter of fact, it
has not happened that way.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So this isn't something that just
came up this year or even last year?
MR. OCHS: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's something that came up years
and years ago, and you've been trying to get compliance for that entire
period of time; am I wrong?
MR. OCHS: You're not wrong. Except I should say that until
this past year the Supervisor of Elections and the Clerk have followed
your 80/20 guidance, the other constitutionals have never followed it.
If I might, this is the order of magnitude. And again, you know,
it's a dollars and cents and parity issue for me with the other agencies.
The bottom line is on the far right-hand column, that 3.25 million
represents ad valorem dollars transferred to constitutional agencies
above and beyond what would have been necessary if their employees
were paying the full 20 percent of their premiums as your employees
do. So that is my point, that parity cuts both ways.
And as I said, I think we -- you know, we'll be in front of you
next month Commissioners, already with budget guidance for 2014,
and you'll see the same policy recommendation there again. And
maybe we can talk about it a little bit more at that point.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understood you to say that this
past year the Clerk of Courts agreed to the 80/20 percent cost sharing.
I swear that's what you just said.
MR. OCHS: No, I said we take a policy recommendation to the
Board, we recommend that it apply to all agencies, but it hasn't been
operationalized that way consistently from --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So that brings you to the
conclusion that everybody seems to agree with, you have to calculate
compensation on the basis of the entire pay and benefit structure.
Page 146
January 22, 2013
Everybody seems to support that.
So I would join those who are interested in doing a study to make
sure that the pay ranges and the classifications are consistent. I mean,
because we use the same name or similar name sometimes does not
equate to the same level of responsibility or to the same pay range.
And so I understand it's a complex thing to do, but I think we're to
proceed along those lines.
And it's just that I've never seen anybody beg for assistance quite
the way the Clerk has done so today. But nevertheless, I'm interested
in participating to try to equalize these things so that people are treated
the same and it makes budgeting a heck of a lot easier for all of us.
MR. OCHS: Let me just show you one more illustration on the
insurance side of what I'm talking about. And we just -- this is just
very general, but we took a $40,000 a year employee in all of the
agencies, deducted the annual health insurance contribution, got a net
and then showed you what the difference on a percentage basis and
take-home pay both for a single employee and a family coverage,
individual. So the point of it is there should be parity -- if there's
going to be parity in the pay ranges, I believe there should be parity in
the health insurance contributions as well so it will truly create a
parity across the compensation system.
MR. BROCK: Madam Chair, can I ask Leo a question?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes, go ahead.
MR. BROCK: Leo, you weren't suggesting to anyone we differ
other -- and have not differed in the past year in our implementation of
the insurance program from that of the Board of County
Commissioners, are you?
MR. OCHS: No, in fact I just said that.
MR. BROCK: In fact, you know, we have done the same thing
that the Board has done every year since I've been Clerk. It's always
been the same, with the exception of this year. And the reason we
didn't do it this year was because the change took place after the
Page 147
I
January 22, 2013
budget was approved rather than us making the adjustment in our
budget.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. BROCK: And we anticipated that we would come back to
parity with the Board through the process that we are requesting you
go through now, to make it back the same. But as opposed to, you
know, me taking the insurance money back now, giving them two
percent, which was going to cost me -- my agency more money I
chose to leave the insurance there and then try to get the money to
deal with that through this process that we had already started that Leo
then invited us in.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, I apologize, but that's not
what I understood that Leo said just a few minutes ago and what he
has told me at almost every budget hearing we've had.
MR. BROCK: And that is why I wanted to clarify --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, let's make sure I understand
what's going on here.
MR. BROCK: You're only talking about the Clerk now, not all
the other constitutional officers.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I understand.
MR. BROCK: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand that part.
MR. OCHS: Your question, sir?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The question was, it was my
understanding that you said that the Clerk does not adhere to our
80/20 percent cost sharing on insurance.
MR. OCHS: That is correct for the current fiscal year, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But only for the current fiscal year;
is that true? He's --
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- adhered to it on all of the other
prior years.
Page 148
1
January 22, 2013
MR. OCHS: Yes. The Supervisor of Election and the Clerk of
the --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But the other constitutional officers
have not.
MR. OCHS: That is correct, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then I've misunderstood
what you have told me for the past five or six years. But -- so okay. I
got it.
MR. OCHS: But now they're going to contribute less than 20
percent and get the two percent cost of living, and I'm suggesting that
it should be 20/80 percent for everybody.
MR. BROCK: And let's get this understood, okay, I am not
asking for what he is suggesting I'm asking for. When we get the
money, we're going back to -- I'm going to make the adjustments in
the salary ranges and we are then going to make the adjustments in
their contribution to the health insurance program, just like he did.
We've not given them two percent this year. The Board gave their
employees two percent. But we maintained the differential in the
insurance until all of this got dealt with at one time. And once all of
this gets dealt with, we will then go back -- I mean, if you are kind
enough to appropriate money for me to create some parity here, I will
immediately go back and make that adjustment to bring us back in line
with the Board of County Commissioners and its insurance program.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that's the first time I've heard that
and I'm gratified to hear it. And that's the only parity argument that
I'm making here.
MR. BROCK: We don't have any disagreement, Commissioners.
We agree totally that we need to go back to that particular setting. We
need --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's move this item.
MR. BROCK: -- the parity in all --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Does this mean I'm going to have
Page 149
i
January 22, 2013
to vote in favor of this?
MR. BROCK: It may be. And won't that kill you to vote for the
Clerk?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's going to be hard.
MR. BROCK: I know.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It really is going to be hard. Can
somebody give me a reason for not voting for this?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I'll make the motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Wait a second, wait a second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Hang on a second.
Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I want to say one thing. I'm
gratified that everybody's come to agreement here. I think if you all
can certainly seek parity, I think it's in your best interest. But I think it
should include, as you have rightly mentioned, all benefits.
As the Chairwoman here so rightly mentioned earlier in the day,
we have different ways that we treat different employees, different
accommodations that we give them. We should try to work for as
much standardization as we can.
I will actually credit you for doing a very good job in the face of
losing a third of your employees. I have worked for companies under
economic disasters that have lost many, many employees, so I know
what that's like. But the most important thing at the end of the day,
despite all your parity, is we have to have people doing equal work
getting equal pay. And that was not discussed. You're talking about,
you're looking at your job descriptions, you've got to have people that
do the same job making the same wages. You can't -- it's very
dispiriting to people that work just a few hundred feet apart that are
making drastically different wages for doing the same job. So I
support everything you said.
MR. BROCK: May I make one comment with regard to what
Page 150
i
January 22, 2013
you said?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Sure.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes.
MR. BROCK: When Tom analyzed the pay ranges and the job
descriptions within those pay ranges, and I brought an example, we
went into the job descriptions of the pay descriptions of the agency
and compared them to make sure that we were looking at apples to
apples and oranges to oranges in the jobs themselves.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I think that's very important. And I
want to say one other thing: Please don't tell me that we need to hire a
consultant. I know this is Collier County and we are the best
consultant employers in the world and people love to work for us, but
I truthfully believe, and I have no evidence to the contrary, that we
have smart enough people here that can do this. Does that -- please
don't tell me we need to hire a consultant. I would much rather you
take that money and give it to our employees.
MR. BROCK: I fully believe that I have an employee who has
done consulting work for others in the past that has the capability of
working with Leo and doing the analysis together. And if that's
agreeable to Leo -- the problem here is going to be we need to get
everybody on board here. And that's the issue that both Leo and I are
going to have to deal with. Okay?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, sir. Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, so are we not allowed to use a
consultant with expertise in this compensation area? I mean, this is
much more involved than it might seem.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, I'm just afraid you're going
to come back up and say it's going to take $250,000 and what we're
talking about is $250,000 that we just could give to our employees and
it would all be --
MR. OCHS: That's always --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Do you understand what I'm
Page 151
January 22, 2013
saying?
MR. OCHS: That's always the risk when you do one of these
market studies. You don't know what you're going to get until you go
out and finish the work. Doesn't mean you have to implement it at
that price tag, or implement it at all.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, my comments are simple. I'm
always all about fair. I believe what's fair for one is fair for all.
And I just wanted to make sure although you've kind of
insinuated along these same lines, I just wanted to make it clear, I'm
hoping the Supervisor of Elections is also in on all of this conversation
so she feels a part of everything. She certainly wants to make sure
that she's also dealt in a fair way.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I think I'd like to see when
this evaluation is done that whoever does it does it from a standpoint
of reality. Because it's absolutely essential that we pay our employees
a 20 percent premium to put up with this Board. And they might --
and it's clearly understandable why they will work for the Clerk at 10
or 20 percent less than what we pay. So I think you need to take those
things into consideration when you create parity.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I just want to say --
MR. OCHS: Hazardous duty.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- if I may, Clerk, I believe that was
a compliment that Commissioner Coyle just lobbed at you, so --
MR. BROCK: I sort of took it as a backhanded compliment.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, actually I think it was full-on
front forward.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, it wasn't.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, could we get the motion restated so I
know what dollar amount we're working under?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There hasn't --
Page 152
1
January 22, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's what I'd like to --
MR. OCHS: Oh, it hasn't been --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I would like to -- let's allow
Commissioner Henning to make the motion.
If I could ask, Commissioner Henning, could you have two
separate motions, one on the question of what will be allocated to the
payroll for the Clerk's Office and then separately another motion to
address the study?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's -- the study's not on
the agenda. However, let me address the first one, the parity thing, is
ask the County Manager to do a budget amendment to have parity
between the Clerk's Board's part of his operation.
MR. BROCK: That figure is 342.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, what about the health
insurance? Once you adjust that to a true 80/20, there's going to be a
figure on that, isn't there?
MR. BROCK: There will be probably a small change, and we
will work with Leo to reduce that.
MR. OCHS: Yeah, I think -- our calculation annualized,
Commissioner, is you can deduct 145,000 off that 342 number if his
employees go back to the 20 percent contribution.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. So --
MR. OCHS: And netted out it's --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the motion is, is to work with
the -- direct the County Manager to work with the Clerk to do a
budget amendment in the amount to reach that parity, including the
deduction of health insurance of a split of 80/20.
MR. BROCK: Okay. Going back to -- the county has now given
a two percent raise to all of its employees. We didn't do that. We will
factor that in, we will factor the impact of going back to the 80/20
insurance, if that's what it was. I mean, I've never done the calculation
of the 80/20. But I know there is a differential in there, related to the
Page 153
i
January 22, 2013
insurance that we need to make fair and equitable. And we will go
and do that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Can I ask --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me ask --
MR. BROCK: Maybe Tom and my staff can work together and
accomplish this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me ask you one more
question. As far as your employees contribution to retirement --
MR. BROCK: We're all the same.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. BROCK: We do it -- county doesn't have a retirement
program, Commissioner. All Constitutional Officers and the Board of
County Commissioners use the State of Florida's retirement system,
and the contribution is set by the state so it's the same for everyone.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: May I ask a question,
Commissioner Henning? On this motion, it's not just the health
benefits, the county provides other benefits like life insurance, you
know, disability, auto. I think it needs to be, like you said, looked at
in totality, not just -- because we're focusing so much on the health
benefits.
The other concern I have is that three other constitutional officers
are not being required to come to the 80/20 standard that we have and
that we're asking the Clerk to accept. And I'm actually very concerned
about that. I didn't realize the material difference, and I think
somehow that needs to be addressed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I think that should be
addressed in the budget guidance coming up next month. Those
things. This is just tackling a small part of it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And then however you get to
the study on what all the constitutional officers' pay is, their jobs,
descriptions and their benefits will get a lot closer. But you can't deal
Page 154
January 22, 2013
with all those issues here on the dais today. We'll just --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I agree.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, just --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I agree. I just wanted to make sure
that when you were phrasing the motion that all benefits were
considered, the totality of the packages offered by the county are
compared to the totality of the package that the Clerk offers, to make
sure that when the analysis is done, it's done correctly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, well that's -- we haven't
done the analysis. My motion has nothing to do with an analysis.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Except that the number that -- the
Clerk and Leo should work out what the numbers should be and then
bring it back to the Board for approval?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It has to be a budget
amendment. It has to come to the Board of County Commissioners.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I can second that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle had a
comment.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I just want to clarify the
motion and what we're going to do.
I believe it is possible to take current salary ranges in the Clerk's
Office and arrive at what would be equitable with the implementation
or adjustment with the 80 percent, 20 percent. But I don't see how
you're going to get to parity that way without taking a look at
individual job classifications and pay levels. If you wait for that study
first, we'll be into the next fiscal year before we get this issue resolved.
So I would suggest that we bifurcate this thing.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That I think, based on what I hear,
there's a number that you can agree on that would tend to equalize the
situation at the current pay levels, pay scales. Am I wrong or not?
Page 155
January 22, 2013
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, you're right. It's -- that's
what the motion is.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. If that's what the motion is,
I support it.
MR. OCHS: You said current pay -- you mean the current Board
pay scales.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Current Board, current Clerk.
MR. OCHS: Yes, we can reconcile that. That's exactly what this
will do.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And so you just reconcile it
with our current pay scales --
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and then once you reconcile that,
you come back to us with a review of the job classifications and pay
ranges and you make recommendations to the Board about how we
should adjust those.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Two different things.
MR. BROCK: Commissioner, the --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: That addresses people who get
paid for different work.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. Yes, exactly.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, sir, absolutely.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning, could you
just restate your motion so everyone clearly understands?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think everybody clearly
understands it. You know, the issue about the study is a separate
motion. So we're giving guidance to the County Manager to create the
existing parity that we have today, and deduct or reconcile the health
insurance contribution of employees versus taxpayers. Basically what
we've been talking about all along.
I will make another motion on the other issue, but let's dispose of
Page 156
1
January 22, 2013
this one.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's fine. And you're accepting
that as the second?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There being no further discussion,
all in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a question. Does this affect the
CRAs in any way? Just out of curiosity. No? Okay.
MR. BROCK: Commissioner Coyle, thank you for voting for
the Clerk. I know it was difficult.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm still feeling the pain.
MR. BROCK: I know.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: That's one in a row.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I just want you to know, it becomes
you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's going to stop there.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You're looking good, you're looking
good.
MR. BROCK: I'm kidding. And thank you all.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, hang on.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Hang on. Your work is not over
yet.
MR. BROCK: Oh, okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And just so you know, there's an
Page 157
January 22, 2013
agenda item that you need to address immediately after this one on the
FDOT project.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, as far as a study to get the
true parity, the Clerk has stated that he has Tom Whitecotton who has
done this for private companies, is that --
MR. BROCK: He's consulted in the past on compensation
studies.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, why don't we direct the
County Attorney (sic) to work with the Clerk's agency on a proposal.
And if Mr. Whitecotton --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You mean the County Manager.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: County Manager -- County
Attorney? Did I say County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I was looking at him.
MR. KLATZKOW: Good. I mean, I could do it, but he's much
better at this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If Tom can do it, let's do it.
MR. BROCK: Well, you know, we don't want to be doing this
without Leo and his staff being involved. But we can work together to
try to get there. And if we can't get there, we always have the venue
of coming back here and talking to you. So give us opportunity to try.
You direct him to work with us and we will be more than happy to.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that acceptable, Leo?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So that would be the motion, if
you need a motion.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes, please.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It looks like county staff is -- or
the County Manager is amenable to that, working with the Clerk on
some kind of study.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Watch out, Commissioner Coyle is
Page 158
1
January 22, 2013
considering two in a row here.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Would you like to second it,
Commissioner Coyle? Come on. Come on. Yes, go for it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's like putting the fox in the
henhouse.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's not true. We have two foxes
in the henhouse.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, yeah, but they're both on the
same side.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: We've got them tied up tail to tail
here, Commissioner Coyle.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Leo and Mr. Whitecotton together.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We'll need a peer review after this
is completed.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Are you seconding it?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
There being no further discussion, all in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously, with
Commissioner Henning absent.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, we really need a break for the court
reporter.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Oh, of course.
MR. OCHS: We're past due.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, we are. So we'll take a break.
The Clerk, could you please -- Clerk, could you please stay, because
Page 159
1
January 22, 2013
we have another --
MR. BROCK: Sure. What am I staying for?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: For the FDOT item. The
prepayment on the transportation project.
MR. BROCK: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. BROCK: I hope you plan on explaining to me the intimate
details of this, but I'll try.
(Recess.)
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have a live mic.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we're on to -- excuse me, before
we go to 11.D which is our next item, I've been asked by the Board
office to ask the Board to make a clarification on the list you approved
earlier today to be eligible to run for election with the Pelican Bay
Services Division. Apparently two of the original people on the list
have withdrawn and two others are asking that their names be clarified
on the ballot. So this is the current list of candidates and we'd ask the
Board to approve that list, please, Madam Chair. This is for Item
10.B.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Clerk?
MR. BROCK: Commissioners, this needs to be done today
because we are fixing to go to press with the ballots.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Is the list before us the correct list?
MR. BROCK: As far as we know. Is that correct? Okay. We
know there have been two names that have been referred to us as
having withdrawn.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So I make a motion that we accept
the corrected list of names as presented --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- by the County Manager.
Any discussion?
Page 160
1
January 22, 2013
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All in favor --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, do we have the corrected list?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes, this is the --
MR. OCHS: This is the correct list, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Rather than this one. Okay.
MR. OCHS: So Mr. Kitchen and Mr. Weingartner have come off
the list at their request.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #11D
RESOLUTION 2013-25: RECOMMENDATION TO A) APPROVE
UTILITY WORK BY HIGHWAY CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT
WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; B)
APPROVE A FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STANDARD FORM RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CHAIRMAN
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO
EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT; C) APPROVE MEMORANDUM
OF AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AND FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF TREASURY TO
ESTABLISH AN INTEREST BEARING ESCROW ACCOUNT;
AND, D) AUTHORIZE A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $963,000 — ADOPTED; APPROVED STAFF
RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AND
Page 161
i
January 22, 2013
CLERK TO GO TO TALLAHASSEE TO GET CLARIFICATION
FROM ATTORNEY GENERAL AND FLORIDA CFO
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners. Now we move to Item
11.D. It's a recommendation to approve a utility work by highway
contractor agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation;
approve a Florida Department of Transportation standard form
resolution authorizing the Chairman of the Board of County
Commissioners to execute the agreement; approve a memorandum of
agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation and Florida
Department of Financial Services, Division of Treasury to establish an
interest-bearing escrow account and authorize a budget amendment in
the amount of$963,000. Mr. Tom Chmelik, your Public Utilities
Planning and Project Management Director --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioners, may I -- this matter
has been brought before us at the MPO and we I believe understand
this project quite well.
I think the issue that we need to address today with the Clerk
present is the prepayment requirement. And we don't want to run into
the same situation that we ran into with the underground utilities being
constructed by the Vanderbilt MSTU.
So one of the things that we need to add in addition to what we're
being asked to approve in A through D is a requirement that staff,
along with the state, go to the chief financial officer of the State of
Florida and ask for authorization for prepayment so that the Clerk can
proceed accordingly. Because he will not be able to do so otherwise.
And that it be the responsibility of staff to get whatever type of
authorization is necessary to enable the Clerk to pay. That's my --
MR. OCHS: Our staff?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah.
MR. OCHS: The Clerk to pay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Or would you like the County
Page 162
January 22, 2013
Attorney to -- in the last situation that we were in the County Attorney
staff actually facilitated the solution, and it was Scott Teach who
worked with all parties to come up with a proposal to make it possible.
MR. KLATZKOW: Do we have an issue?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't think --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Clerk? Yeah, I think we do.
Clerk, I mean, are you able to prepay on this as of this point in
time?
MR. BROCK: Unless there is a statutory exemption, there is a
statutory preclusion from making a prepayment.
Now, as I understood what he just said, that was totally different
from what my staff is telling me they were working with the county in
terms of doing. As I understood what the county was working with
Crystal on -- Crystal, can you come up -- they were working on a --
there's a provision of the statute that deals with you can make a
contribution to a state road project but, you know, you have to have
the state road project already defined, and it has to be appropriated by
the Florida legislature, and then you can make a prepayment under
those circumstances, because it has specific language that says
notwithstanding any law to the contrary.
But, you know, the problem that we're having with as it stands
now based upon the information that the Department of Transportation
has provided to us, the plans have never been approved, it's never been
appropriated, so the Board of County Commissioners would have no
basis upon which to make a determination of how much you wanted to
contribute. Since as I understand it the contribution you want to make
is for the purpose of utilities.
But what I heard him say was totally different. It sounded to me
like it was very similar to the last situation in which we had the issue
of the prepayment for the Department of Transportation in which we
actually went to the Attorney General. And they basically, you know,
even though they would not give us a public opinion, they gave me a
Page 163
January 22, 2013
private one that I shared with the County Attorney's Office, which you
created grave reservations about what I was going to sign my name to
a check.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, at the MPO meeting I had
recommended that the MPO staff working with our staff go to the
CFO and get authorization for that prepayment.
MR. BROCK: And I would like to comment on that. Because,
you know, I don't necessarily think they need to be doing a useless act.
I think the County Attorney's Office in this other process -- and I think
it was FP&L, wasn't it, Jeff-- where they contacted the Department of
Financial Services, we contacted the Department of Financial
Services, and they just basically told us they weren't -- even though
the statute has a provision that they could, they weren't approving
them.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. Commissioner --
MR. BROCK: You know, that may change if you request them
to. It's not an issue for me of, you know, whether or not you make the
prepayment, it's an issue of me that there's a prohibition in the statute
that says you can't prepay unless it is in conformance with the rules
promulgated by the chief financial officer of the State of Florida. And
one of those rules has a provision that it has to be approved by the
chief financial officer.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, the MOU that's in the
backup material on the -- I believe it's -- yeah, it is the second page,
the monies are to be wire transferred in the Bank of America account
that's controlled by the chief financial officer of Florida.
So I'm not sure -- maybe I'm lost on the argument, but to me I
think it's -- you know, the CFO is going to control it.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, if I might, if Tom could be allowed
to just make a brief presentation, it might provide some background
and context for --
Page 164
1
January 22, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Absolutely.
MR. OCHS: -- the discussion.
MR. CHMELIK: Thank you very much. Tom Chmelik for the
record, Public Utilities.
May I have the presentation? Thank you very much.
Florida Department of Transportation plans to widen U.S.
Highway 41 between County Road 951 and Greenway Road. This
project having been recently added to their tentative work program to
be funded in this fiscal year and next.
Because our pipes are located in the FDOT right-of-way and in
conflict with the proposed roadway and drainage designs, they need to
be relocated in order for the record project to be completed, so that's
the purpose for the whole thing.
So the relocations can be done most efficiently through the
Memorandum of Agreement utility work by having contractor
agreements, the documents attached to the executive summary,
whereby the pipes are relocated by the road contractor and one
coordinated project instead of two separate projects and mobilizations.
We do the design, they construct it together in one effort. And the
engineers --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: When you say they construct it --
MR. CHMELIK: They -- thank you for correcting me -- is the
FDOT contractor that wins the award for the entire combined roadway
and utility project.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And they're supervised by FDOT?
MR. CHMELIK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. CHMELIK: The engineer's estimate, our engineer's
estimate to relocate the utilities through an MOA is approximately $4
million. If the utilities were relocated separately, which would have to
occur before the roadway project, the same engineer estimates that an
additional $1 million would be required to do those relocations.
Page 165
i
January 22, 2013
However, there's an issue with relocating separately as we have
done before. And that being that January 9th, FDOT communicated to
the team that the project would be bid as a design/build project. And
if that were the case, we really don't know where the design is going
to end up, because the awardee has an opportunity to change the
design to make it more cost effective. Therefore, if we relocate it
ahead of time, we may have to relocate a second time. Therefore that
makes the MOA more important.
And in contrast, if we had an MOA, it's all done together in a
coordinated effort. And lastly, this is the purpose, to ensure that
FDOT will bring this project forward. We want to optimize our
resources with FDOT to be the most efficient possible and minimize
the cost of the ratepayers.
It will also result in having minimized impact to the
neighborhood. One project instead of two disrupting the
neighborhoods twice, and again, the estimated savings will be
achieved through contractor mobilization, coordination, traffic
management and project management.
Our recommendation as stated here and in your executive
summary is to approve this item.
And in conclusion, I just want to say that all we know from
FDOT is they're asking us to get this approval today to support their
schedule and let them advertise in March. They said possibly that can
go to the first meeting in February. However, there's also discussion
that these funds could be allocated elsewhere. And that's the
information we have. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do you have any comment?
MR. BROCK: My comment is, Commissioner, absent the
Attorney General telling me I can make the payment, it can't be done.
I don't have a problem with the County Attorney going back to or me
going with him to the Attorney General's office. This is not an issue
of, you know, whether I think it is appropriate or not --
Page 166
1
January 22, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, I understand that.
MR. BROCK: -- from a perspective such as they're trying to
present. It is purely a legal issue from my perspective that I can't
make prepayments. And if he wants to go, I'll be more than happy to
go with him and try to get approval of the Attorney General to do it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Jeff, what do you recommend?
MR. KLATZKOW: I'll be happy to file a joint request to the
Attorney General. I know we've asked the AG before and got nothing
back of any merit. And we went to chief financial. They also punted,
which doesn't give Mr. Brock much solace. But perhaps if we both
went there together we could actually get an answer from them.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, my con --
MR. OCHS: Commissioners.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, go ahead.
MR. OCHS: I'm sorry. And again, I'm obviously not a lawyer.
All I can tell you is that our research has indicated that these standard
form agreements for these types of state contracts that require these
kinds of agreements with the local government are done fairly
routinely by both charter and non-charter counties around the state.
So if they're not legal for us, I don't know how they're --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: They're not legal for everybody
else.
MR. OCHS: -- getting away with it everywhere else.
But this is a $54 million discretionary road project. I don't want
this Board being blamed for not doing what is required to get done in
order to secure that funding and get the project completed.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I don't want to lose $54
million for this road project. I don't understand why we're the only
county in Florida who can't do this.
MR. BROCK: You're not, Commissioners, take my word for it.
Contrary to what they tell you, you're not.
Page 167
January 22, 2013
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And I want to know who
they are. But nevertheless, I would suggest that we book Mr. Brock
and Mr. Klatzkow on an airplane and get them up to Tallahassee
within the next couple of days to sort this out. Because --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I agree.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- if I were in the position of FDOT
and I'm getting other people to do this, I would say okay, I'm going to
take my $54 million and give it to say somebody else. And guess who
loses? Our taxpayers, big time.
So this is something we can't afford to delay on. Let's ask the
Clerk and the County Attorney to get up to Tallahassee now and get
this sorted out. Because I'm sure there will be other situations like
this.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Are you going to make that as a
motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I will.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, thank you.
Dwight, didn't you say if the CFO pays it, you don't have a
problem with it?
MR. BROCK: If the CFO approves the prepayment, that's all it
requires.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. BROCK: The rules -- the regulations the CFO adopted, one
of them is that it has to be pre-approved by the CFO. So if the CFO
makes the approval in conformance with its own rules, I'm a happy
camper. You have eliminated my responsibility to do the pre-audit,
you have turned it over to the State of Florida, and I would be just
tickled to death to pay the bill whenever you say to.
The problem is there's a statute that says that you can only prepay
under -- in accordance with the rules promulgated by the Chief
Page 168
January 22, 2013
Financial Officer of the State of Florida. It has never made any sense
to me why the Chief Financial Officer would promulgate such a rule,
then refuse to even consider it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, in the MOU on the second
page, if you do a wire transfer or an ACH, whatever that is, you wire
transfer it into, what it's saying here, is the Chief Financial Officer of
Florida. He has I guess control of that. So, you know --
MR. BROCK: All he has to do is send me a note saying I
approve the prepayment and I'm happy.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, why don't we address that
if you're going to Tallahassee is talk to the Chief Financial Officer's
office in Tallahassee?
MR. BROCK: Commissioner, I thought I made that as clear as I
could to start with. This is not the first time we've been down this
road. The County Attorney's Office contacted the CFO's office, my
staff contacted the CFO's office, I used personal contracts that I had in
the CFO's office, and they all told me they weren't approving it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They were not?
MR. BROCK: That's correct. Now, do I know why? No, I have
no clue as to why.
In addition to that, you remember the issue with FP&L. I
included in that request to the Attorney General the issue with regard
to the road. Didn't we, Jeff? And we did not get an affirmative
answer back from the Attorney General. It was basically a punt.
But one of the things that might give me more comfort that they
ask -- that they would answer the question is in that personal response
that they gave me that I shared with the County Attorney's Office,
they said that in the absence of a joint request they would not give a
formal opinion.
If Jeff and I can get together and do a formal opinion jointly --
and I assure you, you know, this is not an issue where I'm going to be
Page 169
1
January 22, 2013
in opposition to it. I mean, I'm simply here saying, you know, I don't
see a way in compliance with the law to do it. But, I mean, if there is,
let's do it. And Jeff can put it together and, you know, we'll review it
and get it up there and Jeff can do it on an expedited basis, I will
review it on an expedited basis and we will get it up there.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I want to make sure this is
accurate. They're asking for us to create in the name of the Division
of Treasury, Florida Department of Financial Services, an
interest-bearing escrow account, okay. We are are not disbursing it to
a contractor, we're sending it to a state agency. And the state agency
will disburse it from the escrow account at the point in time when they
think it is appropriate to do so.
It seems to me that that avoids the issue that the Clerk has raised.
I don't know why the Clerk would be concerned about creating an
interest-bearing escrow account with the Florida Department of
Financial Services Division of Treasury, because if they accept it they
have in fact approved it. And if they create the escrow account, there
is no problem.
MR. BROCK: Commissioner, let me see if I can explain the
concern that the Clerk has. No taxpayer money in Collier County can
be expended without, one, approval of the Board of County
Commissioners and two, audit by the Clerk of the Circuit Court to
determine legality, with the exception of that prepayment statute that I
have been referring to.
I even made the offer to DOT last time this came up, that if in
fact you will authorize me to pre-audit the expenditure prior to you
turning it loose in compliance with the statute, I'll let you know when I
approve it and you can cut it loose and, you know, I feel pretty
comfortable. And they basically told me to pound sand. You know,
under those circumstances, you know, I don't know what else I can do.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Coyle, could I ask
Page 170
January 22, 2013
you to modify your motion to include the recommendation presented
by staff as presented on the overhead to add your -- you know, to
restate your direction that the County Attorney and the Clerk go to
Tallahassee and do what they have to do to make this happen and to
also direct the County Attorney and the Clerk to jointly make a
request to the Attorney General for an opinion on this matter.
The problem I have, though, is that will take time. But we still
have to proceed on this. Because this should have been done earlier so
this issue, when it surfaced as it has today and will again, we would
have a formal response.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't know what the Attorney
General's decision really does for you. But I have no --
MR. BROCK: Gives me comfort.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, yeah, but it's --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, I understand where you're
coming from, but it's the best we can do under the circumstances.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm afraid that if we wait for the
Attorney General's --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We can't.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- opinion, we're going to lose this
money.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Oh, I agree with you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So I think -- and I don't have any
problem proceeding with it, we can do it on a parallel tract.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But we need the two of you in
Tallahassee.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not to put a letter together. The
two of you get to Tallahassee and talk with the Chief Financial Officer
and find out what is necessary to get this resolved. Because it's going
to happen again. And it is crazy to keep going through this process.
Page 171
January 22, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I thought we had it solved before.
But apparently we just didn't do that. So let's solve it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: If you amend your motion, I'll go
ahead and second it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, I'll amend my motion to
provide for those two things: Request for Attorney General's opinion
and to get immediate -- an emergency -- an immediate emergency
meeting with the Chief Financial Officer of the State of Florida to get
this thing sorted out.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And to accept the recommendation
of staff, as presented.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I had a second before, so
do I need to pull my second out?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, no, that's okay. You seconded
it, you can -- go ahead. I didn't realize there was a second on the
table.
So you just seconded it as amended?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There being no further discussion,
all in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
MR. CHMELIK: Thank you very much, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Tomorrow?
MR. BROCK: Yeah. (Laughing.)
Page 172
I
January 22, 2013
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I'll send you the number of the
private account this should go to.
MR. BROCK: You do that. Yeah, you know, Commissioner
Coyle, one vote doesn't accomplish that. Oh, I'm sorry, two votes.
I'm kidding and you are too, and I understand that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Bye.
MR. BROCK: I guess we're going to Tallahassee, Jeff.
MR. KLATZKOW: I guess.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, I --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Tomorrow morning, early.
MR. OCHS: Again, I just want to clarify for the record. What I
heard was the Board approved the staff recommendation, then
concurrent with that take these other steps with the AGO and the
meeting with the CFO?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes, that is correct.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
Item #10H
RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD AGREEMENT #12-5896 FOR
THE DESIGN CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, CIVIL SITE
DESIGN (SDP PERMITTING), PERMIT AND BID SERVICES
AND CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION AND RELATED
SERVICES FOR THE FIRST STREET ZOCALO IN IMMOKALEE
TO DAVID CORBAN ARCHITECT, INC. — APPROVED
Okay, that takes us back then to Item 10.H your agenda,
Commissioners. It's a recommendation to award Agreement No.
12-5896 for design construction documents, civil site design permit
and bid services and construction administration and related services
for the First Street Zocalo for Immokalee to David Corban Architect.
Fiscal impact, $113,450.
Page 173
I
January 22, 2013
This item was approved for reconsideration at the December
11th, 2012 Board meeting.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Which item are you on?
MR. OCHS: I'm on 10.H, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 10.H.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. OCHS: Ms. Phillippi is available to respond to questions or
present.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: This item was brought back for
reconsideration.
And Commissioner Nance, since this project is in your district,
the architect is present today to answer any questions that you may
have with respect to the project. And then if you could make a motion
to either go forward with it or halt it as you see fit.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I had the pleasure to meet with Mr.
David Corban several days ago to talk about this project. And I will
tell you he comes very, very highly recommended as an innovative
architect, a problem solver and somebody that can certainly bring
some wonderful options to us and to the CRA for implementation of
this program.
I understand that this program is going forward to develop a First
Street passive park situation in Immokalee that serves not only as an
ornamental framework for the downtown area of Immokalee but also
to provide a nice amenity.
And Ms. Phillippi and I had a chance to talk about this. And like
the business development center, she discussed her desire to go
forward with this and to check this off her list and to work with Parks
and Recreation to make that part of the facilities in Immokalee, which
I support 100 percent.
That having been said, Mr. Corban and I talked frankly about
what sort of a park it was going to have to be, what sort of innovative
Page 174
i
January 22, 2013
techniques we're going to use with surfaces and finishes and substrates
and landscaping to make sure that our costs of operation and
maintenance were something that we could understand and we were
prepared to undertake.
So I am in favor of proceeding with the recommendation to let
Mr. Corban move forward and give us some options, but I would also
like to say that I'm going to be very, very interested in working with
Parks and Recreation and with this Board to understand exactly what
the costs associated with building it and operating it and maintaining it
over a long period of time so everybody can get our head around this
to understand what sort of a financial commitment that we're making
to Immokalee in the long haul.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, so I'd like to hear what Mr.
Corban has to say or what Ms. Phillippi has to say about this project.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, you know, Parks and Rec
is very much involved in Immokalee. And if you take a look at the
square foot or number of parks, District 5 rises to the level, especially
in Immokalee. Now, it doesn't in Golden Gate Estates.
When you talk about the general taxpayers picking this up -- and
what is really needed throughout the whole county is ballparks. That
just puts us further and further away to really address what Parks and
Rec is all about.
I had -- you know, Penny sent everybody the minutes of it. It
was one Commissioner that wanted Parks and Recs to take it off, it
wasn't the Board of Commissioners. It was not the Board of
Commissioners, it was one commissioner. Okay?
We need parks in East Naples. I don't -- this wasn't a parks
project, it was driven by the CRA. I just cannot support Parks and
Rec's budget to maintain this park. And it never was asked to even
build it.
Page 175
January 22, 2013
MS. PHILLIPPI: Well, Commissioner, I could address some of
those issues.
This park at -- both of these plazas were approved by the Board
of County Commissioners when they approved the public round town
design. This particular park is designed to be the entryway into town,
as opposed to a playground. And it's supposed to be a plaza like you
would find in Central and South America, which people are constantly
looking for, because the general population in Immokalee is from
Central and South America.
The other issue is when we talked with Park and Rec about both
of these plazas, primarily we were talking about the Ninth Street Plaza
because it's a huge amenity that would bring revenue to parks and
recreation. But the First Street Plaza, as we did our cost analysis,
wouldn't be more than $5,000 a year to maintain. Both of them
together of course would be way more than that, but that --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why doesn't the CRA pick that
up? If it's only $5,000 --
MS. PHILLIPPI: And we can.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, it's a CRA project.
MS. PHILLIPPI: And the beautification. It could be either. If
that's an issue, it can be easily resolved.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know if it's an issue with
the other Board members. It is with me.
MS. PHILLIPPI: It's easily resolved.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Would you like to modify your
motion to incorporate Commissioner Henning's recommendation?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, actually I will tell you that
I believe that we need to go through this process to even understand
what the costs are going to be of operating it, if any. And the things
that I talked to Mr. Corban about were site lines for security, you
know, somebody's going to have to pick up trash and maintain it.
There's no other things that have to be operated other than keeping it
Page 176
January 22, 2013
clean. And therefore, it is very, very important to have the right
design to that. And this is something that applies -- you know, I'm
certain that the CRA could cover it.
But what I didn't want to do is, I didn't want the CRA becoming a
parallel government over here to where the CRA's everywhere are
operating parks and facilities and Parks and Recreation was doing the
same thing.
That's why I say that our CRA's must be coordinated with our
other agencies. Same thing applies to the drainage district; you don't
want a CRA creating a surface water management system and then
have them managing it when we have Collier County government
having stormwater divisions.
So, you know, we need to be well coordinated. You know, if the
CRA is getting funding to produce it, it might well be if we do a good
job that it's a good deal for Parks and Rec, that it can fulfill some of
their needs in the community. But I don't think we should have two
agencies running similar things. Maybe it -- you know, maybe this
shouldn't be considered a park. It's really a plaza.
But I just wanted to let that be known that we do need to consider
how much it costs to operate things. Whenever we approve
architecture, whenever we approve studies, whenever we approve
construction, too many times in Collier County we don't consider the
operations and maintenance cost. And sometimes this can over a
period of years eclipse the cost of the capital asset.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I agree with Commissioner
Henning, I really believe that the CRA could do this. They're seeing it
all the time. I'll know when it needs to be cleaned, when it needs to be
mowed and so forth. It's not like anything is operational, there's
nothing to break there or anything. And being that they're building it
themselves, I think that they would want to claim ownership in taking
care of it. So I agree with Commissioner Henning on that.
Page 177
January 22, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, not to get too far off this
topic, but I do want to address one thing that Commissioner Nance
brought up.
The county should take over stormwater projects that are built.
However, what was said is there is a -- there's going to be a benefit to
the landowners out there so they won't have to use their land on a
required stormwater project.
That is something that the taxpayers should not be in the business
of. Because we should be doing it all over. We should be doing it for
Wal-Mart, K-Mart and all other businesses that locate here in Collier
County. So that needs to be studied a lot more to find out what the
general public's benefit is and what the private properties' benefit is
and bifurcate those things.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Absolutely.
I just wanted to comment. Commissioner Nance, the issue of
maintenance costs being considered as part of our capital budgeting is
something that our staff is doing. This was an issue raised by our
Board well over a year ago. And ever since, any project that has come
before us has not only had the capital component but has also had the
supporting component factored in.
So you're bringing up something that the Board became aware of
over the course of this past 12 months. And they are doing that.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, one last question.
You can maintain it, right? I think you said that, that that would
be just fine with you?
MS. PHILLIPPI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did you plan on maintaining it
anyway?
MS. PHILLIPPI: We did. But when we talked with Parks and
Rec, they were so excited about the project they wanted to be an
Page 178
January 22, 2013
integral part of it. They're willing to maintain it, but if it's the Board's
wish that the CRA or MSTU maintain it, we're fine with that as well.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, Commissioner Nance, I don't
-- I believe that the CRA's are really separate entities anyway. I mean,
they have their own funding source and so forth. So I like them to
speak for themselves if they can.
And have you worked out an arrangement whereby Parks would
do that for you?
MS. PHILLIPPI: Well, they have been. For example, the Ninth
Street Plaza was a big mess and we completely cleaned that up, took a
tower down with a private contractor.
Since then Parks and Rec has been maintaining it for us. By that
I mean doing the mowing.
The First Street Plaza also is being mowed by Park and Rec.
And that's simply inter-departmental payment that we make to them.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see, okay. So you pay them to
maintain it. I see. Okay, well then I'm okay with -- if that works out
for you and works out with Parks and Rec, and you're paying them
anyway, then I'm okay with that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Nance, how would
you like to present your motion? Do you want to leave it as-is, do you
want --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, I do make a recommendation
that we do this. And all I was saying was I'm looking forward to what
David Corban's architecture firm can bring forward as options to
demonstrate how well we can do with this.
And we might be surprised. I think we need to let him -- I think
it's a project that's got a lot of support. I think we need to go ahead
and engage his services and let him see what he can come up with and
hopefully we'll be very surprised and delighted with the range of
options that he provides for us.
So I'm going to leave my motion to approve.
Page 179
1
January 22, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I'll second that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to mention one little thing.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Has anybody -- did any of you see
the brochure he handed out? Did you see his house on Bayshore in
there?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It's awesome. I know.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Gosh, it's wonderful.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It was amazing. Weren't you in
some award? Didn't you win some national award like fifth house in
the country or something like that? Maybe first house in the country?
MR. CORBAN: Yes, for the record, David Corban.
Yeah, it was selected one of the top 100 buildings in Florida in
the last hundred years, selected by architects. I was pretty happy with
that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It's a very, very cool house.
Do you want to put it on the overhead?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right down on Bayshore.
MR. CORBAN: Thank you very much.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It's on Haldeman Creek.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: We're challenging him to create
something that's that beautiful, lasts a million years and is bullet proof.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And no maintenance.
MR. CORBAN: That's right, maintenance has got to be low.
And we did have a frank discussion with Commissioner Nance
and we talked about the ease of maintenance, the durability, you
know, it needs to look beautiful, not just the day it's finished but 10,
15, 20 years down the line. That has to do with using the right material
that will last a long time. And using new technology, you know, such
as LED lights that will last 15 years and not burn a lot of power. And
Page 180
January 22, 2013
native plants. Obviously Commissioner Nance is very well versed in
his plant species, so we're definitely going to work with hardy material
that won't need a lot of maintenance over time and will be easy to
trim. Nothing that's going to be exotic that takes a lot of maintenance.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That sounds wonderful.
I would like to add that I agree with Commissioners Henning and
Fiala about maintenance, and maybe we could suggest that staff, when
you bring back the numbers, you know, for the construction, that we
talk about, you know, the maintenance and make sure that the CRA
does do what it's proposing to do with respect to that. If that's
agreeable.
So there being no further discussion, all in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
MR. CORBAN: Thank you very much.
Item #1 OI
RECOMMENDATION TO RECONSIDER THE 2012 COMBINED
ANNUAL UPDATE & INVENTORY REPORT (AUIR) ON
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
ELEMENT (CIE) AMENDMENT PROVIDED FOR IN CHAPTER
6.02.02 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE AND SECTION 163.3177(3)(B), FLORIDA STATUTES —
APPROVED
Page 181
i
January 22, 2013
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, 10.I is a recommendation to
reconsider the 2012 combined Annual Update and Inventory Report
on public facilities and Capital Improvement Element amendment as
provided for in Chapter 6.02.02 of Collier County Land Development
Code and Florida Statutes.
This item was approved for reconsideration at the December
11th, 2012 Board of County Commissioners meeting.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We had a presentation on this at the
last meeting. And I for one would like to make a recommendation for
a modification. I don't know what any of the other Commissioners
have to add, but if you'd like to supplement what's being proposed in
any way?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I agree with your -- if
you're looking for a second, I'll agree.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, here's what I'm
recommending. I actually have a concern. As part of my review of
overall county operations, I came to learn that our Sheriffs Office is
on the brink of not having enough space for their evidence. We have a
very, very short horizon before they run out of capacity, and so I think
we have to amend the current report to include some sort of a forecast
for a new evidence facility.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, that's not what I was thinking.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You were thinking of something
else? I didn't know.
MR. OCHS: Our facilities staff is already in contact with the
Sheriffs --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Wonderful.
MR. OCHS: -- Office exploring alternatives. I would perhaps
suggest to you that you don't need a formal amendment to the AUIR
to accomplish I believe what you're looking to accomplish. You can
deal with that as part of our capital budgeting process this summer.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's fine. I just wanted to make
Page 182
January 22, 2013
sure, because I didn't really want -- my concern is even if at a
minimum we notate this in our plan to make sure it's not disregarded
or forgotten. I mean, I'm really concerned. I mean, I looked at one
case that practically took up a whole room. So we are definitely
running out of space and it's a concern to me.
So yeah, if you could take a look at that.
MR. OCHS: Will do.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And I believe the other issue I had
raised was the Supervisor of Elections had talked about consolidation
of her operations in one facility, because she was concerned that she
was not optimally serving the public. Although she's doing way better
than the majority of the state. Maybe that is also a footnote.
In both instances, what I would recommend is that the Sheriffs
Office and the Supervisor of Elections come back to the Board with
some sort of an analysis, some sort of a study that tells us, you know,
why there's a need and what they estimate the cost to be and then of
course the, you know, supporting maintenance cost, because it clearly
affect our budgets prospectively.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, it's interesting that you went
into the Supervisor of Elections. That's exactly where I was going to
go as well. Great minds.
Just to make sure, because they've run out of room as well, for
people as well as equipment. And I know that she's talked to you a
number of times, Leo. I don't know if she's on your list of, as you are
looking for the Sheriff, if you're also looking for a place for Jennifer,
but we need to do that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Actually, what we could do is give
Jennifer the evidence rooms. Just kidding.
MR. OCHS: That works for me.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Body swap.
Commissioner Henning?
Page 183
January 22, 2013
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks.
Mr. Bosi, before I make a motion to approve the AUIR as
presented, just a question. On the water and sewer, we are using
seasonal peak on that?
MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Interim Director, Planning and Zoning.
The water and sewer districts are the peak season populations
factored within their district boundaries.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But that's -- there's no vacancy
in seasonal; is that correct? Vacancy rate is not applied whatsoever?
MR. BOSI: No, there's no vacancy rate applied in seasonal
population. It's 20 percent above your permanent population.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's --
MR. BOSI: It's static.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, that's not included, that 20
percent.
MR. BOSI: The 20 percent is what your peak -- is your seasonal
population. It's 20 percent above your permanent population.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Twenty percent above.
MR. BOSI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the 20 percent above is
included in the permanent population to get seasonal population
within the water and sewer district, right.
MR. BOSI: Get the 20 percent markup, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, 20 percent markup.
So I'll make a motion to approve the AUIR as submitted.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
MR. BOSI: And just a reminder, the next meeting we will have
the -- the November meeting when we heard the AUIR originally,
Madam Chair had requested that EMS and law enforcement come
back at --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I did.
MR. BOSI: -- the beginning of this year to discuss the temporary
Page 184
i
January 22, 2013
trailer on Oil Well Road --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right.
MR. BOSI: -- as well as the Zone 42 hole in North Naples for
EMS.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes, we need both of those brought
back.
MR. BOSI: And that is scheduled on your agenda --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Good.
MR. BOSI: -- for the --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: February, right?
MR. BOSI: -- first meeting in February.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right. That's what we had
recommended they do then. Thank you so much.
There being no further discussion, all in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
Can I ask a quick favor, Leo? While I understand that Mike has
another item which is the Riverchase, we've got a few people in here
that I think we can take care of very quickly. Jean Jourdan with the
CRA with the approval of the sale of five parcels. The --
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am, I got it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay. If we could just quickly do
those so we can let these people go.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do I have to change to a CRA
chairman?
MR. OCHS: Yes. Let's take 14.B.1 next.
Item #14B1
Page 185
January 22, 2013
RECOMMENDATION THE COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) ACCEPT AN OFFER TO
PURCHASE FIVE (5) CRA OWNED MOBILE HOME LOTS;
AUTHORIZE THE CRA INTERIM DIRECTOR TO WORK WITH
THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND REAL ESTATE
SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO PREPARE ALL NECESSARY
DOCUMENTS TO FACILITATE THE PURCHASE, SUBJECT TO
THE CRA'S FINAL REVIEW — APPROVED
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: CRA meeting is now in session.
MR. OCHS: It's a recommendation for the Collier County
Community Redevelopment Agency to accept an offer of purchase for
five CRA owned mobile home lots, and authorize the CRA interim
director to work with the County Attorney's Office and Real Estate
Services Department to prepare all necessary documents to facilitate
the purchase, subject to the CRA's final review. Mr. --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is there any discussion?
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I have a motion to approve and
a second.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm helping you. We work as a
team. It's like --
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: No further questions? Speakers?
(No response.)
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: All in favor, signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
Page 186
January 22, 2013
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
Wonderful presentation. It was a winning one.
And with that, that's the last CRA subject, right?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes.
CRA CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: CRA meeting is closed.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. And that will --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And the risk assessment issue. The
water damage.
Item #11J
RECOMMENDATION TO DENY THE NEGLIGENCE CLAIM OF
LIZ PFUNDER, CLAIM #22-02151201177 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$38,093.52 — MOTION FOR THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, RISK
MANAGEMENT AND MS. PFUNDER TO WORK TOGETHER
TO BRING BACK A SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes. We'll go next to Item 11.J, which was
previously 16.E.6 on your consent agenda. This is a recommendation
to deny the negligence claim of Liz Pfunder in the amount of
$38,090.52. Mr. Jeff Walker, your Risk Management Director, will
present.
MR. WALKER: Madam Chairwoman and Commissioners, good
afternoon. Jeff Walker, Risk Management Director, for the record.
This particular item was on the Board agenda of October 23rd, as
you may recall. It involves a sewer backup claim filed against the
county by Ms. Liz Pfunder.
The original amount of the claim, the demand that was made by
Page 187
January 22, 2013
her attorney, was $55,148.53.
At the Board meeting the details of the item were presented and
the Board gave us some specific direction and asked us to bring this
back. The direction included securing confirmation. Ms. Pfunder was
not represented by counsel. We did that, we got that secured in
writing.
Number two, you asked us to get copies of her bills and
payments and checks and so forth. We secured all of that and did do
an analysis on it.
You asked us to review the bills and determine an appropriate
sum that is commensurate with the damages incurred. You'll recall
there was some discussion about painting of ceilings and those sorts of
things. That was done. Actually, we asked a field adjustor to go to
the home and do an inspection of the home to make sure that what we
were seeing in the bills that were presented to us were commensurate
with the work that was done. In other words, to make sure the repairs
were completed.
There was another item that's not in the list in your executive
summary and that was that Commissioner Hiller at the time requested
a report. We asked Ms. Pfunder to secure that because she has privy
with the contractor. She did provide the letter, and that is in your
backup.
That letter is essentially similar to what was written on the
original Roto-Rooter bill with regard to what happened, but we did
secure that. And again, we are here today to talk about this item.
The question are that you asked when it was moved from the
consent item to the regular item is why are we denying the claim. I
have Mr. Javier Melendez with John's Eastern with me today to talk
about that issue, and I'd like to have him come forward and present
that to you.
MR. MELINDEZ: Madam Chairman, Commissioners, my name
is Javier Melendez from John's Eastern. I apologize, I have a little bit
Page 188
January 22, 2013
of a cold, so please bear with me.
The reason we have recommended denial of this claim is
basically the elements of negligence haven't been met. That there's --
there's four of them. You need to have duty, you need to have breach,
you need to have harm and approximate cause of the damages -- for
the damages.
Also, part of those elements, there needs to be notice of a
dangerous condition.
In this case we don't believe any duty has been breached. The
proximate cause of loss has not been revealed. What we know so far
is that Roto-Rooter went ahead and cleared the line before taking any
video or photos of any blockage, so there's really no evidence that
there was a block present.
There's also no evidence received by wastewater department that
there was any notice of any blockage or any problems with that line.
And with that said, we don't believe that the elements of negligence
have been met and we recommend that the claim is denied.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Jeff, do you have any comments?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, I kind of think this is a type of thing
that the better forum would be a court rather than this Board. I mean,
if you start hearing these things, you're going to wind up transitioning
yourself into a small claims court.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's true.
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't think that that's what you want to do.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, I agree.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I agree as well. The reason I
voted against it in the first place was because the information I had
received said that there was mold about halfway up the wall. And --
but we took pictures of that mold about what, five hours or something
like that after the occurrence?
MR. WALKER: Actually, those pictures were taken within
Page 189
January 22, 2013
about three hours --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Three hours after the occurrence.
MR. WALKER: -- of the event. And the problem you have is
mold can't form that quickly.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
MR. WALKER: And we did learn that there was a leak in the
line that was preexisting to this event.
Therefore, it brought into question some of the damages being
claimed. Again, those have been removed. We're not counting that.
But again, the claim -- the claim is such that by the time we got the
claim, walls had been ripped out of the house. We never saw the
damage. The damage estimate we're giving you is based upon what
they said it was.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Plus they had, from what I also
remember reading, is they had a toilet that didn't function properly, it
got caught quite often --
MR. WALKER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and it would -- and this
overflowed. Again, it was -- you know, they probably didn't realize
because they were upstairs that it was overflowing downstairs, but still
it happened. And, you know, that's not our fault either. We didn't --
you know, the toilet wasn't fixed. Those were two of the main
concerns that I had. And I don't know how you can sort out our fault
with that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Ms. Pfunder?
MS. PFUNDER: The toilets were never overflowing. The water
came out from the shower. The toilet was draining perfectly fine.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do we have public speakers?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No.
MR. MILLER: No, we do not, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon me?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We don't have any public --
Page 190
January 22, 2013
MR. MILLER: No, we do not.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- speakers.
MR. MILLER: No, we do not.
Ms. Pfunder did register to speak on the consent agenda; urged
the Board to pull this item.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we're going to give her three
minutes or --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Would you like three minutes to
speak?
MS. PFUNDER: I just -- I called the county the morning after it
happened, the night before at 10:00 --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Can you put her timer on?
MS. PFUNDER: -- it happened. And I called the county in the
morning and two days later I called again because nobody came to
check the line. It was only somebody at the door and said he will
report it to another division.
So I called back two days later and said why is nobody coming
and check the line. And then the people came. So I did nothing
wrong. I called a plumber at 10:00 at night because I didn't know who
to call. The plumber told me it's a city or county problem, call the
county in the morning. That's what I did. I asked John Eastgen's (sic)
if they send the inspector to look at it, because they said the walls
were taken out. The walls were taken out after two weeks, not right
away. I was waiting for somebody to come and look at it, and I was
told we don't have to come out. We don't have to come out.
I don't know what to say. The toilet was fine. It was not coming
out from the toilet. It came back from the sewer line.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I ask a question, please?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes, Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The toilet is connected to the sewer
line. Where specifically was the water or sewage coming from? You
said it's from the shower?
Page 191
January 22, 2013
MS. PFUNDER: It came out from the shower. The plumber said
that's the lowest point in the house, that's where it start coming out.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MS. PFUNDER: I had a shower bin that high that was
overflowing. And, you know, within an hour or one and a half, it was
all over.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And was it sewage that was
coming out or just water?
MS. PFUNDER: It was water. He said it's bacterial water, I
should not walk barefoot or, you know, it's contaminated water.
That's what the plumber told me.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: May I?
But both of those devices, the shower and the toilet, are
connected to the same waste line. The reason it wasn't coming out of
the toilet is it was coming out of the lower elevation and the shower.
And the only reason it would have done that is if there was a blockage
in the line that was beyond the "T" that joined the shower drain with
the waste drain from the toilet. Now, I don't know where that was, but
somebody should be able to find out what that is.
So if that drain was beyond the cleanout in the driveway, then it's
probably the county's fault. Because there's no way it could have
come out the shower if the blockage was before the "T" where the
shower joins the waste line from the toilet.
So, you know, here's my concern: I voted against this last time
because we were presented to what amounted to an estimate of
damages and we didn't have receipts. There were a lot of things
included in there like granite countertops and stuff like that that would
not have been damaged as a result of this. And that was the reason I
voted against it. And I still think maybe 38,000 is a little bit too high.
But I'm really beginning to question whether or not it wasn't the
county's fault.
MS. PFUNDER: Thank you.
Page 192
January 22, 2013
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But we have no way of establishing
that.
MR. OCHS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So it's a judgment call.
MS. PFUNDER: The plumber said it was --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, the plumbers are the only
ones who were there. They're the only ones who could provide
accurate testimony if they in fact did see a blockage or encountered a
blockage anywhere.
But I would be inclined to grant some relief for this, but not
$38,000.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Can I suggest that the County
Attorney and risk management and Mrs. Pfunder work together and
bring back some sort of a settlement proposal? Would you like to
make that as a motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I'll make that as a motion.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do I have a second?
I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I'll second it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do you want to second it? Go
ahead.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes. I just wanted to -- does
anybody have any idea what the source of the water was that was
backing up? Is this an apartment that has other people feeding water
into the drain, or is it just so this whole res -- is this a single-family
residence?
MR. WALKER: It's a single-family residence.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: So the only source of the water
would be wastewater is being discharged on the second story --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, it's -- the toilet on the lower
Page 193
i
January 22, 2013
level, the shut-off valve was not operating. The handle got stuck. It
continued to flow. And for some reason there was a blockage in the
line.
And the fact that it was water, not sewage that was coming out in
the shower tells me that the water was coming out of the tank in the
toilet, going down the line to some point, draining back into the drain
to the shower. So it leads me to believe that there was a blockage at
some distance from the toilet. Where, I don't know. And nobody can
tell us where.
But it's worth talking about as far as a settlement is concerned. I
don't know that we'll reach a figure that's acceptable to everybody.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I'll wait and see if this
motion passes or fails. If it fails, I'll make a subsequent motion.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, just one question. What
would you attribute the mold part of the way up the wall then?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, I would attribute that to some
other kind of leak. I don't think it would be caused by that particular
occurrence. I think there was some other kind of leak in the wall that
caused that -- could have come from upstairs somewhere.
But since there's no indication that there was any damage
upstairs, it couldn't have been a serious leak. So I'm not inclined to
attribute much to that mold growing there other than to say well, there
must have been a leak there sometime. But it wasn't enough to cause
any serious damage.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala, are you
satisfied?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I'm done.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There being no further discussion,
all in favor of Commissioner Coyle's motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 194
January 22, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries 4-1 with
Commissioner Henning dissenting.
Item #11C
RECOMMENDATION TO REVIEW THE PERMITTING
HISTORY OF LANDSCAPE CHANGES APPROVED FOR
RIVERCHASE SHOPPING CENTER, CURRENT APPLICABLE
CODE FOR LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS AND PROVIDE
DIRECTION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE
RELATING TO OPTIONS ON AMENDING THE CODE —
MOTION TO HOLD A WORKSHOP REGARDING LANDSCAPE
ISSUES — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Item 11.0 is a recommendation to review the
permitting history of the landscape changes approved for Riverchase
Shopping Center, the current applicable code for landscaping
requirements and provide direction to the County Manager relating to
options on amending the code. Mr. Bosi will present.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, you have four registered public
speakers on this item.
MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Interim Director of Planning and Zoning.
First I needed to put a couple of things on the record relating to
the last meeting and some of the statements that were made attributed
to a direct member of my staff, Mr. Michael Sawyer, who handles the
majority of our landscape plan changes, insubstantial and amendment
processes to the site development plans.
Page 195
January 22, 2013
When it was indicated that Mr. Sawyer had approved the plans in
23 minutes over an email, there's a misunderstanding of what that was.
As Mr. Sawyer had indicated to the landscape architect, that if it was
only a modification to the landscape plans that that would qualify as
an insubstantial change process.
The actual plans were submitted on April 4th of 2012. They
were distributed to review staff on the 5th of April.
The review date was April 12th. The reviews were completed by
the 16th. It was an approval letter that was completed on the 20th of
April. And it was distributed on the 24th. So it was basically a 20-day
process for the approval of the insubstantial change to the Site
Development Plan.
The initial email was from a landscape architect asking if this
could be considered an insubstantial change.
And let me also talk about the term insubstantial change.
Because it's not a subjective analysis as to what's being changed. An
insubstantial change refers to the number of review disciplines that are
required to look at a plan. You have planning, you have landscaping,
you have architectural, you have water management, you have
transportation. Those are all review disciplines. And in a traditional
SDP amendment all those individual areas of expertise would apply
their particular disciplines to the review.
In the case of the Riverchase Shopping Plaza, the only changes
that were being proposed was to the existing landscape plan.
Therefore -- and it's specifically codified within LDC Section
10.02.03.B.3.
And the last condition where it gives it criteria for what could be
an insubstantial change is there are no revisions to the existing
landscape plans that would alter or impact the site development plans
as determined by a landscape architect.
Meaning that if it's only the landscape plans that are being
changed it clearly qualifies for an insubstantial change. And this is to
Page 196
January 22, 2013
be able to provide a quicker turnaround but also a reduced fee because
of the number of disciplines that would be reviewing the actual
amendment or insubstantial change to that site plan was limited.
And it's part of the initiative where the county recognizes that all
review staff doesn't have to be involved in all individual changes
based upon the uniqueness of the changes.
So the landscape plans for the Riverchase Shopping Center was
under processed under an insubstantial change.
And this micro issue talks a little bit more about a macro issue
that we have within the county. Our Land Development Code is not
quite designed or equipped to handle the full redevelopment spectrum,
as it's designed. It's one of the efforts that Growth Management Plan
has been working with. I think you'll see some amendments that will
be coming to the Board spearheaded by Mr. Casalanguida to try to
make a recognition that all work isn't Greenfield development, that
there are redevelopment efforts that will take place and continue to
take place as our urbanized area matures.
One of the issues with the insubs -- or with the processing of the
landscape plans for Riverchase sits within the approved Collier
County named species list. And one of the problems that's specifically
with this list, this list was developed around 13 years ago in
collaboration of landscape architects and county review staff. It was
never officially formally adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners.
In 2007, during an amendment to the Land Development Code,
the landscape section of the code, the reference to this list was
included within the LDC. But it has never actually been approved by
the Board of County Commissioners. And one of the issues is it has a
number of large tree species that are on it that have been interpreted
by county staff to be appropriate to meet the requirements of the Site
Development Plan.
And one of the -- the first -- one of the first entries is bald
Page 197
January 22, 2013
cypress. And if they're the big issue with the Riverchase Shopping
Plaza, it was the type of materials that were being utilized.
One other aspect that I wanted to put clearly on the record, from
a staffs perspective the Riverchase Shopping Center met the
requirements of the Land Development Code. There's a process for
amending their Site Development Plan, that they have to meet
minimum code within the replacement of those trees. They did that.
The problem is, from a lay person, they would view that as a very
substantial change. And I understand that. But the way we looked at
it, it wasn't a subjective analysis, it was these were the -- this is the
requirement of the Land Development Code, did they satisfy that code
requirement.
One of the aspects of the Riverchase Shopping Center is they've
also submitted recently an amendment or a second additional
insubstantial change to the already approved SDP, and their proposal
is to add 27 additional live oaks throughout this site. And that's just a
side note.
But one of the issues that staff is seeking direction from the
Board of County Commissioners is not only related to maybe -- or
related to the list of acceptable species, we think that that list probably
needs to be revised or revisited not only with the landscape architects
but some of the homeowners associations in terms of what they feel
appropriate.
But one of the larger questions, and it's direction that's being
sought from staff related to this issue is the process to amend an
existing landscape plan was articulated within the code. It was
followed by the applicant.
I've heard some statements when we discussed before that maybe
we need to change what those regulations are. And that's one of the
directions I'm looking -- we're looking for, one of the things that we've
been asked. And it's a balancing act. And I understand the difficulty
of it.
Page 198
January 22, 2013
But the statements that have permeated the Board for the past
year and a half is we have to be business friendly, we want to have
regulatory flexibility within the processes.
We have a current regulatory environment that has steps for an
applicant to follow to get through to modify an existing landscape
plan.
Is it the desire of the Board of County Commissioners that we
take steps to amend that process to -- I'm not sure if the appropriate
word would be to increase the regulatory bearers or simply change the
process that a commercial property owner would be required to follow
to have to amend an existing landscape plan.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Can I -- and I've got two
Commissioners who'd like to speak and I have public speakers, but I
don't think that the Board can sit here today and recommend to you
what -- how the landscape requirements for these commercial projects
ought to change.
What I would like to suggest is, and I'm going to use the WS
word, is that this is actually a great topic for one of our workshops.
Just as one of the agenda items as a more general workshop. And then
when we know that this is scheduled we can, you know, bring our
research, talk to the community, get feedback and have an open
discussion and then, you know, give some general guidance, and then
at a following meeting actually recommend to the Board -- I mean,
recommend to staff what -- you know, how the code should be
amended.
And with that, I'm going to ask Commissioner Nance to go ahead
and speak.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, I think in order to meet
everybody's needs, including the desire for people to have our
commercial centers look nice, as well as allow our commercial
business owners to do well, it's going to take a complete rewrite.
Particularly for commercial centers and parking lots. Parking lots are
Page 199
January 22, 2013
very, very difficult places to grow plants because it's hot, it's dry, the
space is restricted, there's all sorts of problems in parking lots.
This is a wonderful native plant list, and when you start talking
about PUD's and parks and large lots and things of that nature, this is a
wonderful thing. I think it served us very well. But frankly, my
professional opinion, and I think if you've got landscape architects in
here they'd tell you the same things, many of these plants are going to
be very, very poor subjects for parking lots. And what you get is you
get exactly the result you have in Riverchase where you have plants
that overgrow the space available for their care and then you've got a
restrictive list that doesn't provide the look that you want and so on
and so forth.
And I've said -- I said before and I'll say it again, that landscape
design and renderings that are approved in the development process
needs to be shown at maturity, not at installation. Everybody here has
got a sense of-- you know, needs instant gratification. They want
everything to be real finished when it's installed. Well, there's a price
to be paid for that. Sometimes things get out of whack.
So, you know, I'm going to make a motion that we hold a
workshop and we employ our professionals in our community to
decide how to do this. I don't know what the answer is for you to go
back and take care of Riverchase itself.
I'm certain that what you're telling me is right, that they followed
the code. And you really can't fault them for working within the
framework with which they've been provided.
So I don't know where we go with Riverchase, but I think, you
know, before you get too carried away that we really need to take a
hard look at the results. Because I think you're going to see this occur
repeatedly across future developments if we don't attend to the details.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I'm afraid that it will occur
again and again if we don't take creative action.
Page 200
January 22, 2013
I just wholeheartedly believe with the neighbors of Riverchase.
You know, Collier County as a whole is known for its beauty. Its
beauty is mostly landscaping. That raises property values, it brings
people down that want to enjoy the beauty, and gets people to buy
homes because they want to live in that beauty. And when you see
something you've enjoyed for 20 years, and it's always been beautiful,
you don't expect it to be taken away from you.
And so I think we need to address this and address this quickly.
And I think we need to somehow make sure that shopping centers that
rip out stuff because it's pulling up ground replace it with like material
so it grows back again, and not cut the whole thing down completely
but, you know, worst areas first so that then some growth starts back
again and then the next areas and the next areas. We don't want that to
happen again. It was a sad thing that happened over there.
I live in East Naples, and landscaping is terribly important to us
because it makes things look a lot nicer. And I went up to take a look
at Riverchase and I was aghast at what happened there. So I'm in total
agreement with you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is it true that they wanted to
replace the trees because it was pulling up the asphalt or cement? Was
that the reason?
MR. BOSI: Therein lies another aspect of our Land
Development Code.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no, no, this one.
MR. BOSI: Oh.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, this one. Did they replace
them because of the asphalt?
MR. BOSI: I don't believe so. I believe that they replaced them
to increase the visibility of their shopping center from the street.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. Well, you know,
Commissioner Fiala, your comment about taking -- removing it
Page 201
January 22, 2013
because it's lifting the asphalt or pavement and then replace it with
like kind plants or the same plant is not solving the problem.
The -- you know, Commissioner Nance's comments were true.
Then you get in parking lots people that don't know how to drive and
you get tree abuse with bumpers and stuff like that. May not be the
proper place for trees. Maybe the perimeter needs be the proper place
where the stormwater is and leave the internal circulation for what it's
made for.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But then it doesn't give you shade to
park under.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, that's the balancing. And
that's what we need the workshop for.
Can we hear our public speakers.
MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am. Your first public speaker is Tom
Graham, and he was ceded three additional minutes from Bob
Krasowski.
He will be followed by Robert Ochs.
MR. GRAHAM: Good afternoon again.
Commissioner Coyle, I'm sorry if I've been repetitious and
redundant.
And Commissioner Nance, with regard to the trees, it's a very
emotional project because I live right around the corner and I've lived
there for many years, and to see such a beautiful parking lot to be
destroyed like that sort of gets your ire up. I'm Irish, and so it has
become a little bit of I guess a personal nature to see what had
happened to all these beautiful trees.
We live in Collier's Reserve. I don't know if anybody's been
there. Some of my other speakers are going to be -- we have over
1,000 oak trees in our development. And Mr. Ochs is going to talk
about that and what it is.
But what needs to be done is when you -- and I waved (sic) this
Page 202
January 22, 2013
earlier. The insubstantial changes, the own policy of the county right
in the first sentence says it's for minor changes.
This cannot be allowed to continue to be followed when you're
having a complete transgression of all the landscaping that was in and
a change of the entire type of landscaping that was present.
When you go throughout Collier County, I ask you as I have
done many a time since this came up, look at all the parking lots.
Look at all of the medians. And I know that Commissioner Nance had
some problems about some of the trees in the medians. But nowhere
until just recently do you see the involvement of bald cypress. Bald
cypress, when you look at all the -- drive around. They're all in the
swamp areas, in the low lands, not in parking lots. And it's only
because now we finally understand that this native tree list had never
been adopted by the county. And that's why. Because prior to Kite
Realty going in, everybody put up nice foliage of oak trees, magnolia
trees, hollies, I mean, all these -- and mahogany trees, which provided
shade.
So what I'm asking is since this was not approved, an approved
list by the county, I would submit that the process was not effectively
approved and that Kite Realty went in and removed trees that were not
approved by the county as proper trees to be put into the parking lots.
The Land Development Code provides for the trees that do have
a canopy. In this particular case the trees do not have a canopy.
And with respect to Mr. Bosi, I ask you -- I think I brought
before you the emails which you should have had in your packet.
When you read this, Mr. Mitchell asks, please review the attached
landscape plan for determination -- I understand this is redundant and
repetitious -- to determine that it satisfies the requirements.
Well, Mr. Sawyer writes back: Thanks for the email. Can be
submitted. Please bring this copy to you.
If you're looking at it just as myself, you would say this has been
pre-approved. I think if you do go into this, if you do change the
Page 203
January 22, 2013
insubstantial change, that one of the things that you require is that the
county people go out and look at the development that's being
changed. Look to see if there's an insubstantial change before they
make an opinion. Because in this particular case I do not think that
occurred.
So if you are going to have a study group on this, I think that
would be a suggest -- one of the recommendations that you go in here,
that they go out and look at the project to see if in fact there's an
insubstantial change.
And also, we had an agreement with the Riverchase people and
that they also check the public records to see if there are any kind of
restrictions that may be on the property that would prevent this from
occurring in the future.
So I just ask that the county, if you do not require Kite to go back
in and replace the trees, that these be incorporated in further changes
that you make to the landscaping plans. Thank you very much.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mike, if it was a substantial
change to the site plan, would that come to the Board of
Commissioners?
MR. BOSI: No, there's no change with --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would there be any public --
MR. BOSI: No, no.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- notices?
MR. BOSI: No, it's simply cost to number of reviewers.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, and --
MR. BOSI: That's why I say it's not a subjective analysis.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. So, you know, the Board
or the public wouldn't have any input --
MR. BOSI: There would be no change in the process other than
the number of reviewers that would look at the plans and the time
associated and the cost associated with the --
Page 204
January 22, 2013
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. BOSI: That's the change.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And that's where I'm stuck
also. And I think these people are stuck as well. Insubstantial in
layman's terms means of little significance. But removal of all those
trees, again in layman's terms, is a huge significance. But you're
talking in terms of your department. So maybe in our workshop we
need to address how -- what is of significance.
MR. BOSI: And I agree with you, Commissioner, but it's back to
Commissioner Henning's point, it would not have changed any
opportunity for public involvement in the process. It's strictly an
administrative process or a Site Development Plan process. It's strictly
administrative. It does not require a public hearing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see. Well, we can do that in the
workshop too --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- talk about if it's a huge change
like that, public input.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I would like to, before we hear the
next speaker, address something which does concern me.
When you were speaking -- and don't respond unless you're
standing at the mic -- you made one thing very clear, and that is that
we have a Land Development Code that does require shade trees, we
have a list that staff relied on that was never approved by the Board.
Obviously the Land Development Code governs since this list was
nonbinding. Since the Board didn't approve it, it's not anything that
staff can say we relied on this to make the determination. Sure, they
can say it, but it's as good as any other list. It could have been any
other document that had a list of trees on it.
So I do have a concern with respect to Riverchase specifically,
that the requirement in the code that there be canopy trees isn't
Page 205
January 22, 2013
satisfied with certain trees that have been installed in that project.
And I think that is something that we have to go back and look into.
We have had numerous meetings between the developer and the
residents and staff and the County Attorney's Office. And I don't feel
that based on what I'm hearing today that we have the right outcome.
MR. BOSI: And just let me clarify the record. That list is
referenced by the Land Development Code. That is the only list that
would exist in terms of trees that you could select from.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: How is it referenced in the Land
Development Code?
MR. BOSI: It's spec --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But again, if the Land Development
Code says canopy trees and here's a list, very clearly a bald cypress is
not a canopy tree.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let me explain this to you
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- why this happened. It gives
the professionals an opportunity to add and delete to this list. Very
simple.
And furthermore, the code provides as far as if you need to
provide a canopy tree, you can cluster trees such as --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- slash pine or -- yeah. And
that would be considered a canopy tree. That was all approved by the
Board of Commissioners.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So the issue is again, the definition
of canopy and what constitutes a canopy. It could be a cluster, it
could be an individual tree. Again --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the Board approved that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right. And so again, the issue
seems to me that with respect to the approval of the Riverchase plan
Page 206
January 22, 2013
the problem we have is that staff approved what doesn't seem to
constitute a canopy of any sort. I mean, the bald cypress is standing
individually, you know, at a very substantial distance apart wouldn't
create a canopy. So I think --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could we have this discussion at
the workshop?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, I think this -- because this
matter needs to be resolved with respect to Riverchase, because this is
about Riverchase.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think the matter's been resolved
about Riverchase.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Has it?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's done.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I don't think so.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We have no legal way of going
back and enforcing them that it's anything different.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'm not sure, because I think the
problem we have -- I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. I don't -- I
think we do have the ability to resolve this matter. If staff incorrectly
approved a landscape plan that does not provide for a canopy, then it's
not correctly approved by the Board -- I mean by the staff. And staff
has to go back and look at the plan and provide what code requires.
Commissioner Coyle, did you want to --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, no, I don't need to say anything
other than I think all these are good points to bring up at a workshop.
But the issue right now is did the staff do anything improper with
respect to this approval of what they think is an insubstantial change?
And my position is no, they did not do anything improper. We might
have to do something with the Land Development Code if we don't
want it to happen again, but it's happened, and we don't want it to
happen again.
Page 207
January 22, 2013
So let's have the workshop, let's change the LDC, but there's no
legal basis for determining that the staff inappropriately approved this
change.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It would seem, and I -- you know, I
hate to disagree with you on this, but just based on what was presented
here today -- and this is about Riverchase, this is the history of how
we got here -- it would seem to me that there is a problem with what
staff approved. Because if the Land Development Code provided for
a canopy, and maybe -- why don't you put the wording from the code
up on the overhead.
I mean, if the Land Development Code said it was supposed to be
canopy trees in that area and staff approved something other than that,
then obviously it doesn't apply.
Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: No, Commissioner Hiller, I think
you're confused. A canopy tree is defined as a tree that develops a
large canopy. It doesn't suggest a planting that achieves a result.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, that was what Commissioner
Henning said, a cluster could be a -- like a cluster of skinny trees --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, indeed, Ms. Chair, a cypress
tree can achieve 100 feet and 40 feet in width. It can be a gorgeous,
big, beautiful tree. But if-- what I'm hearing is a number of different
things.
I don't believe that staff did anything wrong. I don't think there's
anything wrong with any of these plants. The plant list that Collier
County has used has been focused on native plants because over a
period of time everybody came to understand that that was important
and that's what they wanted to do. Unfortunately the desire to use
native plants may not produce a look in a parking lot that people like.
If you want to fix the situation with Riverchase, I will tell you,
this is what my recommendation is, exactly what Commissioner Coyle
said, have a workshop and decide what to do with that individual
Page 208
January 22, 2013
situation. Give some recommendations.
I'm sure the people at Riverchase want to have an attractive
shopping center. They don't want to have something that looks bad
and people are unhappy with. But I can tell you between now and the
time we have a workshop, it's wintertime, it's dry, it's not raining. Any
plant that you put in there is not going to grow anyway. You're not
going to achieve anything. There's no -- I don't think you should rush
through it.
Why don't you take advantage of a chance to look at the
situation. And I think the Riverchase outcome will be the best if we
just give it a chance and everybody work in the right direction.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, we can't compel the developer
to do anything that is not required by our code.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I understand.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So, you know, if it is required by
the code, they need to correct it. If it isn't required by the code, they
don't.
Can you please put the code up so we can see the wording?
MR. BOSI: Unfortunately I do not have that code section with
me. The requirement is has to be at maturity a 20-foot wide canopy.
That's the requirement for a canopy tree.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And was the requirement that there
be canopy trees?
MR. BOSI: Yes. And it's at maturity, it's not at planting.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And at maturity does a bald cypress
have a 20-foot canopy?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Sure.
MR. BOSI: I would think so.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I don't know, I'm asking. I'm not a
plantologist (sic).
MR. BOSI: I would think so at maturity. But the problem is it
takes a long time to get to that maturity.
Page 209
January 22, 2013
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I'll bet you anything that what was
installed met the code.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I bet it did too.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: But it may not produce the look
that everybody wants.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And what -- if the definition -- if a
canopy tree is required and the definition of a canopy tree is included
in the code to be whatever you said, can we just direct staff to go back
and verify whether the trees selected satisfy that requirement?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me give you another example.
There are a half a dozen, maybe more reasons why you don't want to
plant a live oak under those kinds of conditions. Live oaks grow to
huge proportions. I just cut down two sapling live oaks in my yard
that were volunteer live oaks and they were growing very, very nicely.
I don't want a live oak anywhere near me. They break up concrete
sidewalks, they break up asphalt driveways they -- the roots clog up
your sewage pipes. It's a wonderful tree if you want something that
will grow relatively fast and provide some shade. Once they get up to
something larger, most people want to get them out of there. And it's
purely logical that people will cut those things down and replace them
with something different.
So somebody brought up this issue earlier. Depends on what
you're trying to do. If you want something real, real fast, you get a
fast-growing tree that has a lot of canopy. But that doesn't mean it's
going to meet your needs for 20 years.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, you're absolutely right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're going to have to take them
out some day.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, you're absolutely correct. And
your analysis is right. And there are a lot of developments that have
Page 210
January 22, 2013
had problems with these oaks and have pulled them out. I mean,
Village Walk pulled out I can't tell you how many of them for the
reasons that you explained.
But again, that's not the issue. The issue is, is if a canopy tree
was required, were canopy trees planted. And that's the narrow
question that has to be asked and answered. And if all the code says is
you must plant a canopy tree and define as "X", then that's what they
had to do. And if they did it, they are legally complaint, regardless of
this list.
MR. BOSI: Well, we've confirmed that with our landscape
architects, and they point out that it might not be till 65, 70 years
before that hits maturity, but the bald cypresses will have that required
20-foot spread.
So we can go back and confirm it again. But I think these are all
the discussion points that we would -- as suggested by the Chair that
we would have at this workshop to say what is appropriate for the
community needs as well as all the other factors that go into it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And a canopy in 70 years, you
know, whether or not that satisfies the definition of canopy for now is
also up for discussion.
So I think the motion that we have on the table right now is that
we have a workshop on this to address it and we have one more
speaker.
MR. MILLER: Two more, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'm sorry two more speakers. Let's
let the two speakers -- I'm going to second Commissioner Nance's
motion to have a workshop. And I'm going to allow the two more
speakers and then we'll go ahead and take the vote.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Robert Ochs. He'll be
followed by your final speaker, Joan Ricci.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Board
members. I want to also thank you for your vigorous oversight on this
Page 211
January 22, 2013
issue.
I will finish my 5:00. I know you want to adjourn at that time. I
do have six minutes, but I have just two points to make and one I think
is very appropriate to your comments from several of the
Commissioners and the responses, and it's a letter from Ellen Goetz
who reviewed the current landscape situation at Riverchase, and wrote
her opinion on it. I want to enter this into the record. I've got a copy
for each of the Commissioners, if it won't be otherwise provided. So
I'll leave those to add to your packet, I hope.
For edification, of course, Ms. Goetz is perhaps the premiere
botanist and landscape architect in Southwest Florida. She's also the
oversight architect for Collier's Reserve and has been since the early
2000's. As a result, of course her opinion is going to carry great
weight and credibility in any form.
So I think it's important that at least I read a portion of her expert
opinion. I know you can read yourself. But I think it's particularly
appropriate in light of the comments, discussions here today.
And I quote in part: In my opinion, the use of slash pines and
bald cypress as selected in the parking lot are inappropriate choices for
providing shade around the perimeter of the lot. The cypress tree is
deciduous during the fall and winter months and has no foliage. The
slash pine will not have a full canopy but a traditional canopy tree
such as the live oaks that were removed. The parking area will never
have the character of a shady shopping environment that was the
original vision for the center that these trees represent.
Okay. My other point is with respect to Commissioners Nance --
Nance's comments at our last meeting of January 8th and his
comments of course here today regarding his concerns about the
public safety of tall trees around public thoroughfares and walkways.
These concerns are legitimate and they deserve our respect.
However, as Tom Graham said, we have maybe 1,000 live oaks in
Collier's Reserve. Many planted, many natives. I've been there 15
Page 212
January 22, 2013
years, through two hurricanes, two severe hurricanes. The last one I
think it was Charley, I can't remember the names precisely, but we had
winds that came through Collier's Reserve that uprooted pool cages
and blew them over people's roofs. So they were substantial.
Not one oak tree was ever blown down in these hurricanes. We
did lose shallow rooted trees all over of course Collier County, but no
live oaks. So, you know, it's hard to understand how a live oak really
is going to be a danger. Whether Commissioner Coyle likes them or
not, they're not a public danger. And they are planted throughout the
county and of course contribute to the vision.
What the association is asking the Board to do, much along
Chairman Hiller's remarks, is to preserve the native and natural
plantings of Southwest Florida. That's what we're after. This happens
to be Riverchase. And this may be the first example that you're going
to encounter of the so-called inconsequential and insubstantial changes
at our shopping centers. But the result is going to be a system failure.
It's going to be a system failure for the whole county, not just for us.
And that the efforts at Riverchase -- it wasn't because any tree was
uprooting any concrete in that shopping center. The 15 years, you
know, I've been there hundreds of times. That wasn't the reason. The
reason was to increase the visibility, which I think was the opinion of
the county. So it had nothing at all to do with whether or not the
foliage was appropriate or whether that was endangering anybody or
that it was physically impairing any parking or any thruways.
Today as we speak we've had the bald cypress inspected that are
installed at Riverchase. Since July I believe they went in, most of
them are dead. So that's the look that we've got. And that's the look
that the county -- I think the Board has to consider in the long term.
And I appreciate your efforts.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, forgive me, I did not realize that
Ms. Ricci had ceded her time to Mr. Ochs, so that is your final
speaker.
Page 213
January 22, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Is there any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There being no further --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, yes, yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'm sorry, go ahead, Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Does anybody know the canopy
trees per the Land Development Code shall be a part of the
landscaping within the parking lots?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's what -- I wanted them to
produce the section of the code that applied and they didn't have a
copy of it. So I don't have the wording here to be able to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, I was doing a quick
review and I couldn't see where it says canopy trees. But, yeah.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And maybe that's something we
could have the County Attorney --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I got interrupted in my thoughts.
I thought I was being attacked by a mugger or something.
Why are we having a workshop? Are we having a workshop to
change the Land -- give direction to change the Land Development
Code or are we getting information what is in the Land Development
Code?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I think it should be both.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, now --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And again, this would be one
agenda item.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Hang on. Okay, since you
answered the question, are we trying to determine whether Riverchase
and staff complied to the code? Because that could be done through
an email.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That should be done by the County
Attorney.
Page 214
January 22, 2013
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it could be sent to the
County Attorney, but the bottom line is the planning director is the
one that does the interpretation of the code. And that's you right now,
right?
So, you know, again, I looked at it quickly and I couldn't see
where it required a canopy tree.
Okay, well, I'll support the motion but, you know, I don't think
staff did anything wrong. Commissioner Coyle is exactly right, they
did -- they're doing their job.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Jeff, do you have any comments?
MR. KLATZKOW: Mike, are you allowed to take out a tree
without a permit in a shopping center?
MR. BOSI: No, you actually need to have a tree removal permit.
The tree removal permit has criteria for it.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. So you issued all the permits for
them to take out the trees?
MR. BOSI: The SDP is the permit for the mass redevelopment
of the landscape plan for a shopping certainty. A tree removal permit
was done so the property owner would not have to go through the
elaborate cost and time associated with an insubstantial change or an
amendment. We created the tree removal permit and it limits the
number of trees that could be removed through that permit because of
the expediency of those tree removal permits or how quickly they are
provided and the low cost associated with them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me point out that Mike
Sawyer is a landscaping planner. I mean, that's his forte.
MR. BOSI: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, so --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know where we're going. I mean,
the developer did what staff told him he could do. And you can't put
them back.
Page 215
January 22, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The only issue is whether or not
staff approved the correct thing. And can you evaluate that and make
a determination whether in your opinion according to the, you know,
code per --
MR. KLATZKOW: You know, if I get direction from the Board
I can review staffs decision. But I've got to tell you, I don't know
what purpose it serves. You can't put the trees back. If they're
replaced by canopy trees, that's all you can do.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: But that's the question, whether or
not they were replaced by canopy trees.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. So first of all, I don't think
staff did anything wrong, they did what they were requested to do,
they did whatever they did according to what rules we have in place. I
think the developer was trying to meet his tenants wishes. But in the
end what he did was destroy the ambience.
And I think there's got to be some way to work with this
developer to not replace them with skinny trees that have no leaves in
wintertime but actually replace them, plant new trees that will develop
a beautiful canopy, not in 20 years but in five years so that we can
bring that shopping center back to the beauty it was once -- that it
once had.
MR. BOSI: Well, as I had indicated, this developer has agreed to
add 27 additional oaks above minimum code requirement, based upon
the community's --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But he took out 127, right?
MR. BOSI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And how many has he put
back?
MR. BOSI: The required code requirement.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which is?
MR. BOSI: From the list of species on that native plant per the
Page 216
1
January 22, 2013
code requirement, he has met the requirements that we -- the bar that
we've set with our Land Development Code.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to like throw
a dart or anything. What I just meant is if he took out 127 live oaks,
and that's just live oaks, and he replaced them with four and then he
agreed to put in another 27, that doesn't in any way cover all of their
loss, and that doesn't even count the other trees that were also
removed.
MR. BOSI: And one of the things that Mike Sawyer has stated to
me a number of times is they met minimum code. He wouldn't have
chosen the species that were chosen, but based upon a list of approved
species they were within the code right. So this is a matter of
preference what we're discussing right now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. And you're right, it is a
matter of-- that's what we'll discuss at our workshop.
But the thing is we still have to try and do whatever we can to
make these people whole with their concerns. And by the way, other
shopping centers that might have some same occurrence before we
can get together and decide that.
So I think not only do we need to plan a workshop but we need to
plan what we're going to do to make this right.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Nance?
MR. OCHS: Madam Chairman, could I just say one thing?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Let Commissioner Nance speak
first, and then --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: The plant list that you displayed,
Mr. Bosi, anything that was on that plant list that's listed as a large tree
is considered a canopy tree by the University of Florida, any
landscape architect or anybody that would be working on the code.
If you go down that list, and we'll do it at the workshop. If you
go down this list, I can tell you that half of the trees that are qualified
as large trees are deciduous trees, which means they don't have any
Page 217
January 22, 2013
leaves in the winter. Others of them have particular problems.
Commissioner Coyle shared problems that he's had. You can go right
down the list: Red Maple, it's not a plant that does well in Florida, it's
dormant. Royal palm drops leaves that weigh 50, 60 pounds on your
head. Sea grape has leaves the size of a paper plate and they all drop
right in the middle of season.
So, I mean, you can go down here and you can figure out a
reason why this is a very bad list, but these are what these folks are
contending with. And this is what we're asking them to use. So, you
know, it's hard for me to go back and criticize somebody that goes
back in that's trying to have a retail center and is trying to meet the
requirements and we beat them up because we don't like the choices. I
think, you know, we can give them some better options and hopefully,
you know, when they replant Riverchase it will have a nice look and
10 years from now we won't be faced with the same problem,
somebody's going to go and say who planted 500 oak trees in that
shopping center, that's absolutely ridiculous. So, you know, we don't
want to make the same mistake.
I look forward to the workshop and I'll help in any way I can.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's mine.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Oh, I'm sorry.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You want -- one last comment. But
just really short.
MR. OCHS: We've attempted to work with Kite, and we haven't
had any cooperation from them to any extent. We would not insist
upon replacing live oaks with live oaks, but there are other trees on
that list that are -- that would be acceptable. Magnolia for example is
one. But it would have to be a green tree. Okay, that's what they took
out. So we've got some flexibility there. But they've shown no
flexibility whatsoever in --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And here's the bottom line, and this
was kind of how it all started. And then I'm going to call the vote. If
Page 218
January 22, 2013
they complied with the law and they had choices and exercised their
choices within the parameters of the law, then they haven't done
anything wrong. If staff improperly approved them, then there's an
issue there.
So as of right now I personally don't have all the facts to be able
to come to a conclusion. And we have to look at this further. And I'm
going to suggest the County Attorney review this case one more time
to make sure that staff has done everything correctly, that the code
was complied with by Kite. And then beyond that, it has to become a
private matter. It will have to go to, you know, whatever type of
negotiated settlement between you and Kite directly, because the
Board will not be in a position to get involved once the County
Attorney makes a determination that everything was done correctly
both by staff and by the developer.
So I am going to call the question with respect to the motion to
have a workshop, and then I'm going to ask for a consensus that we
direct the County Attorney just to confirm that everything was done
correctly so we know whether or not we can remove ourselves from
this discussion and allow the parties privately to try to negotiate a
settlement.
With that I'll call the question. All in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And then County Attorney, would
you be willing to just look into everything and give us confirmation --
MR. KLATZKOW: I'll treat this as an O.I. And I'll get an
opinion from staff and we'll review it and then we'll get our findings to
Page 219
January 22, 2013
the Board.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I would appreciate that.
Would that be acceptable to the Board?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Is that acceptable to the residents?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: O.I., official interpretation.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We're going to ask for an official
interpretation.
MR. GRAHAM: Yes, ma'am, if we could be furnished with a
copy of it --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes.
MR. GRAHAM: -- and a chance to --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: To comment?
MR. GRAHAM: -- for comment.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We will. We'll bring the official
inter --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's not going to go away.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, we'll make the -- the official
interpretation will be presented to the Board and you'll have the
opportunity to make public comment.
MR. GRAHAM: Thank you very much.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The next item?
Item #11I
RECOMMENDATION TO ESTABLISH A TRANSIT ADVISORY
COMMITTEE — MOTION TO BRING BACK AN ORDINANCE
WITH A SUNSET PROVISION AND TO ADD A SCHOOL
DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, we have a gentleman in the front
row that's been waiting on this item. It's 11 --
Page 220
January 22, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes. And in fact, I'd like to bring
those two items as companion items. I'd like E and I to come forward
at the same time.
E is the bus shelter design and I is Commissioner Henning's
recommendation to establish a transit advisory committee.
MR. OCHS: May we take the transit advisory first.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Absolutely.
MR. OCHS: Let's go to 11 .1. It was previously 16.D.7 on the
consent agenda. It was a recommendation to establish a transit
advisory committee. This item was moved at Commissioner
Henning's request.
So sir, we're available to answer your questions or provide
presentation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, thank you.
You know, we're always concerned about staffs time being
productive. Through the MPO we have citizens advisory board.
Would it be more appropriate to incorporate the transit issues with that
board instead of creating another board?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, if I could respond. Because it
was one of-- the transit advisory committee was something that I was
very supportive of. And we had talked about it at the MPO. There are
-- it very well could be. But I think that transit needs its own voice.
There have been a lot of problems with the operation of the system. It
hasn't been optimal. And I think if there was either, you know, a
formalized sub-committee within that citizens committee that
addresses transit or if we created a board, as was suggested, somehow
we need to formalize the input from the community because we're not
being responsive to their needs because we're not hearing them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Yeah, sub-committee I
think would be more appropriate.
MS. ARNOLD: Well, can I offer -- for the record, Michele
Arnold, Alternate Translation Modes Director.
Page 221
January 22, 2013
The MPO functions more on a long-range basis. And I believe
many of the issues that this committee can address are day-to-day
operations for efficiency and those types of things. And --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But ever since you took this
over it's been really efficient. And it's gotten better and better every
day that I see a bus that's more efficient since you've taken it over.
MS. ARNOLD: I appreciate the compliment. But I think that
this advisory board would be beneficial to the transit system to get
input from the riders and those that are affected by the system. But it's
whatever the pleasure of the Board is.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree with you, Michele. I know
on the local coordinating board for the transportation disadvantaged,
we do have people who actually use the system or are custodians of
people who use the system. And we appreciate their input; otherwise
we really wouldn't know what's affecting them. I don't know how
many in here ever rode a bus or have used a bus to get from one place
to another. I've never made -- I've ridden a bus but only as an
experiment, not as a form of transportation to get from one place to
another, nor have I transferred from one bus to another. And I think it
would be a good idea to hear from the public at a transportation
authority.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, Michelle, I'd just like to say I
support this. And if you do set up an advisory committee, I hope you
will include some of the people from the outlying areas of the county
that have an extraordinarily different situation with transit. Because
they're not typical transit riders. In other words, they're not from an
urban area where you have a lot of passengers or whatnot. But they
have long-distance hauls that a couple -- you know, a couple runs a
day could really be a changer. For example, places like Everglades
Page 222
January 22, 2013
City who constantly feel like they're out in the provinces, because
they're out in the provinces. But they could use our help. So I hope
you consider some of those things.
MS. ARNOLD: Absolutely.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I would like to make one
suggestion. I think Commissioner Henning makes a very good point.
It is taxing on staffs time when we have so many advisory boards.
And I think we as a Board need to go back and look at how many
advisory boards we have and really what function they're serving.
Could we modify this recommendation to create this transit
advisory board committee but have it sunset in 12 months? We can
always reestablish it. But that way we have 12 months that we have a
committee of citizens that work hard to make the system better, start
moving forward on the implementation, and then, you know, if we
feel the need to continue it we, you know, set it out for another year.
But if we have sunsets then I think it gives everyone an agenda, a
period of time to work in and get things done.
MS. ARNOLD: Sure. We're going to have to bring the
ordinance back to you at a future meeting, probably the second one in
February, so that will be --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So if you could incorporate that
recommendation, if it's the will of the Board.
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And we have a public speaker.
MR. MILLER: Yes, your public speaker is John DeMarco.
MR. DeMARCO: Straight ahead here?
MR. MILLER: Yes, and slightly to your right. Right there.
MR. DeMARCO: Good afternoon, Madam Chairman and
Board.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Good afternoon.
MR. DeMARCO: I spoke here once before. My name's John
DeMarco, I'm a Naples resident. And I think as last time I stated, I use
Page 223
January 22, 2013
the bus nonstop. It's my sole means of transportation for school,
education, shopping and everything else I do here in the Naples area.
And I do travel to Fort Myers to the Department of Blind Services to
that area too for the Creekside.
I really want the Board to get on the ground and as you said, I
think it's a great idea that we sunset it, we give it a good year. Because
I think that there's so much improvement that a rider like myself could
suggest to Ms. Elliott. And I -- you know, what we need done, things
that we need done. She's sitting in the office, the driver's driving the
bus, they're paying attention, they're looking straight ahead. But I'm
the one getting off the bus and I'm figuring, well, do I get off on the
little grassy spot or is a bench missing?
So I could bring these suggestions back. I could be in the field.
And that's what I think's important, that she could relate to somebody
that is using the system every day and what the things are maybe we
could improve on.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Absolutely.
MR. DeMARCO: And there's so many more things we could
improve on.
Actually, in riding the bus lately I've asked tourists, you know
our tourist season's coming up, I'm talking to a few people that are
tourists that are riding the bus. If we had a stop on Fifth Avenue and
we made it known to the passengers that they could take a bus to the
Mercado, the 1-B, and they could shop for the afternoon and they
could return on the bus at 6:20 at night back to Fifth Avenue, that
would even increase our transportation for the public.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yep.
MR. DeMARCO: And would increase revenue for the bus. And
that's what our main objective was here when we got started with it,
let's get that system to pay for itself, let's get it to be a charming thing
in Naples. We have a trolley that runs around here that charges $25 to
take people all over town and have a man on a microphone explain to
Page 224
January 22, 2013
them where we're at. We also have a new bus system, the Joe Bus,
that takes people on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights from the
Mercado to Third to Fifth Avenue, which is a crowded bus, I've even
taken that bus. We have a lot of opportunities to take a lot of our
tourists, a lot of the industry that's here and introduce them to the CAT
bus system. And I think that's one of our objectives we could do to
increase riding and revenue for the system. And I thank you kindly.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, thank you very --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- much for taking the time to come.
My mother was blind and she never had a driver's license. She took
the bus everywhere.
MR. DeMARCO: There you go.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And, I mean, she was -- yeah. And
it works. It really works well.
MR. DeMARCO: It's a handy thing.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: It is.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, very well said, sir.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I appreciate hearing from you.
Also, I hope that the school system would be represented on that
Board, because they might have some needs.
And I have to tell you a personal story. You just keep smiling,
girl, because you deserve the credit. I was notified by some friends of
an issue with Lely High School, kids that want to stay after school and
participate in some of these work programs -- or rather not work
programs, but the after school programs. Healthy things for kids to do,
rather than sitting around home in front of a television set.
The problem is that with no car they couldn't get back home and
there was no bus service. So I contacted my buddy over here, Gail
Nance, and we worked together, we got ahold of you, we all worked
Page 225
January 22, 2013
together, and now there's going to be a bus pickup once a day after
5:00 to bring some of those kids back. Only five days a week and only
one stop, but that's enough to allow these kids to participate in
after-school activities. And I really want to thank you for all your
help.
And Gail, you too.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: With sunsetting provisions in --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- the ordinance brought back.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And adding a representative from
the school district?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes. I mean, those are considerations, yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I seconded it.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can we go to 12.A? It's on the
same page.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We have the —
Item #1 1 E
RECOMMENDATION TO REVIEW AND APPROVE
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE 2012 BUS SHELTER
DESIGN REPORT FOR THE COLLIER AREA TRANSIT BUS
Page 226
January 22, 2013
SHELTER — APPROVED; TO BE PRESENTED TO TAC WHEN
A DESIGN REPORT IS ESTABLISHED
MR. OCHS: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- bus shelter.
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, the shelter study. I have a presentation,
but I can go through this very quickly.
We did do a study which incorporated a survey of our clients, our
passengers. We also looked at other agencies and what they were
doing, as well as looked at various materials that we would evaluate.
But the purpose behind the study is to provide additional
protection to the public. Our current bus shelter is very attractive and
it went from a process where the community made that selection, and
we want to continue in that style but we want to be able to add some
components like sides, backs and a larger roof and that type of thing.
And the study that we -- or the survey that we did with our riders,
everybody was -- a large majority was in favor of adding sides to the
shelter to protect them from the elements, and a larger roof if we can
accommodate that in our existing right-of-way.
Staffs recommendation is to move towards that direction and
have two styles of shelter: Our existing size plus a larger size. Both
would have sides as well as backs. We are recommending -- there are
two different types of materials to be used for the backs, perforated
metal because it allows the shelters to breathe, and we're also
recommending tempered glass for the side so that it provides visibility
for the public as well as the bus drivers to see the passengers waiting
for them.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Great.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. So first of all you're going to
be elongating the roof; is that correct?
MS. ARNOLD: We're going to be widening the roof And it's
Page 227
January 22, 2013
going to be increasing about 18 square feet. Our current square
footage under -- for our shelter is -- where did I put that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, that's all I wanted to know.
So would that extension then protect them from some of the
weather so that we could save the money from the sides and put more
shelters in, rather than so many that are still just a pole someplace? I
think we need to get so many more shelters in and build them with a
longer roof to provide some protection.
MS. ARNOLD: Well, I think the sides are going to help with the
protection. Because as you know when we have rain here in south
Florida, the rain just doesn't come down, it kind of comes at a diagonal
sometimes, and that --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Most everybody that's walking to a
bus stop already has an umbrella is what I'm thinking. But I'm
thinking I'd like to get more shelters in and maybe with a longer roof,
because that would provide some help. But everybody that walks in
there has an umbrella anyway if it's raining.
MS. ARNOLD: What our analysis showed that would help
extend our dollars would be to move from a custom shelter. Right
now our shelter is custom where the roof actually is costing us more
than a stock roof. And we could accommodate the same style, you
know, the courthouse style that we currently have with a stock roof.
And then the components, the structure would also be the same. That
would save us enough dollars, including adding sides, to provide
additional protection and still have the same look that we currently
have. And so that is what we're proposing is to at least evaluate the
cost.
We do have a little table in here that kind of gives you some cost
components that would help.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I just was hoping that you don't
replace everything, because the ones that we have are just so nice.
MS. ARNOLD: Oh, no, no, no --
Page 228
January 22, 2013
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And they carry on an ambiance in
our community I think that's remarkable. And once you start putting
like these pictures in here, I didn't care for those things at all. It looks
like you're in some big city other than a delightful community that has
not only ambience but landscaping -- I'm sorry you didn't like that.
And so why not experiment with a few of them to see if they're
going to work?
MS. ARNOLD: And the pictures are only shown to show you
that these shelters had sides on them. They're not shown to say that's
what is we're wanting to incorporate. And I think the Chairwoman
wants to say something.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I do, I do.
I think we should not be engaging in this discussion. We just
created an advisory board. And I'm going to make a motion that we
take this design report and ask staff to present it to the advisory board,
let them comment and review it and then bring it back with their
recommendations and input after they have given us feedback.
Because that's why we created this board, so we could actually get a
perspective from the user.
So I'd like to make a motion that we defer approving this, to
allow them to review it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's going to deferred for quite a
long time because the ordinance needs to come back, you have two
readings, and then we need to appoint that board. So --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So that would be a month. I mean,
we haven't --
MS. ARNOLD: No, that would be longer than a month.
But I'd like for the Board at least to approve the study, at least
what staff has done. And what we'd like to do is at least start working
towards a design, not to make a formal recommendation --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion for approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
Page 229
January 22, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, I have one comment.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes. Michele, before you get in a
tempered glass, have your group look at Lexan polycarbonate. It's
cheaper, it's safer, it lasts longer. If it blows away in a storm you can
go get some more. It's a wonderful by-product of our space program.
Should replace all tempered glass.
MS. ARNOLD: Okay. That's Lexan poly --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Polycarbonate. Lexan.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There being no further discussion,
all in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #1 1 F
RECOMMENDATION TO REVIEW GROWTH MANAGEMENT
DIVISION'S (GMD) PROGRESS ON IMPLEMENTING AN
ELECTRONIC PLAN SUBMITTAL AND DIGITAL PLAN
REVIEW SYSTEM AND FURTHER; TO AUTHORIZE ONE
ADDITIONAL FULL TIME EMPLOYEE (FTE) TO MANAGE
THE SYSTEM — MOTION TO CONTINUE TO A FUTURE
MEETING — APPROVED
Page 230
January 22, 2013
Item #11G
RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT THE 2012 COUNTYWIDE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING INVENTORY REPORT — MOTION
TO CONTINUE TO A FUTURE MEETING — APPROVED
The County Manager has suggested that we continue F and G.
I'm going to make a motion to continue F and G.
MR. OCHS: To the next meeting?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: To whatever meeting the County
Manager deems appropriate.
Can I have a second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries.
The next item is the County Attorney's —
Item #12A
RECOMMENDATION THE BOARD APPROVE AND
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN A SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT AND CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT WITH
IAN MITCHELL — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am, it was 16.K.3. It is now 12.A. It's a
Page 231
January 22, 2013
recommendation that the Board approve and authorize the Chairman
to sign a Settlement Agreement and a Confidentiality Agreement with
Ian Mitchell.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who pulled this?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I did.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner Nance.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Mr. County Attorney and Mr.
Ochs, it's come to my attention on two pieces of correspondence, one
of which before I was in your service and one about a week ago, that
seems to indicate there is a possible litigation by a staff member from
the Board of County Commission staff.
And I'm raising the question, and the inquiry is if we make a
settlement with Mr. Mitchell and we subsequently get engaged in
additional litigation, it seems like Ms. Prieto here, am I correct in
assuming that she was dismissed by Mr. Mitchell?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, she was. But the County Attorney's
Office and Human Resources both worked on that decision, so it
wasn't Mr. Mitchell doing it on his own.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: So it's unlikely that if this litigation
were to come -- were to involve the county, Mr. Mitchell wouldn't
have an integral part of coming to grips with it?
MR. KLATZKOW: If there's litigation, and if Mr. Mitchell is
subpoenaed I will (sic) tell the truth in this and it won't matter whether
or not the settlement agreement is approved. I think they're two
separate issues.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay, I just wanted to bring it
before the Board for everybody's consideration. If this is going to get
deeper, I don't want to take action now that's going to prevent us from
MR. KLATZKOW: No, that --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: -- any other resolution.
MR. KLATZKOW: There's nothing deep about this.
Page 232
January 22, 2013
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: There's nothing hidden about this.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: All right. Well, I was just rather
surprised by it, so I just thought perhaps we should discuss it. And
since I suggested the settlement, I wanted to make sure.
MR. KLATZKOW: I think a settlement is in the best interest of
the county.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: All right, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What number is this again? I'm
sorry.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 16.K.3.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Under the County Attorney --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: There being no further discussion,
all in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that takes you to staff and
Page 233
January 22, 2013
commission general communications.
I have nothing to share with the Board this afternoon, ma'am.
MR. KLATZKOW: I have something very quick.
Commissioner Nance and I participated in a settlement
conference on the Hussey (sic) per Board direction, and I thought
great progress was made.
The proposed agreement that came out of that has been sent to
staff for their vetting. And I'm very, very hopeful that we'll have
something for the Board at the next meeting.
I'd like to announce a shade session, just in case we need a shade
session for this. And therefore notice is hereby given pursuant to
Section 286.011, Florida Statutes, that the County Attorney desires
advice from the Board of County Commissioners (sic) a closed
attorney/client session on Thursday -- Tuesday, February 12th, 2013.
The session will be held at a time certain at 12:00 noon in the
Commission's office conference room, third floor of this building.
In addition to the Board members, County Manager Leo Ochs
and myself will be in attendance and the Board in closed session will
discuss the settlement negotiations in the case of Hussey versus
Collier County. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Jeff, could you separately also
address the question of the policy on anonymous complaints to code
enforcement?
MR. KLATZKOW: My understanding is that the Board had that
discussion. We reviewed the transcript at the time, and I did not see
that a motion was made. So that I do not believe there was any
definitive Board direction on that.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Could you develop a policy and
present it to the Board for approval so there is clarification?
MR. KLATZKOW: Working with the County Manager, I'd be
happy to.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: If you could.
Page 234
January 22, 2013
Could you do that together?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you.
And that would be to provide for anonymous complaints to code
enforcement.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. And I assume the same would hold
true for DAS?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Same standard for everyone.
Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, Mr. Klatzkow, just an
inquiry. I know that you've been engaged in the settlement business
going forward. Are we in a position with the Blocker issue in
Immokalee to proceed forward with another shade session?
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't think one is necessary at this time. If
I get something back from the Blockers that's close to Board direction,
I'll just bring it back to the Board as a regular agenda item. And I'll
discuss it with you beforehand.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: Oftentimes what I'll do is I'll bring a
settlement, and if there's a Commissioner who wants a shade session,
we'll just announce a shade session and we'll do it the following week.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I mean, the alternative is, is we
could announce the shade session now and then just not do it if there's
no reason to move forward with it --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: How much notice do you need on
those?
MR. KLATZKOW: One meeting.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: One meeting, two weeks.
Page 235
January 22, 2013
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, two weeks.
I really don't have a statutory basis to ask for a shade session at
this time.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Okay, that's fine.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Absolutely nothing.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Awesome.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I move we adjourn.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'll second that. But not til I hear
from Commissioner Fiala --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- Commissioner Henning and
Commissioner Nance.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to -- what do I have to
do to go about reconsidering my vote? It won't make any difference
in the final outcome, but I just --
MR. KLATZKOW: You can do it right now if you want.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I voted yes for the bathrooms
as they were. And I don't feel comfortable about that. I want to vote
no on that. It still won't change anything, but I feel better voting a no
on that.
MR. KLATZKOW: Do you want it to be reconsidered?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. No, I just want you to --
MR. KLATZKOW: You want to change the vote.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- register my vote. Yeah, as a --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I make a motion we reconsider it
so Commissioner Fiala can change --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We don't have to reconsider it.
MR. KLATZKOW: You can just agree that she can change her
vote.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We can just --
Page 236
January 22, 2013
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you anyway.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We can just agree that she can
change her vote.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I just felt uncomfortable
about that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I'm not going to agree.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Commissioner Coyle, you've done
so well today now, we've had so many 5-0 votes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm falling apart now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that's all.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So let the record reflect that
Commissioner Fiala has changed her vote from yes to no with respect
to the Vanderbilt Beach bathrooms.
Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: No other comments, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, I have three things.
Since we have given direction for settlement in other cases and
had outside counsel and said that we don't need that outside counsel,
wouldn't that be -- shouldn't we be doing that on other issues of
settlement?
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sure. What do you have in mind?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, do we have outside
counsel for the Hussey --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, we do. For trial purposes. But I don't
think we're getting there, so I'm trying to save some money by keeping
them --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Well, shouldn't we do the
same thing with the Blockers?
MR. KLATZKOW: We have outside counsel for trial purposes.
But generally I try to do settlement in-house to keep the litigation
Page 237
January 22, 2013
expenses down.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So your staff is doing those
settlement negotiations.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, primarily.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well --
MR. KLATZKOW: Like 95 percent of it, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon me?
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm keeping outside counsel informed, but
we're the ones primarily doing settlement discussions.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Why would we be keeping outside
counsel informed? I mean, I see where you're going. And I really
think that all our settlement negotiations should be done by our
County Attorney, without any involvement whatsoever of outside
counsel.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, if you inform them --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: We shouldn't be paying --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you inform him what we're
doing, he's going to send you a bill for --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- informing him.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Right. I mean, it doesn't --
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, except that there are court deadlines
that are coming up. So you keep -- I've been doing this my whole
legal career. I've always felt that you have one person try to settle a
case, one person fight fiercely, and when you mix the two up it doesn't
work. Because half the time you're thinking about settling it and half
the time you're thinking about litigating it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: It just doesn't work. What I have found
throughout my career is the best way to handle it is to have the
in-house guy try to settle the business decision with the out-house guy
being informed but doing the day-to-day litigation.
Page 238
January 22, 2013
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You need bad guy, good guy.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. Yeah, but in this case we're the good
guy.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, you're the good guy.
My second thing is, it's been reported that lionfish have been
discovered off the coast of Collier County. Now, lionfish in the Keys
have been destroying the habi-- well, the fisheries in the Keys. They're
very venomous fish. They're actually in the Keys. They have hunts.
Need no fishing license or anything like that.
The problem that we have in Collier County -- and by the way,
they can reproduce up to 30 eggs three times in one month -- no,
30,000 eggs three times in one month.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Holy moly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The problem that we have in
Collier County, there is no spearfishing in waters of Collier County.
I want to -- I'm going to work with the County Attorney, I don't
know who else, but send me an email, to get this on the agenda.
Because it's my understanding that we need legislation to also agree
with it.
So let's -- that's one thing I want to get going. But I have one
more thing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I ask a question on that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. They're good eating, too.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Why do you need spearfishing? I
was wondering that when I read it in the paper. I thought that's
interesting and I'm for it, but I didn't know why you needed it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, they're like, you know,
mullet, they're not -- I mean, you can't --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: They're venomous fish.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, and they're venomous and
they're hook and line. The best way to deal with them in the Keys --
well, you can catch them hook and line but the best way to deal with
Page 239
January 22, 2013
them is spearfishing where they give you a kill stick, which is a
three-prong, you know, stick, barb stick that you, you know, just jab
them like that.
But yeah, that's the main reason.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, I would suggest that a great
ally in this discussion on how to deal with these fish is Bryan Fluech,
who's our new director at the University of Florida, who is also the sea
grant agent. He's probably the guy that can hook us all up with
everything we need to do and be our liaison to the regulatory people in
the fisheries industry to get it done. He's probably an expert on them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the Florida Marine
Fisheries is very supportive of that. However, due to our own law and
we need -- and I guess it was approved by the Florida legislators, that's
the two bodies that need to deal with it.
Florida Fish and Wildlife are very, very supportive of it. In fact,
you go to their website and they'll tell you -- I mean, they have a
question and answer and they have, you know, what you should be
doing and they encourage everybody to --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Maybe we just need to create a
new triathlon, we can get rid of pythons, lionfish. Let's pick another
one and we can just have a big festival.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Your other point, Commissioner
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, the other one is the golf
consortium met last Friday. We had -- Commissioner Fiala was there,
Deb White. We had two citizens from Collier County, Bob Krasowski
and a gentleman from Marine Industries Association. Very interested.
The rules are really not set. There's rules of interpretation that
needs to come from the courts and the regulatory agencies. They have
a chart that is not set in stone of the payout, okay, but it's pretty close
to what everybody thinks what it's going to be.
Page 240
January 22, 2013
Another element of-- there was a settlement of Transocean,
about a billion dollars for their participate (sic) in it.
If we use the formula, and we don't know if they're going to use
that criteria or not, Collier County could receive up to a million
dollars.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's great.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There is a pot of money that
probably most of the environmental communities within the State of
Florida is going to help us with and that is develop (sic) a plan that --
it has to be a restoration plan for the State of Florida.
And the environmental community was well represented at that
consortium. And I think they're going to really help assist the
consortium to submit a plan so we can get some funding like it was
stated the State of Louisiana is getting.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Can I make a suggestion? That you
for future meetings actually make that a formal agenda item and report
to us --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- as you're doing now, you know,
with the backup that we can review. And if also staff would create a
web page --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you see, the problem is, is
the meeting was on Monday.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or the meeting was on Friday
after the agenda was printed.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah. And we could incorporate
that as an add-on item. And if staff could help.
Because I think it's really important that it get incorporated in the
general agenda with everyone knowing that it's there. Because
unfortunately under Commissioners' communications a lot gets lost.
People don't take the time to listen or, you know, get too busy at the
Page 241
i
January 22, 2013
end of the day doing other things.
But, you know, we definitely want to make sure that everything
that you and Commissioner Fiala are working on gets properly
incorporated for everyone to see.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
And another thing, we elected an executive committee. Not
executive committee, but officers of it. The disproportional counties
have more representation to that than, you know, southern counties.
And maybe that's the way it should be. They have a larger stake in it.
They've been more involved in it longer than anybody else.
However, there is an executive committee that works with the
directors -- or the officers, more like board of directors. And I know
that Commissioner Fiala is interested in this whole issue.
Now, the executive committee is going to be making decisions
that the regular membership might delegate to them, okay. So it's
important to have representation I think from the southern part of the
counties. And if Commissioner Fiala would like to do that, I think --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Would you like to do that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure, I'd love to.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, a letter of support from
the Board of County Commissioners to the consortium --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Would you like that to go out under
my name?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So why don't you draft it and then
I'll just go ahead and sign it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It would be hard for me to draft
asking for permission for me -- or asking for --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, you just write it in whatever
terms you want and I'll just sign it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And Commissioner Fiala, if you
Page 242
January 22, 2013
would ask --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You can word it the way you want
it worded so you get the appointment appropriately. I'm not quite sure
what to say.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And if you would work with
Commissioner Tammy Hall, maybe get a recommendation from Lee
County?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, all right, fine. That would be
great. That would be great.
And there is also -- you were talking about a website. I'm sure
Commissioner Henning was about to tell you, but there's a website as
well --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Oh, good.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- so you can keep track of what the
Florida Association of Counties is doing.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So maybe what we do is on our
website let's just link to their website and then we don't recreate the
wheel. And if we want to add any comments, you guys can put on
whatever you'd like that you think the public should know
supplementally.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. So anyway --
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Awesome.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is it Doug Darling, the
executor? It comes from DEP, FDEP. Very receptive to everybody's
comments.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Excellent.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm very pleased with the
selection. His selection is executor or executive for the consortium.
But anyways, Commissioner Fiala, am I missing anything?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, you did a great job, and you
didn't even have notes or anything.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I do.
Page 243
January 22, 2013
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh. Shhh, don't tell them anything.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I have my notes from the
meeting.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's great.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Anybody want a copy of-- oh, I
think you have some of these. Yeah, you can have them. Pass them
around.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'll introduce it properly in the
record.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: This looks federal.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's very complicated.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I'll just get it through the record.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And Transocean is not on there
yet.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Once we get the administration on
it, there's going to be like $3.00 left over here, right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no, it's -- yeah, I'll tell you,
within the consortium, the officers, you have some people there --
another thing I should mention, Commissioner Fiala, it was brought
up, see, there's -- the way the counties participate is you have to be a
paid member. And the reason you're putting in monies is to pay for
the staff and outside counsel and stuff like that.
The monies from BP have not come in yet. So there's going to
have to be another payment from the counties to be a part of the
consortium. And one of the suggestions, that we have equal members
paying the same amount, something like $3,100, I think we pay
$1,200. But there's a real concern that the fiscally constraint counties
such as Gulf County or Franklin County may not be able to participate
with that 3,100 or 3,600 or whatever it was.
So we're kind of having to look at that. But anyways, plan on
writing another check, Commissioner Hiller, sign another check in the
future. The counties will be billed.
Page 244
January 22, 2013
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: One suggestion as far as payment
goes, when you have economically disadvantaged counties is you can
do, you know, proportionate based on budget.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Actually, what they --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, they had three of them.
Go ahead. They had three suggestions what we should do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. What they really suggested is
to just put that on hold, because they'll be able to operate with the rest
of the money that comes in. But then when the money does start
flowing in, then those counties could pay them back.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, they did it based upon
population.
There's one other formula besides the straight membership dues.
So anyways, that's all I have.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Sounds great. Great report. Thank
you.
There being no further discussion, we had a motion from
Commissioner Coyle to bring this meeting to a close. We have a
second from Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And with that I'll call the question.
All in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
****Commissioner Fiala moved, seconded by Commissioner Nance
and carried unanimously that the following items under the Consent
Agenda be approved and or adopted with changes****
Page 245
January 22, 2013
Item #16A1
A MODIFICATION TO SUBGRANT AGREEMENT HMGP
1785-027-R BETWEEN THE DIVISION OF EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AND COLLIER COUNTY TO ADD
CONSTRUCTION FUNDING FOR THE LELY AREA
STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (LASIP)
HALDEMAN CREEK STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT
AND LOCK LOUISE WEIR RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT
IN THE AMOUNT OF $452,365 AND ALL NECESSARY
BUDGET AMENDMENTS RECOGNIZING REVENUE FOR THE
PROJECT — REINSTATING AND EXTENDING THE TERMS OF
THE AGREEMENT AND ADDING ADDITIONAL FUNDING
Item #16A2
RESOLUTION 2013-16: A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER
REMOVING COLLIER COUNTY'S INTEREST IN AN EXISTING
DRAINAGE EASEMENT, BEING PART OF TRACT "A" OF 3500
CORPORATE PLAZA, PLAT BOOK 44, PAGES 23 THROUGH
24 OF PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
APPLICATION NO. VAC-PL20120002591 — RELEASING THE
COUNTY FROM ANY POTENTIAL OBLIGATION TO A
PRIVATELY MAINTAINED WATER MANAGEMENT FACILTY
Item #16A3
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
THE QUARRY — CLUB HOUSE-TRACT U (PL-20120000596),
GOLF COURSE AND AMENITIES (PL-2011000013) AND
RELEASE THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS)
IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $14,695.31 AND THE FINAL
Page 246
January 22, 2013
OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $8,000 TO
THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED
AGENT
Item #16A4
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR THE QUARRY BLOCK E RE-PLAT, PHASE 1
(PL-20110000015) AND TO RELEASE UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS) IN THE AMOUNT OF
$5,769.60 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR DEVELOPER'S
DESIGNATED AGENT
Item #16A5
RESOLUTION 2013-17: A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER
VACATING A PORTION OF A 12-FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE &
UTILITY EASEMENT, BEING A PART OF LOTS 30 AND 31,
BLOCK 217 OF GOLDEN GATE UNIT 6, PLAT BOOK 5, PAGES
124 THROUGH 134 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA. APPLICATION VAC-PL20120002673 —
RELATED TO AN EXISTING BUILDING CONSTRUCTED IN
ERROR OVER SAID EASEMENT
Item #16A6
RELEASE OF TWO LIENS WITH A COMBINED VALUE OF
$514,933.41 FOR PAYMENT OF $1,633.41, IN THE CODE
ENFORCEMENT ACTION ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS VS. ALEXANDER AND JOANKA C. DIAZ
DOMINGUEZ, CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NUMBERS
CESD20090015779 AND CEPM20090015776, RELATING TO
Page 247
January 22, 2013
PROPERTY AT 669 99TH AVE N, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA — PROPERTY BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE ON
JULY 20, 2012 BY CITIBANK (THE FORECLOSING LENDER)
Item #16A7
RESOLUTION 2013-18: A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER
VACATING A PORTION OF THE SOUTHERLY 10-FEET OF
AN EXISTING 20-FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOCATED
IN TRACTS D & E, NORTHBROOKE PLAZA, AS RECORDED
IN PLAT BOOK 31, PAGES 65 THROUGH 66, OF THE PUBLIC
RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. APPLICATION
AVPLAT-PL20120002420 — RELATED TO AN EXISTING
BUILDING CONSTRUCTED IN ERROR OVER PART OF THE
EASEMENT
Item #16A8
UPHOLDING THE COUNTY MANAGER'S DECISION TO
DENY THE PROTEST OBJECTION BY AMERA-TECH, INC.
DBA FLORIDA EVERGREEN LANDSCAPE AND LAWNCARE,
INC.; AWARD INVITATION TO BID #13-6002 FOR RADIO
ROAD MSTD MAINTENANCE (SANTA BARBARA & AIRPORT
PULLING ROAD) TO AFFORDABLE LANDSCAPING SERVICE
& DESIGN, LLC; THE CHAIRPERSON TO EXECUTE THE
CONTRACT — AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A9
A PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF THE CITY OF
MARCO ISLAND TO PERMIT THE CITY TO MAINTAIN AN
EXISTING WASTEWATER LINE ON PALM AVENUE IN
Page 248
January 22, 2013
GOODLAND, IN CONNECTION WITH THE TURNOVER OF
PRIVATELY OWNED UTILITY FACILITIES TO THE CITY —
ON PROPERTY OWNED BY PELICAN POINT AT GOODLAND
Item #16A10
RESOLUTION 2013-19: A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER
VACATING THE UNIMPROVED DAVILA STREET RIGHT-OF-
WAY, RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 144, PAGES
634-635, OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 183, PAGE 359, AND
THAT PART OF DAVILA STREET SHOWN ON THE PLAT
OF GREEN HERON ACRES, RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 22,
PAGE 70 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA. ALL BEING PART OF THE BUTTONWOOD
PRESERVE RPUD. APPLICATION VAC-PL20120002180
Item #16A11
ACCEPTING SPECIFIC PAST STAFF CLARIFICATIONS OF
THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC) — PERTAINING TO
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND CORNER LOTS, SC-2009-01 ;
LOT REDUCTION, SC-2000-04; TRANSPORTATION REVIEW
OF SDPI AMENDMENTS, SC-2006-03; WEDDING CAKE
SETBACKS, SC-2006-01; WATERFRONT SETBACKS, SC-2004-
02 AND CUL-DE-SAC SETBACK MEASUREMENT, SC-2007-02
Item #16Al2
AN ADOPTION SCHEDULE FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AND DIRECTING THE COUNTY
MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO DEVELOP A NEW LAND USE
PETITION TYPE TO ADDRESS REDEVELOPMENT IN AN
Page 249
January 22, 2013
EXPEDIENT AND COST EFFICIENT MANNER — AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A13
AGREEMENT #4600002771 WITH SOUTH FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT IN THE AMOUNT OF $75,000 FOR
CONTINUED COLLECTION OF GROUND WATER QUALITY
SAMPLES IN COLLIER COUNTY — A 1-YEAR AGREEMENT
TO SEMI-ANNUALLY MONITOR 45 GROUND WATER SITES
Item #16A14
RELEASE OF LIEN IN THE AMOUNT OF $48,080.57 FOR
PAYMENT OF $530.57, IN CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION
ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS VS.
HERBERT A. SALGAT JR., CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE
NUMBER CESD20100002534, RELATING TO PROPERTY
AT 5941 CEDAR TREE LANE, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA —
FOR THE FINES RELATED TO A DETACHED GARAGE
CONVERTED INTO LIVING SPACE WITHOUT A PERMIT AND
BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE ON JANUARY 4, 2011
Item #16A15
WAIVING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT FEE FOR TWO
EVENTS HELD ANNUALLY BY IMMOKALEE'S CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE AND FURTHER WAIVING FEES FOR AS
LONG AS THE EVENTS ARE HELD. THE EVENTS ARE THE
"COMMUNITY FRIENDSHIP DAY BLOCK PARTY" AND THE
"CHRISTMAS AROUND THE WORLD PARADE AND GALA"
Page 250
1
January 22, 2013
Item #16A16
RECORD THE FINAL PLAT OF LANTANA, (PL20120001529),
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY — DEVELOPER
MUST RECEIVE A CERTIFICATE OF ADEQUATE PUBLIC
FACILITIES PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE CONSTRUCTION
PLAN FINAL APPROVAL LETTER
Item #16B1
CONTRACT #12-5970, IMMOKALEE PAVEMENT OVERLAY
TO AJAX PAVING INDUSTRIES OF FLORIDA, LLC IN THE
AMOUNT OF $225,314.50 AND CHAIRPERSON TO SIGN THE
CONTRACT AFTER REVIEW BY OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY. THIS IS THE FINAL TASK RELATED TO THE
IMMOKALEE DOWNTOWN STORMWATER DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT — FOR 3 STREETS IN DOWNTOWN
IMMOKALEE: BOSTON, DELAWARE AND COLORADO
AVENUE, FROM FIRST TO SOUTH NINTH STREETS
Item #16C1
MODIFYING THE ESTIMATED ANNUAL EXPENDITURE
UNDER BID #12-5902, "SEWAGE HAULING," WITH DIXIE
DRAINFIELDS, INC., AND SOUTHERN SANITATION, INC.
BY $90,000 — PROVIDING SEWAGE HAULING SERVICES
FOR EMERGENCY AND PLANNED SHUTDOWN EVENTS
Item #16C2
Page 251
1
January 22, 2013
BID #12-5955, PURCHASE AND DELIVERY OF CARTRIDGE
FILTERS FOR NORTH AND SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL
WATER TREATMENT PLANTS TO TRI-DIM FILTER
CORPORATION (ESTIMATED ANNUAL EXPENDITURE:
$200,000) — CRITICAL IN REMOVING DEBRIS AND SAND
FOUND IN THE RAW WATER SUPPLY
Item #16C3
BID #12-5951, "COLLIER COUNTY LEACHATE PIPE" IN THE
AMOUNT OF $75,960 TO ANDREW SITE WORK, LLC, TO
INSTALL LEACHATE PIPE AT THE COLLIER COUNTY
LANDFILL PROJECT — FOR UPGRADES TO THE LANDFILL
LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM
Item #16D1
AMENDMENT TO A SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY AND DAVID LAWRENCE CENTER (DLC)
TO OPERATE COLLIER COUNTY'S DRUG COURT PROGRAM
AND A GRANT ADJUSTMENT NOTICE (GAN) TO INITIATE A
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO DRUG COURT GRANT #2010-DC-
BX-0016 TO PAY COLLIER COUNTY FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
COSTS. FISCAL IMPACT: $6,240 — ALLOWING STAFF TO
ADMINISTRATIVELY MODIFY THE BUDGET DETAIL
WORKSHEET AND NARRATIVE USING THE DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE PROGRAM OFFICE APPROVAL PROCESS
Item #16D2
AFTER-THE-FACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR SOUTHWEST
Page 252
January 22, 2013
FLORIDA, INC. D/B/A SENIOR CHOICES OF SOUTHWEST
FLORIDA FOR FY 11/12 TO REFLECT ADDITIONAL GRANT
FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT $10,482 AND CORRESPONDING
UNIT RATE INCREASE FOR THE NUTRITIONAL SERVICES
INCENTIVE PROGRAM (NSIP) AND THE NECESSARY
BUDGET AMENDMENT
Item #16D3
AMENDMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND AREA
AGENCY ON AGING FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. D/B/A
SENIOR CHOICES OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA TO REFLECT A
UNIT RATE INCREASE PER MEAL FROM $0.68 TO $0.72
FOR EACH MEAL SERVED IN THE NUTRITIONAL SERVICES
INCENTIVE PROGRAM (NSIP) FOR FY12/13 — ADDITIONAL
FUNDING CAN BE USED TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF
MEALS SERVED IN THE PROGRAM
Item #16D4
CHANGE ORDER REQUEST FOR A ZERO DOLLAR TIME
EXTENSION FOR CONTRACTOR OAC, INC. TO COMPLETE
THE TIGERTAIL BEACH BOARDWALK REPLACEMENT AND
NEW DUNE WALKOVER PROJECT NO. 183-90093 AND
AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO
EXECUTE THE CHANGE ORDER — EXTENDS COMPLETION
DATE FROM JANUARY 2, 2013 TO FEBRUARY 1, 2013
Item #16D5
AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA,
INC., DBA SENIORS CHOICES OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA
Page 253
January 22, 2013
STANDARD CONTRACT AND ATTESTATION STATEMENT,
AND ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR THE FY13
OLDER AMERICANS ACT TITLE III PROGRAM IN THE
AMOUNT OF $706,053 AND LOCAL MATCH FUNDING OF
$78,450.33 — TO FUND THE PROGRAM FROM JANUARY 1,
2013 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2013
Item #16D6
RESOLUTION 2013-20: SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION 2004-66
AND ALL PRIOR RATE RESOLUTIONS & SCHEDULES FOR
COLLIER COUNTY'S HEALTH DEPARTMENT TO ALLOW
THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT TO ESTABLISH A PROPOSED
FEE SCHEDULE — THE FEE SCHEDULE IS USED BY SELF-
PAY PATIENTS AND PATIENTS WHO QUALIFY FOR A
SLIDING FEE SCALE BASED ON INCOME LEVEL
Item #16D7 — Moved to Item #11I (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16E1
INCREASING THE LIMIT OF AIRCRAFT LIABILITY
INSURANCE COVERAGE ON THE MEDFLIGHT HELICOPTER
FROM $20,000,000 TO $30,000,000 PER OCCURRENCE TO
COMPLY WITH CAMTS (COMMISSION ON ACCREDITATION
OF MEDICAL TRANSPORT SYSTEMS) ACCREDITATION
REQUIREMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,380
Item #16E2
THE SALE OF COLLIER COUNTY SURPLUS PROPERTY ON
MARCH 23, 2013
Page 254
January 22, 2013
Item #16E3
ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT FROM WILSONMILLER, INC.
TO STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES, INC. FOR
CONTRACT #09-5262-S "COUNTY-WIDE ENGINEERING
SERVICES." — STANTEC AQUIRED ALL ISSUED AND
OUTSTANDING SHARES OF WILSONMILLER ON JULY 23,
2010 AND AS OF JANUARY 1, 2013 WILSONMILLER HAS
OPERATED UNDER THE STANTEC NAME
Item #16E4
ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT FROM WILSONMILLER, INC.
TO STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES, INC. FOR
CONTRACT #09-5262 "COUNTY-WIDE ENGINEERING
SERVICES." — STANTEC AQUIRED ALL ISSUED AND
OUTSTANDING SHARES OF WILSONMILLER ON JULY 23,
2010 AND AS OF JANUARY 1, 2013 WILSONMILLER HAS
OPERATED UNDER THE STANTEC NAME
Item#16E5
REINSTATEMENT OF ONE CLASSIFICATION
SPECIFICATION, A RECLASSIFICATION AND ONE NEW
CLASSIFICATION SPECIFICATION IN THE FISCAL YEAR
2013 PAY AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN MADE FROM
OCTOBER 1, 2012 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2012 — AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16E6 — Moved to Item #11J (Per Commissioner Hiller during
Agenda Changes)
Page 255
January 22, 2013
Item #16H1
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE WILL ATTEND MARCO ISLAND'S KIWANIS
FASHION SHOW EVENT ON FEBRUARY 7, 2013. THE SUM OF
$55 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL
BUDGET — HELD AT HIDEAWAY BEACH CLUB, 250 SOUTH
BEACH DRIVE, MARCO ISLAND
Item #16H2
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE WILL ATTEND CATHOLIC CHARITIES 45TH
ANNIVERSARY ON JANUARY 30, 2013. THE SUM OF $20 TO
BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET
— HELD AT ST. JOHN THE EVANGELIST CHURCH, 625 111TH
AVENUE NORTH
Item #16H3
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE UNITED STATES COAST
GUARD'S AUXILLARY CHANGE OF WATCH EVENT ON
JANUARY 5, 2013. THE SUM OF $50 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET — HELD AT
THE HIDEAWAY BEACH CLUB, 250 SOUTH BEACH DRIVE,
MARCO ISLAND
Item #16H4
Page 256
1
January 22, 2013
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE EAST NAPLES CIVIC
ASSOCIATION LUNCHEON DECEMBER 20, 2012. THE SUM
OF $18 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL
BUDGET — HELD AT HAMILTON HARBOR YACHT CLUB,
7065 HAMILTON AVENUE
Item #16H5
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE EAST NAPLES CIVIC
ASSOCIATION'S ANNUAL BANQUET ON JANUARY 21, 2013.
A SUM OF $40 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S
TRAVEL BUDGET — HELD AT NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF &
COUNTRY CLUB
Item #16J1
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF DECEMBER 22, 2012
THROUGH DECEMBER 29, 2012 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J2
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF DECEMBER 30, 2012
THROUGH JANUARY 4, 2013 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J3
Page 257
1
January 22, 2013
AN INCREASE OF ONE-QUARTER (.25) FULL-TIME
EQUIVALENT (FTE) IN COURT ADMINISTRATION FOR AN
EXISTING EMPLOYEE — INCREASING THE HOURS FOR THE
DIRECTOR OF THE FOSTER CARE REVIEW PANEL TO
ENABLING HER TO ASSIST THE COUNTY DIRECTLY
Item #16K1
SECOND AMENDMENTS TO AGREEMENTS FOR LEGAL
SERVICES RELATING TO CONTRACT NO. 06-4047, EMINENT
DOMAIN LEGAL SERVICES WITH THE LAW FIRMS FIXEL,
MAGUIRE & WILLIS AND BRICKLEMYER, SMOLKER &
BOLVES THAT EXTENDS THE EXPIRATION DATE TO
APRIL 22, 2015
Item #16K2
AN INCREASE IN THE PURCHASE ORDER FOR CARLTON
FIELDS, P.A., IN THE CASE OF COLLIER COUNTY V JOHN
REYNOLDS & SONS, INC., ET AL., CASE NO. 10-6658-CA
(SOUTH REVERSE OSMOSIS RAW WATER WELLFIELD
PIPELINE PROJECT NO. 70030) (FISCAL IMPACT AN
ADDITIONAL $200,000) — FOR DAMAGES INCURRED AS A
RESULT OF FAILURES PERTAINING TO CONSTRUCTION OF
THE SOUTH REVERSE OSMOSIS WELLFIED PIPELINE
Item #16K3 — Moved to Item #12A (Per Commissioner Nance during
Agenda Changes)
****Commissioner Henning moved, seconded by Commissioner
Nance and carried unanimously that the following items under the
Summary Agenda be adopted ****
Page 258
January 22, 2013
Item #17A
ORDINANCE 2013-18: AMENDING ORDINANCE 04-41, AS
AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE
ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED
AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING
THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY
CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN
DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A RESIDENTIAL
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT (RPUD)
TO A RPUD ZONING DISTRICT, FOR A PROJECT KNOWN AS
THE BUTTONWOOD PRESERVE RPUD (PETITION NUMBER
PUDA-PL20120001105) TO ALLOW UP TO 220 RESIDENTIAL
DWELLING UNITS ON PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTHEAST
OF THE IMMOKALEE ROAD (CR 846) AND COLLIER
BOULEVARD (CR 951) INTERSECTION ON TREE FARM
ROAD APPROXIMATELY .7 MILES EAST OF COLLIER
BOULEVARD IN SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE
26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF
53.8± ACRES; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCE
2007-42, THE FORMER BUTTONWOOD PRESERVE RPUD;
AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
Item #17B
RESOLUTION 2013-21 : CHANGING THE NAME OF OLDE
CYPRESS BOULEVARD TO LOGAN BOULEVARD NORTH.
THE SUBJECT ROADWAY IS LOCATED IN SECTION 21,
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, IN COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA
Page 259
January 22, 2013
Item #17C — Continued to the February 12, 2013 BCC Meeting
(Per Agenda Change sheet) and then further moved
to Item #9A (Per Commissioner Hiller during Agenda
Changes)
Item #17D — Continued to the February 12, 2013 BCC Meeting
(Per Agenda Change Sheet)
AN ORDINANCE WHICH WOULD ESTABLISH LIMITATIONS,
IN ADDITION TO THOSE SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 538, PART
I, FLORIDA STATUTES, ON THE SALE AND/OR PURCHASE
OF SECONDHAND GOODS (SECONDHAND DEALERS)
Item #17E
RESOLUTION 2013-22: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING
CARRY FORWARD, TRANSFERS AND SUPPLEMENTAL
REVENUE) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2012-13 ADOPTED
BUDGET
*****
Page 260
January 22, 2013
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:47 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERN G BOARD(S) OF
SPECI DISTRI, TS UNDER ITS CONTROL
i tir
GEORGIA A. HILLER, ESQ., CHAIRWOMAN
ti
'A L1'' T_
„... -' '- ,‘ - --_, :
..a i .,
..a,,,,,,,:„ , -... ,' 66,..... ,er
to I , TE.-13RO(
ID
LERK
Attest as to Chaiman's
s`giiattre only.
These minutes approve y the Board on /3 , as
presented or as correcte .
Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Court Reporting,
Incorporated by Cherie' R. Nottingham, CSR.
Page 261