The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 04/11/2017 Item # 2B04/11/2017 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 2.B Item Summary: March 14, 2017 - BCC/Regular Meeting Minutes Meeting Date: 04/11/2017 Prepared by: Title: Operations Analyst, Senior – Administrative Services Department Name: Bendisa Marku 03/29/2017 2:33 PM Submitted by: Title: County Manager – County Manager's Office Name: Leo E. Ochs 03/29/2017 2:33 PM Approved By: Review: County Manager's Office Nick Casalanguida County Manager Review Completed 04/03/2017 10:40 AM Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 04/11/2017 9:00 AM 2.B Packet Pg. 12 March 14, 2017 Page 1 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida March 14, 2017 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Penny Taylor Andy Solis (via speakerphone where indicated) William L. McDaniel, Jr. Donna Fiala Burt L. Saunders ALSO PRESENT: Leo Ochs, County Manager Nick Casalanguida, Deputy County Manager Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Crystal Kinzel, Director of Finance and Accounting Troy Miller, Communication and Customer Relations March 14, 2017 Page 2 MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good morning. Good morning to everyone in our gallery. Thank you for being here. We have an invocation and a Pledge of Allegiance. Perhaps I'll have Commissioner Fiala lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance, but first let's hear from Rabbi Ammos Chorny to give us our prayer for the morning. Thank you. RABBI CHORNY: Good morning. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good morning. Item #1A INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE RABBI CHORNY: Dear God, we serve, and in the process we come as a community together this morning. We want to use our resources wisely and well to represent all members of our community fairly, to make decisions that promote the common good, recognizing our responsibility to the past and to the future and the rights and the needs of both individuals and the community. As trusted servants, we seek blessings in our deliberations, and in our efforts here today may we act wisely and well. May our efforts be blessed with insight, guided by understanding and wisdom. We seek to serve with respect for all. May our personal faith give us strength to us honestly and well in all matters before us. Amen. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And would you put your hands over your hearts, please, and say with me: (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, I am going to say it. One of the reasons I asked our Dear Commissioner Donna Fiala to say the Pledge March 14, 2017 Page 3 of Allegiance to lead us in it, that yesterday she was recognized on the floor of the United States Congress as a long-serving and productive public servant, and I think for that we should applaud her. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: County Manager? Item #2A APPROVAL OF TODAY'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA AS AMENDED (EX PARTE DISCLOSURE PROVIDED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS FOR CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDAS.) – APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED W/CHANGES MR. OCHS: Good morning, Madam Chair and Commissioners. These are your proposed agenda changes for the Board of County Commissioners meeting of March 14th, 2017. The first change is to add on Item 5D under presentations to receive a brief presentation on the wildfire from Dan Summers, your Emergency Services Director. The next proposed change -- excuse me -- is to remove Item 16F2 and withdraw that item from today's agenda. This is a staff request. We have some additional work to do on that particular item. There is one time-certain item, Commissioners, and that is Item 9A, and that is to be heard at 5:05 p.m. So if we finish before that time, which I expect we do, we can recess the meeting and then reconvene at 5:05. And then in that regard also, Commissioners, I'm advised that Commissioner Solis does plan to join the Board for the 5:05 meeting, and as your County Attorney will advise you, you're going to need to vote to allow him to join that meeting, but you'll do that at that time. March 14, 2017 Page 4 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good. And I understand that he would at that point, after we hear that item, at 5:05, is when we're going to go into commissioner communication. MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. He had a couple of items, and he asked that I ask you as the chair to defer hearing Item 15, staff and commission communications, till after the 5:05 meeting so he could participate in that. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Now, given that, also Commissioner Solis sent me an email, which arrived late yesterday afternoon, so thank you County Manager for giving it to me, and he's requested that we continue the Items 11A and 11B relating to impact fees until the next BCC meeting. I don't see any reason why we can't hear it -- if he's joining us at 5:05, we could also discuss that at that time, could we not? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The 5:05 may be a fairly lengthy thing, so we're starting to add stuff to the end of that agenda. I'm not sure that that's -- I mean, I don't know how late you want to go, but that could be a fairly late meeting. Just a thought. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, I just -- I wanted to bring this up to my colleagues here. It's not my decision alone. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No, certainly. And I think in deference to Commissioner Solis, if he has -- if he'd like to have that item continued, I don't think that there's a reason why we shouldn't accommodate that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So continue to the next meeting? MR. OCHS: Commissioners, just let me remind the Board. This is a two-step process. These two items are request for authorization to advertise these ordinances for adoption at a subsequent board meeting. Typically, what we would do is present them today, advertise them, March 14, 2017 Page 5 and then put them on your summary agenda, but what we could do is hear them today or you could authorize us, perhaps, to advertise them. When we bring them back we'll put them on the regular advertised public hearing agenda, and you can have your policy discussion before you vote on the ordinances. It doesn't matter, frankly, to the staff. If you want to push them, you can push them. We have Mr. Tindale here. We just need to get him back here from Tampa next week if you want to defer this for a meeting. Again, totally the discretion of the Board. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I don't feel very comfortable bringing in someone from Tampa to hear an item and then send them home without the work being done. I don't think that's quite fair. And this is not a criticism of Commissioner Solis, but he knew last week he wasn't going to be here. So if we had known last week to ask for this continuance, I would feel a lot more comfortable, but not to bring our consultants in and then send them home. I don't feel comfortable. So... COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I would agree with that in terms of -- because there is an expense associated with that, plus there may be other people in the audience that are here on that item, and it is going it be heard again. So it's not like we're making the decision. We're just authorizing the advertising. So I would suggest that we move forward with it. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And hear it at the point -- in the process of this morning's meeting. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Right. And Commissioner Solis will have plenty of opportunity when we come back for decision making on it. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm fine with that. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Is that the consensus? March 14, 2017 Page 6 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Sure. MR. OCHS: And we'll make sure we put that on the regular advertised -- or regular agenda for hearing instead of consent agenda. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I do have a question, if I might ask the County Manager. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: As we move through this advertising process, does it solidify the rates and terms and the detail amounts that we're going to be discussing today? MR. OCHS: No, sir. You can always -- you can always go lower, not adopt at all. You have all the flexibility -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. MR. OCHS: -- in your second hearing on that. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I just -- I didn't want to -- I didn't want to encumber that if Commissioner Solis had other information that he wasn't able to share and such, so -- but I'm -- MR. OCHS: Sure, sure. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And we get -- and we get two bites at the apple, which is kind of nice. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We like apples. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah. We like to get two bites. All right. MR. OCHS: That's all I have, Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's it? County Attorney, any changes or amendments? MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing, ma'am. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Nope. Crystal; Ms. Kinzel? MS. KINZEL: No, we're fine. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm assuming we're on the consent and the ex parte? March 14, 2017 Page 7 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any changes to the agenda? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No, ma'am. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala, any other -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: No changes, no additions, no corrections, and no ex parte. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I do have ex parte if we're doing that as well. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Well, let's do ex parte, too. So I'll go back to you. Sorry about that. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: On Item -- no, that's okay. On Item 16A9 I did receive emails. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Good. Commissioner Saunders? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't have any changes to the consent agenda. I do have two items I want to make a quick comment on before we approve those. On Item 17D, which is the procurement ordinance, I want to congratulate staff. I understand that there's been a very close working relationship with the Clerk's Office on this. I understand that the Purchasing Department and the Manager have very diligently put together a program that's going to avoid any conflicts down the road. So I just want to congratulate everybody for that spirit of cooperation, how well that's working. MR. OCHS: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Feels good, doesn't it? Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: On 16J3, I don't want to pull the item, but it has raised some issues concerning how we appropriate funds for housing assistance, and perhaps staff could come back with us over the next couple of meetings and give us some information about how that's done. I understand there are some communities that may have some more strict regulations, and I'd like to just take a look at those. So if March 14, 2017 Page 8 you could bring something back. Again, not at the next meeting, necessarily, but over the next month or so. MR. OCHS: That would be our pleasure, sir. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And, Madam Chair, I'd like to -- I concur with Commissioner Saunders as well. I was going to talk about that under commissioner comments at the end, but I like that idea. The SHIP funding regulations are coming to us from the state, and those are in dire need of review. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I totally agree. I think that we need to have more clarity in who gets what and how they measure up to it and, just simply put like that, I think it's definitely something we should be discussing. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I have no disclosures. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No disclosures, no ex parte? Okay. All right. I do have one minor change to the agenda. I would like to move 17B to the regular agenda for a vote. I want a second bite at that apple. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which one is that one? I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That has to do with term limits on commissioners. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, good. You know, I'm glad you're bringing that up. I've had so many comments about that, people that disagreed with us doing that. So -- or not you. The rest of us. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Well, I'll -- MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that becomes Item 9B on your agenda. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: 9B. Okay. And I do not have any ex parte disclosures to make, so... COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll make a motion to approve the agenda and the consent agenda. March 14, 2017 Page 9 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Second. All those in favor? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously. Thank you very much. March 14, 2017 Page 10 Item #2B BCC/LEGISLATIVE WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES FROM OCTOBER 4, 2016 – APPROVED AS PRESENTED MR. OCHS: Commissioners Item 2B is approval of your BCC legislative workshop meeting minutes from October 4, 2016. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do I hear a motion? Any questions? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Second. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All those in favor? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries. Thank you very much. Item #2C BCC/REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 14, 2017 – APPROVED AS PRESENTED MR. OCHS: Item 2C is approval of the regular BCC meeting minutes from February 14, 2017. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do I hear a second -- second by Commissioner McDaniel. All those in favor? March 14, 2017 Page 11 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I take just a moment out of everybody's time, because we don't have any service awards here today, but I think all of us in the audience, and I want to -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We're going to -- about the fire? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Is that what you're going to talk about? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I was. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Wait. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It's going to happen. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Never mind. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: See, we don't -- we're not -- we're never in the Sunshine, so we have to discuss all of this up here in front of you. Wait. Wait. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And then you do it. Item #4A PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MARCH 12-18, 2017 AS SUNSHINE WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY AND DECLARING OUR COMMITMENT TO OPEN AND ACCESSIBLE GOVERNMENT. ACCEPTED BY BRANDON SANCHO REPRESENTING THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF March 14, 2017 Page 12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; MARNI SCUDERI REPRESENTING THE COLLIER COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS; ANNETTE WENOWSKY REPRESENTING THE COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; VICKIE DOWNS REPRESENTING THE COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER; ROB STONEBURNER REPRESENTING THE COLLIER COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR; AND TRISH ROBERTSON REPRESENTING THE COLLIER COUNTY SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS – ADOPTED MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners. That moves us to Item 4 this morning, proclamations. Item 4A is a proclamation designating March 12 through March 18, 2017, as Sunshine Week in Collier County and declaring our commitment to open and accessible government. To be accepted by Brandon Sancho representing the Collier County Board of County Commissioners; Marni Scuderi representing Collier County Clerk of Courts; Annette Wenowsky representing Collier County Sheriff's Office; Vickie Downs representing the Collier County Property Appraiser; Rob Stoneburner representing Collier County Tax Collector; and Trish Robertson representing the Collier County Supervisor of Elections. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: She's looking at the short one. Get over, Donna. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Would you like to say something? I guess not. I'd like to say something. There was a meeting on the day that the women celebrated and kind of played hooky from work last week, and one of the questions -- and there was about 100 people here, and one of the questions was about what are you doing to our government to do March 14, 2017 Page 13 away with the Sunshine laws? And I assured her that that's not where I stand. It may be floated, but it's not where -- what I think should be done. And I can tell you, the applause was there. So we value this proclamation very much, at least this commissioner does, and I'm sure it's agreed up here how important it is to do our business in the Sunshine so that you, as constituents and taxpayers and voters, have faith in what the decisions we make up here are, so thank you. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair? I wasn't going to say anything on that issue, but you've raised it, so I feel compelled to. There's a House Bill out there that to some folks would really gut the Sunshine Law, and it's been filed by our legislative delegation, which makes it kind of interesting. I certainly don't support that legislation. I think the open government law, the Sunshine Law, has resulted in much better government activity; much more fair. It's helped eliminate corruption, and I fully support it. And I've been on both sides of the Sunshine Law in terms of being up here and also representing clients. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala -- or Commissioner Saunders, how -- will you give a little bit of your history for folks who don't know how long you've served in government, please; would you start. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Boy, we're going to have to spend quite a bit of time. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aren't we trying to get through this meeting? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, no. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Real quickly, I came over here in 1982 to serve as a County Attorney, then spent eight years on the Commission, and then four years in the Florida House, and 10 years in March 14, 2017 Page 14 the Florida Senate, and then after being out of government for a number of years have come back. So I've worked on both sides of that issue. And I can tell you, it makes decision-making slower, it makes it more cumbersome, but people can be assured that there are no backroom deals going on. And so the Sunshine Law to me has been very effective, and it's very important. So I just wanted to point out that this group, this commission, did not ask for that bill to be filed. We don't -- I don't personally support that legislation, and I don't believe it's going to go anywhere anyway. I don't believe it will go anywhere in the Florida Senate. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good. Thank you. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Madam Chair, if I might. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I would like to say, if you noticed, I had brought up a subject matter at our last meeting with regard to our ethics ordinance, and I didn't bring it back today for future discussion or for any more discussion. I, unlike, Commissioner Saunders am new to this process. I'm coming up on my 120th day as an elected official. I do find the Sunshine Law extremely cumbersome. It does make decision making extremely difficult and take a longer period of time, but I'm learning that this is not the dictatorships of my private enterprises where I make my decisions and operate with an iron fist and suffer the consequences immediately from those decisions. And so I do find the Sunshine Law does provide for a lot of clarity and a lot of certainty for the general public to know that our business is being conducted in a proper manner and that there aren't backroom deals that are, in fact, transpiring. So with that, I, like commissioner Saunders and yourself, do -- I don't support that legislation as it's currently written. March 14, 2017 Page 15 I would like to see, at some stage, some opportunity afforded for our advisory committees and such that are regulated as well. I do find it a bit cumbersome for those groups, but that's for another discussion. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Item #4B PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MARCH 18, 2017 AS SAVE THE FLORIDA PANTHER DAY IN COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY TOM TROTTA, AMBER CROOKS AND MAC HATCHER, REPRESENTING THE FRIENDS OF THE FLORIDA PANTHER REFUGE AND GINA LEHNER REPRESENTING THE FLORIDA PANTHER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE – ADOPTED MR. OCHS: Item 4B is a proclamation designating March 18, 2017, as Save the Florida Panther Day in Collier County. To be accepted by Amber Crooks and Mac Hatcher representing the Friends of the Florida Panther Refuge, and Gina Lehner representing the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge. (Applause.) MR. OCHS: Hi, Matt. How are you? It's good to see you. We're trying to recruit Mac to come back part time, but... MS. CROOKS: We're very lucky to have him on the Friends. I'm Amber Crooks here today on behalf of the Friends of the Florida Panther Refuge. Thank you for recognizing Save the Florida Panther Day. The State of Florida, as well as the county, has annually recognized the third Saturday in March to highlight this species as part March 14, 2017 Page 16 of our Florida ecosystem and as our state's official mammal. The Florida panther is an umbrella species, and so by protecting the Florida panther, we're also protecting many other species as well as lands that are important to all of us. This day is celebrated at the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge here in Collier County, which is at State Road 92 and I-75, with the open house. The open house will be held this Saturday from 8 a.m. until 2 p.m. This event will include educational lectures, food, fun, and activities in Florida panther habitat. Thank you for recognizing Save the Florida Panther Day, and we hope to see you all this weekend. Thank you. (Applause.) Item #4C PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MARCH 16-26, 2017 AS THE 41TH ANNUAL COLLIER COUNTY FAIR DAYS. ACCEPTED BY TJ SNOPKOWSKI, MARKETING & SPONSORSHIPS DIRECTOR, COLLIER COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS – ADOPTED MR. OCHS: Item 4C is a proclamation designating March 16 through the 26th, 2017, as the 41st Annual Collier County Fair Days to be accepted by TJ Snopkowski, Marketing and Sponsorship Director of the Collier County Fairgrounds. (Applause.) MR. OCHS: Pat Cookson also. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So you need to make a plug here. You need to announce what's coming up. MR. SNOPKOWSKI: That's what I'm doing. That's the plan. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good. March 14, 2017 Page 17 MR. OCHS: Hi, TJ. How are you? Thanks, buddy. I'm busy kissing the girls here. MR. SNOPKOWSKI: Thank you all so much for recognizing us today as you guys have done for several years here. The Collier County Fair, for those of you who aren't familiar, we're going into our 41st year. We feature, you know, year-round events, between our Country Jam Music Festival, our Big Swamp Smoke-Off and Barbecue Craft Beer Festival, as well as the fair itself; we also do a lot of smaller events throughout the year. But what's amazing that people don't realize is that we're not a government entity. We're a private not-for-profit organization that focuses in education and outreach through the community. We also do a lot of assistance to families who are in financial need. And so my hope is that a lot of folks, you guys come out -- come out March 16th through the 26th, support the fair, support events there year round and, most importantly, just support our local non-profits. We have so many in this community and so many that need more outreach and more exposure. In addition to that, I want to just take the time to also mention our Making Life Fair Fundraiser, which is going to be March 19th, and that's a tremendous event that -- what we do is we bring in money for families who have hardships financially from cancer, from other debilitating diseases, from families who just recently lost their homes; we're going to be putting some towards them. So just something to kind of get on your radar to get you guys out, and I also want to thank Ms. Pat Cookson, our board member, who came out today. She's -- everyone's so busy right now. If you guys go out to the fairgrounds, it is absolutely crazy. It's absolutely packed. I mean, it's starting this week. I'm lucky to sneak away and be able to do stuff like this, but the rest of them are really working hard. The rest of our board's out there March 14, 2017 Page 18 day in and day out, and then none of them are paid, which is really amazing. So thank you all so much, and thank you guys. I hope to see every single one of you in this room this week. Sound good? All right. Great. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I have a question. MR. SNOPKOWSKI: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So when are the cows and the pigs moving in? MR. SNOPKOWSKI: I think -- we already have some that are coming in now, right. MS. COOKSON: They're not going to be in, I don't think, until like Friday. MR. SNOPKOWSKI: Friday. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Friday, okay, and the ducks and the chickens and the rabbits. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And the ribbon cutting is? MR. SNOPKOWSKI: That's going to be Thursday, this Thursday at 5:30 p.m. So we have -- I know we've invited you guys, and some of you guys are making it, but anyone else here, our community leaders, we invite you to come out. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thursday night. MR. SNOPKOWSKI: We're going to cut the ribbon. We're just going to kind of kick off the fair the best we can. So there we go. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Great. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: First fair? That was 41 years ago. I wasn't here yet. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I've been here 35 years. March 14, 2017 Page 19 MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, if I could get a motion to approve today's proclamations, please. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'll so move. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All those in favor? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. MR. OCHS: Thank you. Move to Item 5 on this morning's agenda. Item #5A PRESENTATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BUSINESS OF THE MONTH FOR MARCH 2017 TO DAVIDSON & NICK CPAS. ACCEPTED BY JIM DAVIDSON AND PAUL NICK; SUSAN KUHAR, ACCOUNT EXECUTIVE, GREATER NAPLES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE; AND BETHANY SAWYER, MEMBERSHIP ENGAGEMENT SPECIALIST, GREATER NAPLES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE – PRESENTED MR. OCHS: Item 5A is a presentation of the Collier County Business of the Month for March 2017 to Davidson & Nick CPAs. To be accepted by Jim Davidson and Paul Nick; Susan Kuhar from the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce; and Bethany Sawyer also from the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce. (Applause.) March 14, 2017 Page 20 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for all you're doing for our community. Oh, nice tie. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Full disclosure; these folks have been my accountants for umpty-ump years -- MR. NICK: Umpty-ump. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- umpty-ump, and do a great job. MR. NICK: Thank you very much. I'll make this real brief. But thank you very much. I want to thank the commissioners, County Manager's Office, and the Chamber for today's recognition. Davidson & Nick CPA has been an established service in our community since 1989 when my partner, Jim Davidson, and I started our practice. We've grown to be one of the three largest CPA firms based solely here in Collier County. We view ourselves as positive cash flow for the county. Up to 25 percent of our business is servicing businesses outside of Collier County, whether it be nationally, internationally, and all our employees are residents of Collier County. We're grateful for the opportunity to be in business in Collier County, and we're thankful to the Chamber and to the Board of County Commissioners for the positive business environment that you guys have created for us. We really appreciate it. I have two of our colleagues with us today. Irena Fedina. She's a tax accountant associate with us; graduated FGCU. Our clients love her because of her strong technical skills and her positive outlook. Natasha Post is a student at FSW. She is our Director of First Impressions, and she's our social media stud. And without her, we would not be here today, so thank you. We're also a firm that has a strong history of providing back to the community. When I look at some of the commissioners today, the County Manager, we served on various boards together serving this community, whether it be arts councils in East Naples, soccer March 14, 2017 Page 21 programs at Anthony Park, starting Naples Roller Hockey League many years ago. We have a strong, strong history giving back to the community. Finally, we're grateful for this recognition. And for someone who raised his family here, maintained his livelihood, I'm truly humbled today. So thank you very much. (Applause.) MR. NICK: Sorry to be rude. I would love to stay for the rest of the day, but we have a lot of tax returns waiting on us. Thank you very much. Thank you, guys. Item #5B PRESENTATION OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH’S 2017 “HEALTHY WEIGHT COMMUNITY CHAMPION” CERTIFICATION TO THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR IMPLEMENTING A VARIETY OF POLICIES THAT HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO INCREASE PHYSICAL ACTIVITY AND PROMOTE HEALTHY LIVING. PRESENTED BY STEPHANIE VICK, ADMINISTRATOR FOR FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH IN COLLIER COUNTY, JEN GOMEZ, COMMUNITY HEALTH PROMOTION DIRECTOR AND REGGIE WILSON, HEALTHY COMMUNITIES COORDINATOR – PRESENTED MR. OCHS: Item 5B is a presentation of the Florida Department of Health's 2017 Healthy Weight Community Champion certification to the Collier County Board of County Commissioners for implementing a variety of policies that have been shown to increase physical activity and promote healthy living. To be presented by Stephanie Vick, Administrator for Florida March 14, 2017 Page 22 Department of Health in Collier County; Jen Gomez, Community Health Promotions Director; and Reggie Wilson, Healthy Communities Coordinator. If you'd please step forward and receive your proclamation. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, it's the other way around. MR. OCHS: I'm sorry. You're making a presentation. Excuse me. MR. WILSON: Good morning. I'm Reggie Wilson, the Healthy Communities Coordinator at the Florida Department of Health. With me today is Stephanie Vick, the Administrator for Department of Health in Collier County, and Jennifer Gomez, Community Health Promotions Division Director. Today we are honored to recognize Collier County as a Healthy Weight Community Champion. The State Surgeon General and Department of Health Award recognizes governments who develop policies and environments to improve the health of their community. Collier County uses an outstanding 22 best practices to promote healthy living, notably the county upgraded their pickleball facilities to host the 2016 U.S. Open Championships, the largest pickleball tournament in the world with over 800 participants and 10,000 spectators. Collier County won a 2016 Agency Excellence Award from the Florida Recreation and Parks Association for the many upgrades to park facilities. In addition to ADA accessibility improvements for the million-passenger Collier Area Transit system, the county is committed to the safety of non-motorized travelers, securing and applying funds to promote physical activity in the community. Finally, Collier County has over 15 farmers markets, providing healthy choices and fresh produce for our residents and visitors. For your continued support, making the healthy choice an easy choice, we would now like to present the Board of County March 14, 2017 Page 23 Commissioners with the Healthy Weight Community Champion Recognition Certificate. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wow, thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, that's wonderful. Thank you very much. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much for this honor. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. So may I say this? Look out blue zone. MR. OCHS: Here we come. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Here we come. Wonderful. This is pretty extraordinary. You know, we're a county that's growing and changing, but -- and we've always -- you know, parks are a wonderful way to spend taxpayers' money without, you know, tremendous revenue in return, but this is revenue. This is why we do it. This is about children and people and activity and using the outdoors to live better and to learn about health and also to learn about community. So it's -- this is very touching. Thank you very much. (Applause.) Item #5C RECOGNIZING ERIC WISE, INSTRUMENTATION/ ELECTRICAL TECHNICIAN, AS THE FEBRUARY 2017 EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH – RECOGNIZED MR. OCHS: Item 5C is a recommendation to recognize Eric Wise, Electrical Instrumentation Technician, as the February 2017 Employee of the Month. March 14, 2017 Page 24 Eric, if you'd step forward. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wow, great work. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You need to take this. Get that off of there. MR. OCHS: Right in the middle, Eric. There you go. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There we go. MR. OCHS: Stand right there. Stand right there. Commissioners, let me tell you and the public a little bit more about Eric. Eric's been with us at the county government here for more than 17 years working with our Public Utilities Department. He was selected by the Employee of the Month Committee in part because of his dedication to his trade and his team members in the water power systems. He was a key participant in the modification of our wellfield designs, and he's made significant impact and improved efficiency and reduced costs of operations. Eric's leadership in the division has elevated those around him to tackle difficult and highly technical issues and become even more productive and efficient. Eric's dedication to his job and support of his fellow team members makes him truly stand out as a reflection of our agency, and he's very deserving of this award. Commissioners, it's my honor to present Eric Wise as your February 2017 Employee of the Month. Congratulations, Eric. (Applause.) Item #5D WILDFIRE UPDATE BY DAN SUMMERS, BUREAU OF EMERGENCY SERVICES DIVISION DIRECTOR – UPDATE March 14, 2017 Page 25 GIVEN MR. OCHS: Commissioners, the next item is Item 5D. This was an add-on item. This is an update from your Director of Emergency Management and the Bureau of Emergency Services, Dan Summers, on the recent wildfire. Dan? MR. SUMMERS: Commissioners, good morning. Dan Summers, Director of the Bureau of Emergency Services and Emergency Management. And I'm happy to be with you this morning just to give you a very quick update, a little thumbnail sketch on the wildfire operations. And, first of all, my by-line there is thanks to all of our response partners. I have camped out with a lot of folks here the last couple of days, a lot of agencies, and I just hope I haven't missed any of them. Chief Schuldt is here from Greater Naples Fire; Jeff Pilato from our Red Team; and Florida Forest Service as well is Mike Weston, our Caloosahatchee Center Manager. And I think we have all spent more time together in the last week and a half than we certainly have at home, and I'm very honored to have worked with these very fine men and women and professionals over the last few days. I've got just a couple of slides and a couple of videos, and we're available to answer any questions for you. Just quickly, we're at about 7,230 acres; 85, almost 90 percent containment was our report this morning. At the fire's peak, estimated 200 responders, 120 Florida forest personnel, 18 medium-sized dozers, five heavy dozers, 30 engines, three helicopters, two single-air tankers, one large air tanker, Sheriff's Office, both with patrol, traffic, and aviation support, and we extend our appreciation to CCSO because they kept us well resourced in terms of protecting the public, traffic, and evacuation. Eighteen press releases came in of our joint efforts with March 14, 2017 Page 26 Emergency Management and Communications and Customer Relations. Social media was a huge factor in this; worked very well: 71 Tweets, 38 Facebook posts got the information out there. And if you were with us the other day, certainly we had our visit from Governor Scott; Commissioner of Agriculture Adam Putnam; Jim Quarrels with -- our state Director of Forestry. We spent some time with him; and State EM Director Bryan Koon was with us. The magnitude of the fire is kind of hard for folks to realize. Again, with the fire origin here, 7,000-plus acres and almost six miles. Commissioners, we are quite concerned, and our heart and prayers go out for the families that did lose structures. Every effort was taken in this event to work those events, protect those individuals and, you know, we started some precautionary evacuations of the stables on Sunday, and then we got into a situation where Mother Nature did not allow us to win this battle. These winds at a 26, 32 miles per hour put these -- the structures were dead center of what Mother Nature was doing with these winds, and these men and women worked incredibly hard to protect these structures, and we are sorry that those structures are lost. And we have all reached out to them, and they're doing well. The community is supporting them. Red Cross continues to check on them. So we hate for their loss, and our hearts and are prayers are with them. And we're very fortunate. We had 1,700 structures in this area, to only have three -- four structures were lost. Three were occupied. So again, we are certainly looking after those folks, and we're concerned about that. Street view of the burned area. Again, gives you some of the magnitude and the streets involved. They're working both sides of 951 between Rattlesnake and Davis Road, and that kept us quite busy with what we call the urban interface. March 14, 2017 Page 27 So pictures from the EOC give you some magnitude of the smoke column and certainly give you some idea of those winds and the disbursement of that particular smoke. At the risk of some poor humor, this is a shot from Fort Myers Beach on the smoke cloud. And, again, I'll just say that our bonfires are better than their beach party. But we were very -- we were very much engaged at this point in this. And, again, this gives you some magnitude, I think, of trying to reinforce what the wind and the low humidity, in fact, did with this. Two shots here on the left. The first one is certainly a good indicator of the multi-agency response; Greater Naples, North Collier. We used our public -- Road and Bridge folks helped us with watering the medians on I-75. That helped stop any spread or jump of the fire on the north and south side of I-75 at about the 101, 100 exit. You see an aerial attack there as well as the Forest Service helicopter as we were wetting some areas near the golf course maintenance facility there off Beck Boulevard. So quite a multiagency response. The shot from the right is our mobile command bus where we have about 11 radio systems in there, and all of us were working all of those agencies -- those radios with our respective agencies in terms of communication, coordination, command, and control. So we were quite busy there in our mobile command center on Sunday and Monday. To give you some idea, the effort here -- this happens to be at Serenity Park on 951 where we had flames jumping 951 and working that area. And again, we remind folks that green stuff does burn in South Florida. So we had quite a bit of underbrush there and embers. In some cases some of the embers maybe a tennis ball size blowing a quarter of a mile and spotting a quarter mile ahead of the fire, so it made it quite difficult. March 14, 2017 Page 28 The intensity of the burn is most noteworthy here. Just grabbing you a picture of some of the heavily chard area; a very intense hot burn. Civil emergency messages: One of the warning systems that we have in Emergency Management, we issued one at 12:30 on Monday. We did that with our Forest Service in Greater Naples. That's what we call a unified command approach. We gave residents a warning notice, if you will, precautionary notification of the potential of rapidly deteriorating wildfire conditions, and we had a lot of compliments from the public. They appreciated that heads-up on Monday. It was successfully rebroadcast. While there was no evacuation at that time, it certainly put the citizens on notice. We did the second civil emergency message at 12:38 on Tuesday; again, focusing on that area around 951, Club Naples -- and Beck Boulevard, excuse me -- Club Naples, Panther's Walk, Forest Glen, and Avertine, and made that evacuation activity take place, along with the Sheriff's Department going in there with what we call door-to-door type notification, rebroadcasting from their public address siren system. We had three what we call reception centers ready to go. Golden Gate Community Center was a place where those folks could go. We had Red Cross -- pardon me -- another agency standing by to receive them, as well as Eagle Lakes and Max Hasse was on contingency as a third. We had buses available. We already had buses in staging if we needed them, but all of those folks had transportation as well as we checked on any special needs clients that were in the area. There was a need for overnight sheltering that did progress. Red Cross handled that. We sheltered 21 families overnight. Three displaced families, six clients in total were referred to Red Cross for mid-term and long-term housing availability or assistance if they March 14, 2017 Page 29 wanted it. Two special needs were identified in the area. One was out. We maintained constant communication with those frail and elderly folks. One of our -- a ton of successes, but one that was most successful, I think, was notifying -- pardon me -- activating our Collier Information Hot Line. We typically do that for the hurricane event. We did this. Ms. Price pulls that team together for us where we gave the citizens a number to call outside of 911 so that they could speak with someone, be reassured, get local information, take that burden of unnecessary calls into 911, and we were amazed at the calls there; 6,000 inbound calls were taken to answer questions for the public, and I think that serves our community quite well. Donations were exceptional. I can't remember a wildfire event here where we had this type of community support. I always worry about leaving someone out who did donate, and we had a lot from individuals. The business community was phenomenal helping our responders: McDonald's, Chick-fil-A, Caesars, Carolina Caterers, the Coffee Shop, Culvers, Walmart, Arby's, Pollo Tropical provided meals and supplies, water, Gatorade, snacks for the firefighters, and we appreciate that. And we actually had to kind of stand that effort down and schedule some of these agencies. And again, we thank them for their donation, and we didn't want anything to go to waste as well, so we managed that pretty well. County departments engaged. There's a list here. I won't read them all but, doggone, almost everybody in Collier County we had supporting us, whether we call it backroom support operations or on the front line. The non-Board of County Commissioners agencies came all the way from Sarasota County with the response agencies and personnel, and hopefully we didn't forget anyone from these agencies. But we had DeSoto, Hendry, Glades, Sarasota, Charlotte, Lee, Collier County, March 14, 2017 Page 30 our federal partners, our state partners all bringing personnel and apparatus to this particular location. I mentioned in my briefing to the governor -- pardon me -- the calvary that came from Florida Power & Light that allowed to get that power de-energized and started working around 2 a.m. off Beck Boulevard with equipment, and they started resetting poles at 2 a.m. to start beginning power restoration. So it was a phenomenal effort there, just to name a few, but it was a phenomenal effort from everyone. Let me take a second and just show you a couple of pieces of video, and then I'll be available for any questions, and we'll let you resume your agenda. Real quick, this first video I want to show you, when we made our wildfire presentation, we talked to you about the importance of building fire lines. This is a great aerial shot typical of what the dozer lines were doing, and this is where they're going back and reinforcing those particular fire breaks as well as cutting new fire breaks which you'll see in another video. But that was important to have those dozers get in there and clear those particular lines, so that's a good example. In there you'll see places where the fire is spotting, and they're addressing that as well, too; minimize the spread, contain that particular spot fire in that particular area. Second video, real quick, gives you a little bit of view from the aircraft here. And again, thanks to Jeff's team for sharing this video with us. You really have to see this from the air to appreciate the magnitude of this fire. And again, what will continue to happen probably. The rain was not as much as we had hoped for last night. In some cases only a couple of tenths of precipitation. But it certainly helps, but this will continue. March 14, 2017 Page 31 You see the little smoke devil here that gives some -- it looks like the little tornado in a burned out area gives you some indication of the residual heat going on there with a little bit of the smoke and ash being stirred by the fire. This, I believe, is east and south of 951. This next video gives you some approach of that fire on 951 in the early afternoon hours with the intensity of apparatus and equipment that are -- personnel that are out there trying to stop that fire at 951. And, again, with these winds in the 20-mile-an-hour range, this is just difficult to do. The spot fires that we had -- if you'll notice, we had crews over there on the Naples Lake and Serenity side of 951 being ready to try to put out any embers that came over, but that was very, very difficult. Hats off again to our Water Department. We drew an enormous amount of water from those hydrants along 951. That was -- and that system was flawless, and that water was invaluable for us to be able to use, to refill the equipment quickly and get back out on the fire line. So we thank you to the Public Utilities Division who had that operation as flawless throughout the event. Lastly, it was our nighttime operations here, and this is in the vicinity of the Rattlesnake Hammock power distribution center just slightly southwest of Serenity Park. And this is -- this is the intensity. This was at midnight. We're not used to seeing this type of flame intensity at midnight. So winds were over 20, 26, 30 miles per hour, I believe, was one gust. We had dozers back in there, and if you'll notice those things that look like sparklers coming up, that's the intensity of the embers that were falling over in Naples Lake and Deerwood, so about half of the other structural apparatus was over on the Deerwood side putting out those fires, and that was quite intense. And Jeff was here actually moving his dozers and equipment out of the way when this fire became quite intense. So that's what we were dealing with in the midnight hours, which March 14, 2017 Page 32 is something we are not normally used to doing. And if you'll notice, you can see the trees moving in there just from the wind. So, indeed, quite a challenge for us. Commissioners, I'll stop and see if you have any questions. Again, our hearts go out to the families who lost these structures, and tip of the hat to all of our response agencies and partners that came from everywhere to help us. And we have demobilization, what we call demobilization. The Florida red team, which is the Incident Management Team, some of folks here are from as far as Gainesville, helping the management structure transitioning to state resources, and this will be transitioned back to local resources here today in the next couple of days. But the whole team came together, and I'm very proud of those efforts. Any questions? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any questions? Commissioner McDaniel. No. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I tell a little story? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, yes. Now. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Taylor and I were fortunate enough to go along with the Governor on this ride through this area, and one of the things they were talking about was horses. They had to move 100 horses. And I said, where would you move 100 horses? First of all, how do you get them out of there? You can't just trot them down the street. And then where do you put them? They have to have a place to run and eat and so forth. They said that social media -- and you mentioned that, Dan. Social media came to their help immediately. Within 15 minutes they had -- the owners of that area in there that had all the horses, they started social media'ing the people and say, we need trailers, we need trailers, we have 100 horses to get out of here, and they said within half an hour the trailers were arriving and loading up the horses and getting March 14, 2017 Page 33 them out. It was quite amazing. There's some very heroic stories in all. And I wish we could thank these people enough for all that they have done for us in saving a lot more homes than went up, so thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, we'll do the little we can. I think if all the people from county government got involved in this, the county government would be closed right now. But we do have some folks here, including your folks. And what I'd like to do is everybody who touched this emergency who helped, including the folks that made 6,000 calls or answered 6,000 calls in the EMS, if you could just come up, identify yourself on the microphone and come and shake our hands. We'd be very, very honored. Thank you. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Amen. MR. OCHS: Come on up. Let's not be shy. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Come on up. MR. OCHS: Chief, you start us off, please. MS. BUTCHER: Good morning, Commissioners. Tabitha Butcher, your EMS Chief. Thank you so much for recognizing us today. MR. COX: Michael Cox. I was a member of the phone bank. MR. ESSIEN: Michael Essien, Florida Forest Service, Caloosahatchee Forestry Center Manager. MR. PILATO: Jeff Pilato, Florida Forest Service and Safety Officer for the Florida Interagency Red Team. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MS. WOOD: Karen Wood with EMS. MR. CAMPS: Good morning, Commissioners. Tony Camps, Deputy Chief, Collier County EMS. MR. GASTINEAU: Bruce Gastineau, Assistant Chief, Collier County EMS. MS. RUDNICKI: Paula Rudnicki, Naples (sic). March 14, 2017 Page 34 MS. DUNPHY: Lisa Dunphy, Administrative Services, IT. MS. DE JESUS: Maria De Jesus, Communication and Customer Relations. MR. SANCHO: Brandon Sancho, Citizen Liaison Communication and Customer Relations. MR. MARO: Tony Maro, Collier County EMS, Training Captain. MR. NIEVEZ: Oscar Nievez, Administrative Services, IT Department. MR. DAWSON: Rich Dawson, Administrative Services, IT Department. MS. WILLER-SPECTOR: Lee Willer-Spector, Administrative Services Division. MS. PRICE: Len Price, Administrative Services. And I just -- I have to say about this group of folks, I called them from their desks and asked them to come in and answer phones for us, leave their work, answer phones until midnight, and nobody complained, nobody said no. We had 12 to 15 people on the phones answering calls nonstop for 24 hours. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wow, that's interesting; amazing. MR. OCHS: Fantastic. Great leadership. MS. HETZEL: Lavah Hetzel, Communication and Customer Relations. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So you were answering? MS. HETZEL: News releases on the website. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: News releases. MR. SHEFFIELD: Mike Sheffield. I oversee your Communications and Customer Relations office. MR. FASSOLD: Bill Fassold, Communication and Customer Relations. MS. ALBERS: Kate Albers, Public Information Coordinator, March 14, 2017 Page 35 Communication and Customer Relations. CHIEF SCHULDT: Good morning, Commissioners. Kingman Schuldt, Fire Chief, Greater Naples Fire Rescue. DR. YILMAZ: Good morning, Commissioners. George Yilmaz, Collier County Public Utilities. I want to thank my team. Started the process Saturday and Sunday in coordination with all the team members you have seen. We were able to produce over 5 million gallons of water at steady state, 90, if not higher, pressure so that we can provide all the water supply to where needed, all our responders, all the way 72 hours out. We had to shut down some wellfields. We had to move our production to the north plant. We had to put our emergency power. Expectation was that we would lose the power. All the contingency worst-case scenario planning did work. I want to thank my 400-plus strong team members, 24/7 on overtime; great team effort. And we thank you for your support and County Manager, Deputy County Manager, we thank you for your leadership. MR. OCHS: Thank you, George. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There was a gentleman that sat down. MR. OCHS: Come on. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Now, come on. Dr. George, you need to come and shake our hand. I would be honored if you did that. MR. GATES: Ross Gates, IT. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: IT. Oh, my goodness. One of the 6,024 responders. MR. OCHS: Commissioners, it's an honor to work with these men and women. They do an outstanding job day in and day out in their regular job, and they are always, always there and stepping up whenever they're for under these types of emergency conditions. March 14, 2017 Page 36 And, finally, I'd like to thank Dan Summers who, for my money, is the best Emergency Management Director in the country, bar none. Commissioners, we're moving on -- excuse me, to Item 6, public petitions. Item #6A PUBLIC PETITION FROM MR. CHRISTOPHER FLINT REGARDING YARD WASTE PICKUP FOR LARGER LAND OWNERS – PRESENTED AND DISCUSSED MR. OCHS: Item 6A was an item that was continued from your February 14th, 2017, meeting agenda. This is a public petition request for Mr. Christopher Flint regarding yard waste pickup for larger landowners. MR. FLINT: Good morning, Commissioners. That's a hard act to follow. But I wanted to take your time this morning. I'm a new Florida resident. My wife and I moved into a residence at 6090 Cedar Tree Lane last summer. And we live there with our daughter who is 23 months old and my mother who I take care of who's a mental-health patient, a widow, and has been battling cancer. Anyway, we made a seven-figure investment in this home. It was built originally about six years ago by a local Naples business owner, custom builder, who built it for himself. We had some concerns with the area, to be honest with you, before purchasing it because of some of the lack of maintenance of some of the neighbors and just the general area, but we went ahead and purchased it. Our property is 2.7 acres in size. To put things in perspective, the entire property being professionally landscaped, the hedges just around the perimeter of the property, according to the surveyor are 1,680 feet, March 14, 2017 Page 37 just on the perimeter, let alone on the interior, which is at least half that in length if not more. There's over 200 trees on the property. Anyway, everywhere I've ever lived, which is in multiple states, I've always taken care of my own yard. And upon reaching out to the county when we first moved here, I was basically shocked to hear that the only yard waste that the county is allowing is 10 small 45-gallon barrels. They told me it was a one-size-fits-all approach for the entire county regardless of the size of your lot. I talked to multiple people, multiple employees of the county, including the supervisor of, I guess, the Public Utilities Division. He was a nice gentleman, but he basically told me he wouldn't do anything about it. He told me that if I had more waste to take it to the dump. Let me be honest with you, when there's any sort of windstorm or any weather event, including like what we saw last night with heavy rain, I could fill 20 barrels quite easily with just palm fronds. You know, there are so many palm trees. Residents in my particular area, they really have a couple choices how to deal with this and, unfortunately, a lot of them make, you know, not some good decisions. Number one, they completely ignore the maintenance on their property or do next to nothing, which is very common. Another group of them, they've cut down a tremendous amount of trees on the properties. So, you know, there's large grass fields that they just mow and mulch it real easily. You know, some, who are more on the wealthy side, hire a gardener which, obviously, due to the size of the property is, you know, is 7-, 800, if not more, a month just to maintain the property and then, obviously, the gardener hauls away the waste. One thing that is concerning that I've seen more often than not is residents creating these gigantic composting piles, some of which I've seen are over in -- over 20 feet in height. I've seen that multiple places, March 14, 2017 Page 38 and that creates all sorts of problems. Number one, it's unsightly; number two, it's tremendously dangerous with children. Again, I have small children. I have another one on the way here in September, and I wouldn't want my child playing anywhere close to one of those giant piles. It obviously attracts rodents, snakes, and, going along with what we just heard, it's a tremendous fire hazard. That stuff dries up, and it could light up in a second. And as I've mentioned, I've seen multiple, multiple, multiple residents creating these piles. I personally don't have a vehicle that's capable of adding a tow hitch so I can go buy a trailer and haul this stuff to the dump. In December I was so far behind on the yardwork I created these piles in my yard, and I had trouble finding anybody who would haul it away. I went through 10 vendors, two of which walked away from me when we started the job. I finally got somebody to do one of the piles for $600, which I think is crazy, but I had no choice. The last two places I've listed, which is suburban Atlanta and suburban Los Angeles, Waste Management has been the trash vendor. In both places they took yard waste in larger barrels, significantly larger barrels, well over 100 gallons. You could order as many as you wanted, and they would pick it up with a mechanical arm. It wasn't done by humans. With these smaller little barrels, you've got to, you know, be Edward Scissorhands and cut this stuff up so small it takes, you know, twice or three times as long as it should. And we've been, quite frankly, frustrated. We can't maintain this property like we'd like. And so I've talked to many people in the area. Many of them feel the same way. They feel like, you know, some of them maybe don't have the initiative to go in front of a Board of County Commissioners like this. But, obviously, the more options they have to better maintain their property, the more the people will maintain their property. These are large properties that take a lot of work, and I think most people March 14, 2017 Page 39 don't expect that this is all just part of the costs that they already pay. They're willing to pay more. I certainly am. So I just wanted to petition the county and the commissioners to address this issue and to make some adjustments, particularly whenever the contract is up for renewal with Waste Management. I know that the better that we, you know, obviously maintain our properties, the higher the property values and, of course, the higher property tax revenue is. So I would ask you guys to help. I'm certainly not the only resident in the area that has a frustration with this, so I'd appreciate your attention to that matter. Any questions? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, where did you say you lived? MR. FLINT: I live on a street called Cedar Tree Lane, which is about four or five lots in from I-75. It's in kind of a quadrant of Pine Ridge on the north, Golden Gate on the south, Santa Barbara to the east, so... COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No questions? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I have a question. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: County Manager, when does our contract come up again? I don't know that we can really have any discussions with regard to this until our contract renewal. MR. OCHS: You can always amend the contract, sir, before it expires, but I'll ask Dr. Yilmaz to answer that question directly. Doctor? DR. YILMAZ: Commissioners, we have -- for the record, Dr. George Yilmaz. For the record, we have contract that has seven years. We have five years left, renewable seven more years subject to terms and March 14, 2017 Page 40 conditions of when we negotiate. I hope I answered your question. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You did. Thank you. DR. YILMAZ: And with your indulgence, I have some statistics to share with you at the discretion of our County Manager. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's fine. Yes, the more information we have the better. Thank you. DR. YILMAZ: Very good. Commissioners, as we speak today we are collecting 32,000 municipal solid waste, recyclables, yard waste. That's the magnitude of our collection system; 32,000 collections a day. We're touching 32,000 homes. That's equivalent to 28 million collections a year, and that's 250 collections per home. We have two garbage collection, one recyclables, yard waste and, as needed, we also collect bulk items including white goods. Now, as far as the yard waste collection, we truly empathize with our customer here. I think our customer is presenting to you an exception, not the rule. We have a 98 percent, given all the surveys, customer satisfaction on all commodity area collections, and I think that my management team provided this customer three options, one of which I have been exercising myself, and that is contract with landscape company maintenance who will take care of the turnkey yard maintenance. So instead of trying to lower their costs and eliminate their disposal portion of the cost, lawn maintenance companies sometimes do give discretion to landowners: If you don't want to pay the tipping fee, leave it on the curb yard. Waste Management is going to pick it up. Waste Management picks up every week 10 bundles. That has been working very well countywide serving all our customers and, also, our special assessment per year for all the service, among others, March 14, 2017 Page 41 is about $193.13. Commissioners, $193.13 for all that service our customer is getting. Now, the customers outside of our general rules of engagement would have the option to either haul it themselves or have their landscape contractors, most of which obligated to take all the waste. They service, they manage, haul, and charge the customer full cost, not just maintenance; someone else will take care of the disposal. The second option is, of course, the yard waste maintenance company doesn't have to come to our yard waste facilities at the landfill. We have private yard waste, mulching, composting facilities. One of them is Yaul Mulching, and they do accept landscape companies providing that kind of waste routing. And with those options, I just want to paint the picture for our board in terms of service level, magnitude, and how affordable our service is. And we do have options for boutique collections but, like anything else, anything above board-set standards of service needs additional fee, and that's the tipping fee. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I don't know who was first. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: She was. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I was just wondering if there was some type of arrangement that this gentleman could work out with Waste Management where they could haul in a truck with the forklifts or whatever it is, and bring that on. MR. FLINT: If I may. To me a real simple solution to the problem -- there's two options. Is for them to offer a supplemental service to pick up a second time a week or to just allow 20 barrels. That would solve my problem like that. And what I've been told by -- I forget his name, but he has an English accent. He's supposedly the head of the public utility division, March 14, 2017 Page 42 the manager. I don't know his name; I forget it. He told me that he went to his superiors, and they said that was not an option because of the contract, and they were unable to amend it. So -- but I'm just -- that's a very simple solution that would make a lot of people in the larger lot areas happy, solve the problem. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. I would -- Mr. Flint, I full well understand your pain. You are here a year and a half to a subtropical environment where shrubs and bushes grow in enormous amounts. I live on 10 acres that I keep and take care of myself. So it is a daunting task. It is a daunting task. I think at this particular stage -- I have heard other folks, residents of our community talk about sometimes the size, the timing of the pickups and that sort of thing, and I think that -- I think as a short answer -- I'm really not interested in -- because any time you go out and amend an existing contract, you open up Pandora's box for renegotiation on a lot of other things that really are not things that we want to look at at this stage of the game. But I would recommend that you look into the boutique process for now to get the additional yard waste that's picked up and that we make reference to this when our new contract -- or when the contract comes up for renewal to see if we can equitably expand the collection operations. I think our new recycling -- we just approved the construction of a new yard waste recycling facility over there on the backside of where the landfill is, in fact, now, and that might be something that we can look into at that time. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. My question was, can he just arrange with Waste Management to -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. March 14, 2017 Page 43 COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- you know, on his own and pay extra to get that done, you know, not touching our agreement or anything with Waste Management, but is there anything he can do other than, as he was saying, go to private enterprise? DR. YILMAZ: Commissioners, that can be arranged, and Waste Management has a supplementary and emergency or subregional emergency response fleet available, and they are part of our debris mission in smaller scale. They do have trucks that the gentleman mentioned, but it will be extra cost, not just tipping fee, but collection. Service is available. It's all about the cost. And bottom line is we have a uniform customer level of service and boutique arrangements set up to the point that accommodate nonroutine but at a cost. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good. There's an answer. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Thank you very much. Item #9B RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE THAT WOULD INSTITUTE TERM LIMITS ON COMMISSIONERS WHEREBY AN INDIVIDUAL SHALL NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR ELECTION AS A COMMISSIONER FOR MORE THAN THREE CONSECUTIVE FOUR-YEAR TERMS - MOTION TO CONTINUE TO THE NEXT MEETING – APPROVED MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that takes us -- excuse me -- to the item that was moved under 9B; it was previously 17B on your agenda. This is a recommendation to adopt an ordinance that would institute term limits on commissioners, and Chairman Taylor brought this March 14, 2017 Page 44 forward. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. I brought it forward because I wanted to see if there was any change in sentiment here. I really strongly believe that the people are in control here, not an ordinance. And if a commissioner doesn't do a good job, that commissioner will not get reelected. Especially in the light of my colleague's honor on the floor of the Congress this week, it just occurred to record me again, you wouldn't have that honor -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's right. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- if you hadn't served as long as you did. And serving as long as you did didn't mean the people ignored it. The people were happy, and that's why they reelected you again and again. And you've had some -- excuse me -- you've had some tough fights, some tough reelections. So there's no doubt to me that you've earned it. Excuse me. I'm going to stop right now. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's all right. I'll just jump in for a minute and say I had so many of my constituents anyway suggest to me that I should never have voted for that. They said, it took you a few years, you know, to find out all of the things that we need to fix and then to find the people to fix it. And when you first start this job the first couple years, no matter what anybody says, except maybe Burt Saunders because he's been around so long, but you really don't know what you're doing. You think you do, and you do the darndest best you can, but you're losing -- using and gaining something every meeting; you learn something new. And I think -- my organization and I -- I hate to ever say just me. You know, that sounds so awful, "I, I, I." But, you know, working together with my community, we've been able to finally make some changes, some nice changes in our community that desperately needed that change. But I could have never done it early on. I needed the time to figure out how to do it to get the people to work with me and make March 14, 2017 Page 45 those changes. So I kind of agree with you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't have any particularly strong feelings one way or the other. As was pointed out at the last meeting when this first came up, it's an ordinance that can be repealed by a simple majority vote of the commission. So it becomes a question of, you know, is this even really enforceable. I want to defer to Commissioner McDaniel because this was something that Commissioner McDaniel campaigned on, and it was important to him, and I want to support, you know, that effort. But I don't have any strong feelings one way or the other in terms of -- you know, 12 years is a long time to serve on the commission. And maybe one alternative, Commissioner McDaniel, is to submit something like this as a ballot question in 2018 as to whether or not -- or at some countywide election, as to whether or not the citizens would want this, but that's just a suggestion, but I don't have any strong feelings one way or the other on this ordinance. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, I do. Obviously, it was top line on my campaign as I came through on the initiatives that I was asked to pursue as I was coming along. I certainly concur with Commissioner Taylor with regard to your honors and so on and so forth. And yes, no, maybe you wouldn't have gotten this if this had been in existence or not, as the case may be. There may have been an accelerant in place to honor you during the term limits that we, in fact, had. I would -- again, Commissioner Saunders said it, you know, it's a simple majority vote to change it. I will bring forward a referendum vote in '18 election cycle just to ensure that there is popular sentiment out here for this and to help solidify it along the way. But I would prefer that we -- that we pursue along what has been suggested with this ordinance, so... March 14, 2017 Page 46 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Doing some high-level mathematics, it appears that there may be a two-to-two vote on your proposal. And so I think we should have a full board. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I have a bit of an issue with, you know -- and, again, it's just semantics here and it's -- again, me being new -- is we don't have a full board membership here to be taken -- pulling something off the consent agenda that was voted by 4-1 in our last meeting. There's no change in the language whatsoever with regard to -- with regard to this. And I don't know, I mean, is there going to be a motion for this to fail, for this to be denied? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, it's up here to vote on, so there's -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. A two-to-two vote would be no action. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Which means it would pass? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, it would fail. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No, it would be no action if -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, it would fail. MR. KLATZKOW: It would fail. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It would fail. MR. KLATZKOW: And the curious thing about your reconsideration ordinance is only a member in the majority can bring it back, which means an absentee member can't bring it back. So if -- you either vote on it today, and whatever the vote is, the vote is, or if you want to continue it for a full board, you continue it. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm going to make the motion to continue it. That may fail as well, but... COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'll support that. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So will I. I mean, there again, certainly I'm not objection -- I have no objection to the discussion and March 14, 2017 Page 47 the entire process. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Who knows, you may be serving 15 to 18 years. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No, no, no. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That would be to continue it to the next meeting. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's correct. That's fine. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Right. That's fine. Okay. So we have a motion to continue. Do I have a second to that motion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I seconded it. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You second it, okay. All those in favor? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously. Item #10A DISCUSSION WITH THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BOARD) TO CONSIDER THE LEVEL OF SUPPORT FOR ACQUIRING UTILITY SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE FLORIDA GOVERNMENTAL UTILITY AUTHORITY (FGUA) PROVIDING WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICES WITHIN THE GOLDEN GATE SERVICE AREA - MOTION FOR STAFF TO COME BACK IN 120 DAYS WITH ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS/OPTIONS – APPROVED March 14, 2017 Page 48 MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, Commissioners, that takes us to Item 10A. This is a discussion with the board to consider the level of support for acquiring utility services provided by the Florida Government Utility Authority, and Commissioner Saunders brought this forward. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And, Madam Chair and Commissioners, I think the executive summary fully lays out in some detail the rationale for considering the acquisition of the FGUA facilities in the Golden Gate City area. I spent quite a bit of time with Dr. Yilmaz discussing the pros and cons of this. Dr. Yilmaz was kind enough to send to me the interlocal agreement between Collier County and the FGUA that sets out the process for Collier County Water and Sewer District to take over that system if it's the will of the governing board, which is us, to do so. And that interlocal agreement's very simple. It simply says that the takeover of that system is basically the county would assume the debt and any obligations that are currently outstanding in the terms of the day-to-day operations of the facility. So there's really no evaluation of value or anything of that nature. The rationale for taking this over is that you have literally thousands of septic tanks and wells that are in very close proximity to each other. Many of those septic tanks are aging, and over the next five, 10 years you can certainly expect to see a significant number of failures of those systems, and there are already failures of those systems there. There's some evidence that there is some pollution getting into Naples Bay through the canal system from those failing septic systems, and so I think that there really is a potential health issue that needs to be addressed there. But, also importantly, the rates charged by the FGUA are substantially higher than the Collier County Water/Sewer District rates March 14, 2017 Page 49 for water and sewer, and so most people don't hook up. There's no requirement for them to hook up to water or sewer, and so you have very little -- a very few number of people that have actually hooked up. I've had some meetings with folks in that area that have tried to get water service, because they know that they need good quality drinking water, without success. I think for the long-term future of that community but also for the long-term benefit of Collier County as a whole, we need to take over that system, get people off septic systems and onto county sewer as well as county water. The request is to direct staff to meet with the FGUA folks to take a look at the system and come back with a recommendation as to whether or not the county should take that over. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I think it's a great idea, as a matter of fact. How do the people in the community feel? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You know, that's an interesting question. I was at a Golden Gate Civic Association meeting last night to discuss this. And there weren't a whole lot of people there, but I think the overwhelming consensus was they really would like to see the county take this over. I've gotten emails from people that are hooked up to the FGUA water system, and their rates are very high. This would help those folks. I've gotten emails from people that have wanted to hook up that haven't been able to, and this would help facilitate that. So I think the general consensus is -- and, of course, I've not done any polling, but I think the general consensus is this is something that's necessary for the long-term future of that community. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And with the remarkable praises we've received in our water company and the best tasting water in the state of Florida, second in the country, I can't blame them for March 14, 2017 Page 50 wanting to be part of that. Is there a cost for hookup or anything, or haven't you gone that far yet? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well -- and Dr. Yilmaz, perhaps, could elaborate on that. I think that the process that we would ultimately use would be to try to hook up people to the county water system first, because that's relatively inexpensive, and that cost can be spread out. And in the terms of getting them off septic systems, that's a more extensive process, and we would have to develop a financing program for that. You know, set up a district and, perhaps, have assessments over a 10-year or 20-year period to cover the cost of the hookups. So there's a way to do it. It's nothing unique about it. And Dr. Yilmaz and I have had quite a few conversations about how we could make that happen. So there may be some direct questions for Dr. Yilmaz on that. But there is a cost, and it would have to be spread out. But I'll tell you, there's also a cost if the septic system fails and someone's required to fix their septic system. That's a very expensive adventure, as well as if the water system is failing or a well fails. That's also expensive. So I think in the long run it would be a lot cheaper for those property owners to be hooked up to city water and sewer. I think that would enhance property values. I think that would -- but, more importantly, it would eliminate some potential health threats. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I agree with you. I don't think there's any -- oh, excuse me. Commissioner McDaniel, go ahead. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Continue on, Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I don't think there's any question the health and safety issue here, but it's my understanding there's significant debt with this authority, this FGUA, that the government, Collier County Government or the Utility Department would have to assume. March 14, 2017 Page 51 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So the idea that the folks that are going to get hooked up are going to get lower rates is probably not accurate because chances are they're going to have to shoulder that debt. I'm not sure we can ask the taxpayers in Collier County to shoulder that debt. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, that would be part of the report that would have to come back as to what was -- what's involved. I don't know what the debt is, the total dollar value of that debt. Dr. Yilmaz, I don't know if you know that answer. But regardless of that, there are about 24,000 people living in Golden Gate City. There's some estimates that it's probably substantially higher than 24,000, and to me it's a ticking time bomb in terms of all of those septic tanks. And so maybe there will be a slight burden on the general rate payers of the Collier County Water/Sewer District, but there is a substantial public benefit, countywide benefit to taking over these types of systems. As I mentioned, there is pollution that's getting into the canal system and into Naples Bay. That's a problem. There is potential pollution to drinking water system, wells. And so we have to take a look at what that cost is, obviously, and it has to be factored in, but I don't think it would be substantial when you take a look at the overall county operations. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Does the Newman -- the high school there, are they on septic, and the two public schools, one is a high school and one is a public school. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'd be very surprised if they were on septic, but I don't know the answer to that. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Dr. George, do you know the answer to that? March 14, 2017 Page 52 MR. YILMAZ: Commissioner, not at this time; however, I think, as I understand the recommendation, recommendation is staff to look into feasibility assessment which will include financial assessment, technical assessment, administrative assessment, and financial portfolio so that we can bring all the information and the knowledge base before this board with the options laid out, including tangible/intangible benefits for informed decision making. And I think that as long as we have a collective and mutual understanding on our leadership side that the feasibility assessment at a minimum will include financial technical administrative assessment, and we'll bring those for -- in form of decision making or further review by this board. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, if I might ask Dr. Yilmaz one question. About how much time do you need to do that evaluation? MR. YILMAZ: This is one of those tasks -- my answer is going to depend on how the Board feels how fast we've got to move given the resources. We're tackling Orangetree Utility. That doesn't mean no excuses. We can do it as fast as we need to. However, I think in this case it's important but not urgent. So I would suggest no less than eight months all the way to 12 months we might be able to provide initial report to our County Manager, and then our County Manager's Office could manage the agenda before you. So we're looking at eight months to 12 months. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The question isn't how long it would take for the county to acquire the system. DR. YILMAZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The question is, how long would it take you to do an evaluation and come back with some recommendations? I would think that eight months would be a fairly March 14, 2017 Page 53 excessive amount of time to just do that type of an evaluation. DR. YILMAZ: Commissioner, what you are thinking, if you don't mind? MR. OCHS: Ninety days, George? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, that's why I was asking. I don't want to push you, but certainly 90 days -- DR. YILMAZ: County Manager, we work for you, so you call any days, we'll make it happen. MR. OCHS: Well, Commissioners, I think 90 days would probably give you enough time. I do have to caution, though, you've got another on this agenda that we need to talk about and -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: My light is on. MR. OCHS: Yeah. These utility systems are starting to stack up like, you know, airplanes waiting to land at O'Hare, so we just need a sense of some prioritization from the Board, again, depending upon what you want to do with this item that we're going to discuss shortly on the Everglades City Utility. But, Commissioners, we could certainly shoot for 90 days if that's acceptable to Commissioner Saunders and the rest of the Board. And if we need more time, we'll certainly come back to you and explain why. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Why don't I suggest that we just say 120 days, and if you need more time at the end of that 120 days -- this is not something that has to be done overnight. We've had a system out there for many, many years, and this is going to take some time. I just don't want to sit back for eight months or 12 months -- MR. OCHS: I understand. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- just to get a report back. So the request would be for staff to come back with some analysis and some recommendations within 120 days, and then we could consider March 14, 2017 Page 54 whether to move forward with it. DR. YILMAZ: Commissioner, doable. And thank you, County Manager. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'll second the motion if that's, in fact, what it was, sir. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's the motion. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And that will take us to the middle of the summer, so it's middle of the summer or later in the summer, but that's where it is. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I think, you know -- and there was discussion, as our County Manager brought up, there is another utility that's in dire need of some attention as well and, as Dr. Yilmaz said, you know, it's our ranking and priority-wise in regards to the health, safety, welfare issues and extremities of repair and maintenance and things that are required. In one of the discussions that I had with our staff yesterday, actually, was some protection for our utility customers, the existent utility customers already, and the segregation. Because as it's set right now, everything's lumped into one. When we bring one in, there's -- everybody shares an equivalent burden of those exposures. And we had a discussion about potentially having an opportunity to allow for assumptions of utilities, such as what Commissioner Saunders has brought up, but not burden the balance of the taxpayer -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: System. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- and the system along the way. It's got to be discussed with our legal counsel and get through the processes, but that's one of the propositions that I suggested yesterday. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. All right. So... MR. OCHS: So we have the direction. Thank you very much. We're good to go. March 14, 2017 Page 55 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: There was a motion and second. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: If it hasn't been, seconded (sic). CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And a second. All those in favor of the motion? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you for your consideration. Item #11D RECOMMENDATION TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR COLLIER COUNTY TO SERVE AS A TEMPORARY RECEIVER FOR THE EVERGLADES CITY UTILITIES SYSTEM – APPROVED MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, before we go to the court reporter break, while we have Dr. Yilmaz here, maybe we could take 11D quickly and then take our court reporter break. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Maybe an extra five minutes. MR. OCHS: Yes. This shouldn't be very lengthy, frankly. It's a recommendation to consider a request from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for Collier County to serve as temporary receiver for the Everglades City utility system. March 14, 2017 Page 56 Dr. Yilmaz will make a very brief presentation on the background. DR. YILMAZ: Good morning, Commissioners, again. And the recommendations are very well shaped and listed in your executive summary. And there are four recommendations. I can read them for record, or executive summary lays out very well what those recommendations are. And our staff recommendation is Board to consider approve. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I'll make that motion. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All those in favor? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. MR. OCHS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well-deserved break. MR. OCHS: Ten minutes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: State the time; 10:42. (A brief recess was had.) MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have a live mike. Item #11A RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT THE “2017 INDEXING March 14, 2017 Page 57 CALCULATIONS FOR PARKS AND RECREATION, SCHOOLS, CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES”, PREPARED BY TINDALE-OLIVER AND ASSOCIATES, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADOPTED INDEXING METHODOLOGY, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 74 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, AMENDING THE PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE, THE SCHOOL IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE, THE CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE, AND THE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE; PROVIDING FOR A DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE OF JULY 10, 2017 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 90-DAY NOTICE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN SECTION 163.31801(3)(D), FLORIDA STATUTES – APPROVED MR. OCHS: We're moving to Item 11A. This is a recommendation to accept the 2017 indexing calculations for parks and recreation, schools, correctional facilities, and transportation impact fees and to authorize the County Manager and the County Attorney to advertise for a future board consideration an ordinance amending your impact fee ordinance to establish new rates and schedules. Ms. Amy Patterson, your Project Planning and Impact Fee Program Management Director, will present. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. MS. PATTERSON: Good morning. Amy Patterson, for the record. We -- actually we have two items in front of you: Item 11A and 11B, and we're essentially looking at 10 different impact fees for different reasons. The first group is part of our annual indexing in the March 14, 2017 Page 58 years between the formal studies. We've had a process in place since 2002 to look at the cost adjustments in the midyears, and that process has evolved from basically a simple CPI adjustment back in the early years to a pretty complicated analysis in the years of the boom time. And during the downturn the Board gave some direction to readjust these indexing methodologies to be more sensitive to cost fluctuations, and that worked well during the downturn and now is working equally well in the upturn, if you want to use the word "well," because this methodology is very sensitive to changes in cost, specifically land cost. You'll see that the regional parks impact fee is the most affected by this indexing at about 10.6 percent adjustment. I have Steve Tindale here from Tindale Oliver who would be pleased to answer questions. If you'd like us to take you through a brief presentation, or if you want to go straight to questions on the indexing, then my suggestion would be we go to the public utilities impact fee directly after that, and we can move on from there. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: What is the pleasure of the Board? Commissioner McDaniel, I did send you a one-way communication to say I know you've been clearly not supportive of impact fees. I thought I'd give you a significant amount of time to explain your position and to talk about it, but we could hear the presentation of staff first or -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Absolutely. That'd be fine. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And I would like to hear a presentation as well. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. MR. OCHS: Amy, before Steve begins, just, again, for the benefit of the public and the new commissioners, explain the requirements in the impact ordinance for both indexing and updates. March 14, 2017 Page 59 MS. PATTERSON: Certainly. The impact fees are updated every three years unless the Board takes action to not do that, and in the midyears between those formal updates -- and the formal updates -- let me step back for a second and say that the formal updates look at the entire gamut of the impact fee. It's cost, it's credits, changes in demand, everything that goes into making up that impact fee. So that's the full study. In the midyear we do what we call an indexing calculation. All it does is look at changes in cost in a very prescribed way. So you have four of your impact fees right now that we're looking at that are being indexed, and then we have an additional six impact fees that we're looking at that are in -- that were in full study. We're required to do these things. Whether the Board chooses to adopt those changes is a different conversation, which we'll get into as we go along. But we, as staff, are required by our ordinance to bring forward these for the Board's consideration. MR. OCHS: Thank you. MR. TINDALE: Good morning. I'm Steve Tindale with Tindale, Oliver & Associates. Nilgun Kamp is my Director of Finance and does eight different public facilities, and she's in Seattle with her kids during spring break, so I'm here kind of sitting in. Usually it's her and I both presenting. I'll try to be very brief and give you a little bit of history about the indexing, and you'll see that mine is a little bit bigger picture than maybe what she would go into some of the details, but hopefully it's going to be useful to you. The idea of the impact fees -- and we've been doing fees since 1980, and the idea of indexing came about is every five, six, seven years some fees would go up 20 or 30. And to be honest with you, the development community come and said, you've got to stop this. We can't -- we can't go out and get financing with fees that go up 30, 40, 50 percent. March 14, 2017 Page 60 So how about indexing these in a reasonable fashion, conservatively, trying not to overestimate it, but at least bring the fees up to where when you do a major update, there's not a big fluctuation. So it's basically to reduce that fluctuation in the three- to five-year updates. They're very reliable during steady state times. I can tell you the last decade -- and I've been doing this for almost 50 years. The last decade has been a really interesting decade, and indexing has been a little bit more, I guess, volatile in terms of seeing the upswing and the crashes and those things. But, to be honest with you, I think the next 30 years will be nothing like the last decade. I think we're going to hit a steady state, and we're headed back towards with the indexing will be much better and more stable than historically. We use a two-year average to where we don't jerk the numbers up and down trying to moderate any changes and being reasonable with the indexes. I just want to show you -- and we have 40 years of data on 67 counties. This is your just value in Collier County. You're number one in income in the whole state, including Palm Beach County, and you're number one in just value per person. You've got an unbelievable community. I work all over the state. You have the highest -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: What does "just value" mean? MR. TINDALE: That's the value of the property that the Property Appraiser has appraised. There's a taxable value which has the deductions for homestead exemption. This is the just value, the change in the value of homes and buildings and property in the county. And you can see from 1990 to 2016 that we've had an unbelievable time period. I've never seen this type of a curve before. Do you see the hump? I don't know if some of you remember '08, '09, March 14, 2017 Page 61 and '10 when we were all just depressed. Is it ever going to stop? And it bottomed out in 2011, it did stop, and this county's starting back up, and you're starting back up, and you're moving a little faster than most counties in terms of your transition upward. You're outpacing most counties. You're ninth in permitting right now, and you're probably first in changing your just values. So your recovery's been substantial compared to the other 67 counties. But indexing for the 30 years before this, those numbers changed 3 to 7 percent. Cost changed 3 to 7 percent, and indexing made a lot of sense. During this time period we had to be very careful. Prices were going up. One thing about indexing, indexing, the indexes don't change like real costs. So when the prices were going up 15 or 20 percent, the index was only going up 3 or 4 percent. So one thing we did find about indexing, even during this silly time period where prices were going up and prices were coming down, the indexing were pretty consistent. We use a combination, national, local, and then some of your local data. So -- but I just wanted to highlight what we've been through. I can tell you in 2003, '4, and '5, I was in front of commissioners in all the state saying I don't know what's going on. I've never seen this before. People were paying for homes that they couldn't afford, prices were going up, and we wouldn't figure out -- wages weren't changing, but things were going crazy. And '8, '9, and '10, I don't think I've even been so depressed and been in front of so many depressed people with the crash that we were going through. So I just wanted to highlight that the last decade has been different for indexing. It's been very stable. It moderates at -- it didn't go -- their indexes didn't do this (indicating). They're much more flat, and they are useful for making sure that you don't have major jumps in fees and numbers for the development community when you do major March 14, 2017 Page 62 updates. So that's the background. And I'll show some of this again when we do the other four fees, because some of the other four fees in the other calculation have changed somewhat. But, again, we've got data on this county. I'd like -- again, I'll just comment. I've been working for you since 1989. I've never seen a county with as nice as roads, parks, schools, and you've got an economy that whips everybody. You need to be very proud of it in terms of what -- and what happens is that the value you have is also sitting there in a very nice position. You do have some issues with some things, and we can go over that some other time in terms of your economic goals, but you're a phenomenal county in terms of my work, and I'm working in about 30 counties right now. The reason -- the indexing calculations, the community and regional parks, schools, correctional facilities, and transportation, and I'll tell you right now, parks are your biggest land-based asset, and your land is what's changed the most. So you're going to see a number for land that's different than everybody else, and there's an absolute reason. I usually try to figure out what it's going to look like before Nilgun goes through the calculations, and I'm pretty good at knowing where it's going to end up and, if it's not, I ask a hundred times why isn't it where we think it should be. And I can tell you your parks index you're going to see is pretty dramatic, but there's a reason for that. You've had some unbelievable changes in the values of your property in this county, and you benefit from that dramatically in terms of your tax revenues. The land and right-of-way, we take both from right-of-way purchases, going through that. Transportation, we use a construction March 14, 2017 Page 63 cost index. We have every construction bid in the state of Florida. We've been tracking them for 30 years in all seven districts, and we have a graph, and it looks something like that little bubble you've seen with transportation. Building, we do the same thing. We have every school that's ever been built in the last 30 years, every one of the different resources we have. So we have an unbelievable record of tracking these (sic) information. And, again, we use -- for the equipment, we use the CPI and the PPI for the equipment. It's usually not a very dramatic index at all. Surprise, surprise. Buildings, 2.6; equipment, 2.2; the roadway construction's .7. I can tell you I don't think that's going to last very long. We're seeing hotspots, and for some reason we're not seeing them quite here, the transportation cost, because of just availability of labor and some of the prices where transportation, down the line, you're going to see some number changing, but you can see land here in this county is a big number in terms of the index changes. And you have had -- I think your tax base probably changed 6, 7 percent in the last -- MR. OCHS: Ten percent -- MR. TINDALE: Ten percent. MR. OCHS: -- this year taxable value increase. MR. TINDALE: And I can tell you the DEO's telling you you're going to change 10 percent again for the next two or three years, and their recommendations, I don't believe it, you're about to level back out. We've got a 40-year trend line, and that index is going to go back up. You're still below a long-term trend line. Your property values are still depressed compared to a trend line, and you're going to see 6, 8, 10 percent for another year or two, and it's going to level off. If it doesn't, I'm going to say we're back into where we were during a time March 14, 2017 Page 64 period when people were getting money they should never have ever been loaned. But that's an interesting thing for you to go through is I think you're going to have another year or two of 8 or 10 percent, which is really nice. It's much better than a 10 or 15 percent drop. So the whole atmosphere we're working here now is a little bit more about it's coming back up, your permitting's up, your ninth in the whole state, and I think it's going to level off, and you're not going to go through another sequence. But that's the driving force on the indexing right now is what you've achieved, which is that land value and that property value you've created, which is an economic engine for you. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Can I ask a quick question, just while you have that graph up, because that was part of our executive summary here, and I just wanted to question, when I was reading through this, it talked about the calculation for roadway construction. You utilized DOT's District 7 as the metrics for calculation, and aren't we in District 1 with regard to DOT? And I was wondering why we went to a different -- MR. TINDALE: You are in 1. If we used 7, I don't think that's correct, so I'd have to -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It says 7, and I actually made a note on it when I was reading it over the weekend. MR. TINDALE: We're working in all seven districts, and my guess is that's a typo. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Got it. Okay. MR. TINDALE: We'll have somebody -- because Nilg_n's not here, so usually we have somebody taking notes. We'll check that for you. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No worries. I just -- I found that curious. March 14, 2017 Page 65 MR. TINDALE: Sure. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And if you're all right, I think as questions come to our mind, I think we should, if it's all right with you, interrupt and ask you those questions at the time. MR. TINDALE: I'm sure. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think it's a lot easier than trying to save -- this is not an easy read. MR. TINDALE: Okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: This is stuff that we need to understand as it goes along. MR. TINDALE: I've been told at times I'm hard to understand with some of the things I say, so hopefully I'll be clear with it. So those are the indexes themself (sic) in terms of the conclusions. You can see that the applicable index, what's happening is the regional parks are more land based in terms of asset per land, and the community parks are more -- you know, have more activities involved in them, but that's the -- basically the -- because you have a community park fee and a regional park fee, and those are the final numbers. So that's the conclusion for the indexing. I think -- again, my feeling is -- I know some -- I have some differences than some of the development community. Most of the development community really likes the idea of not having to fight fees every four or five years with 20 or 30, 40, 50 percent changes. These indexes are moderate. We're always very careful with them. You always have the right every year to not do it for whatever reason, which is your choice, but it gives you this feeling of comfort that there's no big surprise, and you're not going to fall behind in financing such a nice asset that you've created in this county. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any questions? (No response.) March 14, 2017 Page 66 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Great. MR. TINDALE: That's the indexing. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's it? MR. TINDALE: Yes, ma'am. MS. PATTERSON: At your pleasure we can -- this is 11A, Item 11A. MR. OCHS: Let's take a motion, if we can, Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah. I'm -- MR. OCHS: And, again, the recommendation's to authorize the County Manager and the County Attorney to advertise this ordinance for a future hearing in front of this board. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Before we do that, Commissioner McDaniel. Because at the last meeting you were starting to talk about impact fees, and I said, nope, next meeting, and this is the next meeting, so -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, it is; yes, it is. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- would you like to speak to this? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Just briefly. First off, I'll make the motion to authorize staff to go forward with the advertising process, and then when we go to discussion I can say my bit. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do we have a second? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah, I'll second, and that's why my light is lit. You can turn that off. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: To second? Okay. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I didn't mean to get ahead of you there, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I just wanted to express I don't have an issue with impact fees at large. There's certainly no argument that growth needs to pay for growth, but I do feel that the methodology as to how we're charging impact fees can be adjusted. March 14, 2017 Page 67 And I have been working with staff to bring forward an initiative to adjust how we're managing our impact fee structure. And so I believe probably within 60 days we'll be able to come forward with an idea that I've proposed to allow us to continue to manage the growth that is inevitable for our community -- you've heard me speak about that on a regular basis -- and still be able to conduct our business. One of the deficits that travels along -- and as Mr. Tindale spoke about, we have built a magnificent community, but one of the deficits that travels along with our impact fee structure is they are predominantly a one-time statutorily regulated tax and imposition on the first person in that is conducting business or building a facility in our community, and we are relegated as to how, where, when, and what we spend these funds on. So I think careful consideration as we're going forward with the increases that are associated with impact fees and, in fact, how we're doing business is what I'm looking to -- what I would like for us to have a discussion about. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Very good. All right. Well, there's a motion on the floor and a second to instruct the -- to, yeah, instruct the County Manager to advertise these indexed impact fees as so depicted in Item No. 11A. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously. MS. PATTERSON: Thank you. March 14, 2017 Page 68 Item #11B RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 74 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, WHICH IS THE COLLIER COUNTY CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE, PROVIDING FOR THE INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE OF FIVE IMPACT FEE STUDIES; AMENDING THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE, THE LIBRARY IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE, THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUILDING IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE, THE LAW ENFORCEMENT IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE, AND THE WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF APRIL 17, 2017 FOR ALL RATE CATEGORIES THAT ARE DECREASING AND A DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE OF JULY 10, 2017 FOR ALL RATE CATEGORIES THAT ARE INCREASING, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 90-DAY NOTICE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN SECTION 163.31801(3)(D), FLORIDA STATUTES; AND PROVIDING FOR REMOVAL OF THE SUNSET LANGUAGE FOR THE IMPACT FEE PROGRAM FOR EXISTING COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT – APPROVED MR. OCHS: That takes us to Item 11B. Ms. Patterson can take you through the impact fee updates. And, again, Commissioners, this staff recommendation is to consider these rate adjustments and authorize the County Manager and the County Attorney to advertise the ordinance for a future board meeting and deliberation. March 14, 2017 Page 69 MS. PATTERSON: Good morning. Amy Patterson again, for the record. Now we're moving on to the full studies. And at your pleasure we'd like to start with the water and wastewater impact fees. This is a full study and different than the others. This one -- all of our impact fee studies as well as the indexing are reviewed by our Development Services Advisory Committee. And this study and the associated rates received the endorsement of the Development Services Advisory Committee both on the methodology as well as the associated rate structure. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Brian Mance from PRMG, and he can take you through a brief presentation. MR. MANCE: Good morning. For the record, Brian Mance (phonetic) from Public Resources Management Group. I'm here with Robert Ori, the president of PRMG, and we just have a brief presentation for you regarding the water and wastewater impact fee study. As Amy mentioned with respect to public involvement, on January 20th of this year we did present the study results to the Development Services Advisory Committee, or DSAC, subcommittee, and the subcommittee recommended approval to be -- for the results to move forward to the full committee. On March 1st of this year the study results were presented to the full committee, and DSAC voted to accept the study and the corresponding fees. As was mentioned, impact fees help to support the growth -- the policy of growth paying for growth, and these additional financial resources provide a long-term favorable user rate benefit. They reduce the financial pressures on monthly user rates. It's important to note that the district is rated triple A by the credit rating agencies, which is an indication of credit risk. This is the March 14, 2017 Page 70 highest credit rating, and the water and wastewater impact fees are pledged toward the repayment of the utility's debt. And this strong rating, triple A -- can't get any higher than that -- helps to reduce the district's borrowing costs and keep the user rates lower. With respect to the methodology, we employed the same methodology that we've used in previous analyses, and the overall change in impact fees that we're recommending is about $148 increase or about 2.9 percent; very minor differences. With respect to how they -- with how the -- as you can see from this graph of how the impact fees compare with those of other communities, you can see that the county's position in terms of competitiveness would be unchanged with these results. And, certainly, there's a lot of different reasons why impact fees differ among utilities which can range from the source of supply, the type or complexity of treatment, the availability of grant funding to finance the capital improvement program, the time elapsed since the last impact fee review; just a myriad of reasons why impact fees differ among utilities. But our recommendations, our summary of recommendations to the Board are to adopt the proposed water and wastewater impact fees which, as I mentioned, have been vetted and accepted by DSAC, and consider them to be reasonable and to meet the criteria established by case law and the Florida Impact Fee Act. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just have a question. You mentioned DSAC a few times, and you said this was accepted, but in our backup material it says DSAC voted not to increase the rates for any of the four facilities, and I don't understand what the difference is from what you've said and what I'm reading. MS. PATTERSON: I can clarify that for you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good. March 14, 2017 Page 71 MS. PATTERSON: We had a whole package of impact fees that the DSAC looked at. So the four that you're referencing are the ones we're going to talk about next. The two that they endorsed were the water and wastewater impact fee. So two different recommendations. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. MS. PATTERSON: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Anyone else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. MS. PATTERSON: I'm going to move on to our remaining impact fees, also full study, and we have a lengthier presentation on this one. If you would like, we can go through that. Perhaps Mr. Tindale would like to pick and choose a few slides, or if you want to go straight to questions. At your pleasure, we can go through this one as well. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think we'll go through the whole -- MS. PATTERSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- presentation. MS. PATTERSON: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We have one commissioner that, unfortunately, had a major conflict so he couldn't be with us, and I think the more information we put that he can review the better it would be. Thank you. MR. TINDALE: Okay. Again, Steve Tindale with Tindale, Oliver. Again, this is as brief as possible and yet it's pretty detailed. I'd like to say a couple comments. We've been told by all of our clients -- and if you'll look at the reports, the most transparent reports that this could produce. Every table in the report has got a footnote with a source, a time frame. So one thing I suggest, if you have any questions in detail, it's just amazing -- and, again, I'm the only one that does this. March 14, 2017 Page 72 There's nothing that you've got to ask that she doesn't have footnoted on every item in the report, of the source of it and why it's that way. So I'm going to take that and try to condense it down into some of the conclusions and some of the more systemic things that we want to look at. I'm going to go over a little bit about the background, the overview of impact fees in general -- I don't know if we need to spend a lot of time on that -- the findings of the technical study, and we'll spend some more detail, and then the summary and the conclusions of the calculations. Before we did our emergency management, government buildings, law enforcement, and libraries, the impact fees are to update all the variables, and there's six or eight variables that have to be updated in detail. And I'd like to highlight here -- and I'll mention a couple more times there was a state law passed for the first time on impact fees. The governments have been very lucky to keep the state out of the impact fee business and strictly rely on court cases, and the state have all said it used to be the person coming in and telling you his responsibility to prove things, and now you have to be right. So the burden of proof has swung. And so the level of detail that we have, and the information we have has become that much more important. And some of the things we're doing now are a little bit more detail to make sure we're taking care of that. It used to be there was reasonable things to do and legal things to do, and you were -- had a lot more flexibility with legal than you did reasonable, and now you have to be both legal and reasonable with what you're doing, and the proof. So some of the stuff you're seeing are adjustments to be sure we've refined it in dealing with that test. You just saw this graphic earlier. I wish I would have brought this '70 to 2000, that first 30 years. That first 30 years was 3 to 5, 6 March 14, 2017 Page 73 percent, very consistently, no bubbles. The last decade has had that curve up and down, so I've been tracking this for many years. And before we start a study, I look at it and say, this is -- this is my opinion on how much the fees are going to change, and then they've got to show me why they didn't. If you look at 2005 to 2010, the fees, we changed about 5 percent. You can see we missed charging a huge amount, dropping back down; we stayed stable with those fees. To be honest with you, in 2005 we were looking back and saying, God, the future is unbelievable. We're going to undercharge, and we did. In 2009 and '10, we were saying, we're going to continue to crash. So between those two things and trying to be reasonable with the fees, we ended up with fees that were about 5 percent difference in each other in terms of where we landed. And it's interesting to see that's about where we are. If you look at 2011/'12 and all of a sudden the pickup, my gut tells me -- and it's happening all over the state -- the costs of capital, the cost of assets and facilities are going up 20, 25, 30 percent. So anybody that's done a fee that's five years old, they should be expecting a change of about 25 percent. And, lo and behold, when you see the final number of all the fees up and down -- and some of them went up more than the others -- I think is 22 percent. So, first of all, the conclusions meet pretty well with what I think our expectations were, and I like to usually start out telling you where we ended up and then telling you how we got there, because if I don't you'll be wondering the whole time what are the numbers. So the numbers changed on these four fees a little less than 25 percent, and I think there's reason for each one of them varying differently. And here they are. If you'll look at the total fees for these four March 14, 2017 Page 74 assets, they move from $1,600 in total to about 2,000. So the total fees, with some going up, some going down, is 23 percent. And so what I'm going to present to you, each one -- I'm going to present each one of these in a little more detail of why some of them went up more than 22 percent, some of them did not go up to 22 percent, but we ended up with the total assets there. And I'd like to highlight, on emergency services, when you have a $100-fee and you change it by 50 bucks, it's a 50 percent increase. So any chunk of asset or something that comes into that system can dramatically change that percentage. But it's 50 bucks. So when you see those numbers, most of them are between 7 and 30 percent, which I figured, and I'll go into a little detail about why the EMS changed. And on the single-family -- we also did something in terms of the multifamily/single-family that changed that percentage. The overview, of which I think you're aware of: They're to maintain level of service is (sic) to calculate growth. They're hugely beneficial when we used to deal with individual developments and had a fee to charge the large developer for, if nothing else, for negotiating, and they're most needed when you're in a high growth rate, and right now you're ninth in the state in permitting. And in terms of absolute growth projection, you're in the top 15 in the state in terms of growth. Counties who aren't growing don't have large impact fees, and they don't need them. Counties that are growing need the fee for the rate of growth, and that's where you are. And they're very useful when you have limited funding. And, to be honest with you, you do not have the sales tax and some of the things that other counties have in terms of capital. You do have a nice tax base, but you're not using some of the other instruments in terms of capital funding, so that you're being very frugal with the sources of revenues you're using. So between the growth rate you have and what you're trying to do financially, that's March 14, 2017 Page 75 when fees really pay off. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: So boiled down, things that you just said were, that our rate of growth is high, which is outstanding, our tax base is low, which is outstanding, and our impact fees are high, which kept all of that stuff moving along; is what you boiled down to say? MR. TINDALE: That's what I've seen for 30 years. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. MR. TINDALE: It is one-time charge. It covers the cost of growth, but I can tell you in many of our communities, if you don't have this and you start spending some of your tax base on capital, you borrow from your operating. So people say you can't spend it on operating. You absolutely do benefit by not taking operating money to pay for capital. So it does help you protect the quality of the operation. And I see this consistently. Communities that have larger impact fees also operate very well. Oh, you can't use it for operating. Well, you can relieve their operating budget by not using it for capital, and that's something you've done very well. You've taken your good tax base, you've maintained a high quality service in terms of your service you provide, and you use these fees not to bleed down into chewing up your operating revenues. The fee basically is calculated for what the new development generates in terms of being (sic) and value, gives them credit for all future tax revenues, capital tax revenues, and that's the difference. So it's really the difference between the revenues you're going to -- capital revenues you generate and the cost for that individual development. The findings of the process -- and, again, I mention the report, and there's a huge number of appendix. She's great at giving you unbelievable information and background. Your inventory and your levels, all those calculations are in an appendix, and we keep a pretty March 14, 2017 Page 76 nice report. The report's really thick with a big index; appendix in the back. The inventory, the service delivery, the cost, and we have an unbelievable set of data where you -- local cost, statewide cost, cost trends, credit. We look backwards in terms of your investment, forwards in your investment in terms of capital investments, and then we check the demand. And the demand's a little squirrely at times in terms of the change of some of the demand because we have new data available and, finally, we calculate the fee. Government buildings. And I'll say right off the bat, we started government buildings fees about 25 years ago. They were one of the -- to me one of the most controversial. People just didn't -- that was kind of odd. Government building fees. And so I went back 20 years ago, and I said, do large counties on a per-person basis have fewer square foot than smaller counties? Is there an economy of scale, and I found out there wasn't. It was interesting. As the county grows, the number of square foot in the administrative buildings seem to stay the same level. Because that was one of the questions in my mind. You know, are we adopting these fees and they really don't make a difference, because you build one building, and it's going to satisfy the population for 50 years. I found out that wasn't true. Based on the size of the county, the per square foot of the administrative building, property appraisers, you know, all -- courts, everything else, there seems to be no correlation that the number of square foot goes down. The demand. And you'll see this on every one of them. And this is a single-family home. All of them went down just a little bit in terms of demand per unit. And I'll be very honest with you, you've got everything going in the right direction. I don't know if you want to call it right or wrong. You -- the state as a whole is aging. The state of March 14, 2017 Page 77 Florida is getting a little older. Some counties are actually getting a little younger, and some counties are getting older faster than the state. You're getting older faster than the state. That's one area that I'm sure you're working on in terms of bringing in employment, maybe diversifying. So the person per household is trending downward just a little bit. So every four or five years, the person per residential unit drops a little bit. And hopefully you'll get more employment, more diversity, and you get a shift, and that's not bad to shift some of that responsibility. The cost per resident went up a little bit, the credit in terms of amount of investment in government buildings has gone down in terms of the future, and the fee ended up about 22 percent larger than the one -- the current one. And all the numbers and everything else, to me, makes sense in terms of looking at the numbers. We do have a -- the final fee. You can see the current adopted fee for each one of the uses. You can see the range for the -- most of them are about 30 percent, which is more what I was expecting, and the residential 22, and that's that shift. That's a little bit fewer people per household. And, again, I think if we were doing the school impact fee, then you see the number of students per household is actually going down in this county. You're aging a little bit, and that's just -- that's just a fact. You are on the high end as far as the amount of buildings we have on inventory. What I found in looking at a lot of the other communities, they just don't put all their assets in the inventory. I think there's a little reluctance to have an administrative building fee or -- I'm not sure what it is, but the range is a couple hundred dollars to almost 800, and this calculation's right at 900. So you're not twice everybody else, but you've got a nice fee, and you've got some nice public assets that you're maintaining. Law enforcement. Now, this is one where we found some March 14, 2017 Page 78 inventory, and you'll see a big change, but it's mainly an update with finding some assets that were brought on the books. Again, the same minor change in the residential. The cost per residence jumped up dramatically, but I can tell you specifically we just flat out increased your inventory and some assets that weren't on the books that we included in this round, and the fee went up about 30 percent. The total impact fee that we calculated is 587 for the single-family home, and you can see that's a little higher for the rest of them. And, again, the driving force here is just bringing in the total assets into the inventory that had not been brought in in terms of equipment and some other things that were not included in the inventory and the asset value. You can see the range, anywhere from $129 to almost $800. So you're well within the range for law enforcement even with that adjustment of the asset. And this is the rest of the fees throughout the state. Libraries facilities is one of the more stable ones. It was interesting. It did not move that much. Again, that same demand. Remember, now, libraries are charged only on residential. The cost went up a little bit but also the credit went up in terms of the future assets in building libraries. So giving that credit, bringing it back, your fee got adjusted 7 percent, which is -- I was surprised in terms of the numbers. It's -- that's a very nice thing to see occur, and some of that's coming from you are spending more taxes on capital than you had previously. You see the range, 7 percent on the residential, they did want me to make a note. We modified. There was conversation about the vacancy in the retirement communities and the fees we have there. We adjusted that dramatically in terms of the number of persons per unit, which moved that fee from the $349 to about 150, so we did adjust. March 14, 2017 Page 79 And that's one of those updates in having information. This is the range. And you can see the range is anywhere from $64 -- which is only 40 percent of what was calculated -- all the way up to almost 700. Essentially, we have one community that just merged their libraries and parks and called it cultural services, and they're having some real heartburn with were they investing their money in the fee. I personally like the libraries and the parks and recreation separate as you have. And, again, this is the rest of the fees throughout the state. Emergency Medical Services. This is one I'll highlight. And this -- I think we really need to do this both because it's fair and also because I think as a whole new legislation about being defensible. Under the Emergency Medical Service, for whatever reason, we had the single-family and the multifamily all blended together, and multifamily has a lot fewer people per unit than a single-family. So the one number was down. So when you went to pull a permit for a single-family home, it was low because we had mixed the two together, and there was a decision, let's get this separated like all the rest of them; we did. So the single-family, then, when you take the multifamily mixed in with it and you calculate it, it just goes back the way it should have been, but it looks dramatically like it has a huge change in the process. That change is 50 bucks. And I can tell you, I would recommend you move from $94 to $142 and separate them. It's not a huge amount. It's a big change in percentage. It's not a huge amount in terms of the fee on a single-family home, and now you're in compliance where a single-family gets one price and the multifamily gets the lower price because they have fewer people per unit. And you can see the range there is 17, 18 percent on most of the nonresidential. We've got the ranges here. You got your $142 a unit. I think the next slide has the high and low. The lowest fee is $33, and we have March 14, 2017 Page 80 people with EMS fees up to $600. So you can see that number is actually on the lower end in terms of the assets you have and at least what you're charging in terms of assets. That's the summary there from what I started with, kind of told you what the conclusions were. Hopefully I explained to you why the $94 changed to 142. It seemed like a high percentage. It's the thing to do. It's the right thing to do on a single-family home, and you see the adjustments for the rest of them with an average change over the last two decades that the numbers changed about 3 percent a year if you take the whole time period; about the 30 percent. It's actually 23 percent. So I feel comfortable. I think the report's well documented with all the details. It's very transparent. Usually we're told by DSAC and everybody we may not like your conclusions, we may not like the results but, my goodness, we have a hard time finding anything that's hidden or missing or whatever, and we'll check the District 1 and the District 7. I tell some clients we're not perfect. We're just -- we think we're the best. And there's probably 20,000 numbers in that report, and I'm sure -- I still bet there's two or three of them that -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No, that was the only error I found. MR. TINDALE: Okay. All right. Well, I'll let Nilgun know. That's it. That's the presentation. Hopefully it was useful. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you very much. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any questions? Discussion? Yes. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: If you might, sir, just expand a little bit on the legalities of where the impact fees are allowed to be spent. Can you elaborate on that a little bit? Because there's a misconception by a lot of people with regard to impact fees in that they March 14, 2017 Page 81 are -- how they can, in fact, be spent. I mean, these increases have nothing to do with the ongoing deficits or maintenance issues that we -- deferred maintenance issues that we have going on as well, if you could share a little bit with that. MR. TINDALE: Yeah. And it's interesting, the '70s, '80s, the people would go out and say, I think I want to build this, and this is my development here. Here's the fee, and they call it needs based. Well, if they decide to build an awful lot, the fee was very high. If they decided to build a little bit, the fee was low. But we moved to what we call consumption based, and what we do is take the full asset that you've developed today per person or person vehicle mile, and we figure out the value of each unit of development, and we charge you to consume that asset, and it's the value to replace it. So ours are a consumption-based fee. We feel very good. We've been doing them now and -- I think in statewide, probably 90 percent of all the communities now have moved into the consumption-based fees. But it is for growth. It can only be spent to expand something, to add capacity. But you've got to be careful, because when you expand capacity, you release your funds. And I used to be a public works director, and I can tell you having impact fees and relieving my operating budget was very useful. So it's a misnomer that they don't help operating and maintaining things. But you can only build new things, a new fire station, more land, a new park facility, a new fire truck, a new EMS truck. You can't -- you can't replace what you've got with them. They are supposed to be impact based, the impact, not benefit based. And that is a really interesting thing when we do benefit assessments and we deal with the benefit to the property versus the impact on the asset. But these are impact based, and they have to be for expansion, March 14, 2017 Page 82 capital needs; and the other thing the Court ruled, you can't charge them twice. The developer pays a fee, and then they go pump gas. When they're pumping gas, they pay taxes to build roads. You can't charge him when he pulls a fee (sic) and then charge him at the gas pump or at the -- or even when he pays his ad valorem tax. So you can charge him once, so we'd have to give him that credit in terms of doing it. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Do we have any public speakers on this? MR. MILLER: No. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Ms. Patterson, do you want to sum up, or are we -- we're done? MS. PATTERSON: We're done with our presentations, and at the County Manager's instruction, we will -- provided that you want to move forward with advertising this, we'll go through the advertising process and then schedule this for an advertised public hearing on the regular agenda so that Commissioner Solis will be able to provide his input as well. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's good. That's good. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So I'll make a motion, then, that we advertise for future consideration. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any other discussion? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: As a point -- just as a question, it's not going to -- if there are adjustments that are made to these estimates or these figures, that won't require us to go back out and readvertise? I don't know who to ask. MR. KLATZKOW: No. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. March 14, 2017 Page 83 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. We have a motion on the floor and a second. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously. Thank you very much. MS. PATTERSON: Thank you. MR. OCHS: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. Mr. Tindale will be coming back in two weeks; is that correct? MR. OCHS: Not two weeks, ma'am. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, when -- the 90 days? MR. OCHS: It will probably be sometime in the April. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: As long as he's here for when Commissioner Solis -- MR. OCHS: Oh, absolutely. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, thank you for this. MR. OCHS: Yes. We'll schedule a time so that he's here. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Wonderful. Thank you. MR. OCHS: Thank you. Madam Chair, I know we have one registered speaker for Item 11E. Would you like to take that before the 11C item? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think the -- 11E, which is -- MR. OCHS: That is the -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- public office, yes. MR. OCHS: Report on the municipal golf course. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Yes. March 14, 2017 Page 84 Item #11E RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT THE REPORT BY HUNDEN STRATEGIC PARTNERS ON THE STATUS OF PRIVATE/PUBLIC GOLF COURSES IN COLLIER COUNTY, AND PROVIDE STAFF WITH DIRECTION REGARDING FURTHER PURSUIT OF PUBLICLY FUNDED GOLF COURSES IN COLLIER COUNTY - MOTION TO ACCEPT REPORT AND DIRECTING STAFF TO NOT PURSUE THE VACANT LAND FOR A NEW COUNTY RUN FACILITY BUT TO REVIEW ANY OPPORTUNITIES OF EXISTING GOLF COURSES ON A CASE- BY-CASE BASIS – MOTION FAILED TO OBTAIN A MAJORITY VOTE MR. OCHS: Let's go ahead, then, with Item 11E. This is a recommendation to accept the report by Hunden Strategic Partners on the status of private or public golf courses in Collier County, provide staff with direction regarding further pursuit of publicly funded golf courses, and your Parks and Recreation Division Director, Barry Williams, with begin the presentation. MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioners, good morning. Barry Williams, Parks and Recreation Director. And just to start, I just wanted to say that this has been an item that has come up before the Parks and Rec Division several times over the last 30 years or so. And it is an interesting question and, certainly, we have colleagues in the state of Florida that manage golf courses. This is a very unique community that we live in in terms of number of golf courses, but what we have done is we've contracted with Hunden Strategic Partners to come in and do just an analysis of the question, and what we wanted to do this morning was just to March 14, 2017 Page 85 present to you that data and then seek your direction in terms of what you would like us to consider in terms of moving forward. So with that said, what I'd like to do is to introduce Nick who is a great guy with a difficult last name to pronounce, but I'm going to try it. It's Nick D'Onofrio. Nick, how'd I do? MR. D'ONOFRIO: Yeah, okay. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We'll just go with Nick. MR. WILLIAMS: Nick is good. Nick is easy. And Nick is an analyst with Hunden and, if I could, I'll just ask him to come forward and provide a presentation for you. MR. D'ONOFRIO: Thank you. Again, Nick D'Onofrio here with Hunden Strategic Partners. Yeah, so we were tasked with providing the analysis on a golf course facility needs assessment for Collier County. And so the key questions that we were really charged with in better understanding what is the purpose of Collier County developing a golf course, its own golf course, what are the costs and benefits, and are there any other alternatives that can achieve similar goals. And we also are going to look at the national trends, and as well the trends and demographic trends in Florida and in Collier County and how do they impact recreational golf. And then what is the present condition of the golf facilities and infrastructure throughout Collier County as it relates to golf courses, and what are the cost benefits in providing a publicly managed golf course versus a privately managed golf course in Collier County. So the headlines of what we -- the overview of our high-level study that we've done so far is the purpose of a publicly owned golf course is to provide quality golf at a seasonally competitive yet reasonable rate for residents, and this is, most importantly, during the peak season, which is December through March. March 14, 2017 Page 86 The cost for a development of a golf course, the capital costs are 2 to $3 million, then you'll have your land acquisition costs, and then ongoing operating costs as well, which have exceeded $300,000 from some of the comparable golf courses we studied. And then the alternative scenario that was presented was a discounted coupon or similar discount by the county to provide the county residents an option to play at existing golf courses at a discounted rate. This is good for the existing golf courses, as it brings in more revenue for them, but it's a challenge during the high peak seasons because there's already such a high demand in Collier County for golf. The national trends, looking at it as a -- nationally, it's decreasing about 24 percent, and this has been since 2006. Nationally, the target demographic is going to be your baby boomer to your Generation X generation as well as in addition to households with annual incomes of more than $50,000. As I said, there is a high concentration of golf courses in Collier County, but there is a limited number of high-quality affordable public access courses, or as what they might call semiprivate resort courses in the county. There is a higher likelihood of increased gross if net revenue with a private third-party management relative to the public management. Due to the way that the incentives will be structured with that third-party management, they'll be more incentivized to maximize revenue and utilization. And then quality of the golf courses is very important. There's currently existing privately owned low-quality courses that are charging less than higher-quality public owned courses in other counties from the survey that was conducted. So, again, the national trends here, as I stated earlier, there is a 24 percent decline since 2006 currently going on. March 14, 2017 Page 87 And the frequency of participants, so your average golfer is going to be recreational in nature. Might play too frequently -- or occasionally to infrequently, two to about 40 times a year, so it's more on the recreational side than it is an avid golfer. So looking at the baby boomer generation and Generation X, and nationally looking at it, it's about 53 percent of the population are in those age demographics. As that relates to Collier County, 34 percent of Collier County's population is in baby boomer and Generation X generation. And then when looking at the incomes of more than $50,000, that's about 80 percent of the national participation level; whereas, in Collier County, there's 57 percent of Collier County's households earn more than $50,000. So there is a strong market demand in demographics to support recreational golf in Collier County. As it relates, there's about 197,000 people that fit that demographic in Collier County, and there is some overlap in that number. So when you look at the national trends nationally, they're kind of broken up into different regions. Florida, specifically, is in the South Atlantic Region, which kind of runs the southeast coast. As you can see on the table here, they have the highest, largest share of participation nationally at 18 percent. So the demographics in trends in Collier County, again, they got 57 -- you guys have 57 percent of the households that earn more than $50,000, and 34 percent of the population is either in the baby boomer or Generation X generation. When you look at the demographics now for Southwest Florida, when you compare that -- Collier County to the southwest demographics, it has the highest percentage of households with more than $50,000, but it has the lowest percentage of baby boomer generation and Generation X residents compared to Southwest Florida. But this does not account for any seasonable visitors that may come March 14, 2017 Page 88 into Collier County. And, again, looking at the whole entire county as a whole, there's 75 total courses; 14 are public courses that are privately owned. And when we took the survey that was done, we looked at the publicly owned surveyed golf courses and compared them to the privately owned local public access courses in Collier County. I know that's quite a tongue twister, but -- so when you look at those, the cost per round averages $25 lower during the low season, so the off-peak season, and then it's about $56 lower during the high season on publicly owned courses versus privately owned. And then the feedback from our conversations that we had to stakeholders in -- golf industry stakeholders is that there's a moderate decrease in local play, but seasonal play has increased. And with that, the summer rates are more attractive to the locals. Locals generally play in the off season due to that high demand during the peak season. And then residents that are not members of a private course are seeking a high-quality public access course. Specifically South of Naples has been identified as an opportunity for a high-quality public course that would be in demand. And then the annual number of golf rounds per 18 holes ranges right around 30- to 40,000 rounds per year. So the management style of options for Collier County, the two different options here, you have the public management. This is going to be a little bit more towards providing that quality of life as well as providing a quality golf course for its residents. So it's going to maintain operational responsibilities, the county will, and it will assume the liability of the golf course. And, again, it's more geared towards providing that quality of life for your resident; whereas, the private management in the incentive base is that may be -- establish for them will be more on maximizing utilization, minimizing the expenses. They're going to be more focused March 14, 2017 Page 89 on utilizing discounted websites or apps, like Golf Now, that allow you to, throughout the day, put your -- allow you to offer golf at a discounted rate throughout the day at certain off-peak hours. So that really helps drive utilization. That may not be something that the public management style would do because they're more geared towards, again, that quality of life and providing that high-quality golf course. So when we looked at the survey, again, as far as revenue and expenses, we broke it down per nine holes. The majority of the surveyed golf courses were losing money, and they were managed by public sectors. And, again, it was just a perceived amenity for the local residents and viewed as a quality of life amenity for the residents. The projection of golf demand we presented here, we gave three different options. We gave a low, a base, and a high. The demand for golf is really going to be based on the population growth and the rate of decrease in participation. As Collier County continues to grow in population and coupled with the fact that they're in the South Atlantic Region, which has high golf participation, it should kind of counterbalance and keep participation in Collier County pretty high due to the fact that all those aspects are in line for Collier County. So, in conclusion, there's a one-time and ongoing financial commitment. We've seen that about 140- to 180-acres site is average for an 18-hole publicly owned golf course. And land prices generally increase as population increases. The average development cost, from comparable situations and from our research, has been between 2 to $3 million, plus the land acquisition costs. And then the Cap X on top of the operating loss, again, is ranging between 75,000 to 150,000. But, again, this is something that has a lot of factors that go into it, especially the number of rounds per year. Obviously, the more rounds you have per year, the March 14, 2017 Page 90 higher you're going to -- the more you're going to need to upgrade the facility at the end of the year. And then annual net operating loss is more likely than the profit, and it can get anywhere up to a loss of $400,000. And this publicly owned golf course would provide affordable play for a portion of the county, and the number of beneficiaries, relatively small compared to the overall population. There is little additional economic fiscal employment benefit to consider in the ROI consideration, and then the discounted rate is an opportunity for you guys to achieve the goal of offering reasonable prices for your residents at a much more less expensive solution, but it would also provide the local current golf courses benefits as well as -- by taking advantage of the off season; whereas, the peak season might be a little bit tough for the local residents to find tee times during those -- the peak season. And that's kind of where we had been in our high-level review of Collier County feasibility at this point. If you have any questions, I'm available. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any questions? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I've got a couple questions. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't want to jump ahead of anybody. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. One of the slides and one of the comments was that there would be a potential location south of Naples. I'm not sure what that means. South of Naples is sort of -- MR. D'ONOFRIO: Yeah. The feedback we got is that just south, in South Naples is an opportunity for a high-quality publicly owned golf course that would be in demand. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Provide a little bit of a March 14, 2017 Page 91 definition of what you mean by in the South Naples. Are you talking about -- MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioners, good question. In terms of location and potential land, I'm thinking that's where you're probably coming from your question. You know, in terms of availability of land, the 6L's area is a possibility down the road. I think what the consultants looked to do was to see within the county where they saw there would be some opportunities for growth in that area, and that particular sector was identified. So the other question is, where would you find land, though, in South Naples, and certainly that's -- down the East Trail is what's being referenced, though. COMMISSIONER FIALA: He really means East Naples? MR. WILLIAMS: Well, South Naples or down the East Trail, yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: In terms of availability of courses, what about some existing courses that are subject to conversion right now. Is any analysis of what may be an existing course that might be available? MR. WILLIAMS: Part of the study didn't really focus on courses. There are three that come to mind, though. And, certainly, Evergreen, the old Evergreen facility that's in -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And where is that? MR. WILLIAMS: That is in East Naples. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Lakewood. MR. WILLIAMS: Lakewood is also another course that's been talked -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Evergreen is in Lakewood, right? MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am; yes, ma'am. But the one that has probably the most possibility or interest is the Golden Gate Country March 14, 2017 Page 92 Club. That particular course and the story that you know about that in terms of them stopping golf and seeking redevelopment, and -- but that course, in particular, would certainly be one on the radar. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And let me ask one other question. You indicated that the operating loss of a course could be as much as 400,000 per year, and the capital cost on top of that could be as much as $150,000 a year. Is that a pretty -- are those pretty average numbers of municipal courses around the state? MR. D'ONOFRIO: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Is that kind of, realistically, what we would expect here? MR. D'ONOFRIO: Yeah. So, based on the -- yeah, the comparable situations that we found throughout the state, that's kind of the average of what we were finding. But, again, we're going to be doing more detailed research as we get further into the report, on the final report. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you, Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. You asked some of the same questions I had. Thank you for asking them. On the -- it said -- you said something about the national -- national decline. Well, is that Collier County, or are you grouping us into national? Because that affects the figures, doesn't it? MR. D'ONOFRIO: Yeah. So that was just the overview of the national trends as a whole. So within the United States there is a 24 percent decrease. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I think some of these -- and as I was looking at your figures, it was interesting because you were weighing it against other places, but so many of them just said NA's, NA's, NA's. I thought, well, you really couldn't -- if there's no information available, how can you average that out? And some didn't March 14, 2017 Page 93 prefer to give you any of their information, so these results, then, are just with the few people that responded and on a few of the subjects, right? MR. WILLIAMS: Ma'am, if I could clarify. The Hunden study actually did look at national statistics and also local resources. We did provide you a short study that the parks division did. We basically asked our state organization to identify municipalities that manage golf courses. We reached out to 17 municipalities, and they gave us the data. Of those 17, some did, as you mentioned, didn't provide data. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Because sometimes it's kind of hard to, you know, judge Collier County by all of the other counties in the state of Florida because you've got such a variation in locations and people that come into the area and what their sports are, and it could be fishing rather than golfing, you know. Here we find that because of the accommodations we have for visitors as well as new residents, it's -- I hate to say it like this, but it's kind of a high quality, and so I think you have a difference in figures as well if you weigh just Collier County versus like, for instance, Polk County. You'd want to make sure that you're using those figures for us, and I -- and when you were talking about south, I was surprised because south of Naples is Port Royal, but you're probably meaning east of East Naples. On the way to Miami, that would be east, yeah? MR. D'ONOFRIO: Yeah, correct. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Okay, fine. Yeah, there's land there, too, but I think the most important place right now that we are even considering is the Golden Gate golf range. That's made to order, I think, for this, and would save us tremendous amount of costs. Now, we've heard -- and I cannot verify this, but we've heard from people who are talking to other golf courses around -- that Fort March 14, 2017 Page 94 Myers never loses money. Now, I don't know that that's true. I've just heard that repeatedly. But I would think that we should investigate that a little bit more. I think it's about time for us to get more serious about this, especially when there's a property that's for sale that seems so ideal but, at the same time, we don't want to get into it and lose a lot of money. But our parks don't make a lot of money either. Our parks are -- the citizens, when they pay their taxes, they also pay for the privilege for the enjoyment of the libraries, the museums, and the parks. And so I hope that we would give it a fair look. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala, if you look under the municipal golf survey, the City of Fort Myers -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I know it says that. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- would not provide the information, and they did state that the expenses were higher than the revenue. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I saw that. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. I have one question, and then I can make a motion, unless you want to speak as well, Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, I'll speak. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And we do have a speaker, I think. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And we do have a speaker. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Oh, and we do have a speaker, okay. My question -- with regard to the discounted coupon process, is there any -- where would the money come to support that from? MR. WILLIAMS: It's not been identified, Commissioner. It would be a similar thing to a tickets to ride kind of program, a tickets March 14, 2017 Page 95 to golf, if you will, where you would provide a voucher. It would be something that we would advance as part of the budget process. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I think before we can talk too awfully much about that, we have to have a designated revenue source. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So I think we have a speaker. No, no. It's not your fault. Not to worry. MR. MILLER: Your speaker is Frank Collo, Collum? MR. COCCO: Cocco. MR. MILLER: Cocco. I'm sorry. MR. COCCO: Commissioners, Madam Chair, Chairwoman. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Please identify yourself for the record. MR. COCCO: Yeah. My name is Frank Cocco. I'm the Community Association Manager for Par One Homeowners' Association, which is surrounded by Golden Gate Golf Club. We look like a little pentagon around the golf course. I'm here to support changing it to a golf course -- I mean -- to a county-owned golf course. Some of the things that are inside this report I disagree with. I can't imagine people losing a million dollars a year and staying in business. Doesn't make sense. Something doesn't add up. So my opinion is that the county should make it a golf -- a county-owned golf course for the enjoyment of the people of Collier County. And I can tell you this, there's -- I know of six independent courses that are making money, okay. So I don't know where these numbers are coming from. Six independent courses that are making money. And I can also tell you this: I came here in 2003. It cost me double what it used to cost me, and it's harder to get a tee time than it's ever been. So that's the simplistic version of this, this thing. We need the golf course, and I think the people of Collier County March 14, 2017 Page 96 will enjoy it. It will be a pleasure for us. And we would like your consideration to keep it going in that direction. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: As much as I empathize with the folks in Golden Gate in the course -- and they've spoken to me on another matter before -- and understand the insecurity that you feel about your future, I'm very reluctant to say that we need a municipal golf course because of the expense. We're kind of on a roll with pickleball, you know. It's brand new. It's moving. We're, you know, the U.S. Open for pickleball. We're kind of on a roll with FBU. You know, there's a national championship and, you know, they're bringing younger kids this year. But to go to golf when the statistics -- and it's nothing that I'm -- that's new to us -- that there's just less and less players of golf makes me question the capital investment in it. I would like to explore, perhaps, the concept of discount tickets, but to -- for us to undertake a golf course that might be another $500,000 that taxpayers' money have to contribute to, when we're looking at a $60 million park at Big Cypress, when we're talking about the pool at Eagle Lakes Country Club which, you know, pools are wonderful holes in the ground that you pour water in and spend a lot of money on, but they don't return. I'm worried about moving ourselves a little bit too thin in the park business. I think there's ways of satisfying the need for folks to play golf, but I'm not sure it's the invest -- the capital outlay and investment in infrastructure. That's what I'm very, very concerned about. Commissioner McDaniel? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: She was -- Commissioner Fiala was ahead of me. March 14, 2017 Page 97 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, she was? Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I think sometimes statistics can say anything you want them to say. And I wonder -- I wonder if it's truly a losing proposition as you say, or are there ways that we can may it balance itself out so we're not losing any money? I know you -- we've heard over and over that golfing is declining and, yet our community is so different than other communities. I think that they say -- well, like the gentleman just said, there's more and more golfers coming out, and they're paying higher price. And, you know, as the baby boomers start coming down and there aren't any new golf courses being built, they're going to require more and more golfing space. And if we don't have any, we're going to shoot ourselves in the foot when we let this property go, as I feel. So that's just my two cents. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I think we're a little bit ahead of ourself with regard to discussion of a purchase of an already-constructed facility. The executive summary, the recommendation was for us to accept a Hunden report, and I'd like to -- I, at this stage of the game -- or process -- I don't mean to call it stage of the game -- I think we just need to stick to what's, in fact, on our agenda with regard to accepting the report and then, if I might add, the direction to staff, I don't -- I would like to make a recommendation that we really don't pursue the acquisition and then, in turn, construction of a golf course facility. I think we -- as you know, we're looking at an LDC amendment this evening with regard to the conversion of golf courses that's going to have a holistic viewpoint on what in fact's going to transpire in our community, and we need to really look at these individual business opportunities on an individual basis. There are other golf courses that are potential -- that could, in fact, make money, not make money on a case-by -case basis. March 14, 2017 Page 98 And I really don't -- you know, I don't want us to get into a decision-making process here. We need to explore these opportunities. And I do refer to them as opportunities on an individual basis. And until we take into consideration the acquisition costs, the operating expenses associated, whether we go with an outside operator or do it internally, there's a lot of dynamics that are going to ultimately determine whether or not we make money. And, Commissioner Taylor, as you spoke with regard to the passes, there's a direct expense associated to those passes, and we have to weigh that expense in relationship to the operational expenses associated with a golf course facility, per se. So if -- is it time to make a motion yet? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We have one more comment from Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. I'd like to hear your motion, because I don't disagree with anything that the consultant has presented. There's no way to disagree with it. They're presenting their findings. I agree with Commissioner Taylor; we have a lot of stuff on the plate with the regional park, with this amateur sports facility, with other things we're doing, but I don't want to close the door on the potential for the acquisition of the Golden Gate community golf course or some other golf course, and so I want to hear what your motion is, because staff's going to need some direction, and then I'll comment on the motion. But I think keeping the issue alive makes some sense, but I do -- just so everyone understands, I do have some concerns about getting involved in an operation where our consultants are telling us that we could lose half a million dollars a year in operations and maintenance. You know, we have to take that somewhat to heart. And perhaps we need some more information on what some of these other courses are March 14, 2017 Page 99 doing. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, the motion is to accept the Hunden report as-is. As you said, it's basically there. There's not a lot of argument with it. And then I would offer up, as far as a portion of the motion with regard to direction to staff, that we don't need to pursue the acquisition of a vacant tract of land, go through the zoning and capital expense for construction, and that we should, on a per-item basis as these other opportunities come to us, review them individually. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. Then I'll second that. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So I'm understanding that what you're saying is to accept the report but not to direct staff to further pursue publicly funded golf courses in Collier County; is that correct? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's not what I said. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think the motion is -- if I understood it, is that -- to continue the evaluation of some of the existing courses that may be for sale but not to look for vacant land. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct. It had nothing to do with not pursuing any. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: The only direction I gave was to not pursue a vacant tract of land, zoning, and construction. It didn't mean that we couldn't discuss a publicly owned facility on a case-by -case basis. That's with specificity. Are you clear? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I am. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I am. Any other -- oh, Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'm sorry, I cannot go along with that because I just feel that more information should have been March 14, 2017 Page 100 presented. How did they come up with the losses and were they specific, and what did they use as a charge for anybody to get into the golf course or to play the golf course or so -- that it becomes a losing proposition? It's not a charity event there. You know, these people will be willing to pay for a golf course and pay their admission because they can't go to any other golf course. So, I'm sorry, but I can't accept the report. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. We have a motion on the floor. MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, if I might, just for some clarification. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. MR. OCHS: Yes. I'm not sure that if staff is approached by, you know, an existing owner of a golf course, one or two or three or four, that provides the Board with a complete list of options, what we might want to consider is directing the staff to develop some type of request for information or request for proposal from these existing courses that -- and that way anybody that wants to make a proposal can make one, and you can have the full list of courses that may have some interest in selling to the county; otherwise, how do you pick and choose? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Right. I think that's -- well, we have a motion on the floor. MR. OCHS: Okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Two motions. Well, no, we have a motion on the floor that says for the county staff to consider -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: To not pursue vacant land construction and capital expense but to look on a case-by-case basis the availability of these other opportunities for the purchase of a golf course for a public facility. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Which I think covers what Mr. Ochs just said. March 14, 2017 Page 101 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And we don't go out for an RFP. I mean, basically, I'm not looking to create work. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You're going to add the RFP comps. Instead of -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No. MR. OCHS: No, no. I'm hearing no. And that's fine, but I'm just saying, okay. So if Course X comes next month, we're not evaluating that against anything else? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No. They're on an individual -- I mean, how can we necessarily -- MR. OCHS: Well, that's my point, sir. You know, if one course comes and they have all the amenities, they have a driving range and, you know, concessions and all that and another course just has a course, I don't know what the Board's requirements are. And I guess I could bring each one to you individually as they come, but -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, I didn't really want to make this more cumbersome than it already, in fact, is, and I think we -- because of the unique locations of the facilities that I can think of that are available right now, it would be difficult to compare those alternatives, and it -- and from what I'm hearing from this board at this stage of the game, there is a concern with regard to the expenses associated with these operations. So I think that's going to be one of the main driving forces. And we really can't ascertain the individual value until we know what the acquisition costs are and have viewed the different methodologies for operations and maintenance along those lines. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But I would argue that that's what the Hunden report gave us, an overview. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But it said -- but the Hunden report did say that the seasonal visitors are not accounted for, so that's a whole different category altogether that haven't even been weighed in. March 14, 2017 Page 102 And, let's face it, they're here in great numbers. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, I'm not prepared to vote for a motion that would direct staff to do an RFP to solicit proposals from golf course owners and operators at this point. I am prepared to proceed with the motion that Mr. McDaniel made which basically says that if there's an operator out there that has an interest in discussing that, that they should contact the county, and we can then kind of see what the -- what's out there. But I don't want to send the message to the community that we're moving forward to acquire a golf course by doing an RFP, because I'm not so sure that we're at that point. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Or five. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. All right. We have a motion on the floor and a -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that was to accept the report, right? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, and to instruct staff to evaluate these golf courses as they come to staff but not to go out and pursue it. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I might offer just a minor -- I mean, the specific request that I gave was to also not consider the purchase of vacant land and the zoning and capital expenditure of a new facility that we would, in fact, own ourselves but really only look at opportunities on a case-by-case basis. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. All right. Everyone clear on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, it's a three-part motion, actually. And so if I vote against the one part, I vote against all three parts, right? March 14, 2017 Page 103 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So -- because I don't accept the report, so -- okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. All right. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Me. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. Motion fails. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. That's it. Unless there's another motion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So that was a 2-2, right? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. Motion fails. Item #11C RECOMMENDATION TO REVIEW AND PRIORITIZE THE PUBLIC PLANNING INITIATIVES AUTHORIZED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND AUTHORIZE FUNDING NECESSARY TO ADEQUATELY FACILITATE THE BOARD’S PRIORITIES FOR THESE VARIOUS PUBLIC PLANNING INITIATIVES - MOTION TO ACCEPT RECOMMENDED STAFFING POSITIONS – APPROVED; MOTION TO APPROVE CIGM AND MOVE FORWARD WITH PUBLIC PLANNING INITIATIVES MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that takes us to Item 11C, and this is a recommendation to review and prioritize the public planning initiatives authorized previously by the Board, and authorize the March 14, 2017 Page 104 funding necessary to facilitate those priorities through us and additional staff and consulting services. Mr. Bosi, your Zoning Division Director, will present. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Director of Planning and Zoning. First off, I'd like to apologize for being a tad bit abrupt within this first slide. The title of the agenda item was to review and prioritize the planning projects, and I just jumped right ahead at asking for the requested additional staffing. But this sets the tone as to what we're going to be requesting for the partial year of this current year. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I hate to interrupt, but you're going to go through an analysis as to why we need this person and then why we need the second person. I'll make a motion that we approve the staff recommendation for both positions. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, that's good. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good. MR. BOSI: And that will abbreviate my presentation tremendously. There's a last component, and that relates to the Collier Interactive Growth Model. The Collier Interactive Growth Model -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. MR. BOSI: -- was an additional supplemental planning tool that was developed by staff as well as the collaborative effort of the East of 951 Committee. That committee was made up of past Chairman Commissioner Nance, current Commissioner Mr. McDaniel, with some individual members of our audience today as well. We utilized the growth model as a supplemental planning tool, and it was designed to forecast the timing and locations of development in five-year increments, also forecasted sub-models for March 14, 2017 Page 105 public facilities, parks, sheriffs, schools, libraries, infrastructure needs. It was done as part of an effort to try to understand what was the price tag that growth and development was going to impose upon this county from an infrastructure standpoint looking out into the future. What is that range of those potential costs -- those costs associated with that infrastructure allocation, and what are the most efficient means of strategies to satisfying the revenue that we needed for the ultimate infrastructure and the levels of service that were associated with it. And then the Board accepted the CIGM as an additional planning tool in 2008. During that period of time, we provided for -- and one of the most important roles of the interactive growth model was the master planning activities that it provided for. It provided for land use increments, the allocation of the various subsets of your land uses, and it was broken down by traffic analysis zones, and those traffic analysis zones were useful in terms of it would allow and it does allow for us to provide to every master planning effort, whether it be the master mobility plan, whether it be the Long Range Transportation Plan, the parks master plan, any one of our infrastructure or service provider's master planning efforts. It provides that land use allocation for it. So it was a true benefit. We also utilized the CIGM to analyze and evaluate Growth Management Plan request amendments to analyze the amount of square footage that has been provided by -- in the area but also what's the population within that area, what's that population moving out into the future, and what would be the expected demand to evaluate whether those amendments were appropriate or not. We also identified future economic opportunities not provided by the GMP within the eastern portion of land. One of the things that the CIGM, in our work with Dr. Van Buskirk & Associates at the time, was we realized that the need for additional business research March 14, 2017 Page 106 economic opportunities that would be needed to be developed within the Rural Land Stewardship Area, the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District to help satisfy the job creation, as well as starting to help influence the transportation mobility patterns that the presence of those job locations as well as goods and services could do in terms of improving our infrastructure without a physical outlay but changing the patterns in terms of how those attractors and the demands would be satisfied. Here's a prime example, was commercial benchmarks. One of the things that we gained from the CIGM was based upon the urbanized area at the time when it was developed in 2007 and 2008, it was determined that for a neighborhood center, a commercial center that's going to serve you, your local neighborhoods, you need about 13,110 people. And then we had the metrics for a community center, and then for a regional center. So when we would have proposals, whether it be on the zoning side or whether it be on the GMP side, we can make an evaluation as to how much -- what was the population in the area, what was the available square footage, and what was supportable and what was maybe in excess, and those metrics helped us understand and better evaluate proposals for new development. We have interacted with Dr. Van Buskirk and his new current partner, Mr. David Farmer, who is in the audience here today. And one of the things that they have developed, they have taken their first original interactive growth model -- and by the way, I will say that the CIGM was featured as part of the American Planning Association's national magazine, a future article on this CIGM and the unique nature of that planning tool that Collier County has utilized. But they've developed that original CIGM to an updated model. But one of the limitations of the current Collier Interactive Growth Model, it was only focused on the area east of 951, and because of that, it had some limitations on the usefulness. From interaction with Metro Forecasting now, the former Van Buskirk & March 14, 2017 Page 107 Associates firm, they've provided us two options in terms of how we could upgrade this CIGM. One would be to take the existing model, expand it to the -- expand it to the -- to the west to the full urbanized area, and we could do -- and also calibrate it to the new TAZ patterns that are out there. The Long Range -- or the MPO adopts new TAZs on a regular basis, so we'd have to update the current allocation for how the TAZs are currently configured. That was the first option, but that's a static option in the sense of we wouldn't gain the benefits of the new technology that they've been able to develop, and that leads us to the second option, which is to upgrade the CIGM to the Version 3, also expanding it for the entire county, but also including the new sub-models for water and wastewater forecast. It also provides for an updated way for how the output of the CIGM -- or the CIGM would be provided. Before it was done in a static Excel spreadsheets where you could gain the information, but looking at it was a real eye chart. The interaction with the Metro Forecast, as indicated, much more digestible, much more easily understandable in terms of how you'll receive those reports whether they're within increments or whether they're at the buildout stage. So there are some improvements. Two options right roughly around the same price tag, obviously. But staff is suggesting, if we would decide to move forward with it, to move forward with the newer version, the 3.0, and expand it for the entire county area. That's the end of the presentation. Any questions, I'd be happy to -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Commissioner Fiala was first. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you know, I was just going to ask, although it didn't mention it at all, there were a couple question March 14, 2017 Page 108 that I had. And this is -- and being that we're talking about growth and rate of growth and so forth, are we in a position in this report -- does it need to be someplace else -- where we would also direct growth away from certain areas or into certain areas? For instance, the growth of self-storage units? What we're having right down here, and you well know this, right down here on U.S. 41 there are so many people already vying for new self-storage units, and there's no control over that whatsoever. There is -- there's nothing at all to enhance the shopping for the people in the area or the attraction to people in the area with a self-storage area, yet, for number one, they, for some reason, insist of being front and center on the roads rather than behind the scenes, and they're not really something that is an impulse buy, as I've mentioned previously. I think that impulse buying, whether it be, you know, clothing stores or shoe stores or kids stores or whatever, should probably be facing the street if we want to have a planned growth management. Is that something that you're doing? MR. BOSI: That's -- that individual discussion would be really related to one of the planning efforts that was identified within the report, and that's that East Naples 41 study. The CIGM -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but I really mean for other areas, too. I mean, you know, I think Golden Gate is going to do some changing, Golden Gate City, and I think we need to take that into consideration for new growth or redevelopment growth, because -- I mean, this is my opinion only. I can't see the benefit to lining a street with self-storage units. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, if I could. We spoke yesterday. Maybe I'll help you out a little bit with some of the things we discussed. As part of Mike's presentation, he was going to go through the LDC amendment timeline that was here. The commissioners had March 14, 2017 Page 109 asked about three items that might be included in the timeline at the next LDC cycle. I believe one of them that we're going to be doing as part of the East Trail corridor study is looking at the compatibility of these storage centers along the Trail, and she said, could we expand that countywide. And so that's fine. That's probably not a bad idea to look at the compatibility and make it a consistent. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because we probably can't save U.S. 41 anymore. We don't have anything to stop it, and by the time reports come through, it will already be too late for their area. But -- so we're not -- you know, it's going to be difficult for us without that limitation in place, but I don't want to see other people have to suffer with the same things we have to. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. I think you were asking when we talked if -- you had talked to the board members about getting consensus, just maybe to include that storage facility compatibility review in one of the upcoming LDC cycle amendments going forward. And Mike didn't get a chance to present the timeline, and I think that was your opportunity to talk about that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Also -- and that's also the concentration, but that will be later, too, right? MR. CASALANGUIDA: If you wanted to bring that up now, you could, and that would be where Mike would put it in cycle going forward in one of the next cycle amendments to review. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And what I'm talking about is right now there's heavy concentration of low-income housing in just a few areas, and those areas make it -- it's more difficult for those areas to emerge into a better balanced community when everything is concentrated in that one area. And although the state statutes say avoid concentration, nobody avoids it, and there's no crime against that. And I think we should March 14, 2017 Page 110 have strong wording to say that, you know, you must stop concentration of low-income housing in one area. Anyway... MR. BOSI: And from my understanding is you're -- what you're requesting is that whether the Board as a collective body would like staff to add two additional LDC amendments to the -- or the already identified LDC amendments that we need to process through over the next 12 to 18 to 24 months. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You say it so much better, Mike. Thank you. MR. BOSI: And one would be the analysis of self-storage facilities that frontage on collector and arterial roads and whether that is an appropriate locational provision for self-storage facilities and whether there should be some restrictions in terms of that availability of location on collector and arterial roads. And then the second is create an LDC amendment that will implement our GMP policy that says that we shall not concentrate affordable housing in one geographic area but to actually have an LDC amendment that expresses that as well within the code. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you probably have to be careful with the wording, like in my particular area we consist of five planning communities and three commission districts. So when you break that all up, you can still concentrate it all in one area because it's broken up into little pieces. But maybe we could identify some lines to that area that -- you know, nobody else is -- nobody else's community is broken up into three commission districts, and so it makes it a little bit more difficult for you guys. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I don't understand. Your areas -- your area -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: East Naples is divided into your commission district, his commissioner district, and my commission district. March 14, 2017 Page 111 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Okay. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And mine. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you have any of East Naples? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Everglades City, Southeast Naples. Depends on whether you go south or east, depending. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. And I just -- are we off subject matter a little bit with regard to the -- with regard to the executive summary that's in front of us? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Not that this is not important things to talk about... COMMISSIONER FIALA: It is about this subject, but they've said we have to put it onto a different format. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: There is a motion and a second to approve the staffing positions. I think that's all that you needed in terms of the motion, or do you need -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No. And this study, this other study needs to be. MR. BOSI: The CIGM was the second part, but the first part was the staffing, and that was tied into why we put forward all the LDC amendments, just so you would understand the demand. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, then why don't we take a vote, Madam Chair -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, because there's two choices on the seat. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I was going to say, why don't we take a vote on the staffing positions, and then let's get a motion on the second one. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. And I do -- and when March 14, 2017 Page 112 we go -- no, my comments revolve around the CIGM, so... CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mine also. Okay. So we have a motion on the floor and a second to approve the additional staffing request. All those in favor? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries. Thank you. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And then I would like to make a motion, if I may. Is that appropriate? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Yes. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I'd like to make a motion that we approve the CIGM and staff's recommendation for the latest version of that. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. I'll second that with -- and to see if there's any support. One of the areas that we probably need to address in this also, if it can be, when we're planning for the future, is workforce housing. If we're putting commercial out there, we need workforce housing. That's going to be a little tough, I would think, but I'm sure that in some other parts of this country someone's done it somehow. But I do think it needs to be part of the equation going forward. I'm not talking about low-income housing. I'm talking about workforce housing. I'm talking about 80 percent of mean and going upward. So I don't know -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, workforce needs to be defined, because it's -- March 14, 2017 Page 113 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: 80 percent. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- the definition has changed so much from when it was first introduced to what it's become now. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think if you define it by percentages, then as your mean income varies, it follows it. But it's, you know, $40,000 a year and up; 80 percent. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm hitting my button. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm going to make it vibrate from now on just so you know. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, no. I haven't finished. I just saw you -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Oh, I thought you were done. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No. I was adding a -- I guess it's a question of staff, if that's even possible. MR. BOSI: And I was just chatting with County Manager Ochs. That's part of what we're doing with the rural fringe mixed use district, that's part of what we're doing with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, the Rural Land Stewardship Area. We just met with Cormac and Kim Grant and Mr. Lee -- or Mr. Levy from the Affordable Housing Advisory Board and coordinated when their report's going to be done, how we can incorporate the work in the decisions that the Board's going to do in terms of implementing any further policies related to affordable housing within some of the policies and the goals and objectives of those individual subdistricts. So that is an ongoing process, and we do recognize that that will be a vital component to the updates of those individual plans. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Including senior housing also -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. March 14, 2017 Page 114 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- which may be defined as low income, but I do not want to define it as such. I want to talk about senior housing, because that is so critical. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. So, Commissioner McDaniel, you're anxious to speak. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, I am. And I just would like to say this: When we had our workshop regarding the 35 initiatives or so that the ULI folks had shared with us, I was quite impressed with your statements with regard to -- with regard to No. 35 in that our community has a vision, and you brought forth that it was imperative that we have a vision and that that vision be data driven. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yep. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: The CIGM takes us there. It allows for our staff to analyze all of the uses that we have, all of the housing types that we have, encompassing our entire community with what we have from an infrastructure standpoint, support mechanisms for this growth that is inevitably coming, and that's what this does. This provides us with an additional tool for our toolbox, if you will, to supply us with greater enhanced information. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yep. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Accurate information. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Base it on metrics. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do we have a speaker, Troy? No? MR. MILLER: Not on this item, no. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So is that -- so am I hearing -- do we need to modify the motion that Commissioner McDaniel made that I seconded to include workforce/senior housing in your equation with Version 3, or is it sufficient the way it's written as such? MR. BOSI: The implementation of an affordable housing March 14, 2017 Page 115 component to the CIGM, I'm not sure -- that would be an individual question I would have to have with the developers. Maybe Mr. Farmer could speak to it a bit. But what I was simply reiterating is those concepts and those housing policies that are being adopted and being contemplated will be expressed in our part of the Growth Management Plan update in the studies that we're providing for. The CIGM provides for the populations and demographics. It won't get specifically to senior housing. Those are policy decisions that the Board will make, and the updates to those individual subdistricts and plans will be part of or contain the policy decisions that this board does make. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. All right. So you think going forward, as they are in the plan, it's not going to be, you know, gee, it would be really nice to build workforce housing here. It says, your population is such, your commercial is such. We calculate that you need X amount of workers; therefore, you are required to build X amount of units of workforce housing? MR. BOSI: That is a policy decision the Board of County Commissioners could make. We will make suggestions and we regularly make suggestions from a Planning Department that there's a need for, whether it be square footage, whether it be for affordable housing, workforce housing. The Board will make that decision as to whether you want to impose that on individual developments. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It's what we do for libraries, right, and fire stations be based on population? MR. BOSI: We have a level of service -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Right. MR. BOSI: -- for our infrastructure and service providers. That would be a decision that the Board of County Commissioners would make when you're deciding your housing policy. Those are hard March 14, 2017 Page 116 decisions that you -- that this board will be faced with over the next -- the next five to six to seven months in terms of what are the policies that you want to implement, that you want to mandate for affordable housing. Staff can only provide you the analysis as to what -- maybe the recognition of need, and then it goes beyond that, and that is a policy that sits within the hands and the power of your seats. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But it's not to be weaved into the CIGM process? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'm comfortable with that. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. It's just a tool of information to supply us with to be able to make those policy decisions. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, give us the data. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Provide the metrics so that we can weave it in if there is support on this commission to do so. All right. MR. OCHS: Okay. So is there a motion? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We have a motion on the floor and a second to accept Version 3 of the CIGM. Are we finished with our discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All those in favor? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously. March 14, 2017 Page 117 Thank you very much. MR. OCHS: Okay. Now, what about the recommendations from Commissioner Fiala to add these additional elements into a future LDC amendment review? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do we -- can we incorporate it here, or do we have to have that as an agenda item? I'm not ignoring it. I just didn't -- I mean, I'm not sure what the policy should be. MR. KLATZKOW: If you want to give staff direction, that's fine. It's not really an action item; just giving staff direction. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. All right. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Do you want it in the form of a motion because I'll -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- be happy to make -- unless you want to -- you want to? Go ahead and make the motion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, no. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, is it in need of a motion or just give -- MR. OCHS: No; no, sir. I just -- MR. KLATZKOW: Three votes. Just three hands is good. MR. OCHS: -- need to know if there's, you know, three of you that -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Make a motion we do what she said. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And I -- that's fine with me. I think staff has the direction. We'd have to see what the details are when it comes back, but... MR. OCHS: Right, right. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It's just cleaner to have a motion, so that's why I -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. And, I mean, it is going March 14, 2017 Page 118 to come back before us where we can explore it in detail and discuss those items. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So there's consensus for you to go forward and bring back an LDC amendment regarding the concerns expressed by Commissioner Fiala. MR. BOSI: It's understood by staff. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. All right. Okay. I think we're finished, right? MR. OCHS: Thank you. Item #7 PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE CURRENT OR FUTURE AGENDA MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that takes you to Item 7, public comments on general topics not on the current or future agenda. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Leo? MR. MILLER: I have no one at this time. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, good. I was just wondering. Are we going to be here much longer? Because she probably needs a 10-minute break. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, we're done. MR. OCHS: That's it, ma'am. You're ready to recess till 5:05 at this point. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: At which point we will do -- after we hear the golf course, we will do our commissioner comments, and Commissioner Solis will be part of it, so that's wonderful. MR. OCHS: Great. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. March 14, 2017 Page 119 (A recess was had until the 5:05 p.m. time-certain.) ***** MR. OCHS: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats, if you have any and, if not, we have room up on the fifth floor of this building. We have some additional seating out in the hallway. So you can see our staff out there to assist you if you'd like to find a seat. Madam Chair, you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. And it's wonderful to see so many people here and standing room only. I just want to reassure you that Collier County isn't here to make it easy for a golf course conversion. Collier County has been working about a year or maybe a little bit more to make it as difficult as we possibly could to make a possible conversion of a golf course somewhat of a task for a developer but, most importantly, to protect your rights and also to protect what you live next to. So I just really wanted to make that very, very clear. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'm delighted, because I was worried there'd be a lot of boos there. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Madam Chair? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We do -- now, we do have room upstairs for you to sit and view this meeting. We don't have room upstairs? Wow, I think this is a record. COMMISSIONER FIALA: There were some chairs out here. Maybe not anymore, though. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, okay. So I'm sorry about this, but let's see what we can do. MR. OCHS: Ma'am, we'll open another -- we'll open another room. March 14, 2017 Page 120 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. MR. OCHS: It may be down the stairs and through the woods, but we'll get you another room where you can follow it on the television and register if you want to speak. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Very good. Now, we do have one commissioner that by -- it's an extraordinary circumstance -- is not here this evening. Do we have him on the line, Troy? MR. MILLER: I think he should be there. Commissioner Solis? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes, I'm here. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So I need a motion of this board that finds that it's an extraordinary circumstance that Commissioner Solis is not able to join us this evening. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So moved. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We have a motion and a second on the floor. All those -- MR. KLATZKOW: And allow him to participate by telephone. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And that the only way he can participate is by telephone. I have amended the motion. Does the motion maker agree? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Of course. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Second. Okay. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. March 14, 2017 Page 121 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously. Welcome, Commissioner Solis. Commissioner Solis, it is standing room only in our chambers. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not only here but upstairs. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, I thank you for letting me -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And we have one room that is full, and they're going to have to open another one. So this is extraordinary, and we're very glad to see this interest and this participation in government. Welcome, Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Thank you. And thank you, Chairman, for the opportunity to attend by phone. This is an important hearing, and I wanted to participate. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, we're delighted you're here, and thank your board, because it's not just me. Okay. So -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Thank you, Board. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So let's move ahead. We've already this morning -- this is a continuation of the meeting, so we're not going to do the Pledge -- say the Pledge of Allegiance, but I think we're going to ask staff to present -- MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- and County Manager? Item #9A RECOMMENDATION TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, March 14, 2017 Page 122 WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY PROVIDING FOR: SECTION ONE, RECITALS; SECTION TWO, FINDINGS OF FACT; SECTION THREE, ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, MORE SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FOLLOWING: CHAPTER TWO - ZONING DISTRICTS AND USES, INCLUDING SECTION 2.03.06 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS, SECTION 2.03.09 OPEN SPACE ZONING DISTRICTS, MORE SPECIFICALLY, TO ADD USES TO THE LIST OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN THE GOLF COURSE (GC) ZONING DISTRICT; CHAPTER THREE - RESOURCE PROTECTION, INCLUDING SECTION 3.05.07 PRESERVATION STANDARDS; CHAPTER FIVE - SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS, ADDING SECTION 5.05.15 CONVERSION OF GOLF COURSES; CHAPTER SIX - INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AND ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING SECTION 6.05.01 WATER MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS, ADDING SECTION 6.05.03 STORMWATER PLANS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS, TWO-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS, AND DUPLEXES; CHAPTER TEN - APPLICATION, REVIEW, AND DECISION- MAKING PROCEDURES, INCLUDING SECTION 10.03.06 PUBLIC NOTICE AND REQUIRED HEARINGS FOR LAND USE PETITIONS; SECTION FOUR, CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; SECTION FIVE, INCLUSION IN THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; AND SECTION SIX, EFFECTIVE DATE - MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF’S RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO THE GOLF COURSE CONVERSION AND MOVE IT FORWARD TO THE March 14, 2017 Page 123 SECOND HEARING – APPROVED; MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION RELATING TO THE WATER MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS AND MOVE IT FORWARD TO THE SECOND HEARING – APPROVED MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we're moving to Item 9A on your agenda, and this is a recommendation to consider an amendment to your Collier County Land Development Code this evening. We have two amendments to present. The first has to do with an amendment regarding conversion of golf courses and the second amendment, which I don't imagine all these people are here for, has to do with some minor changes in your stormwater management system. So we'll, obviously, want to begin this evening first with your Land Development Code having to do with conversion of golf courses. Mr. Bosi, your zoning director, will begin the presentation this evening. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Very good. Thank you. MR. BOSI: Good evening, Commissioners. Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director. Just a few introductory comments -- MR. OCHS: Speak up. MR. BOSI: Just a few introductory comments before I introduce Caroline and our LDC team that's going to go over the specifics of the Land Development Code proposal. A year ago the Board of County Commissioners adopted a moratorium related to conversion of golf courses based upon a number of courses signaling an intent to convert from their current use as a golf course. The Board recognized at that time that golf courses have a unique presence within the built environment. There's a vested interest, there's a vested sense of place that is conveyed with a golf course and, March 14, 2017 Page 124 because of that recognition, I think it's probably confirmed with the attendance of tonight's crowd; that there was a need for additional process, additional communication, and additional dialogue to facilitate the proper conversion or the options for conversion of a golf course, and that's what these amendments are truly based upon. They're based on a proactive strategy that requires, before any application is submitted to the Board of County Commissioners, that there's going to be conversation between the community, the stakeholders, the golf course owner, and the community. That's the premise. The research that Caroline and the team has done she'll expand upon, but what she's found is that the more proactive we are in addressing these issues before an application is submitted, the better the outcomes of these proposals normally will be. And with that, I'll introduce Caroline, and she'll be able to highlight the -- highlight the aspects of the amendment. MS. CILEK: Thank you. Good evening, Commissioners. Caroline Cilek with Collier County's Growth Management Department. And before I begin, I just want to say thanks to all the staff and the advisory boards that participated in this amendment process as well as thank you to you all for being here tonight. As the chairperson said, we appreciate you being involved in this process. So to reiterate a little bit about what Mr. Bosi said, in the spring of 2016, the Board discussed the potential for golf course conversion in the county. During the discussion, the Board provided several considerations and a couple of concerns that they had about the potential for conversion. A summary of these main points is: One, that golf courses are valuable resources of open space in the county and that the process and design standards need to address how to preserve this resource to a March 14, 2017 Page 125 reasonable extent; Two, that the property owners surrounding a golf course purchased their homes with the expectation that they would have a golf course view in perpetuity, and if this view amenity is lost to a conversion project, that there may be a potential loss in property value; And, three, a recognition that neighborhoods that surround golf courses should be involved in a conversion process. Following the discussion, the Board did implement a six-month moratorium, and in September of last year staff came back and requested an extension for an additional six months to complete the public vetting process. At that time we presented a research paper that detailed what we had found at that time. The moratorium extends until next month, April 11th, 2017. Research and findings: This amendment is the result of a lot of thoughtful and thorough research conducted over several months. Much of this research was documented in that research paper we presented to the Board in September of last year, and our research included reviewing lots of municipal codes, Comprehensive Plans across the state of Florida, as well as reviewing academic resources, and we spoke to countless planners that had encountered conversion projects in their local communities, and we learned from them about those experiences. The vast majority of what we're presenting here today is based on our research and what we found in those other communities and those case studies and those examples. So a couple of the things that we did identify: First is that conversions are happening. There is a lot of conversions going on on the east coast of Florida which provided really valuable insight for us. We found that obtaining early insight from the residents that surround the golf course is very important to the approval process. Basically it opened up the ability for them to build consensus, the stakeholders that March 14, 2017 Page 126 surround the golf course and the property owner/applicant for the conversion project. In key studies where the surrounding residents were not included early in the development process, the approval process, meaning the process going through the Board's review and approval, often became lengthy, contentious, and sometimes litigious, which is not in the best interest of the neighborhoods surrounding the golf course, the developer, or the county. So this amendment does present a very robust structure for collaboration and documentation for a conversion project. And we recognize that many land use professionals may actually do some of these things that we're going to be presenting to you naturally, but it's always good to have them as a structure in the LDC as well. So I'd like to next go through two of the main concepts that we're presenting today. The first are stakeholder outreach meetings. So the applicant would be required to do or hold or conduct two stakeholder outreach meetings. The stakeholder outreach meeting is intended to be a collaborative environment in a transparent process where the applicant would conduct activities to engage the stakeholders, those that live around the golf course, and solicit input and feedback from them to help them inform their conversion project. There are some benefits to this meeting. It would hold all parties accountable in being reasonable. It is a transparent process in that following both the meetings the applicant would prepare a report that would be then reviewed and analyzed by staff, then the Planning Commission, and then the board. So it is providing the Board information to make a decision. I think it is important to note that the stakeholder outreach meeting is more robust than a neighborhood information meeting, which is something that we're all pretty familiar with, and that's because the impact of a golf course conversion is so great. March 14, 2017 Page 127 The next main concept that I want to speak to you about is the 100-foot greenway. A greenway is defined in the our amendment as a contiguous strip of undeveloped land that would include passive recreational areas. This could be like the pictures illustrate, a multi-use walking path, it could be a playground, or it could be simply open space, green space. And the purpose of the greenway would be to retain open space views for the residents that surround the golf course prior to a conversion project. This standard does address one of the Board's main concerns that they discussed last spring in that it would help to retain the property values or potential loss in property values due to a conversion project. This requirement of a greenway also would retain preserves that are located in the greenway as well as existing vegetation that many are -- enjoy looking out from their backyards; they would see those trees. Those would be retained as well. One last note about the greenway is that it does come from looking at case studies and examples of projects that have occurred in Florida previously. So we wanted to see what a 100-foot greenway would look like on several golf courses in the county, and those maps are included in your packet today. Here is an example. And as you can see here, this would be a reasonable and appropriate application of a greenway; however, we recognize that not all cases that this would -- that a 100-foot greenway would be appropriate, and so we have incorporated some flexibility into the proposed LDC amendment that would allow an applicant to propose an alternative design for the greenway, vet that with the stakeholders at the stakeholder outreach meetings, and then present that to the Board, and the Board would make the decision on whether that was an appropriate greenway design. Next I'd like to get into the conversion process and what steps March 14, 2017 Page 128 would be required. So first the applicant would come forward, and like any other application today, they would have a pre-application meeting with the county, and there they're sharing what they are hoping to do with this conversion project with county staff. The next would be an intent-to-convert application. This would be a new application, but it is designed to thoroughly vet and analyze the proposed conversion project. This application includes three or four main concepts. The first would be alternatives. One of the alternatives that we're requiring the applicant to pursue is to reach out to existing property owners' associations and see if they're interested in purchasing some or all of the golf course. The next one would be county purchase. The next alternative would be the development -- a conceptual development plan where they would lay out what their idea is for the conversion project. In addition, this application requires that encumbrances on the land are identified so that everyone is aware of what those are. And last is that we are including a mailed notice as a part of this application so that the stakeholders are informed very early in the process that there is someone intending to convert the golf course. The next step would be the stakeholder outreach meetings, and there the applicant would engage the stakeholders in activities to solicit input and feedback on their proposed plans and then, following both of those meetings, they would be required to present a report documenting what occurred there, what questions the stakeholders had, and input the stakeholders provided. That report would then be analyzed by staff at the next step through the more traditional rezone PUD amendment or perhaps even a stewardship receiving area amendment as well. The last possibility for the conversion project would be for a compatibility design review. This would be a new process that we're March 14, 2017 Page 129 proposing today, and it would address those golf courses that have a golf course as a permitted use as well as residential as a permitted use. And in this case we would have the Planning Commission and the Board weigh in on the design of the conversion project rather than the use because the use is already permitted by right, and so they would get to make sure that it is compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So let me just interrupt. So in some cases the use is not an underlining zoning on a golf courses; in some cases it is. MS. CILEK: Correct. There are golf courses out there. There are golf courses that are zoned residential and actually just have a golf course on them. They're very small, and there's very few of them, and there's a map in the binder, and there are very few PUDs, P-U-Ds, that have residential as a permitted use, and so this process would be specific to those. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MS. CILEK: Okay. In conclusion, I just want to wrap up by saying that, as Mr. Bosi mentioned, golf courses are a unique land use, and so we feel that because they are unique, they rise to a certain level of review by staff, for stakeholder input, and for an elevated review by the Board. Our robust process provides information to decision makers so that you all can make an informed decision, and our process requires early stakeholder involvement so that the meat of the conversation with stakeholders can happen prior to the land use petition at the board level so a lot of it is hashed out and agreed upon before it gets to you. And we have presented several development standards to preserve open space views for existing residential properties around a golf course. And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. March 14, 2017 Page 130 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I didn't even get to hit my light that time. I wanted to ask a couple of questions, if I may, Caroline, with -- on Page 2 of -- Page 3 of the executive summary, there was some discussion in the stormwater plan management portion about the impervious lot coverage. And it was mentioned in -- it referenced Golden Gate Estates. Does this LDC change -- Land Development Code change also encompass properties in Golden Gate Estates as well, or is this just specifically for a golf course conversion? MS. CILEK: So I believe you may be looking at the second amendment that we have today regarding Chapter 6, is that correct, or is it one of the development standards -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah. There's -- MS. CILEK: Because if you're looking at something talking about lots, then that would be our second amendment. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Golf course conversion amendment, LDC Section 5.05. Now, if this -- MS. CILEK: Okay. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: If there's one executive summary that goes through this, then my question's on the wrong one. Then I'll ask that on the second one then. And the other question: I read there was a recommendation by DSAC about a notification of 500 feet on a regular basis, and we went to a thousand. And I like the thousand; I just wanted to know the rationale why. MS. CILEK: So we took a look at the distances that are already codified in the LDC, and right now it is 500 for urban areas and 1,000 for rural, but because golf courses are unique land uses, staff felt that they rise to a different level and that a thousand would include those March 14, 2017 Page 131 who directly live around a golf course and those individuals or property owners, rather, that purchased property near a golf course to utilize it throughout the week to be close to open space. So we wanted to make sure that it had a -- more people were encompassed in the process. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I do have one more, if I might suggest, and this is just a question. In the actual ordinance itself, it talks about a maximum -- a maximum of two residential units to be provided for employees of the golf course facility, I believe that's how I read this, for maintenance and such. Is -- do we have the capacity of increasing that if we designate that as maximum? Because there may be instances, as we all know when we're talking about housing affordability where we can allow for employees and things to be housed here. It stipulates maximum, and I just wanted to know how arduous it was for us to increase that if it were conducive. MS. CILEK: Sure. And you're referring to LDC amendment 2.03.09 which outlines the permitted accessory and conditional uses that are allowed in the golf course zoning district. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. MS. CILEK: The A.1.B.5 addresses the maximum of two residential dwelling units. That is existing language that is there today. And it could be amended through a PUD process if a PUD wanted to address this -- or include this as an accessory use, but for straight zoning this would be the standard that they would go by. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. You mentioned compatibility. MS. CILEK: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And like, for instance, most of the golf courses that we're talking about right now are abutted or March 14, 2017 Page 132 surrounded by or in the middle of, whatever, single-family homes. So does that mean that the applicant who wants to buy that land and change it to homes must build a single-family home? MS. CILEK: Well, that's something that would be evaluated through the conversion project and through this process that we have outlined today. So when they're reaching out to the stakeholders, they're going to get input as to whether single-family, multifamily, or any type of land uses is appropriate for that neighborhood. It also will need to be consistent with the Growth Management Plan that we have today. So there are several factors that will weigh in. But the great thing about this process is that it allows stakeholders to evaluate what the applicant is considering to develop there and say, yes, we agree or, you know, we think something else would be more appropriate. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because in a lot of these instances that we see before us right now, they're 55-and-older communities, and they're fearful that an applicant wants to come in and, of course, make the biggest bang for a buck and then go back to whatever state he lives in, but build a three-story condo, you know, with 16 units per acre in the middle of their -- MS. CILEK: Sure. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- peaceful community. So, you know, that compatibility -- we'll be able to judge that compatibility, and will we be able to decide, I mean, or will they take us to the courts and say you can't -- you can't keep us to that compatibility, we change it or something? I just want to know how much -- how much power the residents will have. MS. CILEK: Well, this process provides them a voice, ultimately. The applicant is required to conduct activities to find out what they want to see there. Now, they may not agree, and that's where the Planning Commission and staff and the Board will weigh in. March 14, 2017 Page 133 But this process is supporting a collaborative effort because at the end of the day the best thing is is for them to agree so that something gets approved, if that's what the applicant is looking for. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Last question -- and I don't know that you'll have the answer to this. It just popped into my head -- and that is, as you were checking with all the -- by the way, I appreciate all the work that you went through -- MS. CILEK: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- checking on all the other counties around the state of Florida to see what they're doing. You know, that gives me a lot of comfort to know that you went that far to do your work, and I appreciate that. Did you find out what happened to those neighborhoods when they converted? What happened to the people who were living there? MS. CILEK: That's a really good question. We took a look at projects that -- we took a look at all kinds of projects. And so, the ones that we utilized to base the best practices off were successful. The stakeholders were involved very early on, and they were supportive of the project at the end. Now, we put together a very comprehensive proposal for you. So in those situations, there was often green space attached to that development project, i.e., the greenway. So it was very much a collaborative effort that we saw happening by the developer when they were able to get a project approved. In some cases, you know, they provided some green space, and it didn't work out because people weren't being reasonable. But the goal here is to support a collaborative process and to hold parties accountable so that they are reasonable and then allow the Board to make the decision as to what can and cannot be constructed there. COMMISSIONER FIALA: My last fear is, I worry that some of these public golf courses that want to go up because they want to make March 14, 2017 Page 134 a lot of money, they're going to take away the ability for people to play on a public golf course anymore. Because when they're gone people say, oh, well, golf is dying. You know what, there are going to be people here who will always want to play golf, but there will be no place for people to go. And that's a worry for me, too. Is there something that we can do as we form these plans to make sure there's enough public golf for people and, you know, maybe stop the ability to sell when -- you know, when there isn't enough for our residents to play anymore? MS. CILEK: I'll just put something out there which is that there are 69 golf courses in Collier County, and looking at many of these -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but people can't get onto to them. You know, I mean, they're private, so many. MS. CILEK: Well, in looking from the viewpoint of that most likely not all of them will convert simply because they are PUDs and that the community that lives around them is a part of that golf course. So I think from that level, some may convert and others will not. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Commissioner Saunders? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: A couple questions. I want to ask the County Attorney a couple questions and I think also staff. If we do nothing, what happens to a golf course -- there's two different scenarios. One is where there's, by right, the ability to build some housing. That's the underlying zoning. So first question deals with where there is no underlying right to build anything, zoned as a golf course, or it's zoned as open space, whatever the designation is. If we did nothing, what happens from a legal standpoint? Property owner wants to come in do something and we say, no, you can't do it. There's no process for that. MR. KLATZKOW: The purpose of this proposed LDC ordinance is to put arrows in the quiver for the Board of County Commissioners. If you do nothing, you're limited to your current March 14, 2017 Page 135 rezoning review, which is largely compatibility oriented. This LDC amendment is specific to golf course conversions. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Let me go back to what you just said. We'd be limited to the current reviews -- MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- but does a property owner who is operating a golf course with underlying zoning that is open space, or whatever the designation is, have any right to a change in that zoning at any point in time? MR. KLATZKOW: The owner would have to come forward showing the need to convert. For example, I'm losing money here would be a typical response. You know, you can't force me to continue a business that's losing money. I need to do something else. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Do we have an obligation to assist them in doing something else by change their zoning? Even if -- MR. KLATZKOW: Eventually, given the circumstances, I'm not sure obligation's the right word, but they will be entitled to rezoning of some sorts. I mean, a landowner is entitled to a productive use of his property. And if his property's become unproductive because of the underlying zoning then, yes, there is going to be a rezoning. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So from a legal standpoint, we really have no other alternative but to provide some mechanism, because if we don't do it, the courts will do it. MR. KLATZKOW: That's correct, yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, that -- I think that sort of addresses my question I was going to ask staff is what, in their view, would happen to these golf courses if a conversion wasn't permitted, but it sounds like, from what the County Attorney has indicated, that there would be a conversion at some point, even if it was imposed on the county by the courts. MR. KLATZKOW: At some point in time, yes. It's -- that is the March 14, 2017 Page 136 concern that we've had that have led to this moment in time here. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No questions for me at this point. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you very much. I do have some questions about the environmental aspect, and I know that I probably need to discuss this. I understand that we can add some testing requirements to this LDC; is that correct? MS. CILEK: So I'm going to have Danette with Pollution Control speak to your questions. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Very good. And the reason I'm bringing this up is that we all know that golf courses use probably a little bit more pesticides and fertilizers than houses would because they want everything to be perfect and green, and the lakes will have the runoff, and at the bottom of the lakes will be the stuff that we always try to dig out because it may contaminate water. So I really want to address that now to see if some protection for homeowners can -- that surround the area can be weaved into this LDC amendment. So I'm going to turn this over to you. You know my questions. MS. KINASZCZUK: Sure. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you. MS. KINASZCZUK: Danette Kinaszczuk, Pollution Control Manager. The current LDC provision requires testing for organochlorine pesticides and the eight RCRA metals. And what we requested was some additional contaminates, emerging contaminates of concern, including petroleum products in the maintenance areas, organophosphate pesticides, chlorinated herbicides, and some common pesticides like triazine and carbamide. So we did ask for some March 14, 2017 Page 137 additional. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you very much. And then I know that -- I know that when you do the soil sampling, if there's contamination then you look at groundwater, is that right, or am I correct? MS. KINASZCZUK: You are correct. If the soil samples come back above or at cleanup contaminant levels, then we would give that information to DEP and coordinate a remediation. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. And we're going to determine that; Collier County is determining. We don't have to send it off to have it determined. MS. KINASZCZUK: Right, correct. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay, good. Then, finally -- well, help me with this. Can we be more restrictive? But you suggest that we're not more restrictive because it becomes more problematic in terms of what we're doing here; is that correct? MS. KINASZCZUK: We would have to come up with some exceptional science and prove a good reason to become more restrictive. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Now, the fertilizer ordinance I was referring to was the one that was proposed by the Conservancy several years ago which had to do with the use of, I believe it was, nitrogen -- MS. KINASZCZUK: Okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- in fertilizers, and that's probably not a conversation we should have now, but if we make our fertilizer ordinance stronger, then it would apply to this; is that correct? MS. KINASZCZUK: I think we -- I think I have a better vehicle to get that point across. We are looking at a draft pollution control ordinance, and I think there -- March 14, 2017 Page 138 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Which is this one, which I don't understand at all, so maybe you can just briefly explain it. I read it, but I was like, okay. MS. KINASZCZUK: I don't think you have the draft pollution control ordinance. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, I had the pollution control review of environmental site assessment. MS. KINASZCZUK: Okay. That's just our process when we get the -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh. MS. KINASZCZUK: -- environmental site assessments from a contractor or a company that does the groundwater sampling or the soil sampling. That's just our internal process of how we -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay, okay. MS. KINASZCZUK: -- process that and coordinate. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So you're suggesting that we could have a draft pollution control. MS. KINASZCZUK: We have a draft pollution control ordinance. We're still working it through -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. MS. KINASZCZUK: -- some internal vetting, but I think we can accomplish what you want to accomplish but through a different vehicle. Okay. And it would apply to this LDC amendment, so I'm very comfortable with that. So, Commissioner Solis, because I can't see you, do you have any questions now? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: One question with regard to the uses with regard to different activities. I mean, one of the options would be, as I understand it, would be for the landowner to offer the golf course to the county. And I just want to make sure that the list of permitted March 14, 2017 Page 139 uses would be broad enough for what the county would want to do with the property. And I hope that makes sense. But there's certain references to, I think, pickleball and some other things. There's a reference to parks and recreation, and I just want to make sure with staff that there's enough in the ordinance that gives the county enough flexibility if it was to end up purchasing the property. MS. CILEK: I would like to answer that. So in 2.03.09, which is the golf course and recreational zoning district, we have included several new conditional uses. And as Commissioner Solis mentioned, one of those is court sports. We did not include, like, field sports or anything like that; however, those could be included through No. 11, which is any other recreational use which is compatible in nature with the foregoing uses as determined by the Hearing Examiner or the Board. That provides some flexibility there. And the county would be able to also rezone or go through a PUD process if they were seeking very specific uses outside of the golf course and recreational zoning district. That option is always available. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Commissioner McDaniel? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. I just wanted to have a quick discussion. Commissioner Saunders brought up a really good point about if we do nothing, and this I found to be a very nice compromise. There are underlying uses that travel along with real estate ownership both for folks that live on golf courses and for folks that actually own golf courses, and I thought our staff did a very good job in developing an ordinance here that provided for participation on both sides, both the property rights of the folks that live on the golf course and protection with those values that were there, along with the March 14, 2017 Page 140 property rights of the landowners that have the underlying land use that's currently used as a golf course. I did want to ask, if I may, about concurrency. When we're talking about the conversion, assuming that it, in fact, goes through -- and I couldn't find it in here, so forgive me if I'm asking a silly question. But oftentimes the golf courses are utilized as -- in an aggregation of a density for an entire piece of property, and the units that potentially could have been in the area where the golf course is located are counted for the entire project but they're accumulated on the perimeter around the golf course. And that was done at a time when our infrastructure was different than what it is now and the development was different than what it is now. I couldn't find in here any discussion about concurrency with the existing infrastructure that we have and the new densities that are currently in place and whether or not that was even a portion of the criterion for someone that wanted to ask for a conversion. MS. CILEK: So that's a really great question, and what we did was address that in the intent-to-convert application. So included in here are several administrative codes for land development -- or for land development sections. They're new. And what we have included are standards that they would have to provide information about. So if density -- density would be one of those on the conceptual development plan, and they would have to analyze it a little bit at that point in time but most certainly through the regular rezone or PUD amendment component. All of those regular LDC standards would still apply to any type of conversion project. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So yes is the answer? MS. CILEK: Yes. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. Thank you. March 14, 2017 Page 141 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: How many -- how many speakers do we have, please? MR. MILLER: At this point, Madam Chair, I have 12 registered speakers for this item. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. I'm going to do something unusual. And I'm not going to try to mute at all the speakers, but I want to take a consensus right now or maybe even have a motion without -- I think a consensus is -- and I'd like to kind of frame it that we would agree to what is being presented to us by staff with the modification of maybe increasing the amount of -- the type of pesticides by name that was put on the testimony by our pollution control specialist, and I don't think -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are we going to ask the audience what their -- MR. KLATZKOW: I would not include the pesticide on this one. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: If and when the Board enacts any regulations on this, it will cover this anyway. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. That's fine. So then we would -- that we agree to this LDC amendment as presented by staff. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I like to hear from the audience. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, we're going to. Yeah. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't want to vote on anything till I know -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We're not voting. We're just getting a consensus. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm not going to give one. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I agree with Commissioner March 14, 2017 Page 142 Fiala. Let's go ahead and hear the public, and then we can -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. That's fine. MR. MILLER: All right. Madam Chair, we're going to call two names. We're going to use both podiums. The first name will come to one podium and speak. If the second name will go to the other podium and be ready to speak. Please remember to state your name for the record. Our first speaker is Edward Tappen. He'll be followed by Bob Norton. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And maybe if they're upstairs -- MR. MILLER: I only have received one slip so far from someone that's on the fifth floor, and neither one of these names indicated that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Tappen was in my elevator, but he was told to go upstairs. MR. MILLER: Okay. So let's -- his slip came in early this morning. So are you Bob Norton, sir? MR. NORTON: I am. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, good. MR. MILLER: Let's go ahead and go with Bob Norton. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And Mr. Tappen's coming in? MR. MILLER: We'll wait for him. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: Or you can read a third name. MR. MILLER: And the third name, in case he's not ready, would be Dwight Kehoe. Mr. Norton. MR. NORTON: Thank you. I am Bob Norton of 136 Estelle Drive, Naples. I'm also Chairman of the Riviera Golf Course Advisory Committee. I'm strongly opposed to the conversion of any golf courses in March 14, 2017 Page 143 Collier County to residential use. I left that out; I'm sorry. But if we must consider such conversions, then the LDC amendment suggested is a better approach over the current code. Our association and community strongly support it. If golf course conversions are to be allowed, this amendment is critically important. Many residents of our communities are here tonight to support this amendment, and I would like them all others, regardless of which community they represent, to raise their hands to show the committee the breadth of our collective support. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We could make a motion now. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Let the record show that the majority of people here standing and seated raised their hand. MR. NORTON: I have a count of people in overflow, and it is 150. I think we can assume that they probably would have raised their hands as well. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Ask the other question. Ask the opposite and let's see. How many -- how many people would oppose this amendment? MR. NORTON: How many people would oppose this amendment? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Only one. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: They're either brave or -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Only one. And we won't identify the person. So I'd say 149 won it. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It was a brave soul who raised his hand there in the back. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It was, very. Or she. MR. NORTON: We also have petitions with over 640 signatures in favor of this amendment. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You'll give that -- MR. NORTON: I will give that to her, yes, later. March 14, 2017 Page 144 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MR. NORTON: Many of us bought our houses specifically because of golf course views. We paid a premium for those views and have paid property taxes on those higher premiums since; thus, the golf course is an important part of our environment and quality of life. Many of our homes completely surround it. We are very concerned about possible effects of a golf course housing development on our community. It would negatively affect both the values of our properties and our status as a federally approved over-55 community. Stormwater drainage, compatibility, and increased traffic are also an issue, and our quality of life would be affected significantly. We greatly appreciate the efforts the Collier County planning board has expended in drafting the Land Development Code changes that are before you. In particular, the requirement that a developer must notify the residents of their plans before they are finalized and discuss those plans in open meetings with the stakeholders is a critical feature. This provision will preclude the residents being blindsided by a fully formed and finished development plan. Provision of a 100-foot buffer around the existing properties would, if a development went forward, provide a modicum of privacy and an opportunity to plant a visual buffer of trees or other flora. This buffer should not be reduced in size below the proposed 100 feet. We as residents who surround a golf course urge you to pass this important legislation just as it is written. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker -- well, has Mr. Tappen arrived? (Applause.) MR. MILLER: Edward Tappen? (No response.) March 14, 2017 Page 145 MR. MILLER: So your next speaker is Dwight Kehoe. He will be followed by Shirley Sackett. MR. KEHOE: Good evening. My name is Dwight Kehoe, K-e-h-o-e, and I live at 870 Charlemagne Boulevard in Riviera Golf Estates. Since my home borders on the Riviera golf course, my wife and I are very interested in preserving our investment and the tranquility it provides given its location on the golf course. We strongly oppose conversion of the Riviera golf course to residential or commercial use. I believe the Collier County Planning Commission has understood the desires of homeowners like us and has, through their proposed amendment to the Land Development Code, considered our interests as well as the interests of potential developers. We support all the Collier County Planning Commission's amendments to the LDC and in particular, the following, as Bob Norton has said: The proposal that a potential developer of a golf course for non-golf use be required to hold at least neighborhood meetings to discuss the proposed redevelopment of the property; notification of all homeowners within 1,000 feet of a golf course perimeter; and the concept of a 100-foot buffer zone between homes and possible residences a developer might propose. And I might add, if residential use is proposed, the developer should submit a plan that is compatible with the surrounding community. In conclusion, I would request that you, the commissioners, adopt all aspects of the Collier County Planning Commission's proposed amendments to the Land Development Code. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Shirley Sackett. (Applause.) March 14, 2017 Page 146 MR. MILLER: She will be followed by Ed Navarre. MS. SACKETT: My name is Shirley Sackett. I live a 141 Fleur de lis Lane in Riviera Golf Estates. I have been a resident full time in Riviera for 29 years now. I have owned eight homes in that same community. My mother has owned two, and my sister has owned two. I do live on the golf course. I probably have the best view, and I do not want that interrupted. And I do thank you for the work that all of them have done to present. And we do ask you, please, to consider this and pass it for our benefits. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. (Applause.) MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Ed Navarre. He'll be followed by Ronald Sbrocco. MR. NAVARRE: Good evening, Madam Chairman and Commissioners. I'm pleased to be here. I did have a -- I'm from -- originally from Maryland, Maryland National Capital Park of the Planning Commission which operated planning and zoning and -- around Montgomery Prince George's County adjacent to the District of Columbia. And there we operated nine golf courses and a recreational facility where Sugar Ray Leonard trained. So I do want to compliment you. I did go to your Finance Department yesterday, and they provided me a copy of your financial report for the year ended September 30th, 2015. Very impressive to see that you all have a fund balance of $178 million. And I think Conservation Collier has a fund balance of $33 million. Some of that may be committed. I couldn't decipher that. But you certainly have been running a very healthy county. So I would -- and I've already learned quite a bit from the presentation from staff. I would hope that you would consider March 14, 2017 Page 147 acquiring the golf courses. They could be operated profitably in one of your enterprise funds. They would -- they would attract your tourist development, which is a major part of the county's attractiveness. Again, the 100-foot buffer sounds fine, but if you're living on a golf course looking out at a hole, 100 foot's not very much, especially if it's a high-rise. So I'm here a little bit to speak for Riviera Golf Estates, and I'm a member of another course that's also being considered. So, again, it seems the county is very healthy. Golf courses can be run profitably. They are an attraction to both the residents who use them and the tourist attraction. So I would just hope you would consider the possibility of setting up in one of your enterprise funds that would operate golf courses, public courses. Thank you very much. (Applause.) MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Ronald Sbrocco. He will be followed by Kevin Walsh. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We have one question. Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: If you could please leave us your contact information. At our early meeting today we had a discussion with regard to viability of purchasing and the county owning a municipal golf course, and you, obviously, have experience with regard to that. And I know that the consultants that we hired really only looked here predominantly in Southwest Florida. So as we move through that process, that knowledge and experience would be invaluable. So if you'd please make sure somebody, even me, has your contact information, please. MR. NAVARRE: Thanks again. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. March 14, 2017 Page 148 MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Ronald Sbrocco. He'll be followed by Kevin Walsh. MR. SBROCCO: Good afternoon. My address is 537 Charlemagne Boulevard. It's a very difficult situation for you as well as us. And should you be voting against our 700 families here, it's going to hurt. And I just learned a lesson from a movie I saw: When a person gets hurt, they have to get strength to forgive you, and I'm hoping that doesn't happen. (Applause.) MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Kevin Walsh. He'll be followed by Charles Holloway. And we're still looking for Edward Tappen. Have you come into the room yet, sir? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Mr. Walsh. MR. WALSH: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Kevin Walsh, and I live on Frosty Way, which is part of the Winter Park development off Davis Boulevard. And as you may know, we are abutters to the old Ironwood golf course which is now going under the name of Evergreen and has been closed for a while. In addition to that, I'm a frequent golfer at Golden Gate, Riviera, and Lakewood, all of which are represented by other owners and golfers from those communities. But weighing in on behalf of Winter Park, we are 696 units, many of which abut the old Ironwood golf course which is now known as Evergreen. We know that that's been sold. We know that the developer is planning to ask for a conversion process, and we've met with him a number of times with little confidence, I guess, that there is going to be the cooperation that is outlined in this amendment without the county imposing that amendment. So we are a strong advocate that the rules you're considering here today be adopted. March 14, 2017 Page 149 So, first and foremost, the rezoning concerns you've heard from others, the loss of green space is an issue, the loss of property value as a result of the changes that we'll lose, confidence of the people that bought golf courses as an investment. Our main concern is the minimum 100-foot buffer; not an average, but it should be a minimum, in our perspective, so as to ensure the quality of life for those that are close by. Especially with Evergreen, one of our concerns is drainage. We are just barely above the floodplain. Much of our drainage is related to and intertwined with the Evergreen golf course, and we would like to make sure the drainage concerns are adequately addressed. The other issue is that Evergreen, in particular, is a standalone golf course in pockets throughout our neighborhood and throughout Lakewood and Glades, which are also abutters to that course. If you take the 100-yard buffer, literally, they could almost build no homes on any one of those holes. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, well. MR. WALSH: Oh, well. I love your reaction. The traffic, the access issues to those small pockets are a serious concern that we've not seen anything close to accommodated in our discussions. So the communication that you built in here, your concern, and your advocacy for offering it to the abutters and offering it to the county are admirable, and we hope you adopt it. We would love to see a public course. Any one of the four I mentioned would be great. It would a great opportunity for the technical schools or for the public schools to learn golf course management and still make a profit, as the gentleman from New Jersey indicated. So we support and hope you will pass this. Thank you. (Applause.) March 14, 2017 Page 150 MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Charles Holloway. He will be followed by Marguirite Wegner. MR. HOLLOWAY: Hello. My name is Charles Holloway. I live at 830 Charlemagne Boulevard in Riviera Golf Estates. I do live on the golf course, so I have a personal interest in the value and continued value of my property. In addition to being a resident of Riviera Golf Estates, I'm also a realtor with Caldwell Banker on 5th Avenue. The majority of my business is in Riviera Golf Estates. And I was asked by some of my community members to address my opinion of the effect that the conversion could have on our collective property values. I'm going to speak specifically about Riviera Golf Estates. The first thing I'd like the Commission to take note of is -- and in the last 28 months, I've sold 30 homes in Riviera Golf Estates, so I have a pretty good feel for the value of the properties in there. I can tell you, as the community exists currently, with all things being perfect, typically the professional appraisals adjust the homes on the golf course as opposed to those that back up to other homes or on a privacy wall, such as County Barn, I've seen the adjustment be up to as much as $20,000. So the value of being on the golf course or one of the lakes in the community has significant value. There's been a lot of discussion about the greenway or buffer zone, as some people have referred to it, of 100 feet. As the previous gentleman made reference to, it's my interpretation of the amendment that it's an average of 100 feet but could be as little as 75 feet. And what I'd like some clarification on is it allows, I believe, for some of the lakes on the golf course to be included in the greenway zone. So if you're taking an average, and a lake is 150 feet, does that mean that two other similarly size will be taken down to the 75 feet? Because I believe it's reasonable to expect that the developers are going to develop every square foot they can. So now we're talking March 14, 2017 Page 151 about 75 feet. And what impact does that have on your view and especially the value of your home? I stepped it off when I came in, and I think that you folks from your seat, if you're sitting on my lanai -- first of all, I'm currently on a five par, 1,350-foot fairway, so just imagine looking down four-and-a-half football fields over the golf course and the birds and everything. Seventy-five feet is approximately that wall right there. So put a three-story condo up there and tell me that I'm not going to lose property value, okay. So -- and then I know that the Commission is concerned about making whole the developers, and I certainly understand and appreciate that, but it shouldn't be at the expense of 692 residents of Riviera Golf Estates. I think a collective estimate would be $10,000 per property could potentially lose times 692 is -- we could collectively lose $6.92 million in property value. I think you should consider our financial well-being as well as the investors and owners. Thank you. (Applause.) MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Marguirite Wegner, and she will be followed by George Danz. MS. WEGNER: Good evening, Commissioners. I am Marguirite Wegner. My husband, Paul and I, live at Winter Park in a condominium that abuts the Evergreen Golf Course. Several of other folks from Winter Park have been attending the Planning Commission meetings and -- during which the amendment was discussed and defined. The detailed research and thought incorporated into the amendment was inspiring. We feel that the adoption of the amendment would enhance our county greatly and be favorable to all homeowners. March 14, 2017 Page 152 Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. (Applause.) MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is George Danz, and he will be followed by William N. Cannon. MR. DANZ: Madam Chairperson, Commissioners, my name is George Danz. I am President of Riviera Golf Estates Homeowners Association. First of all, I want to commend your staff and Mark Strain and the Planning Commission for the efforts that they have done. Some of us have attended all those meetings, and the detail that they go through on all of these things is tremendous, and they've done a fantastic job. I have a list of points here that I would like to cover, there's about a page of them, but most people have covered them already so I'm not going to bore you and take up a lot more of your time. I don't live on a golf course. I don't play golf. I can't see chasing a little ball around a golf course, but I live in a community that is vibrant, that has a lot of activities going on, a lot of activities for other than golf in our community, and thus, needless to say, we're opposed to any conversion of the golf course. If conversion is necessary, however, we respectfully request that you approve the proposed amendments as presented. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. (Applause.) MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is William N. Cannon. He will be followed by Jeff Price. Mr. Price was on the fifth floor, but I think he's headed down this way. Mr. Cannon? MR. CANNON: Good evening. I'm William Cannon, 169 Fleur de lis Lane. That puts me on the 11th green at Riviera golf club. I just want to make four quick points, and my first one, I did not March 14, 2017 Page 153 coordinate this with George. I have just read a recent article that reported that the Urban Land Institute in the study found that 92 percent of the people living on golf courses do not play golf. They bought there for open space. And that's -- you know, the Urban Land Institute. They gave you a very good report not too long ago. The second item, Collier County has active constituencies for the beach, parks, playing fields like baseball and soccer and pickleball. I know of none for public golf. We golfers depend on you, our commissioners, to protect our recreational interests. Looking at how hard it is now to find suitable land for playing courts, think about 10, 15, 20 years from now when Collier County approaches a million residents. You will have a lot more golfers. At that time building a new public golf course would be extremely difficult and expensive. I would recommend that this commission buy one or more golf courses now, rather than letting them go to development, to provide recreation for the current and future Collier County residents and our tourists. I oppose residential conversion of golf courses and support strongly the LDC amendments that you're addressing tonight, and I want to thank all who worked hard to develop them. And I want to thank you for your time and dedication to us, the residents of Collier County. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Jeff Price. Mr. Price was on the fifth floor. I don't know if he's made his way down. Let me call Dwight Delahunt. I'm sorry. I'm having a difficult time with that last name, sir. Are you Mr. Price? March 14, 2017 Page 154 MR. PRICE: Yes, I am. MR. MILLER: Mr. Price, right here. Yes, right here, sir. Mr. Price first and then... MR. PRICE: Hello, everybody. I'm Jeff Price. I live at 4050 32nd Avenue Southwest, Green No. 5 is in -- or 4 is in my backyard on the Golden Gate course. We had a little discussion last night at the civic meeting with Mr. Saunders, and it came up about this sports park. And a lot of us are against that. I think we have enough sports parks, ball diamonds in this county. I'm a member of several groups, and -- the Moose, Eagles, and when I -- and I have a second home in Highlands County. And when I travel, I meet a lot of people up there that used to do the weekends at the Quality Inn and how much they love coming down here from all over and how many people from here go up there because it's cheaper to play golf, okay. I would really like -- I'm pushing for the county to make this a municipal course. I think if it's run by the right people, it's a gold mine. I think something happened where our tees and our greens were destroyed -- I don't know if it was the wrong fertilizer or what -- and everybody quit playing there. So that's why it was empty for so long. And it seemed funny that the chickee bar at the Quality Inn tripled in size. They remodeled it a few years back, remodeled the bathrooms, and I would think a place that's going out of business wouldn't be doing that. But I'm strongly pushing for the county to make that a municipal course. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. (Applause.) MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Dwight... MR. DELAHUNT: Delahunt. March 14, 2017 Page 155 MR. MILLER: Delahunt. Thank you, sir. He will be followed by William Smith. MR. DELAHUNT: Hi. My name's Dwight Delahunt. I live at 124 Bacardi. I back on the 15th hole of the Riviera golf course. And when I'm in my lanai, I can't see anything but water and the golf course behind me, and the homes on the far side of the lake. I share that property with a lot of birds. I share it with fish in the water, the odd alligator once in a while, usually not too big. Just little fellows coming in to visit. I have a couple of questions. If I was a developer and I wanted to get community involvement and have community speaking, if I was in Collier County I'd probably set up my meeting for June or July. Might be a good time. Although I'm a part-time resident, I am a full-time taxpayer in Collier County. I've been coming down since '76. I've owned here since 2004. I fully support LDC amendments that have been put forward to you. I am a realtor as well. Not here, but in Canada. My estimation is very close to what I heard from the gentleman earlier, about $20,000 it would affect my property value. It's a lot of money when we've saved for so long to have a place to retire. I ask for your support on the LDC. Thank you. (Applause.) MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is William F. Smith, and he will be followed by Ed Tappen, hopefully. MR. SMITH: Good evening. I live at 4372 27th Court Southwest in Apartment 206, Unit 206. First I'd like to remind the Council that zoning was established by this community to protect the citizens from contrary adjacent uses, and that's really what this is all about is the protection of existing uses from things that are very opposed to what exists today and what was zoned. March 14, 2017 Page 156 The golf course has a minimum of two fairways between the housing at the pars and the private housing along the perimeter. That's probably 4- to 500 linear feet of open space. I would suggest that any future amendments be made, if this goes through, that at least a 100-foot buffer be created and that that 100-foot buffer go from property line to property line, not building to building. Make sure that the green space is public space, in essence. If allowed, any adjacent housing, because the housing adjacent to the pars is two stories and most of the housing within the pars is two stories, that we hope that that would be likewise limited to two-story construction and probably a single unit within the two stories so that it's a townhouse type of situation. The utilities in our area, I can't imagine, would support the number of units of housing that were being proposed for the Quality Inn golf course. Who's going to pay for those upgrades in utilities? I would hope that the developer is and not the community and not the county are going to pay for the upgrade for those utilities. Water, sewer, storm drainage, power, all of those things are -- they're barely making do with what exists there. There are still private homes adjacent to us with septic systems in the front yards. And students going to local elementary schools, middle schools, the traffic in our neighborhood is already difficult as we exit 27th Court onto 44th. So we'd ask you to study that as well. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. (Applause.) MR. MILLER: Ed Tappen is the last registered speaker I have, Madam Chairman. Edward Tappen. I did receive this slip at 9 o'clock this morning, so I know -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: He was here when I walked in. MR. MILLER: That's what you had said. March 14, 2017 Page 157 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. MR. MILLER: Other than that, that's all we have, ma'am. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. I have a couple of questions for our county attorney. We've heard about financial well-being and yet we have property rights, but there are property rights of the folks who own these houses, and I'm sure there could be proof given that in former golf course conversions that property values have fallen. If that could be part of an argument, would we be on firm ground to say no to golf course conversions? MR. KLATZKOW: Funny you asked that, because I just walked over to Mr. Bosi and said, you need to put this on the record. So for purposes of this question, since his testimony -- mine's only an opinion -- I'd like Michael to answer your question. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director, again. And a point that Jeff wanted me to clarify -- and some of the questions and comments, I think, were pertinent to this clarification, is the notice to intent. That's supplemental activity that goes on before an application is even submitted. They'll provide additional benefits to the process, but the point is that once they submit an application, they will still have to satisfy the criteria of the rezone findings, the PUD findings. And one of those criterias is the effect from a property valuation that that use would have upon the surrounding area. And, also, within Collier County any development that moves forward is subject to concurrency management. So roads, school, water, facility, parks, libraries, all those would have to be adequately addressed to make sure that there was -- infrastructure capacity would be available to satisfy whatever demands that the development proposal would be required. So the traditional evaluations of a PUD or a rezone are still applicable to this process. It's just there's additional steps that are put March 14, 2017 Page 158 before an application is even submitted hopefully to arrive upon a better proposal that meets the needs of all parties involved. That was the design of this amendment. MR. KLATZKOW: So these are supplemental standards, correct? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did you understand the answer to your question? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, I understood it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't. So in other words, if the property values decrease by $20,000, tell me in plain English, what does that mean? MR. BOSI: There is an opportunity for the Board of County Commissioners to deny a petition if sub -- if competent evidence is submitted that shows that there will be a significant decrease within valuation upon the surrounding properties. That would be one of the factors or one of the criteria that the Board of County Commissioners would utilize to evaluate the proposal. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's very good. Now, let's say that folks live on a section of the golf course which is an open fairway. There aren't any trees and whatnot, and there's a buffer of a 100 feet. Within this LDC amendment, is there a requirement that it needs -- that rather than looking at 100 feet of fairway or former fairway and then have a house, is there a requirement to plant that as a buffer? MR. BOSI: There are options that are available for that, and that gets to the heart of the nature of the compatibility review and evaluation. Of course, the neighbors are going to have their perspective as to whether they feel that what's being suggested in that buffer within that greenway, whether it be vegetated or whatever that is, whether they feel that it adequately meets the compatibility and protects their neighborhood. Then staff would make an evaluation March 14, 2017 Page 159 upon it, the Planning Commission would make an evaluation upon it, and then the Board of County Commissioners would be the ultimate arbitration of those perspectives, and you would make the final decision as to whether you thought that the design of that buffer met the intent of the compatibility to provide for the protections of those surrounding neighborhoods. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So that would also go and apply to the buildings that are being built on this golf course. If it's a four-story apartment building next to single-family homes, that's a problem. MR. KLATZKOW: But that gets back to the compatibility. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Right. MR. KLATZKOW: If you're in a single-family development, your argument for the Board of County Commissioners is -- it's always the Board's decision -- would be that a four-story unit's not compatible. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And it also assumes that the conversion has gotten through the application process where they've met concurrency and substantiated that there isn't a reduction in property values, and those are protections that are put in place before it ever gets to the Board of County Commissioners for the ultimate protection. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We've heard testimony that there is a process, or there is underway -- a conversion underway at a golf course right now. Can these rules be applied to that conversion that is underway? MR. KLATZKOW: No. That's not retroactive. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And so that leaves everything back to -- MR. KLATZKOW: Our current standards. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. MR. BOSI: Chair, if I could interject. What that means is there's March 14, 2017 Page 160 not an intent-to-convert process that would be imposed upon that application, but those same criteria that we talked about within a rezoning finding or a PUD finding would be applicable to that action. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: The devaluation of homes. MR. BOSI: All of the same criteria that we just spoke about that are traditionally part of your rezoning application process would be part of the evaluation factor upon -- that the Board would arrive upon. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, my comment was back when they first were finishing, and so I'll just say to you, I was so proud of all of these people here from Riviera and from Winter Park, and they were so respectful, strong; they knew what they wanted to say, they said it, they came to the point and, yet, they were never yelling or unkind or anything. And I'm just so proud that you're part of my district. Thank you very much. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's what I was going to say. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis, there's no lights on, so I'm going to turn to you. Do you have any questions? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Not at this time, but I would like to commend the staff on the presentation and the work that they've done. I thought it was very thorough. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Amazing, amazing. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, I think it would be appropriate to make a motion to move this on -- to approve with the staff presentation, the document that's in front of us, and move this on to the second hearing. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I would agree. Do I have a second? March 14, 2017 Page 161 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: And for purposes of clarity, we're limiting this to the LDC amendment relating to the golf course conversion? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And then because we have one -- Commissioner Solis who is communicating to us by telephone, I would prefer to have a roll call here just so that we make sure that Commissioner Solis is part of the -- that he has said yes or no. So if we could call the roll for a vote. MR. MILLER: Okay. Commissioner McDaniel? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: He's looking at our signs. MR. MILLER: We've never done this. I'm sorry. Commissioner McDaniel? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. MR. MILLER: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. MR. MILLER: Chairman Taylor? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. MR. MILLER: Commissioner Solis? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. MR. MILLER: Commissioner Saunders? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's it, ladies and gentlemen. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: 5-0. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: St. Patty's Day is coming up, and they're wearing the green. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So the motion passed unanimously, and this will go in the process, and I hope you clearly understand what the intention is. You've brought some extraordinarily perceptive and cogent arguments to this, and it helps us in our deliberation going March 14, 2017 Page 162 forward. So thank you very, very much for being here this evening. (Applause.) MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, would you like to take five minutes? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We'll take, like, a couple-minutes recess. We have another issue to discuss, which is stormwater. You're welcome to stay for it, but if you leave -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Really interesting. It's really interesting. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just think of how much fun it could be. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: When are we coming back, Madam Chair? MR. OCHS: Five minutes? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Five minutes. Thank you. (A brief recess was had.) MR. OCHS: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your seats if you're staying, or leave quietly so we can continue the meeting. Thank you very much. Madam Chair, you have a live mike. We're still on Item 9A. The second of your two Land Development Code proposed amendments has to do with stormwater planning, and the staff has a very brief presentation on the nature of that change. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Thank you very much. MR. FRANTZ: Good evening. Jeremy Frantz with the Growth Management Department. I am just going to give you a really brief overview of the amendment, and then we can get to any questions that you might have. So this amendment began with stakeholders and staff identifying that the current stormwater plan requirements were overly restrictive in some areas, like the Estates, and just didn't actually provide any protection against stormwater impacts to other homeowners. March 14, 2017 Page 163 And so -- and, actually, I should back up. The stormwater plans that we're talking about are only applicable to single-family lots, two-family lots, and duplexes so that -- are not part of a master stormwater plan; so, essentially, outside of PUDs. And what we've proposed with this amendment is two different types of stormwater plans: A basic stormwater plan that shows us the direction of stormwater flows. All lots will be required to provide this; however, lots that have a higher percentage of impervious area, they'll provide an engineered stormwater plan that will give us calculations for stormwater runoff. So these two types of stormwater plans were developed based on data and input from stakeholders and advisory boards. And that's the end of my brief overview. Happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel, you had a question? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, I did. And it goes -- I apologize for earlier getting on the wrong -- a wrong amendment that we're talking about here. It has to do with lots -- my understanding, the way -- and I found my notes over here in the actual 6.05.1. Basically, Golden Gate Estates lots do not require a stormwater management plan. That really, really couldn't ever even actually occur with the coverage or requisite for stormwater, too. Basically, they have to do a simple one that shows which way the water goes. MR. FRANTZ: That will be the majority of the cases. It will be the simple -- the basic direction of stormwater flows for the Estates. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Now, do they require a stormwater plan now? MR. FRANTZ: If they exceed the impervious area thresholds, which are very low currently, and so this process has modified those to make them more appropriate for that area. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So this is better for the folks in March 14, 2017 Page 164 Golden Gate Estates? MR. FRANTZ: Correct. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: As Commissioner Fiala like to say, in English. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I do. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But you're raising the standards for the stormwater; is that correct? MR. FRANTZ: We'll get more stormwater plans because all lots are required to provide at least the direction of stormwater flow. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So "better" depends, quantitative or qualitative perspective, which side your perspective, which means there's going to be more requirement within Golden Gate for stormwater management, not less. MR. FRANTZ: For those lots that have to provide the directional flow -- essentially, the benefit for them is that they now are actually making stormwater planning a part of the development of their lot; whereas, currently either they're hit with an engineered stormwater plan for something that has very low impact or they are just not thinking about or not aware of how stormwater is intended to flow on their property, and so this kind of benefits them in a couple of ways. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Will this help to reduce their flood insurance? MR. FRANTZ: No. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: What it does, though, it protects the neighboring properties, because if they're not aware of the flow of the water on their property when they're building a new house or even renovating a new house, that runoff could go -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. But the flood insurance went up a bit, from what I understand, in the Estates, right? March 14, 2017 Page 165 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Quite a bit, quite a bit. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. And so I was just thinking, maybe by directing the water there would be a reduction in insurance rates. But I was just hoping. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Now, Commissioner, did you want to say -- Commissioner Taylor brought up an interesting point, and that is because there has been changes in elevation requirements because of the flooding that has transpired and FEMA's regulations that have increased elevations, we're now going to have directional flow that will help protect contiguous property owners to not have your neighbor come in and build a home that's much higher and cause stormwater runoff to be coming on to the neighbors' properties. We'll at least have mechanism to manage that. MR. FRANTZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I know there are initiatives as well for on-site retention that we've had discussions about as well just for an overall surficial water holding capacity in the Estates area. I know we have talked about that during the Golden Gate Estates neighborhood information meetings and such. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Commissioner Solis, any questions? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No, ma'am. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll move for approval. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Second. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second -- third. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. We're going to do roll call again just to make sure Commissioner Solis is registered here. MR. MILLER: Commissioner McDaniel? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. MR. MILLER: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. March 14, 2017 Page 166 MR. MILLER: Chairman Taylor? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. MR. MILLER: Commissioner Solis? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. MR. MILLER: Commissioner Saunders? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I guess it carries unanimously. Thank you very much. MR. FRANTZ: I'll just pipe in one more time really briefly to remind you that we'll be seeing both of these amendments again on March 28th for the final hearing and adoption. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. MR. FRANTZ: And thank you for your time here tonight. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. I guess we're under communication. MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. Item #15 STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS MR. OCHS: That takes us to staff and commission communications, Item 15. I'll start just briefly with a reminder of your next two workshop meetings. The first is scheduled on April 4th, and that's with your CRAs, and your next workshop is May the 22nd (sic) and you'll have the update to the restudies that are underway in Eastern Collier County. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, can I ask a question. I'm not going to be able make the May 2nd workshop. I'm not sure how that got scheduled for that day. MR. OCHS: Well, we -- we had scheduled that some time ago, March 14, 2017 Page 167 Commissioner. At the Board's request, they had asked for an update once we had the initial workshop session earlier in the year. So we tried to schedule that at the available date in May, but we can move that out if we need to. We had the initial one in January, and the Board said they wanted us to come back when we had an update ready. So we tried to use the workshop dates that are held typically -- the first Tuesday of every month is held for workshop. But if you'd like us to try to reschedule it, we certainly could do that. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, I don't want to inconvenience the Commission, but that is one day that I will not be able to attend a workshop, so... CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Maybe what we could do is see -- not do it right now, but see, talk -- County Manager, you could talk to all of us and see if there's another date in May that we could do this. MR. OCHS: Well, that's a timely discussion, ma'am, because my next item has to do with a request -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No more dates in May. MR. OCHS: -- a request from the City Council in Marco Island for a joint meeting between the City Council and the Board. The Board was copied on this letter. They want to talk to the Board at least about three items: Number one being Goodland Road, second being ambulance service on Marco Island, and the third is parking situations on Marco Island. They had in their letter provided a series of potential dates that at least the City Council was suggesting, and you can see those there. So if you don't want anything else in May, we'll have to look for something, perhaps, in June. Is that -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, no. I'm fine with something else in May. I just think maybe what we could do is -- I don't know if we can make a decision right now, but I think if you could just take a March 14, 2017 Page 168 consensus, you know, when the meeting's over, during the week or something, and we can get some dates that everybody agrees on. MR. OCHS: Yes. I've asked my executive assistant to reach out to the commission aides to see if there's availability of all of you on any of these dates, so... CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And include the one -- the workshop also just to see what -- if a consensus can be -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Saunders, could you participate by phone? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No. I won't be able to participate on May 2nd at all. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I'm not allowed -- my executive coordinator will not allow me to meddle with my calendar at all. MR. OCHS: I understand. We'll deal with her directly, sir. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis, are you able to see this on a -- at all what's being put in front of us? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Other than the discussion on the workshop dates? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah. Yes, exactly. MR. OCHS: I mean, are you viewing the meeting, sir, or just participating by phone? You're not viewing it on the Internet, are you? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: There's a lag, so I'm a little bit behind you. MR. OCHS: Okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think what we've decided as a consensus is to have the County Manager contact our assistants to determine if a consensus can be reached for two meetings; one would be the workshop, an update on the RFMUD planning, and then the second one would be a joint meeting with the City of Marco. MR. OCHS: Would the commissioners be amenable to trying to March 14, 2017 Page 169 kill two birds on one date? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think that's smart. MR. OCHS: We could do a workshop with the City Council 9 a.m., like we did with the City of Naples, then do the restudies after lunch, perhaps. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Sure. COMMISSIONER FIALA: How about this -- that's a great idea. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Or being that Commissioner Saunders can't be there on the 2nd, but he wouldn't probably need to be in the workshop with Marco, right, or would you? I was thinking maybe we could do that -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think we all want to be at the joint meeting. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think Marco would want us all there. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We don't need to go down that path again. MR. OCHS: I mean, I looked a little bit at the calendar. It looks like, you know, May 19th, even though it's a Friday, may be the date that works the most, so I'm kind of leaning on that one. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's fine with me. MR. OCHS: If we could do the joint meeting in the morning and then do a quick workshop on the updates in the afternoon, we could get you out of here by 2:30. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't care when we get out, just so that we're -- you know, we're meeting all together. MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. Okay. March 14, 2017 Page 170 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Good. MR. OCHS: Thank you very much. That's all I had, Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Thank you very much. County Attorney? MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing, ma'am. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Troy? MR. MILLER: Nothing, ma'am. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well done. You did a great job today. MR. MILLER: Thank you, ma'am. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, ma'am. I am allowed to look at my calendar, and May 19th is open right now, so... Oh, Commissioner comments. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's what you were calling me for. I just had one brief update. At the MPO meeting last Friday, while you ladies were off visiting with our governor, the DOT came in and gave some really good news about State Road 82 and 29, and they've moved that up on the work plan from '22/'23 to '18/'19 which means we're going to really -- we're going to be programming it here this coming fall and seeing those improvements. It's still -- it still includes just a swath in the eastern section of that highway, including the roundabout at the intersection from Gator Slough on over, so -- and then I know today we also, as a board, on the consent agenda, and you're all aware, approved 700 and some-odd thousand, because I was chirping at the DOT -- because I drive out there a lot, and the intersection of Corkscrew and 82 is a death trap. I mean, you almost have to pull clear out into the intersection in March 14, 2017 Page 171 order to see the westbound traffic coming at you. And I remember I was there, and I asked them, can you at least trim the trees just to get the view open? And we're already -- we were in the process of appropriating money for the intersection improvements, so... COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's wonderful. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Really, really -- that's just happy for our community. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks for being so persistent. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, ma'am. That's all. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a fun little thing. This morning -- was that just this morning? Yeah, I think so -- we were talking about the fair and it coming this way, and just -- this is a little bit of history. I come from the Dark Ages, and back when we first started -- actually, I was here before the fair got here. And so the first fair was on Radio Road. Actually, the few -- first few fairs were on Radio Road, as was the swamp buggy. So you could go to the swamp buggy races and you could go to the fair right on Radio Road. It was very different. And my cake won the Best Cake of the Day. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Wow. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I entered in. That's it. Thank you, staff, for doing such a great job. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I do have one item, and I don't know the history of this, but it was a news report that I did not (sic) hear, I believe, last night. Moraya Bay apparently is blocking off a portion of the public beach for -- blocking the public from getting onto what they're calling a private beach. I know that the county at one point in time had filed suit against Moraya Bay. My understanding is that that suit was dismissed because the -- Moraya Bay agreed to remove the barriers to prevent the public March 14, 2017 Page 172 from accessing the beach, and apparently, that's started up again. Is that little bit of history correct? MR. KLATZKOW: That is correct. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, assuming that the news article was correct and assuming that the emails that I've received today are correct, that's a very serious thing. We can't have condominiums and hotels and other property owners blocking off the beach. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Absolutely. I did receive an email on it as well. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So I would like to see -- I'd like to ask the Board to direct the County Attorney -- MR. KLATZKOW: If I may -- because I believe the County Manager might be able to resolve this amicably before we have to get involved in litigation. MR. OCHS: Well, we did have some discussions with the property owner about that concern, and he indicated he was going to be taking these cones down that he had put up to demark his property line on the sandy beach. I haven't personally, obviously, had a chance to go out there and see if he's complied, but that might resolve -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Right. MR. OCHS: -- immediately but not long term. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Right. And that's good, and if that has resolved it, that's fine, but we need to send a message that that's not the type of activity that can be permitted. So assuming that's resolved, that's great, but -- I can't speak for the Board, but I'm certain that we would all be very concerned about beach access being cut off. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. MR. KLATZKOW: And failing that, would you want to -- for me to take action? March 14, 2017 Page 173 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm sorry? MR. KLATZKOW: Failing -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Absolutely. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, I would agree. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And it may be just a brief discussion if nothing other than an educational process as to where property rights actually begin and end when you're on the beach. There's a lot of misnomers about where you can and can't go, and just a clarification as far as what, in fact, is allowed for public access on our beaches. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis, would you agree that if the County Manager's intervention doesn't produce the results to open up the beach to the public, would you agree that the County Attorney would take action? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Absolutely. I was actually going to bring up the same issue. I've received a lot of emails and I believe phone calls as well. And if we've already been down this road, it's very important in my opinion that we draw a line in the proverbial sand and just not revisit this issue again in the future. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Just as a point of information and sort of little bit of history here, in the beginning of Naples, the City of Naples, the beach, the beach was First Street, and then Gulf Shore Boulevard, and then Second Street. But the beach was First Street. It was understood that it was open to the public. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I had another little piece of history. You know, we were talking about Beck Boulevard, and that's where the fires were. And somebody sent me a thing. There was a guy named Beck that lived on that street, and he was -- he worked March 14, 2017 Page 174 the tollbooths way back in the -- way back when. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Wow. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And he was murdered. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. And supposed to be a really swell guy. They -- the guys that murdered him rode up on horseback and then took off. They caught the guys, but in tribute to him, they named Beck Boulevard after him. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's nice. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Horses? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Is that it, Commissioner Saunders? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yes, that's it. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I would just like to commend staff again on the work that they did on the golf course conversion ordinance. I thought that it was very well done, very well thought out. The research was thorough. And I think overall it was very impressive. So thank you for all your hard work. MR. OCHS: Well, on behalf of the staff, thank you, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And, last, I'd like to thank the Board for their indulgence in letting me appear by telephone. This is an important hearing, and I wanted to make sure that I could at least listen in. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We're glad you joined us, sir. A couple of things. There is a meeting coming up on the 28th, which has been in the works for a long time, and it's actually the hearing for the Racetrac. And I've been asked that -- to maximize the involvement of the citizens. And this is the Racetrac, so it's a lot of March 14, 2017 Page 175 folks' work. So I was thinking about a schedule and see if it's amenable to this commission. We would work right through lunch, forgive us, but -- you're going to get your breaks, but I'm assuming, depending on the workload that day, we would probably break one or two o'clock, and then we'd come back at four, and then we would hear the Racetrac issue, which would allow folks who are working to come here after they finish work or late in the day. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I also worry about not breaking for lunch, just because people need to get up, get a break, take a breath of fresh air. And we used to have two on here that were diabetic, and if you made them go through, you know -- well, they just couldn't. So I'm thinking, you know, do you really want to do that or -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, I don't mean that we would work without a break, but I mean that we wouldn't take our traditional lunch hour, and we would take the break after, kind of what we did today, because we broke at 12:30 and then we would -- you know, we came back at 5:00. So it depends on the weight of the agenda. I mean, if it's a busy agenda then, of course, we'd take a lunch break. But I have a sense that we're not going to take a dinner break once the Racetrac starts. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Probably not. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And there will be a lot of folks in this room. COMMISSIONER FIALA: What time does the Racetrac start? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, it would start at 4 o'clock to maximize the public involvement. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Could I ask staff a question? Because I suspect that that's going to be a fairly lengthy hearing. Would you have an estimate of how much time that entire process would take? March 14, 2017 Page 176 MR. OCHS: Mike, you got one? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just a rough guess. I mean, I know you can't foresee the -- MR. BOSI: At least -- Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director. At least four hours. We had three hours -- we had two night meetings back to back, and they were a full three hours both of them. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We also have the land use matters coming back at 5:05 on that day. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No. MR. OCHS: No, they're part of the regular agenda, sir. You only need one night meeting. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay, I'm sorry. Again, we're going to be starting a potentially four-hour hearing at 4 o'clock. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We need to have a break. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: What else do you have to do? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't have anything else to do. That's fine. I just wanted to, you know, point out that that's going to be a fairly lengthy hearing. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, it will be. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, and sometimes people get -- if they haven't eaten, they get a little bit testy. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, no, no. I'm not starving anybody. I'm just saying that perhaps we won't follow the traditional way we do things, I promise you. I get very grumpy if I don't eat. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Might be a headache, you know, people that haven't eaten, right? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Is there a -- and I fully appreciate the thought processes of involving the public. There a -- I haven't looked at the agenda for the 28th yet, but is there a necessity for us to work through the lunch hour? March 14, 2017 Page 177 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I don't know yet, but I'm just saying that we'll start this issue at four. If there's not, we won't, all right? We just don't need to be working all the way -- we don't need to take an hour lunch break and then work until, you know, 3 o'clock and then start at four and finish at eight. That's the problem. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Why? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think the issue that you're raising is, are we going to have a public hearing on the Racetrac starting at 4 o'clock? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: If that's the consensus, fine. The rest of the meeting will take care of itself. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I like that idea. Very good. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: If we take lunch, we take lunch, and if we don't, we don't. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay, fine. Are we of consensus with that, 4 o'clock? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I guess. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Commissioner Solis? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's fine with me. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Good. You can bring your Cuban coffee, sir. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I will. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I received a letter from Senator Passidomo regarding the bill that she filed. I don't know if anyone else received a letter from her. And she is really saying, look, this is what the bill is intended, but a sense is that she's getting some pushback, and she's asked for my opinion on it. Well, I am not the one to opine without my board with me. So what I'll do is I'll send that to everyone and then, Commissioner Saunders, I'm sure you can be helpful, and March 14, 2017 Page 178 Commissioner Solis, but clearly there's pushback on this. And -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm actually meeting with her on Thursday to discuss that bill. The bill is so overly broad that I believe that it would prohibit all of our regulations that deal with home occupations. It prohibits any regulation that will in any way impair employment. That's so broad, if I wanted to have a home occupation and hire somebody, I would argue that that would be permitted under that. So I think that she's getting pushback -- that's an understatement. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, that's right. It was a big discussion at a meeting I just went to recently. They were very upset with her. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So maybe -- what would we suggest? I mean, I think that I need to answer her, but I don't want to answer her without a discussion here. Or what would you suggest, Commissioner Saunders? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Other than that it is a tremendous -- potentially a tremendous erosion of home rule authority, I think you're authorized -- you, certainly, from my view would be authorized to say that the county is concerned about this -- about the erosion of home rule authority and the impact on our regulation of business and suggest that the bill either has to be amended substantially, or she should rethink pursuing it. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So what if we assign -- ask Saunders to carry that message if there's consensus. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, that would be good. It's beautifully said. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Sure. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not only that, but Florida Association of Counties and all of the counties have worked for home rule all of these years, and to -- and she's going against everything March 14, 2017 Page 179 we've worked for. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll be happy to talk to her. As I said, I've got a meeting set up with her on Thursday. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I would agree to that. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And what about you, Commissioner Solis? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I did speak with Senator Passidomo last week about it, and I understand what she's trying to do. I, like Commissioner Saunders, think it's overly broad. She is open to suggestions on how to address ordinances that would somehow restrain trade or employment or things across county lines. I mean, I understand what she's trying to do. I don't know that what she's proposing is the right way to do it, but certainly we -- maybe we should have a discussion about the examples that she forwarded and see if there isn't something that we should address in the event that something like that happens in our vicinity. But the way it's written, I agree, it's objectionable, and I wouldn't be in favor of it the way it's written. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So would you agree that Commissioner Saunders could have a conversation, represent our concerns as a commission, not individually, but as a commission as well as his individual, but he would be representing our commission's concerns and communicate that to commissioner -- or to Senator Passidomo, and that he would report back to us on the 28th -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Sure. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- about what he would suggest that -- the next step forward; would you agree? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes. March 14, 2017 Page 180 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay, good. And, Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is it going way out of line to say we would even suggest she withdraw it? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No, I don't think it's way out of line at all. I don't think it can be fixed. I know what she's trying to accomplish, and you've got some communities that are banning styrofoam, for example; some communities that have said if you have a shopping, Publix shopping cart that winds up in somebody else's property, then Publix is responsible for that shopping cart even though it may have been stolen. And so there are some regulations, especially in Dade County, that are problematic. Dade County has, for Dade County contracts, the minimum wage. Those types of things the Retail Federation has found to be objectionable, and she's trying to accomplish stopping those things. But when you stop all those things, you're stopping a whole lot of other stuff in addition to it. So I don't know that it can be fixed, but I'll carry the message and suggest that if it can't be fixed, then the request of the County Commission would be to ask her to -- respectfully ask her to consider withdrawing it. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Sure, and may I ask, Madam Chair, was your email directed to you as the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners or to you individually, or -- because I didn't get an email from her. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No. It was sent -- I received it today, and it was sent to me as a commissioner. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But, you know, it was -- you know, it was very open to give me some ideas of how we can make this work for you. So I think it's very fortuitous that you're going to be meeting March 14, 2017 Page 181 with her, and I think this is the natural way of communicating it. She doesn't need to hear from all five of us. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Sure. That was where I was going. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You represent the Commission in this one. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Madam Chair, that's where I was going. I just didn't know if we needed to set it up as an agenda item and bring it back. I mean, I think we're right straight on the run with that. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well -- and Commissioner Saunders is going to come back and report what -- and then we can make the next step forward. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm with you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Well, that's all I have. That's it. We're adjourned. **** Commissioner Saunders moved, seconded by Commissioner Fiala and carried 4/0 (Commissioner Solis absent), that the following items under the Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted **** Item #16A1 FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE OF POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR SIRACUSA, PL20150001667, AND AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $4,000 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT – THE DEVELOPER OF SIRACUSA, March 14, 2017 Page 182 HAS CONSTRUCTED POTABLE WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES WITHIN DEDICATED EASEMENTS TO SERVE THIS DEVELOPMENT SOUTH OF TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST Item #16A2 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF POTABLE WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES FOR ASTER AT LELY RESORT, PHASE 1, PL20140000545, ACCEPTING UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE OF A PORTION OF THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES, AND AUTHORIZNG THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS) AND FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $63,797.33 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT – STAFF IS UNAWARE OF ANY ISSUES THAT WOULD ELIMINATE THE RECOMMENDATION TO RELEASE THE APPLICABLE SECURITY Item #16A3 FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE OF POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR THE LOGAN BOULEVARD NORTH EXTENSION, PL20150001518, AND AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS) AND FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $52,276.51 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT – A FINAL INSPECTION TO DISCOVER DEFECTS March 14, 2017 Page 183 WAS CONDUCTED BY STAFF ON NOVEMBER 9, 2016 AND THE FACILITIES WERE ACCEPTABLE Item #16A4 FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE OF POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR CORDOBA AT LELY RESORT REPLAT, PL20140000419, AND AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS) AND FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $4,978.42 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT – A FINAL INSPECTION TO DISCOVER DEFECTS WAS CONDUCTED BY STAFF ON JANUARY 6, 2017 AND THE FACILITIES WERE ACCEPTABLE Item #16A5 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES FOR NCH HEALTHCARE- NORTHEAST, PL20150002628, AND AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS) AND FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $6,761.07 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT – THE DEVELOPER CONSTRUCTED POTABLE WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES WITHIN DEDICATED EASEMENTS TO SERVE THIS PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT Item #16A6 March 14, 2017 Page 184 FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR ISLES OF COLLIER PRESERVE PHASES 2B AND 2C, PL20150001728, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $4,000 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT – THE DEVELOPER OF ISLES OF COLLIER PRESERVE PHASES 2B AND 2C CONSTRUCTED POTABLE WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES WITHIN DEDICATED EASEMENTS TO SERVE THIS DEVELOPMENT Item #16A7 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES FOR COLLIER COUNTY LANDFILL, PL20130000646, AND ACCEPTING UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE OF A PORTION OF THE POTABLE WATER FACILITIES – A PORTION OF THE POTABLE WATER FACILITIES WILL BE CONVEYED TO THE COUNTY AND THE REMAINING POTABLE WATER FACILITIES AND ALL SEWER FACILITIES WILL BE PRIVATE Item #16A8 RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF GASPAR STATION PHASE 3, (APPLICATION NUMBER PL20160001055) APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY – W/STIPULATIONS March 14, 2017 Page 185 Item #16A9 RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF FAITH LANDING PHASE FOUR, (APPLICATION NUMBER PL20160001899) APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY – W/STIPULATIONS Item #16A10 RELEASING A CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN WITH AN ACCRUED VALUE OF $550,643.40 FOR A PAYMENT OF $1,000 IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. JOSE EMILIO MORALES. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CASE NO. CESD20130003648 RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3745 RANDALL BLVD., COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA – CONSISTING OF UNPERMITTED ELECTRIC, PLUMBING AND ALTERATIONS THROUGHOUT THE MAIN STRUCTURE AND AN UNPERMITTED SHED & ELECTRIC AND PLUMBING ON THE PROPERTY THAT WAS BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE DECEMBER 27, 2016 BY SUNSHINE FLORIDA APARTMENTS FOLLOWING FORECLOSURE Item #16A11 RELEASING A CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN WITH A VALUE OF $17,102.64 FOR PAYMENT OF $4,052.64 IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY March 14, 2017 Page 186 COMMISSIONERS V. ESTEBAN HERNANDEZ. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CASE NO. CEPM20110003003, RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 701 E. DELAWARE AVENUE, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA – FOR FINES RELATED TO A MOBILE HOME WITH NUMEROUS PROPERTY MAINTENANCE VIOLATIONS ON THE PROPERTY BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANC ON MAY 11, 2011 AND ACQUIRED BY CC TAX LLC., FOLLOWING FORECLOSURE Item #16A12 CLERK OF COURTS RELEASE OF A PERFORMANCE BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $139,760 WHICH WAS POSTED AS A GUARANTY FOR EXCAVATION PERMIT NUMBER 59.902-26 PL20150002581 FOR WORK ASSOCIATED WITH MAPLE RIDGE RESERVE AT AVE MARIA PHASE 4 Item #16A13 RESOLUTION 2017-38: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF PRIVATE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF ISLA DEL SOL AT FIDDLER’S CREEK, APPLICATION NUMBER S/D 99-23, WITH ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PRIVATELY MAINTAINED, ACCEPTING PLAT DEDICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY Item #16A14 AN EASEMENT USE AGREEMENT (AGREEMENT) BETWEEN March 14, 2017 Page 187 COLLIER COUNTY, THE WYNDEMERE HOMEOWNER’S ASSOCIATION, AND THE OWNER OF LOT 12, GOLF COTTAGES AT WYNDEMERE, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 13, PAGES 119 THROUGH 121 – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16A15 CLERK OF COURTS RELEASE OF A CASH BOND FROM STOCK CONSTRUCTION, LLC, IN THE AMOUNT OF $39,240 THAT WAS POSTED AS A GUARANTY FOR EXCAVATION PERMIT NUMBER 60.106-1, PL20130002172 FOR WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THE SIGNATURE CLUB AT LELY, FORMERLY KNOWN AS CLASSICS CAY Item #16A16 CLERK OF COURTS RELEASE OF AN IRREVOCABLE STANDBY LETTER OF CREDIT IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,000 WHICH WAS POSTED AS A GUARANTY FOR EXCAVATION PERMIT NUMBER 59.365-2, PL20110002253 AND PL20120001490 FOR WORK ASSOCIATED WITH TALL OAKS OF NAPLES, PHASES 3 AND 4 – WORK HAS BEEN INSPECTED AND THE DEVELOPER HAS FULFILLED COMMITMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THIS SECURITY Item #16A17 BID #17-7044 AWARDED TO WRIGHT CONSTRUCTION GROUP FOR “SR 82 AND CORKSCREW ROAD INTERSECTION SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS” FOR March 14, 2017 Page 188 OPERATIONAL AND SAFETY ENHANCEMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $771,364.74 (PROJECT NO. 33478) – GRANT FUNDED JPA PROJECT #433175-1 Item #16A18 RESOLUTION 2017-39: ACCEPTING DEDICATIONS TO COLLIER COUNTY AND THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER- SEWER DISTRICT RELATING TO THE WINDING CYPRESS PHASE 2C PLAT, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 60, PAGES 22 THROUGH 28 OF THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Item #16A19 PROCUREMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR ENTERING INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH TWO (2) BIDDERS, CONSISTENT WITH SECTION 10D OF THE BOARD’S PROCUREMENT ORDINANCE ON THE COMPETITIVE BID PROCESS (REJECTION OF BIDS AND NEGOTIATION), REGARDING INVITATION TO BID #16-7032RR “PURCHASE AND DELIVERY OF TURF GRASSES” AND APPROVE PAYMENT OF UNPAID INVOICES – NEGOTIATIONS WITH DWJH, LLC D/B/A LEO’S SOD AND TRIPLE C SOD, INC., APPROVING AN OUTSTANDING INVOICE AND AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURES IN EXCESS OF $50,000 ON AN INTERIM BASIS UNTIL THE BOARD APPROVES LONG-TERM CONTRACTS Item #16A20 March 14, 2017 Page 189 CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 MODIFICATIONS TO THE CONTRACT WITH HANNULA LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION, INC. FOR LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION INSTALLATION ASSOCIATED WITH ITB #16-6607, COLLIER BLVD. HIGHWAY BEAUTIFICATION (PROJECT NO. 60149) – TO CHANGE AN EXISTING IRRIGATION CONTROLLER AND INCREASING THE CONTRACT 6.85% Item #16B1 SHORT TERM AT WILL LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD, ACTING AS THE CRA BOARD, AND T.T OF NAPLES INC., FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1991 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST FOR VEHICLE STORAGE – FOR OVERFLOW VEHICLE STORAGE WHILE THEIR NEW FACILITY IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION, LOCATED AT 3147 DAVIS BOULEVARD Item #16B2 AWARDING BID #17-7067, KAREN DRIVE STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS TO JRL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, INC. IN THE AMOUNT $313,329.09 AND AUTHORIZING THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD CHAIR TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT TO PERFORM THE WORK – FOR THE CONTRUCTION OF A SWALE-CULVERT SYSTEM THAT WILL CONNECT TO SURROUNDING STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE, INTO A NEARBY STORMWATER DRAINAGE POND AND AN OUTFALL EAST OF KAREN DRIVE Item #16D1 March 14, 2017 Page 190 ACCEPTING AND RATIFYING FEE WAIVERS IN THE AMOUNT OF $235 GRANTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES FOR THE PERIOD OF OCTOBER 1, 2016 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2016, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCESS ESTABLISHED BY RESOLUTION NO. 2016-125 Item #16D2 ELEVEN (11) MORTGAGE SATISFACTIONS FOR THE STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP LOAN PROGRAM IN THE COMBINED AMOUNT OF $28,400 – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16D3 EXPENDITURE OF CATEGORY “A” BEACH PARK FACILITY TOURIST TAX FUNDS FOR REQUEST FOR QUOTE (RFQ) TO BONNESS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $21,594.03 FOR SEALING AND RESTRIPING THE PARKING LOT AT SEAGATE DRIVE, AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS EXPENDITURE PROMOTES TOURISM – SEAGATE PARKING LOT PROJECT NO. 80347 Item #16D4 CATEGORY “A” BEACH PARK FACILITY TOURIST TAX FUNDS FOR INVITATION TO BID (ITB) #16-7027 TO HERITAGE UTILITIES, LLC IN THE AMOUNT OF $156,467.89 FOR SIDEWALK WIDENING AND LANDSCAPE March 14, 2017 Page 191 ENHANCEMENT AT SEAGATE AND NORTH GULF SHORE BEACH ACCESS LOCATIONS, TO ACCEPT THE DONATION OF A RIGHT OF ENTRY TO INSTALL AND MAINTAIN THE LANDSCAPE ENHANCEMENT, AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS EXPENDITURE PROMOTES TOURISM Item #16D5 AN AFTER-THE-FACT GRANT VICTIMS ADVOCACY ORGANIZATION GRANT APPLICATION FOR A 3-YEAR OFFICE OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN JUSTICE FOR FAMILIES GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $549,693 – MORE TIME WAS NEEDED TO ASSEMBLE THE APPLICATION FOR THE PROGRAM THAT STRENGTHENS EXISTING SUPERVISED VISITATION SERVICES, PROVIDES ENHANCED TRAINING FOR COURT AND COURT-RELATED PERSONNEL, AND IMPROVES COORDINATED COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE Item #16D6 THE TRANSFER OF REVENUE FROM THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY FUND 495 TO HOUSING GRANTS FUND 705 UNDER THE PROGRAM INCOME AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, AND AUTHORIZE A BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING $13,408 IN PROGRAM INCOME UNDER THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT Item #16E1 March 14, 2017 Page 192 AGREEMENT #16-7036-PB FOR VISA COMMERCIAL CARDS WITH SUNTRUST BANK FOR P-CARD SERVICES – SPENDS APPROXIMATELY $2.2 MILLION ANNUALLY, CONSISTING OF 9,600 TRANSACTIONS BY 282 CARD USERS Item #16E2 PAYMENT OF SIX (6) OUTSTANDING INVOICES IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $12,184.57 UNDER QUANTUM MERUIT FOR WORK PERFORMED BY SIMMONDS ELECTRICAL OF NAPLES, INC., UNDER AGREEMENT #13-6166 – ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16E3 AMENDMENT #1 TO AGREEMENT #13-6163, SECURITY SERVICES TO G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (USA) INC., CLARIFYING LANGUAGE RELATED TO PRICE INCREASES AND APPROVE CHANGE ORDER #2 ALLOWING FOR AN INCREASE TO THE HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE FOR SECURITY PERSONNEL Item #16E4 NO ACTION TO PURCHASE THE PORT OF THE ISLANDS HOTEL LOCATED AT 12323 UNION ROAD IN THE PORT OF THE ISLANDS AT A MINIMUM OPENING BID OF $2,360,063.83, PLUS INTEREST. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ON THE LANDS AVAILABLE LIST AND IF NOT March 14, 2017 Page 193 PURCHASED BY JANUARY 9, 2020, WILL ESCHEAT TO THE COUNTY PURSUANT CHAPTER 197, FLORIDA STATUTES Item #16E5 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS PREPARED BY THE PROCUREMENT SERVICES DIVISION FOR CHANGE ORDERS AND OTHER ITEMS AS IDENTIFIED – THE NET FOR FIVE CHANGES TO VARIOUS CONTRACTS IS $22,256.00 AND THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DAYS ADDED IS 22 Item #16E6 CHANGE ORDER #4 TO ITB NO. 15-6370 “MOTOROLA CENTRAL CONTROL IRRIGATION SUPPLIES & SERVICES” AND AUTHORIZE PAYMENT OF OUTSTANDING INVOICES UNDER QUANTUM MERUIT FOR PROJECTS TO CONTEMPORARY CONTROLS AND COMMUNICATIONS, INC., WHICH PREVIOUSLY INCLUDED A 4% PRICE INCREASE Item #16F1 TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX CATEGORY “B” FUNDING TO SUPPORT THE FOUR UPCOMING APRIL 2017 SPORTS EVENTS UP TO $19,300 AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THESE EXPENDITURES PROMOTE TOURISM: FOR THE NAPLES SPRING SHOOTOUT, APRIL 1-2, 2017; THE ALLIGATOR ALLEY CHALLENGE, APRIL 21-23, 2017; THE USPTA NATIONAL CLAY COURT CHAMPIONSHIP, APRIL 28-30, 2017 AND THE ADIDAS SPRING CLASSIC, APRIL 29-30, 2017 March 14, 2017 Page 194 Item #16F2 – WITHDRAWN (Per Agenda Change Sheet) RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AMENDMENT #1 TO CONTRACT #13-6109 FOR WEBSITE DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE WITH MILES MEDIA AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THESE EXPENDITURES PROMOTE TOURISM Item #16F3 RESOLUTION 2017-40: APPROVING AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 ADOPTED BUDGET Item #16F4 A MULTIPLE YEAR DONATION FROM MINTO COMMUNITIES AND SPIRIT PROMOTIONS FOR FUTURE MARKETING AND PROMOTION OF PICKLEBALL AND OTHER SPORTS TOURISM EVENTS IN COLLIER COUNTY – MINTO COMMUNITIES AND SPIRIT PROMOTIONS HAVE VOLUNTARILY OFFERED DONATIONS OF $10,000 FOR A TOTAL OF $20,000 PER YEAR FOR THE NEXT 4 YEARS, BEGINNING IN FY17 Item #16F5 A WORK ORDER UNDER RFQ #15-6397-2 FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND BIOLOGICAL STUDIES FOR CLAM BAY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES TO EARTH TECH March 14, 2017 Page 195 ENVIRONMENTAL FOR $126,000 Item #16J1 TO RECORD IN THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE CHECK NUMBER (OR OTHER PAYMENT METHOD), AMOUNT, PAYEE, AND PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE REFERENCED DISBURSEMENTS WERE DRAWN FOR THE PERIODS BETWEEN FEBRUARY 16 AND MARCH 1, 2017 PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 136.06 Item #16J2 PURSUANT TO THE BOARD’S PURCHASING ORDINANCE 2013-69, AS AMENDED, REQUEST THAT THE BOARD APPROVE AND DETERMINE VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE FOR INVOICES PAYABLE AND PURCHASING CARD TRANSACTIONS AS OF MARCH 8, 2017 Item #16J3 REVIEW A REQUEST FOR A HOUSING PURCHASE ASSISTANCE PAYMENT AND MAKE A DETERMINATION REGARDING PROPER PAYMENT SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16K1 RESOLUTION 2017-41: REAPPOINTING JACK A. BONZELAAR (RESIDENT) AND KATHLEEN J. RILEY (RESIDENT) TO THE March 14, 2017 Page 196 HALDEMAN CREEK DREDGING MAINTENANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE WITH TERMS EXPIRING MARCH 13, 2021 Item #16K2 RESOLUTION 2017-42: REAPPOINTING SHEILA A. DUGAN, GEORGE H. DOUGLAS, JR AND ROBERT F. MESSMER (ALL RESIDENTS WITHIN THE MSTU) TO THE BAYSHORE BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO TERMS EXPIRING MARCH 3, 2021 Item #16K3 PAYMENT AT THE NEGOTIATED AMOUNT OF $715 FOR EXPERT FEES FOR THE TAKING OF PARCEL 196RDUE IN THE PENDING CASE STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. JUAN E. NAVARRO, ET AL, CASE NO. 15-CA-154, REQUIRED FOR THE GOLDEN GATE BLVD. PROJECT NO. 60040 (12TH STREET EAST TO WEST OF 16TH STREET EAST). (FISCAL IMPACT: $715) Item #16K4 A PROPOSED STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT FOR THE TAKING OF PARCEL 231RDUE IN THE PENDING CASE STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. ESTILITA RODRIGUEZ, ET AL, CASE NO. 15-CA-333, REQUIRED FOR THE GOLDEN GATE BLVD. PROJECT NO. 60040 (12TH STREET EAST TO WEST OF 16TH STREET EAST). (FISCAL IMPACT: $26,420.75) Item #17A March 14, 2017 Page 197 ORDINANCE 2017-07: AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2016-41, THE NEW HOPE MINISTRIES MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD), TO CORRECT A SCRIVENER’S ERROR RELATING TO THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS ALLOWED FOR THE MPUD PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF DAVIS BOULEVARD AND EAST OF SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD IN SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE [SE- PL20170000356] Item #17B – Moved to Item #9B (Per Commissioner Taylor during Agenda Changes) Item #17C THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE FEBRUARY 28, 2017 BCC MEETING AND IS BEING FURTHER CONTINUED TO THE MARCH 28, 2017 BCC MEETING. THIS ITEM REQUIRES THAT EX PARTE DISCLOSURE BE PROVIDED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS. SHOULD A HEARING BE HELD ON THIS ITEM, ALL PARTICIPANTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE SWORN IN. RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE PETITION VAC-PL20160003293, TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN A PORTION OF THE 10-FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT AND VACATE A PORTION OF THE 10-FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED ALONG THE REAR BORDER OF LOT 50, THE LODGINGS OF WYNDEMERE, SECTION ONE, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 13, PAGE 8 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF March 14, 2017 Page 198 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LOCATED IN SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Item #17D ORDINANCE 2017-08: ADOPTING REVISIONS TO ORDINANCE NO. 2013-69, AS AMENDED, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE COLLIER COUNTY PROCUREMENT ORDINANCE INCREASING EFFICIENCY IN THE PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING FUNCTIONS ***** March 14, 2017 Page 199 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:54 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ________________________________________ PENNY TAYLOR, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK _______________________________ These minutes approved by the Board on ____________________, as presented ______________ or as corrected _____________. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.