Loading...
Agenda 03/13/2018 Item # 2B03/13/2018 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 2.B Item Summary: February 13, 2018 BCC Meeting Minutes Meeting Date: 03/13/2018 Prepared by: Title: Executive Secretary to County Manager – County Manager's Office Name: MaryJo Brock 03/01/2018 7:34 AM Submitted by: Title: County Manager – County Manager's Office Name: Leo E. Ochs 03/01/2018 7:34 AM Approved By: Review: County Manager's Office MaryJo Brock County Manager Review Completed 03/01/2018 7:35 AM Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 03/13/2018 9:00 AM 2.B Packet Pg. 11 February 13, 2018 Page 1 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, February 13, 2018 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: Andy Solis William L. McDaniel, Jr. Donna Fiala Burt L. Saunders Penny Taylor ALSO PRESENT: Leo Ochs, County Manager Nick Casalanguida, Deputy County Manager Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Crystal Kinzel, Director of Finance & Accounting Troy Miller, Communications & Customer Relations February 13, 2018 Page 2 MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mike. Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your seats. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Thank you, everyone. Thanks for being here on a great day in Naples again. It seems like summertime already. So we'll begin with the invocation by Reverend Beverly Duncan of the Naples United Church of Christ. Item #1A INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE REVEREND DUNCAN: Good morning. Holy one, weaver of our lives, we ask your blessing on these commissioners today. Their responsibilities are great, and the lives of every citizen depend on the debates and decisions that happen here. May they strive to weave wisdom into their words and deeds and weave love into their work so accomplishments are imbued with humility. Weave kindness into their actions so the world can once again become a joyous place to live. Weave hope into every encounter so that they can be counted as people of faith. In this season of ashes and love, let them celebrate diversity with our support, and have all of us weave into our days the colors of optimism and hope despite heavy threads available to us. And when this meeting is done, may all go in peace. Amen. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Very nice. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioner Taylor, would you lead us in the pledge. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2A February 13, 2018 Page 3 APPROVAL OF TODAY’S REGULAR , CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA AS AMENDED (EX PARTE DISCLOSURE PROVIDED BY COMMISSION MEMBER FOR CONSENT AGENDA.) – APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED W/CHANGES (COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL ABSTAINED FROM VOTING ON ITEM #16A9) MR. OCHS: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. These are the proposed agenda changes for the Board of County Commissioners meeting of February 13, 2018. The first proposed change is to withdraw Item 16F5 from your consent agenda. This is a staff request. That item will be brought back at a later date. We have one agenda note in reference to Item 16D21, and that is that the backup contract was inadvertently omitted from the printed agenda. It had since been distributed to all the board members prior to the meeting and also posted on the web. Two time-certain requests this morning, Commissioners. The first is Item 9A to be heard at 9:15 this morning and 9B to be heard at 9:30 a.m. this morning. And those are all the changes I have, Mr. Chairman. County Attorney? MR. KLATZKOW: No changes. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Good morning. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Do you mean to the -- our ex parte as well? CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Ex parte, yes. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I have no changes, I have no ex parte, and I do want to announce that I'm abstaining from voting on February 13, 2018 Page 4 Consent Agenda 16A9, just abundance of caution. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good morning, everyone. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Good morning. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. This morning, first of all, Leo, I was wondering, there's -- MR. OCHS: Could you speak into the microphone, please, Commissioner. Thank you, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Yeah, you want to hear me, right? MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Lilting tones. Anyway, we have a group coming in regarding the CRA, and I was wondering what time -- about what time you think that we'll be discussing that, or should we even try and give it some kind of a time-certain. MR. OCHS: There's only a few items, Commissioner. I would think that -- we'd be on that item no later than -- no later than 10 a.m. maybe sooner. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay, fine. Then I won't do anything with that. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: CRA? MR. OCHS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And then -- let's see. With the ex parte, I have something, I know. Yes. That's Item 17B, and that is the Antilles subject, and I've been meeting with them on and off for over a year. I met with Rich Yovanovich, Patrick Vanasse, Norm Trebilcock, Dayna Fendrick, Mike Myer, and Ashley Caserta back in May of 2016, actually. I attended the neighborhood information meeting when they held that. I've had emails and discussions with the Hearing Examiner, with Phil Brougham, and other February 13, 2018 Page 5 residents of Fiddler's Creek. So I've tried to do all my background that I could. And that's it for me. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioner Taylor? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: One thing on 16F7, I would like to add something to this agreement. It's on the consent agenda. I do not want to remove it from the consent agenda, but I would like another point added to the agreement between the county and this bank that the Clerk of Courts will have the opportunity to audit. MR. OCHS: That's fine. Commissioner, I think the Clerk, as you can tell from the internal audit reports, you get audits, every one of economic incentives that are granted to businesses. As a matter of routine, Crystal, unless -- I'm not aware of any of these grant agreements that we don't have some joint monitoring with your office. MS. KINZEL: Right. There's usually a provision in the contracts about auditing. But as long as we're on the record that there is no misunderstanding that the Clerk would be able to audit this one, I'm okay with that as long as it's on the official record. MR. OCHS: Yeah. Absolutely. We expect that. MS. KINZEL: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That would certainly be my intent in voting for the consent agenda with that item on it. MR. OCHS: Yeah. We welcome that, sir, and we expect it. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Do you want to add it? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't know that it needs to be added based on -- MR. OCHS: I think she said if we put it on the record. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- that response. We all recognize that it's there. MR. KLATZKOW: The Clerk has the ability to audit anything dealing with county money. We litigated that issue once upon a time. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I was wondering. February 13, 2018 Page 6 MS. KINZEL: Thank you. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I mean, that's standard operating procedure, so... MS. KINZEL: Thank you. MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And then on the consent agenda or on the ex parte, I only have one on 17B, and I had a brief discussion with staff regarding this item, and also this morning Phil Brougham came and spoke to me very briefly about this item. And that's it. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioner Saunders? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I have no ex parte and no changes to the agenda. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: I have no ex parte, but I would like one change just to discuss something very, very quickly. It's 16K3 relating to the candidates for the Pelican Bay Services Division board. MR. OCHS: So that would become Item 12B on the regular agenda under County Attorney if you want to move it for discussion. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Well, let me just -- and I guess we can decide whether it's worth pulling it. The situation is is that there's four candidates -- there's four positions open on the board. There's four candidates, but one of those positions is only a one-year term. And there's nothing, as I understand it, in the PBSD board bylaws about how to determine who's getting the one year, even if it's rock, paper, scissors or a flip of the coin or a draw. And what I was hoping to do was just to give the board some direction -- the PBSD some direction to maybe change their bylaws and add something that there will be a way of determining this in the future. I don't know if we need to pull it for that, or we can just add that to the -- MR. OCHS: Well, I think if you get consensus from a majority of the Board to make that request, we can direct that request to the February 13, 2018 Page 7 advisory board. MR. KLATZKOW: I'll send out that email right after the -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I was going to say, you have a formal head nod from this end. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's fine. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Sure. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. Then let's just leave it where it is, and we'll just make that direction. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Very good. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you know which one is going to take the one year out of the four? CHAIRMAN SOLIS: I don't -- I don't know, but I think -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We'll just let them decide that. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Yeah. We'll have to approve it anyway, so -- I think it's going to work itself out from what I understand, and everyone will be happy, but if not, I guess we'll hear about it again, but at least then they'll have some method for making these determinations. MR. OCHS: Mr. Miller, any speakers registered on the consent agenda? MR. MILLER: I have nothing registered for consent agenda. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: So is there a -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make a motion to accept the agenda as written with no changes and no corrections. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: All in favor? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. February 13, 2018 Page 8 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Motion carries. February 13, 2018 Page 9 Item #2B and #2C REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FROM JANUARY 9, 2018 AND JANUARY 23, 2018 – APPROVED AS PRESENTED COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve the minutes from January 9th Regular BCC Meeting and also from January 23nd Regular Meeting of the BCC. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Minutes. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Motion and second on the floor. All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Motion carries. Item #4A PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING FEBRUARY 14, 2018 AS THE 40TH ANNIVERSARY OF 911 EMERGENCY CALL SYSTEM IN COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY CHIEF GREG SMITH, DIRECTOR BOB FINNEY, MANAGER NICK MCFADDEN AND SEVERAL 911 DISPATCHERS AND SUPPORT STAFF – ADOPTED MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that takes us to Item 4 on this February 13, 2018 Page 10 morning's agenda. Item 4A is a Proclamation recognizing February 14, 2018, as the 40th Anniversary of the 911 Emergency Call System in Collier County. Accepted this morning by Chief Greg Smith; Director Bob Finney; Manager Nick McFadden; Sandi Chernoff, 911 Coordinator; and several members of the 911 Dispatch and Support Staff. If you'd please come forward and receive your proclamation. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now you have to get in front of everybody. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for all you do. That's a tough job. (Applause.) MR. SMITH: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Greg Smith, the chief of administration for the Collier County Sheriff's Office. It is indeed a pleasure this morning to represent Sheriff Rambosk and accept this proclamation on behalf of the men and women who work tirelessly with complete and total dedication in staffing our 911 center. I think that their determination and their excellence was no more evident than this past year during our hurricane when they forewent everything else to make sure that the 911 calls were received and dispatched and that we got people where they needed to go, and it was a tremendous, tireless effort, and they are really to be commended for that. The fact that we stand here now 40 years since the first 911 call was received in this county is also something that's quite a milestone. And while technology has played an important role in keeping us in the forefront, it comes down to the men and women who take the call, and that's what matters most. So I'd like to thank them all for that. I'd also like to turn it over to our director of communications, Bob February 13, 2018 Page 11 Finney, and let him say a few words. Thank you. MR. FINNEY: Good morning, Commissioners. Bob Finney, director of communications at the Sheriff's Office. So, coincidentally, it's our 40th anniversary tomorrow. On Friday it's actually the 50th anniversary since the first 911 call was made in the United States. So it wasn't made in Collier County and not even in the state of Florida. But when Collier County did initiate the 911 service, only 25 percent of the population in the nation was serviced by the emergency number. So, obviously, Florida, even in 1978, saw the importance of first responders, public safety, and the emergency service. And four years ago, in 2014, Collier County was actually the first county in the state of Florida to initiate or allow text messages to be sent to 911 for those residents that could not call 911. So we still see the importance of leading the way. Actually, as we're speaking now, the Sheriff's Office 911 center has finished up a pilot project working with industry partners and also with major phone manufacturers, cellular phone manufacturers, hopefully soon to end the chapter on why can Uber find us and Domino's can find us but 911 can't. We hear that in the media. We hope that 2018 will bring changes on that front here locally and also as we this year migrate from our Legacy 911 infrastructure to an IP based network, allowing Collier County to be able to receive additional messages to 911, automatic crash notifications from vehicles, biomedic devices, things such as this, that, as they become available, we'll be able to receive them. But as the chief mentioned, it's not about the technology. It's about the people. Now just over 100 individuals who make 91 (sic) work in Collier County, a majority of them working crazy 12-hour shifts connected to telephones and sitting in front of, you know, six computer monitors. February 13, 2018 Page 12 So, again, just along with the Board, I would like to thank those today and those that have had a part in the past 40 years with 911 and public safety answering service. Thank you. (Applause.) Item #5A PRESENTATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BUSINESS OF THE MONTH FOR FEBRUARY 2018 TO MAIDPRO OF SOUTH FLORIDA. ACCEPTED BY MICHELLE REED-SPITZER, OWNER OF MAIDPRO. ALSO PRESENT IS BETHANY SAWYER OF THE GREATER NAPLES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE – PRESENTED MR. OCHS: Item 5A is a presentation of the Collier County Business of the Month for February 2018 to MaidPro of South Florida. To be accepted this morning by Michelle Peed-Spitzer, owner of MaidPro, and Bethany Sawyer, representing the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce. (Applause.) MS. REED-SPITZER: My name is Michelle Reed-Spitzer. Thank you very much, Commissioners. What an honor and a privilege it is to be here today and receive such a recognition, and thank you to the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce as well. I never would have thought back in 1995 when it was just me, myself, and I would turn a little teeny, tiny cleaning company into an empire, employing over 105 employees, literally improving the quality of people's lives every single day. And that is our mission. We're a whole lot more than just a cleaning service out there cleaning floors. We're out there making an difference in our employees' lives and our clients' lives every day. February 13, 2018 Page 13 So thank you. It's been an honor, a privilege, and we will proudly receive this award. Thank you. Item #6A PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST FROM MARK HETZNER REQUESTING THAT A WALL OR GUARDRAIL BE INSTALLED ON A SECTION OF RATTLESNAKE-HAMMOCK RD (JUST EAST OF US41 ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE ROADWAY) TO PREVENT CARS FROM LEAVING THE ROAD - STAFF TO BRING BACK AS AN AGENDA ITEM – CONSENSUS MR. OCHS: Item 6A is a public petition request from Mark Hetzner requesting that a wall or guardrail be installed on a section of Rattlesnake Hammock Road to prevent cars from leaving the road. MR. HETZNER: Good morning. I've made this PowerPoint to try to show a few of the things that we think are important. I'm the president of Biscayne Condominiums board of directors. I want to thank Michael Brownlee and Mark Strain for answering my questions and responding to my emails in a timely manner. I also want to thank the Traffic Division of Collier County Sheriff's Department who I think was responsible for adding some signage to the area near our parking lot. This -- I call it a dangerous curve. Now, remember, common sense is a flower that does not grow in everyone's garden. Approximately 18 years ago when Collier County was widening the west end of Rattlesnake Hammock Road, the county purchased part of our parking lot at Biscayne Condominiums making the road closer to our property. February 13, 2018 Page 14 I have since been told at that time the county did not have a noise-mitigation policy and no traffic study was conducted at that time, as it is always done now. Just because it was not done at that time does not mean it should not have been done. If it had been done, many of our problems created by this now hazardous and dangerous piece of county road would not have occurred. There have been three crashes into our parking lot during the last 12 months and at least two more before that. These are the dates: February 26th, August 22nd, and December 11th. These photos are from the most recent crash into our parking lot that damaged multiple cars, a dumpster, a bike rack, several bicycles, a fence, and a gate. This happened on December 11th, 2017. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Sound effects. MR. HETZNER: That car was totaled. It belongs to one of the other Biscayne board members. That car was damaged. That was the car that went off the road. And the ladders were damaged, bicycles were damaged, bike rack was damaged, a dumpster had to be replaced, a fence was knocked down between our development and the 7-Eleven, and a gate was broken. Please use your common sense and think about three accidents at the exact same spot in less than one year. This has resulted in bodily injury to the drivers and lots and lots of property damage to the residents of Biscayne Condominiums. Now, this curve will continue. What we're talking about is this little stretch of Rattlesnake Hammock Road right here. Here's the 7-Eleven and here's 41 right here. Now -- let's see. There will be even more traffic when the new Wawa store, which is down here, is going to open across the street at the Naples South shopping center next year. I don't think a traffic study is needed to prove that there's going to be a lot more traffic here. This is right here where the cars go off the road February 13, 2018 Page 15 and into our parking lot. After numerous phone calls and emails to officials in Collier County and the Traffic Department of the Sheriff's Department, this was the result which occurred last December. We got these little arrow signs. We got four of these put up. For all our efforts, we are thankful that four new arrow signs have been installed along the road next to our parking lot. While we are thankful for the new signs, please, once again, use your common sense, and I think you will agree that this (indicating) is not going to prevent this (indicating) from happening again. Now, here are some ideas that have been recommended by the board of directors at Biscayne Condominiums. A few years after this part of Rattlesnake Hammock Road was widened, another road project took place at the other end of Rattlesnake Hammock Road. Then a noise-mitigation study was done, and the county built a wall next to Shadowood Villas right along here. The wall was paid for and built by Collier County after they completed a traffic and noise-mitigation study. Why not do the same thing at this end of Rattlesnake Hammock Road? After all, there will be even more traffic after the new Wawa store is completed next year. I know it sounds like a broken record, but I am asking you again to use your common sense. Here's the curve. There's the Wawa store. Or until a wall can be built, how about a guardrail? Can there be any question that one is needed here? Maybe one like this or, at the very least, do a traffic or noise-mitigation study of the area which should have been done years ago at the expense of Collier County. Since this current road hazard was created by Collier County, you should now be responsible for correcting it. Thank you for your time. MS. MESSAM: Good morning, Commissioners. I have a February 13, 2018 Page 16 presentation of my own in response to Mr. Hetzner's petition. May I present it? MR. OCHS: Well, Commissioners, as you know, under your rule you typically don't take action on a public petition at the time you hear it. You either direct us to come back or take no action. We're happy to answer some questions, but if you'd like us to staff this and bring it back with some recommendations, we'd be more than happy to do that. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: What's the consensus? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: As a point of order, that's typically what we should do. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think we should hear from -- MR. KLATZKOW: It's more appropriate to bring it back so other members of the community would have notice that this item's going to be heard and might want to appear before a decision's made. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, we have -- two things. One, we have a young lady here right now, and I think we should hear her, but, secondly, we always in our meetings have an opportunity for people to come and talk about non-agenda items, so I think it would be appropriate -- MR. KLATZKOW: She's staff. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I didn't realize that. MR. OCHS: Marlene's with our Transportation Division. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. I apologize. We had not met before, so... CHAIRMAN SOLIS: That seems to be appropriate to me that we put this on an agenda, and that way it will be clear, and others can come and talk about it, and we can have a presentation from staff. MR. OCHS: And we'll bring that back at the next meeting. February 13, 2018 Page 17 CHAIRMAN SOLIS: At the next meeting. Very good. Thank you. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And please note we don't always put items that we hear in this -- at this time as a presentation. We don't always put it on the agenda, so know that that's important, that we feel that it has risen to a level of importance. We want to hear it again. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Mr. Manager, at this time, just before we go to the next item, I would like to point out that the Artist of the Month -- that we have a new artist of the month. It's Collier County resident Barrett Edwards. And Commissioner Taylor and I were commenting that we're really enjoying the artwork in the back when we first saw it at the last MPO meeting. Barrett Edwards is a third-generation artist whose award-winning work first drew attention in France. Her introductory exhibition at the Hotel Talleyrand in Paris sold out. Barrett's representational and abstract landscapes blend layer upon layer of contrasting hues that result in a bounce of light that changes depending upon the viewing direction. So we're pleased to have this wonderful art in the chambers. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Thank you. Item #9A TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE MAKING IT UNLAWFUL TO KNOWINGLY HIRE AN UNLICENSED CONTRACTOR - COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL MADE MOTION FOR APPROVAL – MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that does move us to your first time-certain item this morning. It's Item 9A. This was an item that was continued from your January 23rd meeting, and it's a recommendation February 13, 2018 Page 18 to adopt an ordinance making it unlawful to knowingly hire an unlicensed contractor. Commissioner McDaniel had brought this item forward. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Just as a point of reference, I just would like to know if anybody came in late that did not fill out a public speaking form on this item. Okay. No. We don't have anybody. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Yeah. And I think -- I think I might have -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You were the one that -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: To continue this, just to make sure that we've had a chance to think it through and make sure there aren't going to be some intended (sic) consequences. I know -- I think we received a letter from the CBIA. And just have a discussion about what the impact's going to be on the staff and all that and how it's going to be enforced. So that's all I was interested in. Anybody else? MR. OCHS: Commissioner, I see a gentleman coming in. I didn't know if he was -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: He is late. MR. OCHS: -- scheduled for this item. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: He is. Did you fill out a speaker form? MR. GURSOY: Yeah, I was early. Yes. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. So we do have -- there is a public speaker here. And, I mean, do you want to do this properly with a motion and second and then discussion, or how do you want to go? CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Well, I think -- I see Mr. French is prepared. I'd like to hear from staff. February 13, 2018 Page 19 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Sure. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: If there's going to be a staff presentation, we can just hear that, and then we can entertain a motion, and then we'll hear from the public speakers. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. MR. FRENCH: Good morning, Commissioners. As we load the presentation up -- thank you, Geno -- to let you know that we currently do regulate unlicensed contractors both under Chapter 489, which talks about our relationship with both the State of Florida -- and we do have interlocals with the City of Naples as well as the City of Marco. So the Chapter 455, which I'm going to show you here in just one second, what it does talk about is knowingly hiring a Division 1 licensed contractor. Division 1 licensed contractors are your -- are considered to be your general contractors, plumbing contractors, electrical contractors, those type of contractors, so -- and I'll just get caught up here. Again, I do apologize. So the overview is, really, what is a contractor? What is an unlicensed contractor? Who requires a license? How we process, currently, unlicensed contractors and those penalties, and what the county's role with the proposed new ordinance may be. So contractor is simply a qualified person that sits for an exam. They have five years of experience in a particular trade, four to five years, or they may have an equivalent educational background that would allow them to sit for a contractor's license, such as a general contractor, residential contractor, or building contractor. These licenses are available at both the state level and at your local level. There are locally licensed -- Collier County licensed contractors as well as state-licensed contractors. Subcontractors -- and this is right out of your Collier County Ordinance 2006-46 as well as the section. Same thing. These are your sheet metal contractors, roofing contractors, mechanical, plumbing, February 13, 2018 Page 20 electrical. Again, these are your Division 1 level contractors. You have 16 subcontractor licenses within this category. And then this is what I had spoke about earlier, your specialty contractors. There are currently 48 specialty contractors licensing that are out there, and they range from aluminum, fence, alarm installation, floor covering, cabinets, glass and glazing. That would be the installation of windows, concrete forming, paving, and, of course, excavating and sign contractors. Unlicensed contractor, as you would expect, it's a person who has not been issued a current valid Collier County certificate or a state license. It is unlawful for any person, firm, or partnership, corporation, or other legal entity to engage in unlicensed contracting, and that goes right in front of when penalties are assessed, those appeals would go right to your Contractors Licensing Board, which is board appointed. It's a quasi-judicial board that would hand -- that both interprets and hands down punishment. Could be suspension; could be fines. How we address unlicensed contractors currently is that when we are informed of an unlicensed contracting activity -- and unlike Code Enforcement, we actually do accept anonymous calls from many unlicensed -- about many unlicensed activities throughout our county from either residents or from other contractors who, quite honestly, they call each other in. We would actually show up on the scene. We may be working with the Department of Workers Comp. We could be working with the State of Florida. Typically when we work with those, those ladies and gentlemen usually have badges and guns, and people go to jail at that point. We don't -- they don't really look at the specialty contractors as much as when we're on site; primarily construction sites. There is a disciplinary proceeding, as I mentioned, including the notice of violation issued to the unlicensed contractor. The penalties under 489, for each uncontested violation, the February 13, 2018 Page 21 governor went back and changed the law on this, and he -- he and the legislation increased the fine from $300 to $1,000 just for the first incident, and that $1,000 fine even carries forward. Our ordinance mirrors the state law. Florida Statute 455, this deals with the consumers with hiring the Division 1 contractors where it says it is illegal to knowingly hire an unlicensed contractor. And, again, as I point out, these are your Division 1 contractors or subcontractors. If discovered by the State of Florida, if it can be proven, the penalty is up to $5,000. So just to kind of give you a brief overview of compliance, the hierarchy, so your Division 1 contractors and subcontractors are regulated by Florida Statute 455; however, they are not -- that does not regulate your specialty contractors such as aluminum, fence, landscaping, alarm systems, floor covering. That's where this new ordinance will come into play. Now, it doesn't -- we still regulate the unlicensed contractor. What this does, this would allow us -- if proven, we would be able to have Code Enforcement then issue a notice of violation to the homeowner, or to the property owner who engaged with the unlicensed contractor. And as I said before, it would make it illegal to knowingly hire an unlicensed specialty contractor. If determined by Collier County that a consumer knowingly hired an unlicensed contractor, they would be issued a notice of violation. Licensed contractors who knowingly hire unlicensed contractors shall be issued -- and our current practice addresses that as it is illegal under state law for a licensed contractor to knowingly engage with an unlicensed contractor unless -- there's one caveat -- unless it is on a single-family home. There's a rule out there called the Jim Walter Rule that allows for February 13, 2018 Page 22 a licensed contractor to hire skilled, unlicensed labor so long as it is under their supervision. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Wow. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Wow. MR. FRENCH: And "supervision" is not defined by the State of Florida. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: That's a state statute. MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir. We've been challenged on it only one time. And the CBIA got involved with that. Even the Florida Homebuilders Association, and they supported it. And where it came into play was in Marbella Lakes back in 2010. Nick and I remember it well. Al Zichella was very, very engaging. They supported the unlicensed activity, and it was a storm shutter contractor on single-family homes. They were unlicensed; however, they were working for a general contractor. That's it. I'm sorry. My apologies for my informality. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. MR. FRENCH: I'm here to answer any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: We've got some lights on so, Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. This interested me a lot. I totally agree that we're trying to protect citizens from being preyed upon, especially during tough times when everybody wants the services of the workforce and, yet, there's just not enough workforce to go around. But I have to tell you, in my district we have a plethora of mobile home parks. Most of them are for the elderly, the 55 and older group. And they were damaged -- as you probably saw in some of the pictures in the newspaper, they were damaged horribly. And they asked me to come out to see them. I did. What was left February 13, 2018 Page 23 of them in many cases, or just half of their place was gone, and what they were telling me was that they got their friends together, their kids flew in from out of town to help them put the thing back together. Yes, they would get permits to do anything that needed a permit, like doors and windows and stuff, but there was a lot of stuff that they could just do, if nothing else, just to clean up the holes or brace the house so it doesn't collapse or something until somebody could get there. Some were told they couldn't even get an estimate to fix it until this coming September. But, you know, you have to live in that place. So, anyway, they had one licensed contractor who was in there, and while these guys are helping each other fix the mobile homes, he was reporting them, that they weren't licensed contractors. And I thought -- I thought that was pretty bad, you know. And so that's when the people called me and asked me to come out. And, by the way, I brought some of our staff out there afterwards, too, you know, to help them along with that. But I thought, you know, this might be a great idea, but it has its consequences, and the consequences are not good, especially in an emergency situation like a hurricane. You've got to have people helping people. You've got to have your kids be able to work on your place or you able to work on your place. You can't just say, well, if you're not a licensed contractor, you can't work on it. So that's my opinion. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioner Taylor? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I was very interested in, Mr. French, your comments about what we're doing right now, and you said more than once if it's prosecuted. And what I'm understanding is it's not an easy -- it's not easy to prosecute. We talked about this in the office that, you know, Mr. Joe Smith could come to me and show me a license and then it's maybe not correct or it's counterfeit, and -- or else, February 13, 2018 Page 24 you know, he would come to me and start working on my house, and misrepresent himself, and it becomes a "he said, you said" kind of situation. Have you run into that at all where there's a disagreement where a homeowner said, but you said that you were licensed and the contractor said, I never said that? MR. FRENCH: Ma'am, I can only tell you that our interaction with unlicensed contractors -- and you could watch our Contractors Licensing Board at any given time -- it's typically exactly that, where the consumer believes, because they have a tax ID, they're, therefore -- they see LLC on a business card, they may see an invoice. The consumer many times is not -- is not up to the most current standards, and they're unaware that their contractor may be licensed in one area, but it may just be a limited scope, and then all of a sudden they're doing work outside of their license and they're thinking, well, they said they were qualified. I mean, if -- the idea is, is that if you've got a garage door replacement company offer -- giving you roofing quotes, most likely they're not licensed to do roofing. And that happens quite often. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioner McDaniel? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I want to make it very clear the intent here is to not intentionally harm anyone. I specifically had the words of "knowingly" inserted into this ordinance to bring this issue forward. I want you all to know and understand there's no intent here to knowingly harm anyone. The examples that you shared, Commissioner Fiala, had to do with owner builders and family members working for their own property. Those folks aren't, certainly, in violation of what we're talking about here. So there are -- there is a potential for unintended consequences, and I think our staff has managed so far to not penalize homeowners February 13, 2018 Page 25 who were and had fraud committed against them by someone that provided an illegal licensure or something along those lines, so -- and this enhances what we already have and I hope will bring awareness to -- because I know we -- you know, got a letter from CBIA that they were concerned about the penalties that might be incurred by homeowners. And, you know, when I spoke to Ms. Curatolo about that, CBIA's main effort is education, to teach folks to be sure to get a contractor's license number and insurance and workers' comp and the like. So I think something like this is just going to enhance awareness and assist those that are trying to conduct business legally with a license. Yes, I'm done. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay, fine. I just wanted to reply to that. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. Well, Commissioner Saunders hit his light first. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't know if there's anybody here to talk about the letter from the CBIA, but I was very concerned about that, because that's the organization that's out to protect contractors, obviously, and homeowners from unlicensed contractors. And their letter basically says that they're in support -- well, I'll just read the sentence. The CBIA is in full support of continued enforcement by this board rather than imposing an ordinance on homeowners. And so I felt that this was somewhat compelling, unless I can hear otherwise. I mean, that's a very well-respected organization whose mission is to protect homeowners and businesspeople and contractors, licensed contractors. So I'd like to have some more clarification from CBIA, if that's possible. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: But we have a couple of public February 13, 2018 Page 26 speakers if you want to -- and Commissioner Fiala had something. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I just wanted to comment on what you were saying about people helping people and, you know, they wouldn't probably ticket them. But like the guy that was in there in the mobile home park, and he was reporting every one of these people as unlicensed workers even though maybe their son came in from another state and was helping them. But they were still being helped and, by the way, they put stop work orders on each one of these things. So it really about help them -- I mean hurt them, so I just wanted to insert that. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, that is the part of the mechanism when an unlicensed contracting event transpires is our county, by procedure, issues a stop work order. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. So then they couldn't continue the repairs to them and, you know, there is a consequence there that can hurt people. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: And I'll just add -- and maybe -- obviously, we need to prevent the unlicensed practice of -- contracting without a license and not being licensed is, obviously, an issue. We need to protect people against that. It seems to me that the issue, though, is that the owners that go into it knowing at the beginning. Because I think the problems I see is that at the tail end of the job an owner finds out they're not licensed. You know, what happens then? And I don't know. I'm just wondering if there isn't some middle ground to say, you know, an owner that goes into contracting knowingly at the beginning, at the front end, who goes out and looks for an unlicensed contractor, I mean, those are the people that -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. February 13, 2018 Page 27 CHAIRMAN SOLIS: -- I can appreciate the concern. Those are the people that really need to be careful, because they may sell that property that's not properly built to a third party that doesn't know, so -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It happens all the time. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: So I can appreciate that. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And if I can speak to Commissioner Saunders, if I may, just -- and I read the letter from CBIA. I had an hour-long conversation. I actually went and met with them prior to this -- prior to the generation of that letter, and I'm not discounting what they're, in fact, saying. Our staff has reviewed this ordinance. Our staff has recommended that the ordinance is an enhancement to the efforts that they, in fact, already have and seem to be capable of managing the potential of unintended consequences. So it is for -- it is a contentious item. There's no argument that it's -- you know, there's politics that are involved with this. My hope in bringing it forward simply was to bring awareness as well and, I mean -- and I know a lot of it has to do with the circles that we travel in, and there is a -- rampant unlicensed, unpermitted structures and things in District 5, just rampant. So it's an effort to bring those things to light as well, so... CHAIRMAN SOLIS: So we do have some public speakers? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We do. MR. MILLER: Yes, Chairman. We have two registered public speakers for this item. Your first speaker is John Gursoy. He'll be followed by Ryan Bennett. MR. GURSOY: Good morning, Commissioners. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And you better tell him how much time he has. MR. MILLER: You have three minutes. February 13, 2018 Page 28 MR. GURSOY: Three minutes. Good morning. John Gursoy, a resident of the area since 1976. Thank you for taking this issue up. As a gentleman that used to be in the business world that was heavily regulated in the financial planning industry and to move into owning a tree and landscape company, it's been very sobering to see the lack of requirements to get into this business and the lack of barriers. And with all due respect to Mr. French's presentation, no one's going to jail and no one's getting $5,000 penalties and thousand-dollar tickets, that used to be $300 tickets that are being issued now to scare people, are not being paid. Through Brandon's office and the County Manager's office I've done two years worth of records requests, and nothing has been prosecuted, as it says in the tickets. Nothing has been followed through, like it says that can happen potentially in the tickets. I've researched a huge disconnect between the Clerk's Office, the Sheriff's Office, workers' compensation, the Division of Financial Services, and the District Attorney's Office, and everybody's pointing the finger this way, and no one's taking any enforcement. Contractor Licensing is doing the best they can. They do not have the resources to issue a ticket, investigate it, and then bring closure to it and compliance. And, therefore, it's not getting done. That's why we're here today. And it's a big concern. And, Donna, I appreciate -- or, Commissioner Fiala, I appreciate what you're saying about the people coming. We're not talking about people that are not compensated. Family members, great; churches; there's a lot of great organizations that came down here and helped. We applaud that. We're talking about the people that I passed here, a stump grinding individual that I know has been called and cited potentially, February 13, 2018 Page 29 we've been trying to get cited, tangled up in an accident right now as I drove here, okay. He shouldn't even be on the road with his stump grinder, okay. And that's what I'm talking about. It's a 32 percent disadvantage to people like us, contractors, that are doing it legitimately through the payroll companies and workers' comp. Right off the bat, they're 32 percent ahead of us when they're taking cash from homeowners. And you talked about what happens when it comes time for payment and they find out they're an unlicensed contractor, well, Commissioner Taylor, that's where Sunbiz.org has that opportunity, you know, to present that information to the homeowner. And if we educate them, they can do that. But if I go in front of a builder, a well named builder in town here, and I don't produce my paperwork or licensing at the end, I don't get paid. And so the homeowner has that same, you know, responsibility to determine who they're doing business with just as they would if they were having a medical procedure. So what I'm asking here for you to do is to follow through with this ordinance until we can fix and support Contractor Licensing, start our with the Sheriff, because the Sheriff says he doesn't have a desk; therefore, he can't go after these things. And the same with the Clerk of Court in doing the foreclosures, because they don't have anything to attach to anybody because nobody owns anything in most of these candidates. So please make this the next step as we tighten this down so that we can have a lifestyle in Collier County similar to the homeowners that are hiring unlicensed contractors. Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your final speaker on this item is Ryan Bennett. MR. BENNETT: Good morning. I'm a local contractor. I have Trees N Stumps R Us. In business about 10 years. And I'm not quite as polished as John is as far his February 13, 2018 Page 30 speech and that goes. But one issue that you brought up was that Naples Estates, I think, would be one that you would say was pretty devastated. Those people worked very hard in there. Anyone that was a contractor, if that guy was blowing the whistle on people, that was just pure ignorance because he wanted the work and he was just ignorant. So that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the people that are running out -- you know, it's very difficult to get a license in Collier County when you first start out doing this business. You have to work under someone for three years, then you have to go take a test, which is a very difficult test, and you have to pass that test. To my knowledge, you can't stump grind without a tree license. We see it going on all the time. There's still people running around right now from out of state that are doing it. One particular example, I live on a street, and I saw a guy cutting trees. This is how someone can get around it. And the second time around, I went, you know what? No. So I called Code Enforcement, and Mike Ossorio himself pulled up, actually came out, because all his guys had gone home, and he questioned the individuals. And one of -- the slickest one is, this is my uncle. I'm working for my uncle. This is my whoever. It's my relative, my cousin, whoever it is. And as we're speaking to him, the homeowner comes running out and says, hey, aren't these guys doing a great job? And they go -- oh, no. Aren't these guys doing a great job? They said, yeah, they're doing a great job. They go, they should be. I'm paying them enough. The guys are in the background going, no, no, no, don't say that. Don't say that. So, you know, it's gotten around. And if somebody wants to know who's a contractor, Sunbiz.org. It's real easy. You can pop my corporate name up, my fictitious name, you can pull up. There's easy ways. You can call contractors licensing. They're up to date on it. February 13, 2018 Page 31 Every time I've checked on somebody, they're in the field. I mean, they know who's -- you know, who's what. So I'm kind of jumping around because there were several different things. But lawn services are going around. Homeowner comes out and says, hey, how much to take down that tree? Oh -- instead of calling somebody, they take the tree down for them, you know, and that's not right, and a lot of homeowners know that. So, you know, how's the problem get solved? I'm not sure. I just go out and cut trees and try to make a living, and there's people out there that are taking that business away from us that shouldn't be doing that. And how's that get fixed? That's up to you guys. But it is a problem. It's a big problem. So thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Do we have any information that -- as to whether or not this problem is more of a problem in certain sectors of the construction industry than others? I mean, because we've got two landscaping companies here, tree service companies here. I'm just curious, is there any data on that? MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir. Again, for the record, Jamie French. Sir, we track everything. And I certainly appreciate the comment that he said all you have to do is contact the county. One of the things that the County Manager challenged us to do was we've put everything in real time online available to not only the homeowner, but we also take pride in presenting every contractor's licensing violation and, by the way, collection, that we've taken. We've been very, very good. It reflects in your budget. The contractors licensing section, as most of you are aware, is 100 percent enterprise funded. So if we don't collect fines, we don't pay employees. So I appreciate the input, but I can assure you that that money is real that we collect, and we can provide you with that data as we go February 13, 2018 Page 32 forward. One of the other things that was identified was Sunbiz. Sunbiz will not identify a specialized contractor. It just does not do it. The State of Florida does not speak with us with regards to our CityView online system. That is all -- those specialty licensed contractors, tree trimmers, again, just because you have a registered LLC or company, a tax ID, does not mean that you are licensed to do that business in Collier County. So the Contractors Licensing Board does meet twice per month. In the event that collection is not -- in the event that we do not collect fines, we would put a lien against the person. We track everything from their credit rating. We'll suspend their license. And in the event that we do find them working in the field -- the Sheriff's Office does not have a desk. They don't have -- quite honestly, we just don't have room in our building, but we have a very good relationship with Lieutenant Parker, Doug Turner, and those -- that crew over there, the Economic Crimes Bureau with the Sheriff's Office; it's a wonderful partnership that we've had for years. And licensing, taking the test -- licensing is difficult for a reason. Most -- three years is nothing compared to a general contractor's license. It should be difficult, quite honestly, because it's one of the largest investments a person makes in their life is their home or their business, and so you want to make sure you've got the most qualified licensed and insured person there. So with regards to the mobile homes, just very quickly. Mobile homes is a little different in license. If you own the land and you own the mobile home, you can act as an owner builder. But if you don't own the land or you only own a portion of the land, if you're in a co-op or a community or homeowners association, you must hire a general contractor or, in the event that you own the mobile home and you don't own the land, in any case you have -- unless you own the land, you February 13, 2018 Page 33 always have to hire a licensed contractor to do work; otherwise, if you own them both, you can act as your own owner builder. But we do collect the data. And I'm sorry to belabor that. I just wanted to get those points in in response to the speakers. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. Commissioner Saunders, your light was on. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah, it cuts off automatically. In terms of the comments from Mr. Gursoy, it sounds like -- that was the reason I had pushed the light. I wanted to get some response. It sounds like you've provided that; that there is a fairly aggressive approach to unlicensed contractors. Is that -- or do you need more resources? MR. FRENCH: Sir, we have five contractors licensing -- and I appreciate that, and we'll always make do with what we're allowed to have. We have five licensed licensing contractor investigators in the area, and that covers the City of Naples, Marco, and all of Collier County. Two of those resources, one's dedicated to the City of Naples, one is dedicated to the City of Marco. And it's a great partnership because those cities, unlike our East Coast, going to call them our competitors, they -- each of those cities require an individual license where Collier, through an interlocal that this board and the city councils have drafted, it's one license that covers all of it. But, in return, the county bears that responsibility for enforcing unlicensed contracting. So we have five right now. It's challenging, but we -- I'm not saying that we couldn't afford more, I'm not saying that we couldn't do more, but clearly the five we have is -- we'll make it work. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: In your view -- and I don't -- I hate to kind of put you on the spot, though. But in your view, is this type of ordinance the solution or is the solution that we need to, perhaps, have more resources available for enforcement of what -- of February 13, 2018 Page 34 the ordinances and statutes that are already on the books? MR. FRENCH: I think the ordinance is fine in its own nature. It's going to be very difficult. When we spoke with the state with regards to enforcing Chapter 455, Florida Statute, we could not find where they ever prosecuted one case. It's going to be very difficult for us, because now it's going to involve Code Enforcement, code enforcement violation, and now we're -- we're not dealing with sworn testimony. We're going to send a code enforcement officer out there and say, did you know he was unlicensed? And if they say yes, great, we're going to give them a -- we're going to give them a violation. But in the event that they say, I had no idea, I have a business card, I checked with Sunbiz, they're licensed, they're going to assume that they were licensed, potentially. Maybe they're -- maybe they knowingly know it's not licensed. But in that case, absolutely. I mean, it would be another tool in our toolbox to be able to help us with the unlicensed contracting. Unfortunately -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You are recommending that we approve the ordinance, then? That is your -- MR. OCHS: Well, Commissioner, it's really a policy decision. I mean, this was brought forward by one of your colleagues. So we'll execute whatever policy -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's why I said, I kind of hated to put you on the spot, but I just needed -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You did. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You did. You did a really good job about putting him on the spot. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm not particularly supportive of the ordinance, and I'm trying to find a way to get there. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I haven't found that yet. February 13, 2018 Page 35 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Can you hop to the screen where you talk about 455 and who it regulates and then -- not that one. The next one down, I believe it is. The one that talks where we're -- the specialty contractors. And just as a point of -- Mr. Chair, you know, these County Commission meetings happen during the day when the majority of our population is, in fact, at work. There are more than just tree trimming companies that have expressed a concern with regard to unlicensed contracting and the like taking place. So I was able to rally up two that could afford to come in here and speak. And I just would like to reiterate that staff did, in fact, recommend approval of this. And, Commissioner Saunders, is this the beginning and the end? No. I'm, as much as anything, looking to bring awareness to, I perceive, a deficit with regard to our State Attorney's Office. There has not ever -- there is a penalty of a felony that can travel along with conducting business as an unlicensed contractor. They will not prosecute. There are, in their words, bigger fish to fry. So as much as -- as much as that is important, the lack of enforcement, the circle, continual circle that we're going, the lack of collection, Mr. French talked about fines and the like. The majority of the fines that we're able to collect are from licensed contractors who need to pay the fine in order to continue to keep their license. So the folks that are doing it and that are apprehended without being properly licensed, we really don't have a mechanism to collect those fines when they are issued by our contractors board. With that, I think we've -- unless -- I'll make a motion for approval. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: We've got Commissioner Taylor's light on. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: There's a motion on the floor. See if there's a second. February 13, 2018 Page 36 CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Is there a second? (No response.) COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Then we don't have to go. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Motion fails. I think this is a well-intentioned effort on the part of my colleague, but I think it's a problem adding to a problem. If this is about education, then the outreach needs to be in each of our districts through the property owners' associations to make sure that folks -- I mean, I learned something this morning. I had no idea that if you don't own the land you were required to hire a licensed contractor. If you own the land, you're owner builder. So that kind of very simple, direct education, I think, can go a long way to reaching out to the -- to the people who we're trying to reach. And to penalize people who don't understand this, I think it's the wrong thing to do. So I'd like to make a motion -- well, we don't have to. The motion fails. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: The motion fails for lack of a second. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So it's over. So all right. And that's it. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. Thank you. Item #9B RESOLUTION 2018-26: THE STORMWATER UTILITY RATE STUDY, THAT ESTABLISHES A STORMWATER RATE STRUCTURE, BILLING METHODOLOGY, LEVEL OF SERVICE, RATE STUDY METHODOLOGY FOR IMPLEMENTING A STORMWATER UTILITY FOR COLLIER COUNTY, AND APPROVE A RESOLUTION TO USE THE UNIFORM METHOD OF COLLECTING NON-AD VALOREM SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS LEVIED WITHIN THE February 13, 2018 Page 37 UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY – ADOPTED MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that moves us to Item 9B. This was the second time-certain item this morning. This is a recommendation to approve a proposed stormwater utility rate study establishing a stormwater rate structure, billing methodology, a level of service for implementing a stormwater utility in Collier County, and approving a resolution to use the uniform method of collecting non ad valorem special assessments levied within the unincorporated area of the county. Mr. Thaddeus Cohen, your Growth Management department head, will begin the presentation. MR. COHEN: Good morning. Stormwater. That's not something that people wake up in the morning and go to the coffee shop to have a conversation about, typically. I've had a conversation with one of you as a former architect and say that noticing people when they build houses, what you were just talking about, you look at the granite countertops in the kitchen, and the realtor talks about the chandelier, but very rarely do you pull the plug on the drain to see where the water goes. It's not something that keeps people up at night. But what I will tell you is in my six months here, roughly, there are folks who stay up thinking about this issue: Travis Gossard, who you all know. You call him and ask him to go out and fix the issues that you have when the water doesn't drain; Amy Patterson, her stormwater crew. They think about what projects ought to get done with the limited resources we have. And as I travel around in these first six months, I've come to the realization that we don't have the system that is worthy of Collier County. And I commend you for this last three years, Commissioner, February 13, 2018 Page 38 and Manager Ochs and Deputy Manager Nick, that you've been thinking about how to create a process that will take us from where we are today to where we need to be. And I think that the storms kind of crystallize for us the fact that we can do better, even though we're doing a yeoman's job currently. But with your help and the help of the community, I think all realize that there's another way that we can think about this process. And going forward and what you'll hear from Tim from Stantec is that we provided you with an opportunity to think in terms of how we can have a system that's more equitable for your citizens so that we can see how it is that we're able to move forward that is fair as far as how the system that we can all gather ourselves around to be able to move forward on and, I think, finally, again, is the fact that we can do better than what we're doing currently. We're doing a great job with the resources that we have is what you've heard previously from my colleague as you're looking at the licensing issue. But we know in our hearts that there's more that we can do if we were provided with the resources to be able to get from where we are to where we need to be. So with that, Tim, if you can kind of walk us through -- again, thank you for the last three years. I wasn't here, but you've taken us from something that you don't talk about typically around that coffee table, and you've been able to highlight it for our community as something that it's important for us to do, and we can take these next steps to be able to get a system that is truly worthy of all of us here in Collier County. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Cohen. For the record, Tim Hancock, principal with Stantec. It's my pleasure to be the project manager on what you're being presented today, which is the final board report on a Phase 2 rate study that was authorized in July of last year. Our presentation team consists of myself, Mr. David Hyder with February 13, 2018 Page 39 our financial services group. We also have Mr. Kyle Stevens here with our financial services group to explain things way above my pay grade if we need to delve into those details. I do also want to thank not just Thaddeus but Amy Patterson, Geno Santabarbara, Jerry Kurtz, and Travis. Travis doesn't need a last name. He's kind of like Prince or Madonna. You just say Travis; everybody knows who we're talking about. But this has been a collaborative effort between us and your staff, and your staff has been nothing short of exemplary in their assistance and direction provided to us. Today -- and we will be as quick as we can with this, understanding that while you may have been briefed on this, some of the members of the public may not. We're going to give a little background, overview of the public engagement process. We're then going to discuss with you the level-of-service analysis, how we get there to a rated structure, then the stormwater fee structure itself, the mitigation credits and administration, which I think is an important component of the program, and then what your next steps may be. Why do we manage stormwater? First and foremost, flood control and property protection, and that became probably no more evident this past year with the significant storms we had as it ever has been. We need to keep not just our homes free of water, but our roadways free of standing water. If we have 18 inches of water on our roadway, we may not be able to get emergency services to you. That is a public health, safety, and welfare issue, one we need to be cognizant of and not forget. Also water quality. Our very quality of life in Collier County is linked to our estuarine systems and our coastal and near-shore waters. If those are closed for swimming, if those have high bacteria counts, we get a black eye in the national media in the matter of about seven seconds. So we need to be cognizant of that, stay on top of it, stay February 13, 2018 Page 40 ahead of it, and your Pollution Control Department does a fantastic job with the water quality sampling they do. And then, of course, we have those wonderful state and federal regulatory requirements, including the 1972 Clean Water Act, which is probably going to get increasingly more stringent. You have taken this approach and you've codified it in your own Growth Management Plan. In your Stormwater Management Sub-Element it states, the objective of stormwater management is to develop a combination of techniques -- and I'm sorry. I will slow down -- she's used to me, but doesn't like me very much -- which provide for adequate pollutant removal and flood protection, and here's a key, in the most economical manner. You have built into your Growth Management Plan a financial consideration, and you should be applauded for that. So it's not a question of do we have a stormwater management program. The question is, what is the program and how is it best funded. Brief overview of your system, particularly for those who were not able to attend one of our workshops or look at this information online. The county currently maintains in excess of 122 miles of canal system; 372 miles of storm pipes must be cleaned and maintained; 687 miles of roadside swales. If you line those up end to end, that's Marco Island to just north of Atlanta. That's just the roadside swales; 650 center curb-line miles of streets to be swept. If we can sweep it, we can keep the debris and sediment from entering the system, which then helps with our maintenance. We have over 50,000 tons of storm debris collected annually from our roadways. This is to keep it, again, out of the system, and that does not include events, obviously, like Irma; 6,000 curb inlets. These are the ones nobody sees. You drive along the road, it's raining, but the road is dry. Life is good. But all it takes is one curb inlet to get February 13, 2018 Page 41 backed up, water getting out onto the roadway, and you've got a traffic hazard standing there. So 6,000 curb inlets; 53 hydrodynamic separators. It's a fun word to say. What they are basically is they are inline systems within your water management system that serve to receive and drop out sediment. They also collect plastics and whatnot using a vortex system. There's more than one manufacturer. You have more than one in your system out there, but they're important, and we probably should have more of them to keep things floating, plastics and whatnot, from ever getting downstream. You also have 65 major stormwater control structures. You have to do aquatic weed control, vegetation removal, weir maintenance, and mowing. You now see why this is not exactly the sexiest part of Collier County business, but it's necessary. Our challenges: Our infrastructure's aging. We have pipes in the ground that haven't been replaced that are in excess of 50 years old. Inadequate maintenance basically means that current resources will not allow for us to perform at industry standards. There is a lack of equity in the current way in which we fund stormwater. We'll highlight that a little bit for you. And right now, basically, as you all know, and as Travis and his group is well aware of, we're a reactive program; complaint and crisis based versus being proactive. What does "proactive" mean in dollars and cents for all of us? Here is a perfect example. Mockingbird Lake, Pine Ridge. We had a proactive pipe replacement job that was executed on a portion of the Mockingbird Lake stormwater outfall. The cost of that was $163 a foot to proactively replace the pipe. About a month before that, we had an adjacent section that failed. The failure of the pipe caused a road closure, caused overflowing of the lake, yard flooding. We had to emergency mobilize equipment. We had $40,000 for emergency pumping alone. The price per foot for February 13, 2018 Page 42 that replacement adjusted downward because the pipe size was larger -- we actually -- you know, Mr. Kurtz accommodated that -- was $1,920 a foot. More than 10 times the cost of the proactive replacement. There is a cost to deferred maintenance. We want to get on top of the maintenance and hopefully eliminate and reduce, where possible, these costs. So how do we address these challenges? Stormwater utility is one option. What a stormwater utility can bring you is stable fee-based funding, a fair and equitable approach to how each property is assessed, transparent, and accountable. As an enterprise fund, all funds received must be accounted for within that fund, level-of-service based. You'll see later we give you very detailed analysis of what level of service you can choose for the residents of Collier County. And resiliency, creating emergency reserves which, as you've seen recently, has kept this county afloat in times of trouble. And, again, you're to be commended on those policies. We had an intensive public engagement process. I will say again, getting people to leave the dinner table to come talk about stormwater, not the easiest task; however, we created a project website recognizing not everybody would be able to come to the six public meetings and workshops that we had. That website had on it a lot of background information, but we also took the presentations we made publicly and actually put the presentation on the website as well. So you didn't have to go to a workshop to see the full presentation. You could do that online. We also had some backup information and some of the presentation information we have provided to you as well. We had six public workshops held geographically throughout the county. That was two in District 5; one in each of the other districts. They ranged in attendance. Sometimes we had just a couple people show up. Sometimes we had 35 or 40. The total attendance of the February 13, 2018 Page 43 workshops was right around 100 people. On the online survey -- this is something we like to do to try and capture additional information. It's one thing to ask questions, but probably the thing on the survey I like the most is the last question. It's one asking for comments or suggestions or ideas. In your report that you've received, all of those comments have been captured and provided to you. We had just under 200 respondents, which provides about a 95 percent confidence level based on the population size of Collier County that we're seeing something that's fairly representative: 89 percent of the respondents were full-time residents, only 8 percent were seasonal, and 5 percent were business owners. You had the ability to check more than one box, by the way, which is why numbers there don't quite add up. So we had -- on that online survey, we had some information that we gleaned from that. We've highlighted a few of those. First you think people are going to be most concerned about flooding of their homes. Well, when you look at the green and the blue, the very concerned and concerned, actually, the preventing flooding of roads came in as a higher concern than that of structures. I think that's because we just didn't see -- well, for those it happened to, the flooding of a structure is tremendously difficult. We still have people in hotels in Collier County who have not been able to return to their homes, but I think most people experienced flooding of the roadways, and that's why we see this result in the survey. Also, what are your priorities? Maintaining stormwater infrastructure and pollution of the waterways were the two key priorities for the online survey respondents. And, again, this kind of highlights that a little bit. You look at health, safety, and welfare and water quality protection, and you're looking at a very high percentage of people saying these are the things that are most important to us. February 13, 2018 Page 44 Equitable funding came in third there and, as you can see, it goes down a few other items. Do you know how stormwater is funded in Collier County? A little more than 50 percent of the respondents actually knew that it came from property taxes. Again, it's one of those things that just kind of goes sight unseen for the most part. Most folks did not know how their stormwater was currently funded. What would you consider a fair fee? We put it out there on the survey. And of the respondents, 35 percent said, eh, five bucks a month or less, that's what I think is fair; 65 percent said five to 10, 10 to 20, 20 or more. So 65 percent of all respondents -- and you'll see a little bit later -- actually responded that a fair fee would be in excess of what they're currently paying more or less. We're going to get into the level-of-service analysis, which is where you have to be really, really smart. So this is where I turn the presentation over to David Hyder. He's going to walk through the level-of-service analysis for you. We are going to really kind of approach it at a, I won't say a high level, but a mid level, and then probably leave it open to any more specific questions at that conclusion. So I'll turn it over to Mr. Hyder with our financial services group. MR. HYDER: Good morning. Dave Hyder, again, for the record, principal with Stantec, and Tim's setting me up saying that I'm the smart one here. In terms of the level-of-service analysis, we are going to have to get into the weeds a little bit here. But there's really two key components of level of service, and that's the day-to-day operations and maintenance of the system, and then it's capital projects. So it's the repair and the replacement of existing assets as well as system improvements. So we're going to talk about those two components, and I'll take February 13, 2018 Page 45 you through each. The first one is stormwater maintenance activities. These activities should look familiar. We talked about them back in September. While these certainly aren't all of the activities, these are the major activities that we use to look at the level of service. And as Tim mentioned, in terms of storm sewer vacuuming, you've got over 375 miles of storm sewers to vacuum, you've got 6,000 curb inlets, 6,000 catch basins, and almost 700 miles of roadside swales. So as you look at those pictures, you can kind of get a sense of what's required in terms of the maintenance, and particularly when you talk about all the way up to Atlanta with roadside swales, you can see that it's a pretty significant effort, requires significant amount of resources. In terms of the current system maintenance, again, we talked about this in September. These are the primary maintenance activities. And this is the period of time that it will take you to get through the entire system based on your current level of service. So based on the resources that are there today -- and I think everybody was somewhat surprised by the roadside swales taking up to 60 years to address those. When we look at typical industry standards, you can see that they're well below those levels. These are the standards that typically, if you don't get to a catch basin after five years, it's not going to perform appropriately. Same thing with the roadside swale; they become filled in, and they're no longer performing as they should. So one of the key questions is -- or two key questions are, how can we improve the level of service -- we're going to talk about that in a moment -- and then what level of service do we want? And that's where the commissioners can have some input in terms of what level of service to provide in the county. So in order to look at improving the level of service with maintenance, we did a needs assessment, and we looked at the current maintenance staffing, the resources that are provided, the contracts, February 13, 2018 Page 46 some of the work contracted out, and we did a needs assessment, working with Travis, to determine what would be required to improve the level of service and maintenance. That's adding additional resources, additional contracts, additional equipment to ultimately get to improved level of service. And in order, then, to put dollars to that, we had to actually define some levels of service, and that's what's shown here on this graphic. And essentially what it shows is the blue bars are the current levels of service, the number of years that it's going to take you to address these primary maintenance activities, and then we established some other levels of service: Level of Service 1, 2, and then industry standard, and that would move you to have an improved maintenance level of service to get to the industry standard frequencies, and that was necessary so that we could actually put dollars to what does it require us to get to these maintenance levels. And so that's what's shown here on the slide; essentially, the annual maintenance cost that would be associated with providing each of these levels of service. So anywhere from the 1.8, which is what's currently spent from property taxes towards maintenance, up to the industry standard of $8.4 million per year to meet those maintenance requirements. There is additional funding that's currently provided for the current level of service, so it's actually about 2.8 is funded from other -- I'm sorry. An additional million is funded from other sources. So there's a total of 2.8 million that goes towards the current level of service. So that's maintenance. We're going to shift now and talk about capital. And the county does have significant capital investment needs. The staff have identified about $105 million worth of stormwater capital over the next seven years. That equates to about $15 million a year in capital needs. And you can see here on the slide we can break that down into February 13, 2018 Page 47 some components. The Annual Update and Inventory Report, or the AUIR, that's developed by Growth Management Plan outlines the minimum requirements for annual spending on capital to meet your current level of service. That equates to about $10 million per year. There's also partnership projects, so when the water and sewer utility is going in and digging up the roads, you can partner with them to replace the storm sewers at the same time. It limits the disruption, reduces the cost. That's about $3 million per year. And then there's an additional about $2 million per year in capital for repair and replacement. So just to summarize, when we look at these, the annual costs that were -- annual capital costs that were included in our study are listed here. And I do just want to draw your attention, when we look at the AUIR projects, within that $10 million a year, the current AUIR identifies $7 million worth of projects that are actually funded or have funding. There are unfunded projects there to the tune of three million, and then you can see the partnership in additional projects. But in total, the $15 million a year. And the reason that we break these into these components is because we want to look at how do we incrementally look at level of service. So this is bringing all the components together. So we've talked about the annual maintenance cost associate going from your current up to an industry standard level. We can then layer in the capital cost. So assuming with each of these levels of service we would fund the AUIR funded projects, then with Level of Service 2, we could fund the unfunded AUIR projects and then keep gradually going up to -- ultimately, when we're doing all the capital needs, we're spending the $15 million per year. And, in total, that gives us our total annual expenditures that would be associated with each of these levels of service. So going from current $8 million a year up to an industry standard of $21.5 February 13, 2018 Page 48 million a year. And I will tell you that that's what our recommendation is today is that we're recommending that you move to the industry standard so that we can focus in on that going forward. It's all well and good, but it's always interesting to see, okay, what does the actual fee need to be to support this level of service, and that's what we have shown here. So, again, we have the total annual expenditures for each of the levels of service. Again, we're recommending the industry standard at $120 per year. This would be on the property tax bill, so it would be an annual fee. But to provide for a budgeting standpoint, I wanted to show it on a monthly basis. So right now current funding, about $4.58 per month. What we're recommending is $10 a month for your typical single-family home. So an ERU is an equivalent residential unit. I'll talk about that more in a minute. But that would be the fee on a monthly basis for a typical single-family home. So in terms of bringing this all together, again, just reminding you what all those colors mean and the levels of service that we've defined. These are the dollars in terms of the stormwater fee that would be required to move you from the current frequency of maintenance on these assets to the industry standards. So you can see going to $10 a month would allow you to move to these industry standard maintenance frequencies. Just to provide a bit of comparison. Again, we're recommending the industry standard, so it would be $120 per month -- I'm sorry -- per year. $10 per month. You can see how you'd compare to some other West Coast stormwater utilities. You can see that you're right within that range with that $120 per year. So now I'm going to transition a little bit and talk about the stormwater fee structure. And, again, getting into the weeds a little bit here, but when we looked at the stormwater fee structures, we evaluated it based on several objectives which are listed here, but it February 13, 2018 Page 49 was very clear that we wanted a stormwater fee structure that was simple, easy to understand, that would be easy to administer but that provided that fairness and equity; make sure that we're equitably allocating cost. And so what we're recommending, what we've developed the fee is based on is measurements of impervious area. So impervious area has been shown to be the best measure of stormwater contribution coming off of a property, both in terms of the total volume as well as the rate in which it comes off the property. And as certainly easy to understand, people understand what impervious surface is generally. It's defensible; it's an equitable manner of allocating cost. And what's shown here on the traffic is some of the typical impervious area. Attributes would be rooftops, tennis courts, basketball courts, driveways, things of that sort. So that would be what would be used to measure the contribution from the property. Just to contrast this a little bit in terms of your current funding approach, if you remember right now, you're funding the stormwater maintenance through -- and capital through the property taxes. So we talked about this last time. We have two properties here, Property A and Property B. Property A has a lot less impervious area, only .15 acres; whereas, Property B has full impervious one acre. When you have a one-inch storm event, you're going to get a tremendous amount more runoff coming from Property B, 26,000 gallons, compared to the about 4,000 gallons with Property A. So, obviously, as you have increasing impervious surface, you have increasing runoff. And this just kind of compares and contrasts the current methodology, which these two parcels would be charged the same based on their property value and contribute the same to stormwater; whereas, under our approach, they would pay based on their contributions. So in order to use impervious surface, we had to develop February 13, 2018 Page 50 impervious surface area database, so we worked with the Property Appraiser. We have the impervious surface for all developed properties in the unincorporated portions of Collier County. We actually looked at 282,000 parcels in the county. That included all the unincorporated areas that get stormwater service. We looked at all the building types, all the impervious area and, ultimately, we identified 900 million square feet of impervious area within the county. And you can see that breaks down to about 50/50 between single-family homes and non-single-family residences. There's a little bit more non-single-family properties in terms of the impervious area breakdown. So digging into the weeds a little bit more, this graphic here shows the distribution of impervious area for single-family parcels in the county. And on the left-hand side, which looks like it's cut off a little bit, is the parcel counts of the number -- it ultimately goes up to 1,400 on the left-hand side -- is the number of parcels, and then lower along the bottom is the impervious area distribution. What we see is the pretty typical bell-shaped curve, distribution of impervious surface. The medium impervious area is 3,900 square feet, which serve as our basis for what I talked about earlier are equivalent residential unit, so one ERU. About 90 percent of the parcels fall within 9,000 square feet of impervious or less with 10 percent falling outside of that. So what we do see is that there is a fairly long tail to this distribution. So there's about 10 percent of the parcels that fall outside of that. So you do have some single-family parcels that have a very significant amount of impervious surface. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Twenty thousand square feet. MR. HYDER: Oh, yeah. There's ones that have even more than that, so very significant impervious surface. I forget what the largest is, but we could give you that number. But, yeah, a lot of impervious February 13, 2018 Page 51 surface. And that distribution is important because what we're recommending and what's pretty typical in the industry is to actually group single-family homes into tiers for billing. That allows us to administratively more effectively and simply charge for stormwater service. And what's shown here is the color coding is, essentially, the tiers that we're recommending. The first tier, or Tier 1, would be from 400 to 2,900 square feet of impervious. So anybody who has that size impervious would fall under that tier. They'd be .6 ERUs. The second tier is your typical single-family home; that's 2,900 to 4,500 square feet of impervious, and they'd be one ERU. And then the third tier would be your larger homes which have anywhere from 5,400 to 9,300 square feet of impervious surface, and they'd be 1.7 ERUs. These breakpoints are not -- are calculated based on statistical analysis, so we look at the standard deviation from the mean and look at the midpoints to establish these tiers and the ERUs. We're recommending, though, once you get outside of Tier 3 is that parcels that have over 9,300 square feet of impervious surface would be charged based on their actual measured amount of impervious surface as an equivalence of ERUs. So if you have 20,000 square feet of impervious, it would be 20,000 divided by our one ERU, which is 3,900, to give you the number of ERUs on that property. The actual parcel counts are shown here in terms of the tiers. Again, you can see the vast majority of your single-family parcels falling into the Tier 2 at 52 percent there, and then the distribution. So in terms of non-single-family home fee structure, what's typically done in the industry and what we're recommending is that you base it on actual measured impervious surface on the property and then as multiples of ERUs. So, for example here, we have a non-single-family parcel. It's got February 13, 2018 Page 52 39,000 square feet of impervious surface. So if our ERU is 3,900, that would equate to 10 ERUs. So if our fee is $120 per year per ERU, this parcel would pay $1,200 a year in terms of their stormwater bill. So when we actually apply that and show that again, this is the actual levels of service applied to the fee structure that we talked about within the three tiers, and then the non-single-family. Again, the vast majority of parcels in the single-family are in Tier 2 with one ERU. We're recommending, again, the industry standard at $120 per year, or $10 per month would be the typical single-family household. And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Tim to take you through credits administration. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: I think -- would this be a good place to take a quick break for our court reporter? It's 10:30. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, it would. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I think our court reporter believes it is. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: I think it's the time. So we'll be back at 10:40. MR. OCHS: 10:40? CHAIRMAN SOLIS: 10:40. MR. OCHS: Thank you. (A brief recess was had.) MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Thank you. Mr. Hancock? MR. HANCOCK: Yes. Thank you very much. Going forward, one of the key components to any system when we're talking about fairness and equity is not just what do we base the fee on, in this case amount of stormwater runoff generated, but what about those properties that have got stormwater systems implemented already? What about unique properties and unique situations? So part of what we have developed is a credit system that's part February 13, 2018 Page 53 and parcel of the program altogether. And I know -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not too fast. MR. HANCOCK: I figured you gave her a break because she had to listen to me afterwards. All the parcels in the county, almost every one of them, with very few exceptions, rely on and benefit from an interconnected regional stormwater system. In other words, we have a backbone system that even the newest planned communities with the latest and greatest stormwater systems ultimately discharge into. For example, this is a typical planned community, although I'll tell you the lake's a little smaller than I'd like to see, but this property was designed that it would take its first flush of runoff, it would route it to the lake you see, and then as that lake fills up, it then discharges. And where does it discharge? It discharges into a county-maintained system. And this is true of almost every planned community in Collier County, including the one I live in. We have an obligation from our -- through our permit to maintain that on-site system. But I'm going to give you a little bit of background on how we permit these systems. New communities, when they come online, have to create a stormwater system that primarily serves to pretreat stormwater runoff. It doesn't hold it in like a bathtub. It holds it long enough to allow the contaminants and pollutants that are generated within that community to be treated before it discharges. And it is designed to discharge generally at the same rate it did before development. So before they ever developed it, water was sheet-flowing off this property at a certain rate, and after they develop it, the water is still leaving that property at roughly the same rate. So we need a system downstream to handle this; therefore, credits are appropriate for properties that do the pretreatment and for other February 13, 2018 Page 54 conditions. But everybody who has a stormwater management system in their community, with relative exception, discharges into the larger system. And if that larger system isn't working, their system is no good. So stormwater fee credit is an ongoing reduction in the fee for qualified properties that have a stormwater management system. The credit basically says there's both on-site responsibilities that they have and they maintain, and offsite responsibilities that the county maintains. Credits also encourage property owners to proactively manage their stormwater impact. Down the road, we may even get to credits for folks who install rain barrels, for example, on their own properties. We're not at that point of splitting hairs yet. We are looking at them as community by community. So how does this work? If you're in a community that has a stormwater system that you maintain and have a responsibility to maintain, you will be issued a credit of up to 25 percent off your stormwater fee, and the way we got to that is we looked at what the cost of basically maintaining that internal system is versus the cost of the overall system countywide. And what you're doing, in essence, is you're -- if you want to look at it this way, saving the county about 25 percent because we don't have to go into your community and maintain those pipes and lakes. We think it's fair that that credit be issued to those properties. We do have some communities, and one that I can think of, for example, is Pelican Bay. Pelican Bay discharges directly into the Clam Bay system. As a result, they're not discharging into the larger interconnected system. Properties such as that may be eligible for up to 50 percent because they can certainly make a case that their stormwater is discharging directly into receiving waters; therefore, there's less cost associated with that; therefore, we would issue a credit February 13, 2018 Page 55 of up to 50 percent. Agricultural properties within an approved NPDES permit -- and all ag properties are aware of what that is; they have to comply with it -- would not be assessed at all, nor would vacant properties. So all of these potential discounts, if you will, have been built into the financial model that you're reviewing today. It's not something we're going to come back later and go, oops, there's a few more credits; therefore, the fee's going to go up. Mr. Hyder and his team have built that in, and I am greatly appreciative for that. Initially, if you have a stormwater permit in your community, you're going to get the credit; however, down the road you'll need to provide some type of backup and data to show that you are maintaining that system, because if you're not maintaining it, it's not functioning as intended, and your credit would go away. And we'll be working with your staff to create as worry-free, simple process to accomplish that. So the administrative considerations: Billing and collection. We are suggesting that this be placed on your property tax bill just like your solid waste fee. We do have items on tax bills that are not ad valorem based. We suggest that this be on the property tax bill as well. Exemptions would be issued for vacant properties and undeveloped properties. We also have -- I'll call it -- we're calling it an exemption, but it's really a billing difficulty -- no tax bills are generated for government properties. So there would have to be a consideration in your annual budgeting that the equivalent stormwater fee for government properties -- and we'll just limit this to Board of County Commissioners owned properties -- would need to be accommodated in your budget considerations. And we can help you with that. We can help quantify that. But because you don't get a tax bill, there's no way to put a fee on a bill that you don't get. So we'll have to work with you on that. February 13, 2018 Page 56 There should be an appeals process. If you think you have been unfairly assessed, you need to have the ability to have that heard and considered. Our recommendations to you today are, first and foremost, that you adopt a stormwater utility fee based on impervious area. I can think of no other more equitable way to assess stormwater fees than on impervious area. Currently it's being paid for through property taxes. I think if we were here today suggesting to you that people should pay their water and sewer bills based on their property value, we would be laughed at, yet we're paying for stormwater based on property value. We can measure what you contribute to the system; we, therefore, can make the fee equitable and fair. So the first recommendation is to adopt a utility fee based on impervious area, i.e., contribution. Second recommendation is a structure that includes tiers, as has been demonstrated today, for single-family residential parcels and measured impervious for nonresidential. In other words, those first three tiers would be for single-family residential. That fourth tier, each of those properties would be measured individually, as well as all non-single-family would be measured individually as well. By the way, that work, the lion's share of it has been done already. We have to convert it into a billing framework but, thanks to your Property Appraiser and the hard work they did, they gave us a good jumping-off point. Third recommendation, fund the industry standard level of service. We believe your staff can get ramped up sufficiently within the first year that by the end of the first year, we are beginning to approach what would be, if continued out, an industry level of standard. I don't pretend that we're going to get there in 12 months, but I think we need to have the means to do so. February 13, 2018 Page 57 And, lastly, adopt a system of credits that should be offered based on qualifying stormwater management activities. Those are our four recommendations based on the background data and information you have. What does that mean? What it means is we're going on this graphic from blue to gray. It means we're going from 27 years for each section of stormwater vacuuming on a frequency basis to seven-and-a-half, and you can see the other examples go along. What it also means, as you look at the table above, is that Tier 2, which is 52 percent of all single-family homes, is looking at a stormwater fee annualized of $120 or about $10 a month. That is our recommendation going forward. Next steps, if this is approved today to go forward, you would have to basically provide an amendment to your stormwater utility ordinance. That would be in April; you would finalize and adopt that ordinance in May; TRIM notices would go out to property owners in August. Again, on the property tax bill; final adoption of the rate would be at your first budget hearing in September; and then the assessment would be included on the annual property tax bill in November. That's the conclusion of our presentation, and we are prepared to answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just wanted to -- I've spoken to Leo and Nick about this as well. I think if we're going to fund this stormwater -- and I think it's a good idea, by the way. Let me just say that up front, but I don't think it's a good idea to also have it as part of the funding from the sales tax. I think we have to do either one or the other, and I think this is the best way to do it. Secondly, I went on a tour with Amy and a couple other people, and it was a great thing to see for yourself with your own eyes how the February 13, 2018 Page 58 system works and what needs to be fixed and repaired and so forth. And so, quite frankly, I wouldn't make a motion before we've heard from the audience, because that's not fair, but I want to tell you that I think it's a great idea to move forward, as long as we take it off the sales tax promotion. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No double dipping. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioner McDaniel? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah. And maybe this isn't a question for you. It might be for Amy or Leo. Are we creating a bondable instrument, a dedicated funding source here that we can bond to take care of some of these needed capital issues? MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: That's it? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: For now, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioner Saunders? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: One light; one question. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I agree with Commissioner Fiala in terms of the sales tax issue that's going to be put forward, that we should take capital out of that for stormwater and leave it in this one. The industry standard -- and you may have covered this. And I apologize if you did. But how do you determine what the industry standard is? MR. HANCOCK: It's actually a published national standard that is applied. And just to give you an idea. For example, when you look at the stormwater utilities on the West Coast of Florida, our most comparable one would be Sarasota County from a population standpoint, and they are very close to industry standard with how they implement their utility as well. And it seems to be working from the February 13, 2018 Page 59 standpoint of reducing some of their capital costs. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So, for example, the storm sewer vacuuming, completing that countywide every seven-and-a-half years would be -- MR. HANCOCK: That would be up to par. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- kind of the standard that you're talking about? Okay. I just wanted to see if that was a national recognized standard. MR. HANCOCK: It is, sir. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Anyone else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SOLIS: I've got a couple of questions. One, when we were discussing this the other day, I think one of you -- one of the staff or you, Mr. Hancock, had mentioned how much metal pipe we have in the ground, which is all aging. And the example of Mockingbird Lake and Pine Ridge was an issue of the metal pipe finally giving out. And we've got a lot of that in the county, so we need to be proactive on this is my whole point, right? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. One of the problems with not getting to a regular and frequent interval of maintenance of pipe is you don't know about the problems in the pipe until you have a significant storm event and you get blockage, backup, and flooding. So the maintenance isn't just, you know, blowing through it. It's checking it and inspecting it at the same time. A higher degree of maintenance lets you find out there's a problem hopefully before it's in a dire situation. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: And the debris that you are referring to that needs to be cleaned out from the curb inlets and the system -- and one of the things that occurred to me was, all of the landscaping that we have in Collier County in our medians, that probably adds to that issue? February 13, 2018 Page 60 MR. HANCOCK: It does, yes, sir. There's no doubt about it. Every tree in this county is a potential debris producer. And those adjacent to the roadways have an impact. I'm a new type of distracted driver. It's not texting. It's looking at curb inlets as I drive by. You know, I'm walking into the shopping center, and I walk over a storm drain, and I have to look down now. I have to find out, is it being cleaned. So -- but I have noticed, just with increased frequency, despite the fact that we're working hard out there, that if you take the time to look in a lot of those storm drains at street level, you will see debris. These things are six, eight, 10 feet deep. So if you're seeing it at street level, is it doing its job? So that can be a contributing factor, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: There was a reference by a colleague to -- that there was a million dollars in some of the funding numbers. I guess it's coming from the Water Management District? Was that factored in in all of the categories? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. In your categories that -- you have an annual budget of about eight million, and it's augmented till about 20 -- I'll get the year -- 2021? And that money expires. So it's not recurring funding. It's an agreement that has a termination date in it right now. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay, okay. So that shouldn't be factored into it going forward? MR. CASALANGUIDA: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. And just a little clarification on the analysis related to the direct discharge properties; that these are properties that directly discharge into another body of water that's not something that we maintain, right, like Clam Bay, Clam Pass, the estuaries? I would assume that developments like -- maybe like Fiddler's Creek or something is a similar one. And I'm not pointing out -- that's not the point of my question. My question is, those properties February 13, 2018 Page 61 were going to receive a 50 percent discount. MR. HANCOCK: Up to 50 percent -- CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Or credit, sorry. Up to. MR. HANCOCK: And we indicated "up to" because you may have shades of gray in there. You may have one community the discharges directly into receiving waters, another that discharges into a small element the county maintains prior. So we have to have a little flexibility in there. But the bottom line is, if they're not discharging into the larger system, we should have something more than just a credit for what they do inside their own walls or fences. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: And I'm anticipating the question of, well, if we're not discharging into any of it, why are we -- why do we have a 50 percent -- only a 50 percent credit? MR. HANCOCK: Well, I think if we could close the gates to those communities and keep them from leaving the community, I would tend to agree that they shouldn't be paying anything. The problem is that keeping our streets clear and passable during significant storm events is probably the single-most function of the stormwater system we can imagine. It's right up there with keeping water out of homes. If you have water in your homes and you have a safety issue and we can't get to you, that's a problem. So it goes -- the stormwater system serves not just your home and your community. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Right. MR. HANCOCK: It serves the place you work, the place you shop. It serves our EMS stations, our hospitals. That is part and parcel of the responsibility we all share. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Well, I think that's an important point, that in the event of another hurricane, if our system was better, we'd have less concerns about water on the roads and how long that's going to be February 13, 2018 Page 62 there, right? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. I'll share with you what I did in each of the workshops. I told people very candidly, there's no stormwater system designed for Irma. We just -- we can't design to that standard. But a well-maintained system will recover faster. So that means the waters recede quicker and it means that it reduces the likelihood of flooding of structures because the water's not stacking and building over an extended period of time. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Thank you. That's all I had. I think -- MR. OCHS: You have speakers, sir. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Let's hear from the speakers. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: You want to hear from the speakers? Because we've got a couple more lights. Okay. MR. MILLER: Yes. Mr. Chairman, we have 10 registered speakers for this item today. I'd like to encourage the speakers to use both podiums. If you're a speaker who has sent photos to be displayed, you'll want to use the podium on the far side there. I will have your photos ready for you. Your first speaker is Phil Brougham. He'll be followed by Meredith Bernard. MR. BROUGHAM: Good morning. My name is Phil Brougham and, as full disclosure, I guess -- and I'm always reminded of, I serve on the Flood Plain Management Planning Committee and have since its inception. So we've heard a lot of discussion regarding controlling water. I also serve as vice chairman of the Collier County Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. You've heard me speak, many of you, for years and years about the issue of deferred maintenance, and you're hearing some examples today of our inability or our unwillingness to address deferred maintenance over the years. And I'm not trying to make light of the recession, et cetera, et cetera. February 13, 2018 Page 63 So today you're hearing a recommendation that I totally support. It's a specific tax, and it's for a specific purpose, and it's to remedy a very critical situation. But this is only one element of deferred maintenance in the county. I mentioned that I also serve on the parks board. The issue of deferred maintenance for our parks is another item that is funded from the General Fund, as, currently, stormwater management is. You can see the impact in very vivid numbers on the stormwater management issue. There are less visible numbers existing in parks. There's also less visible numbers in bridges, et cetera, et cetera. I've heard some mention that if this utility tax is, in fact, implemented it would be a tax increase; therefore, in all fairness, you-all should reduce the property tax rate. I would urge you not to do that because here we have a relief valve for the utility problem, and that relief valve is one for your General Fund. And the funds that are relieved or demanded as relieved can very well then be directed to other areas of deferred maintenance that are currently and, probably in the future, going to be funded through the General Fund. So I endorse this concept entirely. I think that it's a good idea at the right time, and we're continuing to address the ongoing issue of deferred capital maintenance and repair, but let's not solve one problem and exacerbate another problem by reducing the amount of monies in the General Fund for other maintenance areas. Thank you very much. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Meredith Barnard. She'll be followed by Al Jones. MS. BARNARD: Thank you. For the record, Meredith Barnard with the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. Thank you for allowing me to speak here this morning. February 13, 2018 Page 64 The issue regarding stormwater management really became top of mind for all of Collier County residents in the wake of Hurricane Irma, and it was really evident from that experience that stormwater infrastructure projects can be key components in managing Collier County's watersheds. With Irma we witnessed firsthand the impacts of flooding, and we fully do understand the need to incorporate structural systems to supplement our natural systems that help to manage stormwater. In doing so, though, we really must be cognizant of our natural systems and the importance of healthy watersheds. And so we must ensure that implementation of these hard structures don't negatively impact our watersheds. But with that being said, upon review of the stormwater utility rate study, we do encourage the county to support this equitable fee structure and implement the stormwater utility. Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Al Jones, and he will be followed by Thomas Mihalik. MR. JONES: Good morning. My name is Al Jones, and I reside in the Pine Ridge Estates. Since 19 -- since 2004, Pine Ridge Civic Association has been seeking resolution to our stormwater problems. We found that the county had and still has a capable and professional stormwater management division. It remains that their expertise and good intentions, the division is required to maintain our swale and containment system with inadequate funding. Minor problems remain unaddressed, and more serious problems across the county take priority. Only when these minor problems grew into major issues, such as total failure of interconnect pipes, and you heard mention made of Mockingbird Lake. We have one lake that flows or flowed into Mockingbird Lake and then Mockingbird Lake February 13, 2018 Page 65 flowed into the Goodlette Canal. The pipes between Lake Egret and Mockingbird failed, and both lakes were flooding. The water got up close to properties in the previous years, and three years ago, when we had total failure of those pipes, the water in Mockingbird Lake finally overflowed the banks, got up across property and into homes. At that time it became an emergency measure, so that required, then, the use of emergency funding. This is not -- obviously not the best approach for handling emergencies is to wait until they happen and then go searching for money. Eventually you're going to run out of emergency money, and you'll have nothing to go on. But during the period of June, July, and August and September of 2017 -- and thank God we had those two pipes repaired two years prior to that, because we'd have had water in a lot of homes around Egret and Mockingbird Lake, not to mention the other surrounding areas and coming off the streets. But we had, during that period of June to September of '17, 87 inches of rain. I measure the rain in a rain gauge outside my front door, and each morning after it rains, on the way out to pick up the paper, I read the gauge, and I put this down in a calendar. And I've got the numbers going back to 2000 or earlier. We had -- and that 87 inches is twice the average of the previous three years, to give you an idea. Now, maybe we're not going to get that every year, but we never know. We could have it next year. We don't know. All right. So street flooding remained for days. Proper flow into retention lakes did not happen, and we had flooding of all the streets. Many counties have addressed their revenue through the needs of a stormwater fee, and it's an affordable way to do it, and I think that we would be wise to do it here in this county. We've all been told, save for a rainy day. My opinion, we should budget for a rainy day. February 13, 2018 Page 66 CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Thank you. MR. JONES: Now, I'm not a geologist, I'm not even a plumber, but I know when you flip the handle on the toilet and it doesn't flush, there's a problem. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: There's a problem. Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Thomas Mihalik. He will be followed by Brad Cornell. MR. MIHALIK: Good morning, Commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity. My name is Tom Mihalik. I've been a 30-year resident of Collier County. I live in a neighborhood south of Solana, north of Golden Gate, between Goodlette and 41. We experienced extreme flooding in that area; $110,000 worth of damage to my home alone, and I am one of the victims still staying in a hotel. Although I'm a victim of Hurricane Irma, I feel I am also a victim of improper stormwater removal from the county. I think this budget here really needs to be approved so that this event does not occur not only in our community, but I've been to several workshops around the county and was amazed at how many other communities have drainage issue problems as well. I don't think this can be overlooked anymore. I purchased my property in 2005. I was not in a flood zone. Over the years, I became in a flood zone. Never experienced flooding until this event. I had 15-inch watermarks on the outside of my house. I'm over half a block from the Goodlette Canal. This was not a storm problem. This was a water removal problem. It flooded up through our neighborhood. And to have, you know, 15 to 17 inches of water on a house a half a block away from any water source is unacceptable. So I do commend Commissioner Taylor for stepping forward and taking strong control over this and trying to change this system, and I appreciate that. I think this truly needs to be funded so we don't have February 13, 2018 Page 67 to go through this again. Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Brad Cornell. He'll be followed by Katie Peterson. MR. CORNELL: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Brad Cornell. I'm here on behalf of Audubon of the Western Everglades. Appreciate the opportunity to address you on this. This is a complicated issue for a number of reasons, but one of them that's not complicated is the fairness of how you raise the money to fund your stormwater infrastructure and your stormwater management program. This makes sense. Conceptually it's fair. It's clear you have backlogs. It's clear the system is not adequate; neither is the funding strategy that you currently have, so this makes a lot of sense. The other issue, though, however, is more complicated, and I want to point out a concern and an opportunity. The concern is that the nature of stormwater management should not be a huge drainage project. With all due respect to what happens most visibly to us in our homes and our own communities, this is supposed to be a balancing act with nature. We're not supposed to be working against nature. We're supposed to be working with nature. So it should be a fairly funded program that complements our vital watershed ecological functions. And those, I think we all know, include water storage, cleansing the water, attenuating floods, you know, holding the water back, storage. And even the idea of wildfire mitigation in the winter. Because, you know, if you over drain your landscape when it's raining and you don't have the water in the groundwater and on the landscape for the winter when the dry season comes, places like Golden Gate Estates are pretty darn volatile. They're subject to fire. So we saw that last spring. We don't want to repeat that. February 13, 2018 Page 68 So that's what I mean by let's work with nature. Let's understand what a stormwater system is. And the opportunity here is that we can integrate and link the stormwater management program with your watershed management program. These concepts are very ecologically similar, and they're both dealing with how water goes across the landscape. So we should be smart about this. What your presentation is this morning is all about economics and funding, and conceptually that makes all the sense in the world, but let's look a little bit beyond that and make sure that our stormwater program is working with nature and your own adopted watershed management planning approach. Thanks very much. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Katie Peterson. She will be followed by Kenneth Vaughn. MS. PETERSON: Hello. For the record, my name is Katie Peterson. Thank you very much for allowing me to speak, and thank you to Commissioner Taylor for contacting me. These are some photos from my home. I wish I could say this was Hurricane Irma, but this is not. This is just standard rain. This is rainy season for me. I moved into my home back in May of 2016. This is after it's receded from a standard rain that we had late July. Oftentimes I'm not certain if I'm going to be able to leave my home. We often have to get hotels or stay with family and friends because not only can our cars maybe not get down this driveway or down our street, but we also then cannot use our septic. We cannot use our water. We have no way of doing anything. That is my mailbox, just so you can see how far this goes. I've got up to 15 inches just in my driveway, 14 inches in the streets. And the interesting thing for me is that it's only for a few houses. My street is about a half mile long. It ends at 75. There's a February 13, 2018 Page 69 huge canal there. And only -- my house is the main one that floods, but I'm next to houses that have been built up over the years because they were built later than my home was, so they had a different code. The problem, you know, that I have is it's only these few homes. All the way down near 75 they're free and clear. And it's -- you know, this is not Irma. I left my home and, you know, made sure I was out of the way assuming I would come back to nothing, come back to a flooded house and have to just rebuild everything. This is my standard rainy season. So going back to Mr. Cohen and what he said earlier, you know, this is not something that people think about over a cup of coffee or they're thinking about going to bed; this is my reality every day never knowing what I'm going to see. So I encourage your support of the stormwater utility. I think anyone would be fine with spending an extra five dollars a month to make sure our waterways are clear. And I appreciate your time. Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Kenneth Vaughn. He has been ceded three additional minutes from Dawn Vaughn, who I see present, and they will be followed by Tim Bauer. MR. VAUGHN: Hi. My name's Kenneth Vaughn. I reside in a home between Goodlette and 41 north of Golden Gate Parkway. Our home flooded during the hurricane, but I'm not really here to talk about the hurricane. This storm -- this picture you're looking at here was August 4th of 2014. That was a summertime rain in the afternoon, and it was one inch from going inside my garage. My house is 50 years old. It's never had water that high. And the last five to six years, the water has gotten higher and higher in our neighborhood, and it comes down to neglect, just pure neglect of things being taken care of in the last six years. I get very upset about this because this house means a lot to me. February 13, 2018 Page 70 Mr. Hancock knows. I've dealt with him before. I've worked with him on projects. I also have a commercial property in Pine Ridge off of Shirley Street. That is affected by the neglect of this waterways that go into Naples Bay. I agree with this fee. I don't have a problem with this fee of paying for stormwater, but I need to be reassured that my house is not going to get water in it again for the next 50 years. After 50 years, I don't care. I ain't going to be here. But for the next 50, I don't want water in my house again. I understand there's a lot of concern about the ecosystem. I understand there's a lot of concern about clean water and everything else. But the water's got to flow to get out of Collier County. And this ain't just our neighborhood. It's obvious there's many, many neighborhoods that have a problem with stormwater. It needs to be taken care of. We need to get on top of maintenance and keeping this drainage flowing. Things that need to be replaced that haven't been maintenanced or taken well care of over the years are causing problems in this town, and they need to be addressed, and they need to be addressed soon. This is not a fun thing to go through in life. I do not wish it upon anybody, and I do not want to do it again myself. So I do agree with your fee. That's all I really got to say. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Thank you. MS. VAUGH: Do we want to go through the remaining pictures? Can we do that so everybody can see exactly what we've dealt with over the years. This was the one right before the hurricane, the two weeks prior, and we had water in our garage. And then our house is where the Florida Power & Light truck is, but we had to escape across the street. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I don't think there's anything more terrifying than watching water come in your house. I witnessed my February 13, 2018 Page 71 neighbor go through that. MS. VAUGH: Yes, it's extremely terrifying. And this was after the hurricane, obviously; September 29th. I mean, there we were sleeping in a trailer in our front yard and not knowing if our house was then going to be flooded once again because, I mean -- obviously it's neglect. And that's it. Thank you for your time. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker on this item is Tim Bauer, and he will be followed by Jerry Holloway. MR. BAUER: Good morning, and thank you for inviting me. I live just north of Pine Ridge Road on Logan Boulevard South. You can see some of the pictures here. I would echo a lot of statements from the people that have spoken. This was not an Irma problem. This is -- we had -- I could quote you almost the same, about 80-plus inches of rain prior. I had some very good conversations with county officials, and I don't remember all the names, but the fact that I was called to speak I really appreciate, because that means that things are working. I think, obviously, there's money needed for this issue, which I completely am behind; not asking for a lot of money to solve such problems. These are some pictures of my backyard. I have three young kids. I have dealt with this on and off. I don't think the water was very safe to be in. I didn't have my children in the house at the time; wouldn't let them play in the yards. And there's definitely a problem. I think we're aware of it. You can see some of the culverts and drainage issues. I think that it really boils down to these are the things that government is in place for. We talk a lot about social programs and other things, but these are the things that -- we're all interconnected. The roads allow us to be safe, to get to work, to educate, and to enjoy our life, and I think that Collier February 13, 2018 Page 72 County is not an industry -- a subindustry-standard county by any means. We wouldn't advertise that in a media campaign. I think a lot of what's done here is first class and excellent. And though I think we all experienced this summer that if we don't have basic things like this -- and sometimes storms are the things that are the touch points that make us really get into action, but I think the pictures and the statements from everyone showed that this is definitely something that is not only quality of life, but it's just the basics of life. And appreciate this being a topic, and hopefully through, you know, our engineering and teams and professionals that -- something we can correct, because we have a great place to live. But since we're not amphibious, I think maybe fixing the stormwater would make a big difference. So, again, I appreciate it and appreciate everyone coming to speak. And I also want to commend the officials and the process that I was called. After speaking to officials in the middle of a storm, I had very good conversations that were cordial. And I think everybody wants to do the right thing. So I'm behind what you're doing, and I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you today. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Jerry Holloway. He'll be followed by Jesse Pardon (sic). MR. HOLLOWAY: Hi. My name is Jerry Holloway, and I was happy to be invited here to discuss the flooding problems and the issues that are going on in Collier County. I've been a licensed realtor here since 1992, and I have served many communities throughout the county, and I've seen the flooding that goes on. Aside from Hurricane Irma or Wilma or any other hurricanes that we've had, the flooding issue is horrendous. And it seems to be becoming more of a problem in the last five to February 13, 2018 Page 73 six years. And I've been hearing this from a lot of other people. And I'm beginning to realize why this is the case. And if you look at the graphs that were shown to us, I mean, we are so far behind in our maintenance. I mean, to me, I hate taxes, and I hate deferred maintenance but, guess what, in my home I have to pay for the deferred maintenance, or I have a slum. I also have a county on top of me that says, hey, you've got to cut your lawn. You've got to repair this and that. I can't allow the deferred maintenance to go on forever. Well, we have a case here, and Collier County has deferred maintenance, and who's going to give them a violation? It's like, you know, Mr. French mentioned deferred maintenance. I think that is the word right now. Some of these things I've seen on the graph, like our annual maintenance expenditure, is almost -- it's almost a joke. It's four times less than the standard. I mean, no wonder why we're having problems. No wonder. I thought it was I just had to live with this. But, I mean, if these kind of graphs get out in the public, I mean, they might create an outrage, because some of these things about storm sewer vacuuming, standard 7.5. We're at 26.7. I don't know the validity of these numbers because I just was introduced to them today. But I also find it outrageous that these catch basins, the standard's five, and ours is at 37.2. I mean, how can we continue to run the county like this? Maybe what's happening here is if we don't get on top of it today, we're going to have some severe problems with just normal rainfall over the next five years. I'm here because I live in Palm River, which is north of Immokalee Road just west of Airport Road, and there we get flooding in the two main streets that go into Palm River, Palm River Boulevard and Cypress Way East, and both of them constantly flood. My family has purchased property on Palm View Drive, and that February 13, 2018 Page 74 is impassable now with a heavy rain. So I am absolutely for increasing the tax one way -- I don't know where you're going to get it from, but one way or another we've got to take care of this issue. Thank you for allowing me to speak. MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, your final speaker on this item is Jesse Purdon. MR. PURDON: Mr. Chair, Commission. Jesse Purdon from the Naples Area Board of Realtors. I'd like to start by saying that stormwater management is very important. There's no arguing that and we, as a board, completely and wholeheartedly agree that this is an issue that definitely should be addressed. One thing that gives us pause -- and I would be remiss not to mention the 6,700 folks that I represent -- is the fact that we're talking about a 12-and-a-half million dollar increase annually. So you're talking more than doubling what the current rate is at. What other funding mechanisms have been explored or evaluated to take care of this issue, and have there been? And, honestly, I would have really -- I understand there were certain commissioners that reached out to other parts of the community in regards to the importance of this. I would have loved it if we could have gotten to see some of these members and how they got to the 4.5 to the 10. Whether it is or it isn't, just being able to wrap our head around those and understand those would have been something that would have been very important for our organization. I'm not saying we're for, I'm not saying we're against, but what I'm saying is that this is a lot to consider. $12.5 million annual increase is something that affects the industry that I represent, and I believe that it warrants discussion. Another month, next month's meeting we can dig into these numbers. We can look at these numbers. If these numbers are exactly how they say they are, then February 13, 2018 Page 75 that's fine. I have no issue with that. But to come into the meeting today and say, hey, we're going to have a recommendation on stormwater and then say, hey, but it's also 12-and-a-half million dollars increase, it took me back a little bit and, rightfully, it would take the 6,700 folks that we represent back probably, a little bit, too, especially on the heels of a sales tax that is now going to be going up. So now we're talking two tax increases on a county level over a short period of time. Not saying that it shouldn't happen. And we haven't, as an organization, even talked about the sales tax. That's not an issue with us right now. But what I'm saying is this merits discussion. You're talking a lot of money. You're talking a lot of tax increases, and you're talking Collier County. Water is important. We are worried about it. We are concerned about it, but we'd like to look at it. We'd like to understand it before we get to the point where we are having this type of increase on our industry. I appreciate your time. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: And I would just suggest that you can touch base with Mr. Hancock. All of this is public record, and all the information can be provided. We're also just giving staff some direction here. We're not adopting the ordinance today. MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, this is -- again, this is the third time we've been in front of this board on this issue over the last couple of years. And I think you heard from Mr. Hancock the amount of extensive public outreach that's gone on. So I think for people who are interested in the issue, there was quite a bit of opportunity to get informed. MR. PURDON: At what juncture were we told it was going to be a 12-and-a-half million dollar increase? COMMISSIONER FIALA: We can't hear you. MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, to piggyback on that, that February 13, 2018 Page 76 public outreach hasn't stopped. We have meetings scheduled with a CDD in the community after today. We'd be happy to meet with the board of directors of NABOR and go over this with them. Because I think one of the greatest opportunities here is to not see a diminution of community value due to having stormwater issues that continue to plague community after community. I do want to also express to, generally, the public that when we talk about the funding issues, I want to recognize that this isn't something that happened overnight. We experienced a significant recession, as everyone did. This county tightened its belt, like everyone did. They took funding from certain areas to try and keep from taxing people at a rate when people were hurting. It's just that stormwater has lagged behind in getting that funding restored. And so the question for us is, getting back and playing catch-up, how's the best way to do it. And that really is the question before us today. So we have the next steps before you, but I understand some of you may have questions. And, again, happy to address them. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: I think there's some questions and, also, I think Commissioner Taylor has a letter from someone that -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: From a citizen in my district, is Captain Jack Hail. He would have been here today, but he's a crabber, and he's working hard today. Hi. My name is Jack Hail. I have a severe flooding problem every time it rains really hard. Believe it or not, I live on a canal. Matter of fact, my street has water on three sides. I can't believe that it floods and, I mean, it floods really bad. They redid my streets a few years ago, but they didn't do a very good job on the stormwater drain. They made the pipe that runs to the canal higher than the drain so the water can't get out. I guess my property is the lowest on the street, so all rainwater uses my driveway like a river because they did such a February 13, 2018 Page 77 bad job on the stormwater drain. If the tide is up, the water has nowhere else to go except my driveway. I've seen it more than 1-foot deep in my driveway running like a rapid so bad I have had to call 911. And when the fire truck was able to make it down the road, they couldn't believe how deep the water was. Please come and look at my address on Bayview. They came and surveyed the drainage ditch, and they're the ones who told me the pitch on the pipe is going the wrong way. Please do something about this. Thank you. Jack Hail. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. Thanks. And now Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, actually, Tim, you just hit on it a little bit. You were talking about CDD. He was talking about Lely Resort. That was one of the problems they had, because they own their own system. You know, it's not our system that they use at all. But, as it was explained to me, after they've done all of the cleaning of their system, they do have to dispose of the water someplace. So they're going to get a 25 percent discount. And I guess that you guys can work that out amongst you. I don't know how well that will work, but, anyway -- because they're still paying 75 percent. But -- and that's the only thing that concerns me. I just wanted to put that on the record. None of them are here, but they're expecting me to speak for them. And we're getting a lot of letters. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am. And we will be meeting with them on the 26th -- on the 26th. And, of course, any extenuating circumstances we need to have the flexibility to be able to address those. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: So now I think it's Commissioner Taylor's turn and then Commissioner Saunders. February 13, 2018 Page 78 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No. Commissioner Saunders was first, and then I'll speak. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: In terms of the information for NABOR, obviously we're going to be talking about this in April. So you've got plenty of time to do your calculations and determine whether the numbers are correct. I believe that -- first of all, I want to thank staff. I thought this was a great presentation. Thank Stantec for the presentation. My personal view is that we should move forward with this, and I would like to see the Commission take a look at the industry standard for the fee structure. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Is that a motion? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, I'll make it a motion. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'll second that motion. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And the reason for that is we can impose this. We can fix our system, and if we need to scale back the fee once things are up to speed, we can always do that. So I'll make the motion, then, to move forward with the recommendation at this point that we adopt the industry standard for the fee structure. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: So there's a motion and a second. Discussion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Can we see how much that is when we talk about -- versus the one they recommend? MR. HANCOCK: Commissioner, industry standard is the level of service that we're recommending, and that is a -- for one ERU, that is an annual fee of $120. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Good. That's it. That's what I needed. February 13, 2018 Page 79 CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioner Taylor? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'm not serving lunch. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Let her go first. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Hers was first. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But the stormwater fee is two Little Caesar's special $5 lunches, and I didn't bring the soda with me, but that's two a month, or, if you're so inclined, two Starbucks frappee grande. I don't drink it, but I'm told this is, like, a $6 cup. That's what we're talking about. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Is that it? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's it. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I was wondering why we had those two pizza boxes back there. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And then there's no pizza in there. Got you hungry, didn't I? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No. I was just curious. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I have to say, I was rifling them earlier, because I was hungry, and they were empty boxes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Those are now public records, by the way. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Exactly. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, they are. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I want to say a couple of things. First off, I would like to ask the motion maker if he would give consideration to an addition to the motion, because it's obvious that this is going to pass, much to my chagrin. But I would like to give consideration to adding to this resolution that measurables and milestones be added into the ordinance that are reviewed on an annual basis during the budget process, not only from a fiscal responsibility standpoint, but from an environmental February 13, 2018 Page 80 consideration standpoint and from a prioritization standpoint. So I'm not going to support -- I can't -- and it's not that I don't support the necessity. Please, this has nothing to do with the necessity. It's been versed regularly over and over and over again how much truly there is a need. It's the methodology that I -- that I have issue with, and it's a matter of prioritization. So first off, before I go off into the other, would the motion maker consider adding that to the motion? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You know, it's interesting you've already indicated you're going to vote against the motion with the amendment. So I don't have any issue with what you're trying to accomplish. All this motion does is direct staff to move forward and come back with an ordinance. If we need some kind of measurables -- and I'm not sure what you're talking about -- let's get those -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'll provide them. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: If you could do that. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'd be happy to provide them. Sure. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Because I have no issue with that, obviously. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. Good. And it's just -- for the -- just as a point of discussion, it's a matter of prioritization of how we're expending our funds. It has nothing to do with the actual need that is very, very much apparent. I think there's another way to get here without an additional fee. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: If you could provide what it is that you want to have included in the ordinance between now and April -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- then we can certainly -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'd be happy to do that. And, February 13, 2018 Page 81 again, I wasn't specific with the measurable and milestones. It was delineated here about priorities of expenditures, both environmentally and fiscally. Those are the subject matters, and I'd be happy to provide those for our next meeting. And we all know that this is going to go on. Now, to my friend Jesse with regard to the concerns and public information, I attended a lot of the public information meetings myself, and I want to commend our staff. You could not have hardly picked a more fair methodology. If you feel that this is a way to go, you could not have picked a more fair and equitable methodology. I watched. I studied it. I looked at it all. I just, in principle -- I just, in principle, cannot support this mechanism for funding. I think there is another way, so... CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Just so we're clear, you can't support the methodology that the fair -- I thought you just said it was fair. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: The fee. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: The fee? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct, the fee increase. I said this back in December when I pulled this item and it was on the consent agenda. It was necessary to have us vote on it in December. And if you'll recall, I consider this a tax increase. I consider this an increase on the already cost-burdened electorate of Collier County. It is fair, it is equitable, but I can't, in principle, support the fee. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are we voting on a principle, or are we voting on the people in our community? We have to think about what damage it could do if it wasn't passed. I mean, look at the damages it's caused now so -- and I realize you have your principles, but I think we have to take a step beyond principles at times and vote for what's best for the community. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I will vote for what's best February 13, 2018 Page 82 for the community. I have other -- I have another mechanism that, in fact, I think can take care of this and not increase the taxes on our residents, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Could you bring that to us before April so we'll know -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'll try. I'm -- you know, there's a lot of -- as you know, there's a lot of staff support that's requisite to bring forward items. There's a lot of staff support requisite there, and I am working on them both. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, in terms of, I think, where we're going, obviously, the Board is going to approve the motion today. We're going to move forward with the ordinance in April, finally adopted in May. So if you've got an alternative, you need to let us know what it is. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well -- and if I may, just because I'm not in support of this as it currently exists doesn't mean I'm not in support of the effort or I'm not in support of the need. It's just the mechanism. And as we all know, that which is created by the Board of County Commissioners can be adjusted by the Board of County Commissioners if there is another way that we find palatable. So this isn't the beginning and the end. My lack of support right now isn't anything other than the mechanism. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Does -- what you're going to propose, does it involve a specific funding source for the system? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. Commissioner Taylor? I think her light is on again. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So does it involve reducing the ad valorem rate by whatever the fee is; is that it? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: There's a portion of that that is possible that can be given consideration. There is also a different February 13, 2018 Page 83 methodology for how we're funding up these necessary community health, safety, and welfare issues. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, as far as cutting -- as far as finding -- reviewing the budget, I really would very, very much like this to be a unanimous decision for the people, especially the people that have been hurt here. And so I will work with you, sir. We have budget coming up shortly. I will work with you. Let us go through this budget. Let us, instead of doing it in two days, let's do it in a week. Let's go through this budget item by item, and you tell me where you want to cut this. I am open to this. We can't do it there (indicating). We have to do it here. But let's make this a unanimous decision for the people of this community. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You put me in a very precarious position, Commissioner Taylor. This has nothing to do with the need, as I have said to you before, and you are making it a political or personal issue as with regard -- as to whether I don't care about the people that are negatively impacted by this, and you are also putting me in a compromising position that I don't want to do in a public format. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, the public format was the reviewing the budget. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. And if you will recall, last year I made a suggestion that we adjust the board's schedule and we increase our meeting numbers to, in fact, review the budget during a critical period of time of year before we come in for the perfunctory meetings in September. I suggested that, and there wasn't consent. There was more concern about kids with school vacations and the like. I think we truly do need to spend more time on the budget. I would really like to do that. February 13, 2018 Page 84 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, then it starts next meeting. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I understand that, and it all starts with the written budget directives that staff needs to have from us by the end of March, which gives them what they need to do in order to prepare for those budget hearings. And so this item is going to pass. And if you will indulge me today, just allow me to sit tight with my principle vote, not against for the need. It's certainly not against the need. I want that to be said to the folks that are suffering from flooding issues. These are prior decisions that have been made with regard to the expenditure of our tax dollars. So it's not about this. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: No, I think that's understood. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: And certainly we understand your position. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: So there's a motion and a second. No more discussion. All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Any opposed? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Motion carries. MR. OCHS: Commissioners, also, if I understood the Board consensus if, in fact, this ordinance ultimately passes, the Board would like the capital allocation that's currently proposed in your proposed sales tax for stormwater capital improvements, to come out of that. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That is correct. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. February 13, 2018 Page 85 MR. OCHS: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I was going to suggest we start on the CRA item, but I think it would be disjointed. Perhaps we could take a few of the other items to get us to noon and then come back. Pleasure of the Board. COMMISSIONER FIALA: They're all here. MR. OCHS: I don't know that you're going to get through it in 15 minutes, ma'am, but it's the pleasure of the chair. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: What's the -- we're going to need to take a break anyway for our court reporter at 12. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can these people come back in an hour and a half? CHAIRMAN SOLIS: How many speakers do we have for the item? MR. MILLER: I have six registered speakers at this time for Item 14B1. MR. OCHS: I believe you have two proposals to hear. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Right. We've two proposals. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We're going to have to ask them to come back. I don't see how you can get through it in 20 minutes -- CHAIRMAN SOLIS: No, we can get through it. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- unless we take a break and then go right back to work, and I'm good with that, too. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: I think -- let's just move forward with what we can get done by 12, we'll take an hour break, and then we'll come back. Item #14A1 AWARD INVITATION TO BID NO. 18-7240 - NEW TERMINAL February 13, 2018 Page 86 FACILITY AND ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS AT THE MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT (MKY) TO WEST CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR $9,396,263, AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT, AND AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS – APPROVED MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. I'd like to move, then, to Item 14A1, if I might. This is a recommendation to award a construction bid for terminal facility and associated improvements at the Marco Island Executive Airport. Justin Lobb, your airport manager, will present. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second. Third. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: We have a motion and second. All in favor? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Motion carries. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great presentation. MR. LOBB: See you at the groundbreaking. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You certainly will. MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners. Item #11A February 13, 2018 Page 87 CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 FOR CONTRACT #16-6638 WITH MITCHELL AND STARK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. TO ADD 290 DAYS TO THE VANDERBILT DRIVE CUL-DE- SACS PUBLIC UTILITY RENEWAL PROJECT AND A $1,108,208 PURCHASE ORDER MODIFICATION TO STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES, INC. CONTRACT NO. 14-6345 FOR CEI SERVICES ON THE VANDERBILT DRIVE CUL-DE-SACS PUBLIC UTILITY RENEWAL PROJECT, AND 3) CHANGE ORDER NO. 8 FOR CONTRACT #13-6178 - CONSTRUCTION, ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION (CEI) SERVICES WITH HOLE-MONTES, INC. TO INCREASE THE CONTRACT AMOUNT BY $271,390 AND TO ADD 663 DAYS TO THE VANDERBILT BEACH MSTU UTILITY CONVERSION PROJECT PHASE II, III, AND IV – APPROVED MR. OCHS: Let's move back to Item 11, County Manager's Report, to Item 11A. And this is a recommendation to approve some scheduled changes and associated change orders related to our public utility water and wastewater and our stormwater improvement projects in the Vanderbilt Drive area. Mr. Chmelik and Ms. Arnold will present, unless there's questions from the Board. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I don't have any questions. I'll make a motion for approval. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: There's a motion and a second. And discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SOLIS: All in favor? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. February 13, 2018 Page 88 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Motion carries. MR. OCHS: Thank you. MR. CHMELIK: Thank you, Commissioners. Item #11B DIRECT STAFF TO ADVERTISE, AND BRING BACK FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATING TO OFF-SITE NATIVE VEGETATION PRESERVATION, AT A FUTURE BOARD MEETING - MOTION TO ACCEPT CCPC RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 1/2 ACRE OR LESS OFF SITE PRESERVATION – APPROVED; MOTION TO ACCEPT CCLAC ENDOWMENT RECOMMENDATION - APPROVED MR. OCHS: Next is Item 11B. This is a recommendation to direct the staff to advertise and bring back for a public hearing an ordinance amending the Land Development Code relating to off-site native vegetation presentation. Mr. Bosi has a presentation briefly to make. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Do we have speakers on this item? MR. MILLER: No, I do not. MR. BOSI: Good morning, Commission. Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. This was an amendment that was started back in 2015. The February 13, 2018 Page 89 Board of County Commissioners had asked staff to look into increase the monetary payment that was associated with land management for Conservation Collier so that they'd last beyond seven years and also consider removing the land donation alternative related to off-site mitigation for native preserve. What has happened in the two years, two-and-a-half years since is three separate recommendations from the three advisory boards. They're contained within the visualizer within the screen. In terms of monetary payment, the Planning Commission was looking at the AUIR land cost for regional and community parks, CCLAC was looking for 125 percent of the post development appraisal on the -- of the on-site preserve acreage that would be removed, and then DSAC was just a straight $50,000 per acre. On the land -- the land donation alternative, the Planning Commission recommended no alternative donation, CCLAC recommended $146,000 per donation, and DSAC is 17,2- per donation. And on -- the third issue was related to the amount allowed for off-site preservation. And the Planning Commission was the most conservative and said that they only would allow up to a half acre to be taken off site and that there were no deviations allowed for, specifically provided for within the regulations. CCLAC and DSAC were similar, were the same, with one acre and up to two acres through the PUD deviation process. With that, staff is only asking to advertise to bring back the amendments that we've worked through for the past two-and-a-half years, but we wanted to see if there was a consensus amongst the Board out of which options they would like to see brought back. Traditionally, we would normally bring back the Planning Commission's recommendations as part of the package, but we wanted to provide the Board some opportunity to provide some further February 13, 2018 Page 90 guidance on the issue. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioner McDaniel? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. And if we're -- we're giving direction today to advertise for a public -- a public notice and bring it back. Are you looking for specificity within the actual public notice process, or do you want to -- MR. KLATZKOW: We need to know what ordinance to bring back. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. We have to create it. MR. KLATZKOW: That's what -- the direction that staff's looked for, what ordinance to actually advertise. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. Well, I have an opinion, if you'd like to hear it. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I don't know. I agree with the Planning Commission's opinions with regard to the methodology for the AUIR and regional park per-acre cost. That's a metrics that we use regularly and have seen for a long time, and I agree with the CCLAC and DSAC with regard to up to two acres. That allows for a little more -- it's not as constrictive as the Planning Commission's half acre or less, and it allows for more flexibility due to site deviations and things that might transpire. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I like the Planning Commission's version. I feel that we started the preservation in the beginning to make sure that we have land in populated area so that people can still see green space. And even like the Conservancy will say, you know, birds need a place to land in trees and so forth. It's all built up, and there's no trees, no preservation. You kind of miss something in the community. And we have a lot of people in our community now complaining that there's too much building going on and there's not February 13, 2018 Page 91 enough preservation. And so I don't see -- I don't see anything that would be worthwhile other than only the half acre, and that's the most. So that's my opinion. And that was -- that would be the -- I'm sorry, the CCPC recommendation. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioner Taylor? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I agree with my colleague. I would like the CCPC, but -- and you answered the questions, my question, and that's why I pushed my buzzer. Why are we doing this? What is the reason? And you just answered that. To allow -- well, why are we allowing off-site preservation anyway? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Well, that's another good question. MR. BOSI: The Growth Management Plan requires it within our policy to provide for that option. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And that Growth Management Plan was created by us. MR. BOSI: Yeah. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So why did we do that? MR. BOSI: I think regulatory flexibility. If the Board of County Commissioners wants to look at it from a Growth Management Plan perspective as to the valuation of the merits of that policy, that could be a course of action that we could take away from the discussion. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. MR. OCHS: It's your policy until it's not your policy. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And I'm going to digress a minute. But your answer, Mr. Bosi, reminded me of what you said at the MPO meeting on Friday morning, which you spoke for about two or three minutes. And it was so articulate and so precise, and I really appreciate it. And I wanted to praise you in front of your bosses, because you do a great job explaining things. February 13, 2018 Page 92 MR. BOSI: Thank you. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioner Saunders? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I agree with Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner Taylor in terms of CCPC recommendation. If we move forward with that, we're giving staff direction. That doesn't mean we can't change that at the public hearings if we hear some compelling reason to increase that to two acres or to eliminate it completely. Well, not eliminate it completely, but to change that number. We could certainly do that. But I think -- I agree with Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner Taylor in terms of giving staff that direction. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: As far as the off-site preservation, the up to two acres? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Right, the one-half acre or less. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So the CCPC -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The CCPC on both issues. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: On both. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yes. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: So no speakers? MR. MILLER: No, sir. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Is there a motion then? MR. OCHS: Commissioner, could you restate it one more time so I'm clear on the direction. We've got two decision points here, right: At what acreage to allow off site, and then the second question is, are you going to allow a land donation as part of that satisfaction or simply a financial payment, because the CCPC allows for no land donation alternative. Is that what we're doing? CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Well, you know -- and this would be a question from me for Mr. Bosi. The land donation limits flexibility. I mean, there may be situations where a certain land donation might February 13, 2018 Page 93 make sense to the county, right? MR. BOSI: Without a doubt. The more options that's provided, the greater flexibility. There can be certain circumstances where it does make sense. MR. OCHS: For example, in your Conservation Collier program. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Right. Having said that, the CCLAC's suggestions on that, we might as well say no land donations. I mean, 146,000 per donation, if it's an acre of land, is -- I mean, nobody's going to do that. It doesn't make sense. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: From a -- excuse me, sir, I don't mean to interrupt, but it's simple math. It's a matter of reduction of a preservation and the costs associated with that reduction or replacement for density or units, and it's a matter of ROI for the developer that is making the proposition. So if you're -- it depends on where the project is. If your unit count isn't increased significantly by the acreage that you're able to contribute or fund up through the calculations then, certainly, you're not going to do it. That's why I like the AUIR -- or the CCP's (sic) -- the AUIR cost per acre, because that's a metrics we're all familiar with. They apply it when they're -- when staff's purchasing lands for parks, so... CHAIRMAN SOLIS: What is that cost per acre; do we know? MR. BOSI: The CCPC cost per acre, roughly -- because, it would -- it's 312- -- or $312,000, right around that, and the -- because it's only recommended at a half acre, so that the -- it's going to round out to be about $165,000. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's even higher than the CCLAC. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Right. I mean, I -- I just don't see -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's definitely a dis-incentivization to not -- February 13, 2018 Page 94 CHAIRMAN SOLIS: It's a total right -- and I think it's going to -- (Multiple speakers speaking.) COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- protect. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: And it's going to limit the county's flexibility as far as how it can deal with these requests from developers and landowners. I mean, I think we ought to maintain some flexibility. But I would agree as far as the off-site preservation; how much to be allowed, I would agree with the CCLAC and the DSAC proposal of one acre or up to two acres through a deviation. I would have been happier with some in-between range between what the CCLAC was proposing and what the DSAC was proposing on the first two issues, but we don't have those in front of us. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Can I ask -- CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Sure. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- another question is if we give you direction today and the ordinance is adopted -- and I'm having trouble counting which way it's going right now myself -- but does this prohibit anybody from coming in asking for a deviation? If we develop this ordinance with specificity to the monetary payment and the acreage, if someone has to do more or wants to do more, can they not ask? MR. BOSI: Well, within the language that's being suggested by the Planning Commission, there is a limitation in terms of the amount that's going to be allowed to be taken off site. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So if it's more than a half acre, no, you can't even ask? MR. BOSI: If that expression of -- or the prohibition of seeking a deviation isn't part of the language, then the traditional deviation process within a PUD -- and if it's quantifiable. If it's numeric you can February 13, 2018 Page 95 seek a deviation from that. It would be available. It's just that provision -- the Planning Commission had specifically recommended language within their proposal to not allow the deviation process to be applicable. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I think one of the concerns that we have as a county and certainly Conservation Collier has it is it's lovely to get land, but where's the money to maintain it? We've had this discussion. And then the problem with exotics. So I think the issue is you've got preservation on your land, preserve it and work around it. And architects are a wonderful, wonderful profession, and they can make it work. I think that's where this is going. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I'd like to make a motion then as far as the requirements -- required endowments. The CCPC's suggestion, in my humble opinion, is the best one, I think, and that is about the half acre. I feel that we would still be -- we would be honoring what our people have been mentioning now about overbuilding, and I think that would help it to keep some of the green spaces in public areas. And so I make a motion to approve that one. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Are we talking monetary payment land alternative? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, no. I'm just talking about the second one, off-site preservation allowed when required preserve: CCPC, 21,780 square feet or a half acre or less. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Mr. Bosi? MR. BOSI: And just a reminder to the Board. We are simpling asking for direction to advertise. We're not voting that -- it hasn't been advertised in the paper, so we wouldn't be able to act on an ordinance. We're simply asking, could we go -- the right to or the permission to February 13, 2018 Page 96 advertise. What we're trying to do now is try to find if we can get a pre-understanding of where four votes were going to be on one of these options. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But what do you advertise? CHAIRMAN SOLIS: What are you going to advertise? MR. KLATZKOW: Can I suggest that we bring you an ordinance? Because I hate to advertise an ordinance and have to bring it back again afterwards. Usually it was a two-step process where we give you a proposed ordinance and say, do we have your permission to advertise this. MR. OCHS: Well, the problem is, you've got three of your advisory boards with different recommendations. So what I was trying to accomplish here was some consensus so that when we advertise the ordinance for first reading, we at least -- it at least reflected the majority of the Board's desires on these two components. But, you know, we could -- if we're not ready to make that decision, we could simply advertise the ordinance as the CCPC recommended. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, you wouldn't advertise it. You would just bring a proposed ordinance to the Board with a request to advertise. We don't advertise twice. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But with the details. We have to pick the details -- MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- let's put it that way. So the details are -- MR. KLATZKOW: We give you a Chinese menu ordinance, and then you can -- you'll have the ordinance in front of you and just check the boxes you like. MR. OCHS: That's what we have in front of you. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, I understand that. February 13, 2018 Page 97 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: And I just want to -- I want to ask one more question of Mr. Bosi, because this, I think, first came up when I was on the Planning Commission. Here we're talking about preserve areas, right? We're not talking about green space, open space. I mean, our Land Development Code has two different things in it, and we keep kind of confusing those two. MR. BOSI: That's a terrific point, Chair, in the sense that this will not change the overall open-space requirements of an individual residential development. It's going to say whether there's going to have to be a native preserve or native preservation portion of that dedicated to natural vegetation. That's the only difference. It's just a composition of a small area of the open space that's going to be required whether any one of those provisions are chosen. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Right. So the open space and the green space is going to be what it is under the Land Development Code. And I brought this up at the Planning Commission, was, you know, if the green space is going to be what it is, and that's a required amount, what we're talking about -- and I could see the situation where we're going to require a specific area of preserve that's really not productive. I mean, we can have a half acre or an acre parcel that we're going to say is preserve area, but it's surrounded by development. It's surrounded by impervious surfaces. Is it really preserve area as opposed to is it just green space? MR. KLATZKOW: Do you want the ability to convert that preserve into additional green space? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I think that gets us where we're going. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Yeah. I mean, I think we need to -- if this is what we're talking about, how these two function together, then we ought to address that together. Am I confusing the issue or -- am I February 13, 2018 Page 98 making this too complicated? MR. CASALANGUIDA: In speaking to the Planning Commission after you left and some of the people on there, I think their concern was what you call green space and preserve. The nomenclature comes up as green space and preserve. So I think if you mix those two and kind of homogenize them, you might get into -- you might add more salt to the soup. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. That's understood. But the problem is is that we do it -- we mix up the soup anyway, because we keep talking about them like they're one and the same either way. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think with the preserve space, from an environmental perspective, it's native. Green space is not necessarily native. So I think if you were to ask the environmental advisory part of your Planning Commission or some advocates at the NGOs, they'd say they're two different things. MR. KLATZKOW: But then the issue: Is a half-acre preserve really a preserve, or is it just too small at that point in time? CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Is it productive as a preserve? That's my only point. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Which is where the green space discussion came up. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Right. It's a cat chase. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. Is there a motion, then, to give staff direction on what kind of an ordinance to bring back, or are we going to go with the County Attorney's suggestion? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, I thought Commissioner Fiala had made a motion on the CCPC recommendation concerning the off-site preservation to be one acre (sic) or less. I don't know if there was a second to that. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: There was. I'll second. February 13, 2018 Page 99 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And it's a half acre, by the way, as a point of clarification. She was calling -- it is not one acre or less. It's a half acre. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Half acre or less. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: It's what I said, one half acre. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. So we'll do this in pieces then. All right. So we've got a motion and a second to accept the CCPC's recommendation. MR. KLATZKOW: For a half acre or less. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: For a half acre or less. All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Any opposed? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And, of course, that's subject to change when the ordinance comes back. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Right. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Agreed. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But I think that's something there. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: That motion carries. So now we need a second one with regard to the endowments, right? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'd like to make a motion to accept the CCPC endowment recommendation for monetary payment and land donation alternative. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion yeah, but, while I'm seconding that, you made such a good point before, because if you're getting a land donation, say, for instance, out there by the Red Maple Swamp or something like that, and nobody's going to ever live February 13, 2018 Page 100 on it anyway, you don't want to turn it down. So I'm wondering if there's -- if we could define it somehow so that we make sure that we can receive -- if it doesn't cost us too much. There's another thing, you know. How much does it cost to maintain it? And right now I think some of the donations include a monetary amount just so that it can be cleaned up and so forth. So, anyway, I'm kind of tossing between no land donation would probably be a good way to go, though. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Can I make a suggestion? If the motion maker would consider, if there's some interest in finding a midpoint somewhere between the CC -- well, actually the CCLAC's recommendation and the DSAC's recommendation, we could work that out somewhere in the time that the ordinance comes back, but I -- MR. KLATZKOW: If you want a land donation, you can simply have it as an alternative land donation and then value it at 125 percent of the post-development appraisal, or they can give you the cash for the 125 percent post-appraisal. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Well, that's what I was going to suggest was we could accept the CCLAC's recommendation and, you know, we'll discuss those percentages and the amount when the ordinance comes back. MR. KLATZKOW: But rather than saying 146,000 an acre or a defined number. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Correct. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just have a really simple question, and it's going to sound odd for me to ask that. But here we're talking about land donations and yet when we're talking about land donations, all of a sudden we have $146,000 per donation. So are they going to donate land and then give us $146,000? CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Right. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: To maintain it. February 13, 2018 Page 101 CHAIRMAN SOLIS: For the maintenance. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see. I see. I thought -- you know, I'm wondering about that. Okay, fine. Just so I got that straight -- or I have that straight. Excuse my English. MR. OCHS: Commissioner Fiala, and that happens today under your ordinance and your rules. Remember when -- one of the reasons to bring this back was former Commissioner Nance had raised the issue that the current level of donation wasn't sufficient to even remotely approach the concept of maintenance in perpetuity. So the Board at the time asked us to go back to the drawing board and come back with some other suggestions on how to value those donated lands so that we are able to justify the maintenance costs a little bit better than we have in the past. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: There is a motion unless -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: My second. It still stands, by the way. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: So -- but she was -- Commissioner Taylor's motion was to approve the CCPC -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: CCPC. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: -- on the donation and the monetary payment. I thought you were -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. You know, I'm waffling on that because it's really -- but I want to approve it, but I -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Then we'll get more information. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We have another bite at this apple. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Or maybe -- CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Well, not if we're going to say no land donation; then it's -- the ordinance that's going to come back is going to say no land donation. February 13, 2018 Page 102 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But it's not coming back -- it's coming back. We can massage it again. I mean, we can -- this has been postponed a number of times. I think we need to put it on the stove and start cooking it, so to speak. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. There's a motion and a second. All in favor? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Any opposed? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: There it is. Well -- CHAIRMAN SOLIS: So the motion does not carry. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Does not carry. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The CCLAC recommendation, I think, is what you were saying you'd -- it seemed to me that that would be the best approach, so I'll make that motion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second that motion. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: We have a motion and a second to accept the CCLAC's recommendations. All in favor? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Motion carries. There we go. MR. OCHS: Thank you very much. February 13, 2018 Page 103 CHAIRMAN SOLIS: We got it done. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Can I make one comment or ask staff when they come back -- because this is -- it's been a discussion, and that's to have a little more -- and I heard a little bit in the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Committee meeting yesterday about the per-acre expense associated with our maintenance of our already-owned lands. That would help us, I think, if that were brought forward on a little more regular basis to help inform folks as to what we're actually talking about here and what $146,000 per donation actually adds up to. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. So I think we're right on time for an hour and a half for our court reporter, so we'll -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: An hour and a half? CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Well, we go for an hour and a half before we give her a break, so we're right on time. So we'll adjourn until 1:10, and apologize to everybody that's here for the CRA, but we've got to give our court reporter a break. Thank you. (A luncheon recess was had.) MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mike. Mr. Chairman, we have three items left. We have public comments on general topics, we have the selection or appointment of initial members to the Senior Advisory Committee, and then we have the CRA 17-acre proposal and, finally, your staff communications and board communications. So how would you like to proceed? CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Well, I think Commissioner Fiala had a request. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I did, and that is everybody went out to eat lunch except that the restaurant wasn't equipped to wait February 13, 2018 Page 104 on all of us, so we never did get the lunch. So they're waiting for it to be packed up so they can come back. So if you could start with one of the other two things. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: In the other matters, okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Or both of them, yeah. Item #7 PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE CURRENT OR FUTURE AGENDA MR. OCHS: Well, we may as well get public comment out of the way, sir. MR. MILLER: I have no registered public comment at this time. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, that was fast. MR. OCHS: That's that. MR. MILLER: My apologies. MR. OCHS: That's all right. Let's move on to Item 12 under the County Attorney's report. This is a recommendation to appoint the initial membership. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Right. This is one that Commissioner Fiala was referring to. MR. OCHS: Oh, you did not want to make this Senior Advisory Committee? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. We do want to see -- just the CRA we don't want to -- CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Oh, the CRA. I thought you were talking -- you said the senior advisory. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That I was hoping to do first, yes, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. Oh, I'm sorry. I misunderstood. February 13, 2018 Page 105 So, yeah, let's go to the -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sometimes I speak gobbledygook. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: And sometimes I just hear things. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And we're all here now. Item #12A RECOMMENDATION TO APPOINT THE INITIAL MEMBERSHIP OF THE SENIOR ADVISORY COMMITTEE - MOTION TO CONTINUE – APPROVED MR. OCHS: Okay. So Item 12A is the appointment of initial members to the Senior Advisory Committee. MR. KLATZKOW: And I've got a list of the applicants on the overview for both you and the public's benefit with the names in blue being the applications we received after the agenda deadline had passed. It's -- at the end of the day, we have at-large seats available and four -- we have four at-large seats and each commission district as well. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Four at-large and five -- MR. KLATZKOW: One for each commission district. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Right. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: We don't have an application for District 5, so that seat's going to have to stay open. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I'm looking. I've actually had communication with several people and said, please, yes, go to the website, but it's somewhat of an arduous process if you haven't ever done it, so -- but I have two people that have expressed an interest, so I think I'll be able to rally up a member here. And if the positions get filled before the mandatory district positions, then they can always February 13, 2018 Page 106 apply and be one of the at-large until such time as another position opens up, so... CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioner Taylor? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I don't know if we're going to move into this, but I think I am. I'm going to kind of jump into this and give a brief bio on one person that did not contact me, but she lives in my district; someone else did; District 4. But it's Vicki Tracy. I don't think I know another woman that is so dedicated to the elderly and enjoys working with them as much as she does to the point where she is out at -- Commissioner Fiala, help me. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Arlington. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- Arlington. And it's not a job for her. It's a way of life. She wants to be with them. And so I can't imagine anyone more qualified, and I'd like to nominate her at large, if I could. COMMISSIONER FIALA: At large? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, and then Thomas Lansen for, certainly, a clinical professor of neurology at New York Medical College. He'd be wonderful to have on the -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Is that a motion? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Can I just raise an issue? I mean, we got three or four of these over the weekend. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Two. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: I think there was three and then one -- MR. KLATZKOW: We had -- the ones in blue we received after the agenda went hard. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. I thought there was an extra one that came in on Monday or something. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. I sent two, and then there was a third one. February 13, 2018 Page 107 CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. Because when there was nine applicants and there was nine positions, it was pretty simple, and now we've got what, 12 -- one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11. Yeah, we've got more applicants than spaces, and -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I would suggest we probably have to save a space for somebody probably from 5. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Right. I mean, I was going to suggest that since now we have more people than slots, that I would personally like to have a little more time to figure it out, because I just -- you know, now that we really have to pick and choose between people, then I'd like a little more time to look at the applications. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You want me to continue it? CHAIRMAN SOLIS: If you would make a motion to the next meeting, I would be very pleased with that. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I would be happy to continue this item until our next meeting. That gives us two weeks to review. And now do we have to extend the deadline period for application or -- MR. KLATZKOW: No. It's not really a deadline. When we get sufficient applications, we bring them to the Board. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Gotcha. Okay. So then I'll make the motion for continuance to our next meeting. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wasn't, because I've got so many more coming in, so I figured I'd never be able to choose them, but I will second it for him. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SOLIS: All in favor? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. February 13, 2018 Page 108 CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Motion carries. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. You didn't get many from -- oh, yeah, you got -- CHAIRMAN SOLIS: There's four or -- I think four or five from District 2. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: That's one of the issues. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good, good, good. Well, 3 had just one. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: There's only one from 3. That's easy. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. Let's keep it that way. COMMISSIONER FIALA: At least you don't have to choose. Yeah. Okay, here we go. Item #14B1 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, ACTING AS THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD (CRAB), SELECT A DEVELOPER AND AUTHORIZE THE PUBLICATION OF A THIRTY (30) DAY NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISPOSE OF APPROXIMATELY 17.89 ACRES OF CRA OWNED PROPERTY OWNED IN BAYSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT AREA BASED ON THE REVIEW AND SELECTION OF ONE OF THE TWO PROPOSALS SUBMITTED UNDER ITN #17-7169 - MOTION TO APPROVE February 13, 2018 Page 109 STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION – APPROVED MR. OCHS: Chairman and Commissioners, that now takes us to Item 14B1 under your Community Redevelopment Agency. This is a recommendation that the Board, acting as the Community Redevelopment Agency Board, select a developer and authorize the publication of a 30-day notice of intent to dispose of approximately 17.89 acres of CRA-owned property owned in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area based on the review and selection of one of the proposals submitted under ITN 17-7169. Mr. County Attorney, do we need to convene this group as the CRA Board at this time? MR. KLATZKOW: We could do that. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And then we still have to vote on it as a commission, right? MR. KLATZKOW: You're voting on this as a CRAB. MR. OCHS: Yes. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: We used to have almost a ceremony every time we changed this with the changing of the gavel and everything else, but over time that's sort of disappeared. MR. OCHS: So we have CRA co-chairs. So you two can arm wrestle out on who wants to chair the CRAB meeting. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Say that again. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: She's closest to the mike. You and I are co-chairs of the CRA. So why don't you do this one, and I'll do the next meeting. How about that? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Trade. CHAIRMAN FIALA: CRA meeting will come to order. Thank you. February 13, 2018 Page 110 MR. OCHS: Deborah Forester, your CRA director, will make the presentation. MS. FORESTER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Deborah Forester, CRA director. Back in November of 2017 we came to you with two proposals that were submitted under the invitation to negotiate for the purchase and development of the 17 acres in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area. At that time you directed staff to continue to negotiate with both of those developers to come back to you with a refined project in terms of that agreement. Since then staff has met several times with both developers and refined their proposals and the agreement that we're bringing forward to you today. We found out today at around 10:49 that the Banroc Corporation has withdrawn their proposal. So today we only have one proposal in front of you, and that is with the Arno, Inc. And with that, we'll go forward and give you a brief history of the project, where we are today, and what the proposal from Arno, Inc. is submitting. Again, this property is located along Bayshore Drive. The CRA purchased two parcels: One in 2006 and one in 2008. To combine, they equal the 17.89 acres. The total purchase was $5.3 million. It was appraised in 2017 for approximately 3.6 million, and it is zoned the Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore, a mixed-use planned unit development. Here is an overall aerial of the site, and you can see how close it is to Sugden Park. You will also notice that there is a parcel in between our two parcels which is owned by the Shadley Trust. We'll reference that parcel a number of times in the presentation today, so I wanted you to understand where it was located. It does provide an February 13, 2018 Page 111 additional 10 units per acre if this parcel is incorporated and an additional 273 linear feet along Bayshore. Arno, Inc., has revised their proposal slightly through this course. They have agreed to contract and purchase the Shadley property. In their original proposal, they had all of their units below the 700-square-foot minimum requirement that's included in our Land Development Code. Their smallest unit was listed originally at around 320 square feet. Through our conversation with them, they have increased the sizes to between 700 and 920 square feet, but the developer is still interested in a smaller unit, and they do hope to bring that forward if you select them to move forward when they go through the rezoning process. And they have updated their pro forma to include the additional cost of the purchase of the Shadley property and the larger unit sizes. Just in general overview of the proposal, the purchase price is 3.5 million. The cultural component, they do have an MOU with VPAC, the Visual Performing Arts Center, from May of 2017 but, as you'll see later, we have asked that a new MOU be created between a cultural entity that would outline the terms and conditions of the cultural group raising the funds to build the center within this project. If for some reason the cultural group is unable to raise the funds, Arno's proposal suggests that they would replace the cultural area with 69 residential units, bringing up the total to 244 units, which is what the maximum would be, which is 12 units per acre for the 20 acres. And that, again, would include the Shadley property. Again, it's 244 units. And I wanted to bring up the density request here because the Bayshore CRA has basically a pool of density units that they, during the zoning process, are able to allocate to projects within the Bayshore area. Right now we have 260 units available in that pool. February 13, 2018 Page 112 Although this developer is not asking for any financial commitment from the CRA, we do recognize that these density units have value. So if they were going forward -- and their pool could possibly be as low as 135 and as high as 204 units, and that will depend on what the ultimate development plan is. If the cultural center comes forward, they won't need as many density units. If they purchase the Shadley property, they won't need as many density units. He's proposing that all the prices, if sold, would be under 300,000. He has also identified that the majority of the units at front will be rental units and that they possibly could switch over to for-sale units after time goes on. The commercial component of this is approximately 36,000 square feet. He does have a commitment letter for $40 million from Nexteer Capital and Creative Choice Group. His estimate investment into this project would be $40 million. We did have an outside consultant review both proposals at the time just to give us a view from the outside on what the proposals were, their feasibility of going forward. Some of the general comments here were that it was -- they were very exciting concepts. It would certainly transform the Bayshore Gateway area, and that they recognized the strong design commitment, understood the community sensitivity to this project, and they were open to new ideas. He also recognized that it was am ambitious plan and with moderately aggressive timetables. He was also cautious about a couple of the points. The limited mixed-use development experience that was presented in the information we received, it would require some additional oversight, the construction costs may be too low, making the rental and sale prices understated, and the offered units are already at the higher end of the market. And also, with a mixed-use configuration, sometimes that is difficult to finance. And we're talking about an integrated February 13, 2018 Page 113 vertical building that allows for the commercial on the first floor and the residential above. Now we'd like to just go over the purchase and sales agreement. We have been drafting this as well over the last couple of months. This was mirrored over -- after the purchase and sales agreement that the Board had approved for the mini-triangle. So as -- the INT had noticed that 10 percent of the purchase price would be required as the main deposit. We've also included a couple of extension deposits similar to what was in the mini-triangle proposal. If they required an additional inspection period time, they would provide another $10,000 which would be put into the escrow account. If they seeked an additional time frame to submit their entitlement applications, they would, again, be providing us an additional $10,000. And then for any reason they needed to extend the closing, they would provide us an additional $25,000. Termination prior to close of inspection period; right now we're proposing 120 days for an inspection period. If during that time any of these items were identified, they would be able to terminate their proposal, but we, the seller, the CRA, would be maintaining 10 percent of that deposit. Termination to closing; the deposit would be non-refundable unless these items were found: Adverse environmental conditions, a moratorium was in place, unsatisfied title objections that we could not cure, change in representation and warranties from us, the seller, and if the property was taken through eminent domain. And then failure to close for any reason, we, the seller, would be able to keep all of the funds held in escrow. Just sort of a timeline that's identified in the purchase and sales agreement. Again, the inspection period, 120 days from the effective date of the date that you would agree to sign. The rezone application must be filed within 60 days following the inspection period. And if February 13, 2018 Page 114 that rezone petition is not filed within 120 days, the agreement would become null and void, and the seller would be able to keep all of the deposit money. Closing within 18 months of the initial rezoning application; development permits post-closing would need to be submitted within 90 days of closing, and the Sugden Park connection would need to be completed within 24 months of the purchaser or developer commencing construction. And then also during the inspection period we included some tasks for the developer to agree to do. First one, again, is to enter into that MOU with a cultural organization that would outline the time frame for that cultural organization to raise the approximate $50 million to build the facility. We've also asked them to meet with the agencies regarding the reported bald eagle's nest on the property. That nest is not there now, but they still have to go through the process. So we've asked them to meet with Fish and Wildlife and the county staff to discuss what impacts that would have on their development and to report back to us within that 120 days if there were any issues that came up. We've also asked them to meet with the Naples Airport Authority regarding their request to go up to 100 feet. And then we, as staff, would be looking to come back to the Board to discuss changes to the way the CRA density bonus is applied because right now, as the LDC is written, the number of units that they would like to have would not be allowed. And then a draft timeline. Today, if you make a decision to move forward with this proposal, we would ask that we also receive the authority to publish the 30-day notice. That notice is tentatively planned to be scheduled on February the 16th. And in that notice it says we are going forward with this proposal. If someone would like to provide us an alternate proposal, they could do that by March 19th. February 13, 2018 Page 115 We would then come back to the Board here on April the 10th, and at that time you could agree to accept the proposal as presented, accept an alternate proposal, or reject all proposals in front of you. And with that, we are asking for some decisions today from you, possibly. One would be to move forward with the proposal presented from Arno, Inc., and the other one to authorize 30-day notice. And with that, we are here to answer any questions, and the developer is here in case you have any questions from him directly. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: I'm not sure who was first. Commissioner Taylor? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you. I think, Ms. Forester, if you could go back to Page 18 so I understand. Okay. So we're talking five months plus 18 months, which is two years. If things proceed correctly with the developer, it will be just shy of two years for a closing on this property, is that right, assuming that this is followed? He has to close within 18 months of the initial, but he could -- it could be up to two years? MS. FORESTER: Yes. And, of course, that's tied to the rezoning taking place and any changes to the comp plan, making those in effect. The PSA does point out that we would like to have all of that done within 12 months which is -- you know, we think is a good time frame and, of course, the developer, I would assume, would be anxious to get the approvals in place and to be able to start construction. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Will you go back to your slide regarding the concerns that the consultant brought forward on this, please. Cautionary considerations. You don't mention anything about the lack of funding. Did that letter from -- that was brought forward, did that come post this analysis by the consultant? MS. FORESTER: No. This, the $40 million commitment letter -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. February 13, 2018 Page 116 MS. FORESTER: -- was included in Arno, Inc.'s proposal. They had originally had a commitment letter for 20 million, and then when they redid their proforma and the proforma showed additional costs, that was in there. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. Because the funding and financing -- and I'm quoting from the consultant -- said both proposals. And we'll just -- because both proposals, one proposal has been removed. So I will paraphrase this by saying the proposal is vague and nonspecific regarding respective financing plans. The information provided answers no financial questions. There is a need for major contributions of equity, and we simply cannot judge how those funds will be made available from the material provided. MS. FORESTER: And we know that there is someone here from Creative Choice Group representing Nexteer entity. They were at the CRA advisory committee meeting yesterday. We did speak to them on the phone; they appear to have the financial available for this development. The consultant did not speak to them directly. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. But the letter was provided in the packet, I guess. MS. FORESTER: Yes. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'm assuming. And how long was your conversation with them? MS. FORESTER: With Nexteer? Probably 10 or 15 minutes on the telephone. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right. Nothing more right now. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'm sorry. I'm not the chair. CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, that's all right. I think Commissioner McDaniel was -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I just -- it was kind of February 13, 2018 Page 117 following along with what Commissioner Taylor was talking about. It had to do -- you know, because all I saw in our packet was a draft of purchase and sale agreement without the specificities that you've described here. Is that actually going to be filled out and then brought back to us for final approval? And we'll be able to then -- because it was kind of -- and, you know, I'm a real estate broker, so I look at these things quite often, and I couldn't really tell when the deposits went hard, when -- we call them nonrefundable, and I saw that there were additional deposit requisites for extensions both for inspection period and for closing date, but it didn't reflect whether those deposits were nonrefundable and/or applicable to the purchase price. So -- and I would like those clarifications on the actual purchase and sale agreement. MS. FORESTER: And we put this draft in so that if there were some terms in here that you wanted to tighten up or for us to take back to negotiate, we certainly can follow that lead. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I don't have anything particularly. I mean, those are fair deposit requirements, and oftentimes you can induce a buyer to pay for their inspections as long as the deposits are applicable to the purchase price as they're going forward and, through no default, they can be refunded if not due to any cause of the purchaser. So, I mean, they seem to be warranted. I just, you know, the -- I didn't see it in that draft purchase agreement. So if we're going to see it again when it's filled out, then I'm good with that. And I do have one other question, and it has to do with the -- there was quite a discussion we had when this came before us before with regard to the performing arts center being over on Sugden Park or not. It's not with this proposal. Everything is included on this 17-some-odd acres. Nothing in Sugden other than the bridge. MS. FORESTER: Correct. February 13, 2018 Page 118 CHAIRMAN FIALA: I know it's my turn but, you know, I'd love to hear from our speakers first, if we may. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. MR. MILLER: Yes. We have 10 registered speakers for this item. Your first speaker is Kathi Kilburn. She'll be followed by Harry Bandinel. MS. KILBURN: Afternoon, Commissioners. Kathi Kilburn, 2805 Linda Drive, which is off of Bayshore. I've had a lot of things I wanted to say today because there's a lot of moving parts to this proposal and to what's happening on Bayshore, but I'm going to try and keep it from my heart and from being a resident. I bought into Bayshore in 2006 because there was so much excitement about the arts coming. We were all excited. I think you can all remember that and appreciate it. It didn't happen. We still have property there. It has not come back up. But I bought again in 2015, new construction. It's my primary residence. And, again, I bought into Bayshore because of what's coming: Arts and culture, things to do, great location. One of the first proposals I did see was Banroc's, and it did include Sugden Park and, wow, that just excited me like there's no tomorrow. I ride my bike. I'm a runner. I engage my community. I've spoken with my neighbors. I was a critical component in getting 100 people of the community of all walks of life, income and otherwise, to participate in the Christmas caroling on Bayshore. And how did I do that? I walked the streets. Gives Bayshore a new name, I know, in high heels and Mercedes but, hey, that's where we're headed, and we hope that's where we're headed. I've read the reports. I've seen the proposals. Nothing includes Sugden, and I think it should. I think it would alleviate even traffic patterns and parking issues later on. I just think that we need to give February 13, 2018 Page 119 this a little bit more thought. I know that Harry has withdrawn. We've waited a long time for this. I'm willing to wait a little bit longer because I see the vision, and I hope that we can, as a community, create what we want over there, which is an arts and culture community, not just a bunch of rentals. I'm a realtor. I am in rentals and sales, but we want events; we, the community. I've spoken to them. Even in the little Spanish I speak, I've spoken to them. They want it, too. Okay. My time is up? MR. MILLER: Thirty seconds. MS. KILBURN: Okay. Well, I hope that we can just maybe give it a little bit more thought before making a decision. I think we need to include Sugden. Okay. I guess now my time is up. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Harry Bandinel. He will be followed by Angelina Turra. MR. BANDINEL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. As you know, I was the developer that was proposing for the project. My whole intent when I first got involved with this over a year ago was to create something special for the community. It wasn't just to be another developer to go in there and do some kind of a project that would make money. That was never my intent; never my interest. It was always to do something special for Naples, something special for Bayshore, and I always felt that Sugden Park is a tremendously underused asset that not just Bayshore has but the whole city. It's something that could be transformational in every way, economically, socially, for Naples, not just Bayshore. If you remember my -- one of my original proposals was to have -- include Sugden Park. I think stupidly I backed off of that after our last meeting when the CRA and I think even you-all, respectfully, said not -- do not include the park. February 13, 2018 Page 120 So in looking at this last night, the last meeting we had with the CRA, we went over all the details of the proposals, it was made evident that now we're looking at doing rental apartments there. I've been to the Bayshore meetings, the CRA meetings, every meeting pretty much for the last two-and-a-half years. I can say without a question every meeting there's been a big push against any kind of rental apartments. You've had several proposals from other developers who do rental apartments. They were pretty much immediately nixed. We have a massive amount of rentals in Bayshore. It's the last thing we need is more rentals. I firmly believe -- and this is the speculation -- but the way Mr. Arno got his funding was that they're funding it as a rental apartment complex, because I do this all the time. I'm working on one right now, 300 units. It's very easy to fund this by saying, hey, let's go to an investor. We're going to do 300 rental units. Great. I wish I could find more property to do that, and I could do that all day long. And I firmly believe that Mr. Arno and his group, that's what they've done. They've funded this as rental community and, oh, yeah, later on we can convert it to condos. That usually never happens. So I think we're really losing sight of what we really wanted. I personally have moved into Bayshore. I'm 50 yards from the property right now, where I live, 4840 Full Moon Court. I've been more involved with the community for the past four months, and I really think I have a good understanding of what the community wants. It's not rental apartments. It's not another development. We want something nice for the community. And for that reason, I have withdrawn my proposal because I really feel that we're not doing justice to the community and to the project. So I apologize for that. I know especially -- I'd like to apologize to Tim and Deborah who spent hours with me on this. But just in my heart of hearts I don't really feel that it's the right way to go. February 13, 2018 Page 121 And I apologize to you also for the time I've taken and to my team who have all spent a lot of time and work on this. But we want to stay true to what was our original meaning and mission. So thank you very much. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Could I ask a question? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: When you made your presentation before, I was impressed with what you had put together, and I was impressed with the use of the park but, you know, we were getting some feedback from environmental groups and things of that nature that made it sound like that was going to be impractical. In your opinion -- and I realize that you're not one of the bidders at this point, but in your opinion is the use of the park still a practical approach to a project there? MR. BANDINEL: Yes. I firmly believe it is. And I've actually spoken with Stantec, who were my engineers on the project, and also Stantec was one of the engineers in Sugden Park originally when the Sugden family gave it to the county. There's that little stretch of about four acres that are preserve, okay, and we've looked at that. And we could even mitigate that preserve within the park by taking it from the north side, the northwest side, and putting it on the south side. So we wouldn't even have to take that preserve outside of the park. We would keep it within the park if you want, and there's always the option to mitigate offsite. But I'm all about being green. I'm a green developer. I was just approved at Babcock Ranch, which is a big development, to be one of the builders there. And we have to build green. So I'm all about green and conservation and keeping things with animals and all that kind of thing. But I think we can do that. Again, Stantec, who knows it well, said there's no problem. It would probably cost 3- or $400,000 to do February 13, 2018 Page 122 that where basically we just shift everything. We actually go in there, we excavate, move everything to the south side. The birds are now on the south side of the park instead of north side. Basically that's what it would be. And it would still be a great project. The other thing, quick mention there, was the distance from the performing arts center to the village. It's two blocks if we do that. So it's really not a big distance. I mean, it's not right next to it. I know we talked about the issue of -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: One other question. One of the concerns that I had with that proposal, walking if it's raining and that sort of thing. MR. BANDINEL: Yeah. Well, we have -- remember, the performing arts center's going to have a parking lot right next to it in the park. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So you would be able to park at the -- MR. BANDINEL: Yeah. You're right there, so you're 20 yards, you know, from the -- we'd have a parking garage in the park right next to the performing arts center. To you going over from the performing arts center to have dinner in the village, yes, if it rains, obviously, you're going to get wet. So you'd have to drive around and park in the village. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, again, I was impressed with that presentation when you made it before, so... MR. BANDINEL: Thank you, appreciate it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next registered speaker is Angelina Turra. She will be followed by Maria Todaro. MS. TURRA: Hello, Commissioners. Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to talk here. This project was very dear to my heart and definitely combined February 13, 2018 Page 123 with the arts. I raised two kids here, and many times -- and tried to keep them in Naples. And now they are adults, and I still try to keep them here because we need young people. And we can accomplish that also through art. I'm a realtor for 28 years here, and my goal is not just selling properties. My goal is not just making profits. My goal is to give something to the community. And it resonated with me when Mrs. Fiala said, what is best for the community? And that's what we need to consider. Not somebody who comes in with $40 million which is from a funding group. They have no interest other than profit. I came in with investors, and that's why I'm standing here, and those are local people. Those are people who have interest in Naples who want to make this a great place. On top of it, during my 28 years, not so much the last three years probably, East Naples was always neglected, and I never understood why, because the land was basically the same up in Immokalee or on East 41. And there were debates, that's clear, but I feel that we owe something to East Naples to give them back for all those years where they didn't appreciate it the same way the North Naples (sic). On the other side we have two different centers. We have many different mixed-use properties. I used to have a property on Fifth Avenue. I know the problem with traffic. That was one of my first things when I saw the plan. I loved the original plan where the use of the Sugden was in the project. It's connected. It's an opportunity where we can also attract the community where we have the community life. It's not just about Bayshore. It's about the community. And with the access from 41 through, basically, a commercial area into the park, we eliminate all the traffic going down to Bayshore. Imagine traffic going down Bayshore. We already got to be, okay, blocked off from 41. February 13, 2018 Page 124 Artis is on five acres, the museums another additional two acres, Waterside on 21 acres. It makes absolute sense to have more property to make this a success, and that's why I'm here to hopefully -- that you reconsider the approach to this development. It's a great property. Thank you very much. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Maria Todaro. She will be followed by Tom Gallagher. MS. TODARO: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the Board. Indeed, my name is Maria Todaro, and I'm here to represent an organization call the Phoenicia Festival of the Voice, which is Upstate New York, and we specialize in bringing excellence of art at the reach of anybody in the community. We have -- we are interested in transforming, through art and beauty, communities, and we have focused on depressed area, which is -- I found -- I don't find Bayshore depressed at all. I don't. I find it exciting. And the potential that I've seen -- I'm freshly arrive in Naples for a year now, I'm completely in love, and my organization in love with everything that we can do. One of the reason I fell in love with the Bayshore complex -- and, actually, a year ago I was very impressed to meet with Commissioner Taylor. She met me on a Sunday afternoon. How wonderful of a civic servant to meet someone that she never met because we said we can do -- I want to do stuff in Bayshore, and she met me on a Sunday. I was very impressed by that. Thank you for this again. We -- one of the reason I fell so in love with the Banroc project was because of his inclusiveness and his global approach of the whole Bayshore area, which is a specialty of ours, too, like the Spoleto festival in Charleston, for instance, who brings, during the time of festival, whole towns who are leading people from all over, creating a cultural destination. We have the Botanical Garden, which is spectacular, at Bayshore, February 13, 2018 Page 125 and the Sugden Park which you recommended to me, say have a look, and I fell in love with everything that can be done at that park. Specifically temporary, you know, festivals, like what we do, but also structure. And we specialize in broadening audience and diversifying audience, reaching the youth. I brought Paul Green from -- the founder of the School of Rock here, because there's a tremendous youth in this area. He fell in love in the Bayshore area. He saw the Sugden Park. He saw what we could build. He wants to build a school also at Bayshore. I wanted you to know that. There is a tremendous potential in that particular space, Sugden Park. That's -- I think, because my -- you know, the love with my vision, the vision we have with the Banroc project now has been withdraw, this is all I'm going to say. I'm here to encourage you to develop anything that can be developed at Sugden Park because the potential is tremendous, and I've seen how transformative beauty can be in the community at all level. We don't come from the top. We really come from the bottom. We flip the chart, and we lean on a community wherever the community is. That's it. Thank you for the opportunity speaking in front of you, and good luck with the decisions. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Tom Gallagher. He will be followed by Arno De Villiers. MR. GALLAGHER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Tom Gallagher. I'm a principal with DLR Group, an architecture firm, and I've had the honor of acting as a lead designer with the Banroc team. Our firm specializes in cultural arts, performing arts, as well as housing projects. I personally have worked my entire career in the cultural arts realm, specifically performing arts and museums. We've won over 450 design awards, our firm. We've been ranked February 13, 2018 Page 126 number one architecture firm by Architect Magazine in 2012, 2014. We've done over 250 performing arts projects. Just a little bit of -- on the background. You've seen me once before when I clumsily handled some large, oversized boards. I just wanted to say a few things about the process, which I've been honored to be a part of. I've been working with Harry on this project for about eight months. We've met multiple times with the CRA advisory group and once with this esteemed group. During one of those meetings with the advisory group, I think it was rightly identified that this particular property, the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle, is unique in terms of how it connects Sugden Park with Bayshore, and there's a lot of potential for how that's leveraged and optimized. In our arts projects we often look for ways to integrate nature with the arts because it's a great equalizer. It makes the arts not the temple on the hill but something that's accessible to everyone in the community. And given that there's this exercise potential and all these other activities in Sugden Park, it's a perfect marriage to blend that with the arts in terms of a larger wellness program, not separating the arts from everyday life. I've been very impressed with Harry's commitment and creativity through this process and his resilience in constantly generating new ideas on how to best approach this project. And what's been consistent, as I've seen it, is it's always been for the community good, as he just said. It's not driven by profit, but it's for the community good. And that's where my passion comes into the project as well, and I feel very aligned with Harry on that. As Maria just noted, you know, the vitality and the flexibility of the arts program is a key aspect. And we've been working closely with her as well as VPAC to make sure that the program is implemented in February 13, 2018 Page 127 a way that the arts facility is resilient and flexible over time and can be used for lots of different performance types. You know, both a hall for 900 or 1,000 people, flexible space, and then an outdoor space. We've also designed over 25 amphitheaters. But Sugden Park offers a lot of potential for optimizing that flexibility in the arts program. And I would also just say that I wasn't at the meeting yesterday, but I recognize that there was some discussion about some of the challenges with that site. We think the arts center could fit on the 17-acre site, but for access and parking, there are some significant challenges that would be alleviated in Sugden Park. So I'd just ask the esteemed commission -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Stay there just a minute, please. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah, just a quick question. Maybe not a quick question, but a question. I'm missing something here. Why was your application withdrawn? I realize you're not the applicant. But why was that withdrawn? What generated that? MR. GALLAGHER: Well, I think that's really Harry's question to answer. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, could I ask the speaker? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. That would be -- I've been wondering -- if everybody's speaking for them and they've withdrawn, why are they speaking for them? So that's a good question. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Could you come on back up for just a minute? Let me explore this a bit. CHAIRMAN FIALA: By the way, you ought to tell people what VPAC means. When nobody hears those acronyms, they're not aware. MR. BANDINEL: VPAC is a Visual and Performing Arts Coalition. They're an organization in Naples that basically promote art, the visual and performing arts. And they are actually working together in this project with Opera Naples to try and build the February 13, 2018 Page 128 performing arts and an opera. So that's what VPAC is. And we've been working with them, both Arno and myself. We both have MOUs, similar MOUs to try and bring this to fruition. But your question? I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: My question is you've withdrawn, and I'm just curious as to -- you made a little bit of a statement as to why you've withdrawn, but what was the reason? MR. BANDINEL: As I said, because I think the vision has been perverted. You know, it's not what we originally -- not what I wanted to do, and I will not be part of a project that, you know, is not what it's intended to be. I'm sorry. It just -- I won't do it. You know, I'm not motivated by profit here. I've said it sounds hypocritical, but it's not. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: There's nothing wrong with profit. MR. BANDINEL: If I wanted to make money, it's somewhere else. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: There's nothing wrong with profit. Everybody has to make a profit. MR. BANDINEL: No, that's fine. But, I mean, understand that to have a group come in, offer $40 million from out of town, they know nothing about this, that's part of the reason. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: How has the vision changed that has resulted in you withdrawing? That's what I'm trying to understand. MR. BANDINEL: Okay. Mainly, mainly because -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Who changed the vision? MR. BANDINEL: Well, we were -- I was told very firmly, okay, by Deborah that we don't want to include the park. The last meeting we had here with all of you esteemed ladies and gentlemen, you all said the park's kind of off the table. And am I wrong? Maybe let's revisit the minutes of that meeting, but that was pretty clear. February 13, 2018 Page 129 So I attempted to try and, okay, let me back off and go back and see if we can do something on the 17 acres. But it's really a compromise, and I don't think in the end it's going to be a good project. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You are right. The discussion at the last meeting was to take the park out of it. I felt that the park should be part of it. I still -- and, quite frankly, I still do, but that's -- MR. BANDINEL: So -- and to answer your question, you know, I've learned in my time of doing this that it's an uphill battle to go against commissioners and the people in power. So I said, well, let me see if I can rescue this and do something on the 17 acres. But there's serious compromises with the 17 acres. Trust me. Just from the parking and transportation point of view is a huge issue. And my guess, when this goes up for review with the Transportation Department, they're going to say, how are you going to get 900 -- 7-, 800 cars into that place, in and out of Bayshore and two driveways in a couple hours? And we're not having a -- remember, this is a performing arts center. We're going to have things weekly, once, twice a week there, three times a week. So that's a big issue. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. Thank you. MR. BANDINEL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: You want to while he's here? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, go ahead. Yes. I wanted to get the rest of the speakers. Harry come on back in. That's okay. MR. BANDINEL: Do you want me back in? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Have you had the opportunity to review the consultant's report that -- MR. BANDINEL: Yes. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- we hired? Okay. So on both February 13, 2018 Page 130 the projects before us, the concern is there is a lack of parking on both. MR. BANDINEL: Right, correct, absolutely. And that's why I say, when -- if you look at my original proposal to have it in the park, way back before we changed it, that was -- we had parking in the park, in Sugden Park, and moved the whole thing. It's just a better project. And I don't know if you remember that, the original. You know, I had my Option A and B, and we were trying to push Option B to be in Sugden Park. It will take care of all those issues. The access, we have, you know, multiple access, 41, Thomasson, and Sugden Park. We've got Bayshore. Now we have, really, three separate access points to get into this whole facility. We also do away -- and last night this came up at the CRA meeting with having this huge performing arts center, 75,000 square feet, literally 30 feet from residential units. You know, you've got Jeepers there with all the people living there. We talked last night about the noise, the impact that that will have on the people living there. I live right on the other side right now, literally 50 yards to the north of the park, and I would see that, too. As a resident there, it would be an issue. If we put this in the park, we're kind of putting it in the park where there's things now that are not going to directly negatively impact the community as much, the people living there; it's another big issue, so -- and the other part, too, by putting the facility in the park, it gives them much more flexibility -- flexible facility. Remember, we've got to make this thing work. So we have outdoor space, we have the park we can have concerts in out on the field. It was all part of our original idea. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But that's not part of the 17-acre parcel. MR. BANDINEL: No. But if we take the 17-acre parcel and do the village like we said, have a residential component, we could even February 13, 2018 Page 131 have some apartments there, keep that the same, but let's move all the cultural art component into the park. It will be attached, connected in 10 different ways, but it's just going to work better for everybody, and we really make this park a nice park for the whole city. I mean, it's not just for Bayshore. And I'm not talking about destroying the park. Trust me, I don't want to destroy it. I want to keep it natural and beautiful. I even talked to Botanical about coming in and helping us make it a pretty park so it's a beautiful space. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Let's continue with our speakers, please. MR. BANDINEL: Yeah, yeah. I'm fine with that. Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Arno de Villiers. He will be followed by Don De Laney. MR. de VILLIERS: Hello, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. I would like to -- this is a bit of a hot bed right now, you know, going back to the park, but I want to just digress, if we can just move a little bit out and talk about the history of this whole project for a minute. I was involved with this from the get-go about 10 years ago when I met David Jackson and the original board. I did the initial -- or the original concept for the 17 acres on which -- on which there was an amphitheater exactly where Harry -- Mr. Bandinel is proposing it. It's a very good idea to have one there. On my latest plan, I simply wrote in that position, amphitheater. But, really, what happens on that three acres is a matter for the VPAC group to decide exactly what they want, because we're going to be spending their money to do it. So we can have all kinds of wonderful ideas but, finally, it's the money that buys the whiskey. They have to conceptualize what they want. I've done my best to give them in an exact-scale drawing what they want. And that is measured correctly. It's not a big square on a piece of February 13, 2018 Page 132 paper. It's exact -- exactly dimensioned drawing, which is based on Le Fenice in Venice is what the conceptual idea was. We will be appointing Joshua Dachs, with all respect to the company out of Orlando. I'm sure they are excellent. This country is blessed with excellent people. There are wonderful designers, architectures of all kinds. And I'm not -- certainly not going to knock them. The choice I made with Joshua Dachs happened to line up with what the people that VPAC has been talking to for a number of years now and what they want. So I'm sure what is ultimately built there would be exactly what the VPAC group want. As far as the ladies -- two ladies who are very enamored with the arts, I am an artist. I had an original -- I had a gallery with Paul Arsenault on Fifth Avenue called the Arsenault Arno Gallery about 18 years ago. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I remember that. MR. de VILLIERS: But I didn't want to be the us (sic) end of the Arsenault Arno Gallery so eventually withdrew. I still paint. I have brought out five CDs of music. So don't try and tell me that I'm not concerned about the arts. I believe completely in the arts. I think it should be a wonderful center for the arts of what we're going to produce there. We will certainly -- it's all in management. It's all in organization and making sure that festivals are held there. And I totally agree with what you're saying. I'm not the opposition. I used to work with Harry on these concepts, so I'm totally aligned with those things. The second thing I want to really maybe just advertise a bit -- Tim, could I just ask you for that box? I just would like to -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sir? Sir, your time is really up. MR. de VILLIERS: Okay. I want to just quickly mention -- okay. We can do this. February 13, 2018 Page 133 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Your time is really up. MR. de VILLIERS: The smaller units, I want to plug that a bit. And I have some literature for your educational. You know, we all need to be educated. And as much as I respect your judgment -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sir, your time is really up. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You know, he is -- can I ask him a question? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: He is the buyer. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Can I ask him a question? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You go ahead, and then I'll ask. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Because I think Commissioner Taylor was ahead of me, but -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, no. I'll defer to you, and then I'll have a question. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Did I hear you -- did I understand you to say that if, in fact, Sugden Park can be utilized for the arts center, you're okay with including that into your plan? MR. de VILLIERS: I believe in synergy. I think we went through that very carefully last time. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. MR. de VILLIERS: The closer these things are aligned -- I've studied villages all my life. If there's one thing I know is how to put a village together, I really do, because of years and years of study and travel. And synergy is, without question, what makes things stick. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So just so I can answer my own question -- because I don't think you did. If, in fact -- MR. de VILLIERS: I would certainly consider it, sir, but I'm in support of the closer proximity. February 13, 2018 Page 134 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. Very good. Thank you. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. And I have a question. Let's assume that the money cannot be raised for the cultural arts center. MR. de VILLIERS: Yes. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But the goal of the CRA is to have an arts area. MR. de VILLIERS: Right. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And I think it's zoned -- and I don't have it in front of me, I'm sorry, as cultural arts. That's the zoning, underlying zoning. So this is something that's been in the plans for a long time. MR. de VILLIERS: Right. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: How do you make it -- how do you make it according to the zoning? How do you make it arts? We've got shops and apartments. MR. de VILLIERS: Oh. Are you talking about the village -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes -- MR. de VILLIERS: -- or about the -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- yes, yes. How do you define it as an arts village -- MR. de VILLIERS: Oh, an arts village. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- without a cultural arts center, performing center? MR. de VILLIERS: Okay. The arts compromise -- I mean, it covers all the different arts. There's performing arts, there's, you know, visual art, et cetera. I'm sure with smaller units, which I'm proposing to have, that more individual artists -- now, I'm talking about the visual arts -- could be -- would be able to afford renting or buying space there so that they can have galleries. There could be -- I'm very much a live/work February 13, 2018 Page 135 situation guy, which I think that we should increase those number of units. Perhaps if VPAC is not able to collect the funds in that area, that we develop that whole area as a live/work area where people can walk from house to house, from workshop to workshop. Even light industrial, I don't think -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Craftsmen. MR. de VILLIERS: You know, provided there's no sound barriers, you know, generating a lot of sound, but there could be glassmakers, glassblowers or metal makers or sculptural guys that could have studios there. Performing arts would be what that lady is suggesting. I mean, there could be street performers, music, CAPA could still be involved in. And then, of course, the amphitheater, which is a great idea, which was part of my original concept. So amphitheaters can be built and formed not with great expense, by earth moving, planting. We don't have to build it like the Romans did, you know, or the Greeks, I should say. But it could be formed in an economical way. It doesn't have to be too expensive. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And the amphitheater would be located where? MR. de VILLIERS: It would be on the three acres in the northeast -- let's see -- facing Sugden Park on the three acres very close to the village. You cross the bridge, move to the left, and the amphitheater would be in that corner. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay, all right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Okay. Our next speaker? MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Don De Laney. He'll be followed by Michael Sherman. CHAIRMAN FIALA: How many more do we have? MR. MILLER: Four more total. February 13, 2018 Page 136 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. MR. DE LANEY: My name's Don De Laney, and I represent Creative Choice Group. I'm a principal with the firm. We believe in the Arno vision. We believe in redevelopment. We believe in investing in what the community wants. Whether it starts off being rental for a transition or if you desire to have younger people come in, we're fine with that. If it starts off at residential for sale, we're fine with that. We have the capital for this. We put that in writing. We do things all over the world. We're building a project eight times this size right now on Singer Island, Florida, in Palm Beach County. It's an international wellness and resort center called Amrit. This is what we do. I didn't appreciate being told I'm just some guy out of town. My family's been in Florida since the 1800s. I've been able to work to two Florida governors. And I was telling my colleagues here that when I left one of the governors' office, the first thing I did was I was a redevelopment executive director because I believe in that, too. So we're -- this has been an interesting experience for me. I just got in last night, and I'm a little surprised by all of it. But we're here because we believe in what you're doing, and our capital is real and our profile is real. And some of the folks pointed out last night how complex it was working with the banks because of the underwriting criteria now to underwrite the different types of loans. We don't need the banks. So we're here. We believe in what you're doing. We believe in the Arno vision. We understand -- as Commissioner Taylor pointed out, there's a long process to go through. We'd like to go through it as fast as possible. We understand about the CRA disposition of property requirements under Chapter 163, Part 3, of the Florida Statutes. I understand that. February 13, 2018 Page 137 We understand about zoning. We understand about Comprehensive Plans. I used to do that with the -- when I worked with Graham's office. I also worked with Chiles. So we do know what you have to go through. And why we're not patient by nature, we are understanding that hopefully we can facilitate making that happen. So we believe in you, and we're here, and we're hoping we can make your vision real. Thank you, folks. Any questions? (No response.) MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Michael Sherman. He'll be followed by Peter Dvorak. MR. SHERMAN: Thank you. Boy, what a morning, huh? We've been working on this for a long time, and this is a whole bunch of big surprises. I'm Mike Sherman. I am on the advisory board and have been with this thing for the last quite a number of years. During the last few months, I have tended to lean toward the Banroc proposals because it felt to me like the team was there. Throughout all of that, however, the core of this thing has always been the financing. And when we gave you two groups, the staff and the Board, to negotiate with, at least for me, that was find out who can really do this, because it's a complicated idea. I hope we will stress ownership more than rental. I believe that's what the community wants. But at the end of the day we need to finance this. Mr. De Laney showed up in my consciousness last night. I don't know his firm. I don't know whether he needs the banks or not. I hope he doesn't. And I think, really, we should get behind Arno on this project and work it through if, in fact, Mr. De Laney really doesn't need the banks and really is ready to put that money there. I simply don't know, and I think that's the chore for our February 13, 2018 Page 138 government right now is to get comfort with how that financing is done. And if it's there, I'm ready to back Arno's project the whole way, on or off the park. I think the park's a great idea, but I don't think it's necessary. And I think we should follow that money and see if it's there, and if it's really there, let's get behind it, and let's get this thing done. I think it's a great idea. Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Peter Dvorak. He'll be followed by Karen Beatty. MR. DVORAK: Thank you. Peter Dvorak. I have lived and owned property in this area for over 20 years. I am currently a resident on Jeepers Drive. The proposed opera house would literally cast a shadow on my house, and I'm okay with that. I also have spent a lot of time reviewing the two proposals, and I care deeply about the area. Some of you may know I'm a recovering developer. It's a 12-step program. I'm only on Step 9. But at one point I had proposed a project of even greater scope across the street. And so I've looked at both -- and all three when they were three, and this process has actually been, I think, very beneficial. The invitation for proposals brought ideas to the table that were incorporated and made the project better as it went along. We had a very -- we had thorough vetting, and both the Banroc and Arno proposals really combine a lot of what we see as a vision for the property. And even at last night's advisory board meeting, of which I'm a member, there were six members, and we tied 3-3 on which one to proceed to recommend to you. I think if our other two members were there last night, it might have been 4-4, maybe 5-3, but they're both excellent proposals. At the end of the day, it's a little disconcerting that at the last minute there's been a withdrawal, because there was an opportunity to February 13, 2018 Page 139 present both to you today instead of just the one. That being said, at the end of the day, both teams -- both developers put together excellent teams that were -- I think are qualified to pull off the project. Nothing gets done unless there's money to fund it. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's right. MR. DVORAK: That is -- you can have all the vision you want, but it you don't have the money, it's just a pipe dream. I did -- I like the idea of having the performing arts center in Sugden Park. I think that that will complicate things and delay things and, moving forward, as we've all wanted to do with the 17 acres, now makes the most sense. VPAC has two years to put their money together, and if something gets worked out on Sugden in the meantime, that's great. Last night I also suggested that Arno include putting an amphitheater on his piece if the VPAC group does not raise the funds for the opera house. So I wholly support the Arno project and encourage you to vote for it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your final speaker on this item is Karen Beatty. MS. BEATTY: Hello. I'm Karen Beatty. I wrote something that is completely changed now because the other developer dropped out. Anyway, I've lived in Naples since 1977. I've been a homeowner living in the Bayshore Drive area since '86, and I've worked as a realtor for Downing-Frye since '95, and served on the CRA advisory board since 2004. Today I'm speaking as a Bayshore resident and one of three advisory board members who voted last night for Arno, Inc., and I guess now we have four on board for Arno. February 13, 2018 Page 140 Having served on the advisory board since 2004, I was there when the 17 acres were assembled with the vision of a catalyst project for the area. Although I do not know Arno personally, I was introduced to him when RWA brought him to our advisory board under the directorship of David Jackson and recommended him to design an entertainment complex for the mini-triangle, which he did, and it included an amphitheater. The amphitheater was always Arno's original idea. This was to be for Opera Naples CAPA, but it never manifested due to the timing and the economy situation. Throughout the years, I've known Arno professionally and known him to have designed dozen and dozens of homes, two of which were for Jerry Goldstein, the director of Opera Naples, and also built some of the homes he designed. I've had the opportunity to read Arno's resumΘ. It is impressive, starting out with service in the Navy where he also worked in the building field. Downing-Frye's office in Olde Naples was designed by Arno. Arno is an educated architecture who has had a 40-year career with 20 years in Naples. He's married to a professional woman who's a decorator for Robb and Stucky, and he's raised his son here, who now attends University of Florida. He owns property here, is well respected with an excellent reputation. He's maintained a relationship with CAPA Opera Naples over the years, an artist originally and a humble man. My limited experience of Arno is one of authenticity and a true gentleman. He is a very creative thinker, well-centered, and integrated into our community with a proven track record. He really cares about our community and plans to be here for many years to come. Arno's proposal he presented to the CRA is designed to scale. Banroc's was not. We know based on this -- based on this, it will February 13, 2018 Page 141 actually fit on the proposed -- on the property. He's very flexible and open to changes and suggestions. He has committed financing, and you just met Don De Laney, who is a very impressive person. I really love Arno's designs of the village as well as his design of the -- as well as the design of the Visual Performing Arts Center. RWA, a county approved civil engineer, will be part of Arno's team. I'm sure Arno will also align himself with a very reputable real estate company to market his village on Bayshore, and any company would be proud to associate with him. Because my time's up, I'm just going to say I think -- we don't need a fight with the Conservancy on Sugden Park. I like Sugden Park as a passive park. I go there all the time. And I think having a pathway over there from Bayshore is going to be great, and I encourage you to move forward with this project. The citizens have waited long enough for this 17-acre project. We have a viable one right in front of us. We have a very reputable person to do it. We have the financing with someone fabulous. And I'd say that -- let's go for it. And I think a combination of rentals and for-sale units -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Your time is up. MS. BEATTY: -- would be perfect. We do need the commercial, the retail very much on Bayshore, too. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Okay. Now, I've been patiently waiting till everybody spoke, and I'm glad we got to hear each and every one of them. They gave us many, many good thoughts. And I, too, have a particular interest in that area, because I started with them. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I was going to say "because." CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. And the -- back in the '90s yet, and we worked together. In the beginning of the '90s our group was trying to clean up February 13, 2018 Page 142 Bayshore. It was before a lot of people were even here, and it was a pretty bad -- oh, my goodness. It was a pretty bad sight. But anyway, we were working at it, and then Windstar comes along, and Windstar was -- they were a shot in the arm, because they decided to create an MSTU to actually do something about beautifying the area. And with that, it started to move ahead. Well, meanwhile, after we were working with that, I happened to become a commissioner at the time then, and we had a group meeting on the Bayshore area about the arts and how much the arts would be needed to energize that area. We never spoke of housing. We have -- you know, it was just about the arts and bringing the arts there, because that would bring a new synergy. And with it, of course, if you brought in some commercial, you know, then you would have something that began to thrive. Okay, fine. So we worked on that, and CAPA was born, Cultural and Performing Arts Center, CAPA. And what they wanted to do was build a performing arts center. They had the excellent good fortune of working with the outstanding Opera Naples group, and Opera Naples also wanted to come to that area, and they needed a building, and CAPA needed a star like the Opera Naples. There are other organizations also, and I guess there's a whole list of them someplace, wherever the CAPA people are, that can name all of the different organizations, but never once were they talking about more housing. And that's all there are there is housing. You don't need any more housing when you've already got so much housing. You need places for those houses to go. They're very, very little -- there's very little commercial in that area, very little commercial, actually. And if you had a -- if you had a commercial center like CAPA, which would be the draw, then you need people to have stores. Well, like Mr. Arno was just saying, maybe to -- you know, to sell musical instruments or art supplies or whatever. February 13, 2018 Page 143 You also need other places, maybe to give music lessons or have a restaurant or a few restaurants or whatever to draw people to that area, and it becomes a thriving, living being, actually. And so that's what we were moving on. And since then, of course, it's moved on to -- I don't quite know how we got housing into it, because we've already got so much in there, but maybe they would want to put housing on the second floor above the stores. That could give you a mixed-use feeling to that, and so that would work out. But I feel -- I feel that this is the right place. Seventeen acres, you could build a dynamic cultural and performing arts center, and you could build enough parking there, not only for that place, but all for the commercial as well. If you don't crowd in houses there, if you just plan on commercial and the arts center, I think you could move forward, and if you want to throw a few little houses in there above, you know, that would be fine, too. As far as rental, I want to tell you something. There's so much rental in that area. I'm counting it now, and it's taking me forever, because there's so much rental in the area. You don't need any more rental, but you can certainly use a couple middle-income places that it doesn't contain anyplace, and I think that that's what they're trying to do is fill in the edges. If there's ever an amphitheater that's needed -- we used to -- we performed many times, our arts group that was performing. We also performed at the Sugden Park. And they would bring in the stages and everything and the equipment and all of the food trucks, and it was just great and yet you could take them out and it's done with. It's not like, you know, it bothers the neighbors all the time or anything. That could be a nice addition. I just think it could be so much. And I think you've got -- you've got a couple people here that could really do the job right. And, I don't know, somebody said something about, well, wait till -- come back -- February 13, 2018 Page 144 there was a lady back there that said come back in another month or so and talk about it again. I don't know if that's the thing to do. I don't know -- none of the ideas I'm nuts about except the Cultural and Performing Arts Center, but I think we need more parking. We definitely need some commercial in that area. And so I'm hoping that maybe if a -- well, we don't have to choose a developer. There is one, the only one that's left on the table. And if we suggest to him that, don't build housing, you know, let's build it so that it will be a driving center for that whole area. We don't have any entertainment centers down here in East Naples. We have nothing, really. And so that would be a perfect thing. But, anyway, that's the Donna Fiala two cents worth. And, by the way, don't worry about CAPA. They're doing fine. That's all I'll say about that, financially. Just don't worry about them. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: One little point of interest, and maybe when we -- because I think today we're going to vote on moving forward with the contractual arrangement and have that come back to us. Maybe when we do enter into that or look at entering into that we can get Mr. Arno's plan to come back. Because, if I recall -- and it's been a month or so, there is commercial on the first floor with residential above on the second and third floor. So there is a commercial component that is there. Correct me, Ms. Deborah, if I'm wrong. But we could have a look at that conceptual plan again just to clarify it. And, Commissioner Saunders, you know, revisit, if plausible, the joining of Sugden Park as an addition to the arts aspect of this, just as a discussion point. Because I liked it, too, by the way. I was kind of sort of -- I liked that thought process, but it wasn't at the -- at our last meeting when -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: You mean the Sugden Park? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. When our developers were presenting, it didn't fair well because there was four acres of February 13, 2018 Page 145 environmentally sensitive land that was -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let me just put it to -- I'm going to put it in a different perspective, okay. I'm going to talk pickleball for a moment. Pickleball is played on the smallest park in the entire county, right, and they've got 54 courts. They're having 1,500 people to come and play. That doesn't even count the people that are coming with them, are a part of the event, or all of the spectators, and they're all crowded onto that little park. So I asked him, I said, why are you going to this little park? You know, they really wanted to move them to some bigger parks. They said, you know, when you're all in one area, you can feed off each other's synergy. You excite one other. People participate. They excite each other. And they said, that's what it is. So I'm saying to you, don't divide it into Sugden. Put it right there. And I think the synergy will grow, okay. Thank you. Oh, yes. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, I just kind of want to bring us back to the basics, and as someone who sat on the Naples City Council for 10 years, I'm intimately familiar with CRAs. And I just wanted to remind everyone without comment what CRA is supposed to be doing, and to use that as a -- according to the Florida Statutes -- and we'll put it on the screen. And maybe, County Manager, you could read it for us. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I can't. MR. OCHS: Oh, boy. I'll put my glasses on. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Want my glasses? CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, I've got glasses. I just can't read and listen at the same time. MR. OCHS: Okay. So this is Florida Statute Chapter 163.355, finding a necessity by county or municipality. No county or municipality shall exercise the community redevelopment authority February 13, 2018 Page 146 conferred by this part until after the governing body has adopted a resolution supported by data and analysis, which makes a legislative finding that the conditions in the area meet the criteria described in Chapter 163.347, parens 7 or 8. The resolution must state, number one, that one or more slum or blighted areas or one or more areas in which there is a shortage of housing affordable to residents or lower moderate income, including the elderly, exist in such county or municipality and, paren two, the rehabilitation, conservation, or redevelopment or a combination thereof of such area or areas including, if appropriate, the development of housing which residents of lower moderate income, including the elderly, can afford is necessary in the interest of the public health, safety, morals, or welfare of the residents of such county or municipality. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you. And I'm bringing that just as reminder of why CRAs were created and why it is under such challenge in Tallahassee today. Speaking to -- and I don't remember her name. I remember her first name, but she's the league of -- Association of Counties, not the League of Cities. But she is the representative of the Association of Counties. She stated in a meeting that I had -- and you've met with her -- Cragin, you've met with her. And she stated that the League of Counties fully expects CRAs to go away within the end of this session. And she also stated that that doesn't mean that they're suddenly going to be gone, but what's going to happen is, you know, there's certain bond covenants and things that have to be honored, but no new CRAs. And, frankly, the reason that that's happening is the fact that there's been an abuse and there's been some kind of underhanded things going on. But more importantly -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: But not in this area? February 13, 2018 Page 147 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, but more importantly the mission -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Just to make sure that everybody knows. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, no. It was basically Tallahassee, right in their -- next door. Right there. But I guess I'm bringing this forward as we -- as we understand what the CRA is about, I think it's very important that we keep the Florida Statute of the intentions of CRA very close. And as we review projects, we ask if it is living up to what CRAs were to be created, because I can tell you that I have been involved in a CRA that hasn't done that, and it's a great disservice to the people that really need it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: But, Commissioner, our CRA initially, and from there on in, have focused on trying to add something other than more low-income housing. That's all it is there. You've got to admit everything there is low-income housing and more low-income housing. And also we've had slums. We've been overwhelmed with slums. We've had to clean up. Yes, when we hauled away the 27 trailers that were flophouses, having 8 to 10 people in all of them, our crime dropped, but that didn't mean that that cleaned up the whole area. You have so much more to do. And there's kids living in there, and they deserve better than what they're living in right now. They deserve much less crime. And that's why we're trying to add a new element. We're trying to add some better housing, not more low income. Build the low income where they don't have them, you know, and let them be responsible for some of that. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Ma'am, that should be -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Why should we continue -- you know, we've pulled ourselves up by the bootstraps a little bit. We don't want to go downhill. February 13, 2018 Page 148 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, I don't think -- I don't think taking care of our elderly and having appropriate and good and safe housing for our elderly is going downhill, ma'am. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I did not say that at all, did I? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No. CHAIRMAN FIALA: No. What I'm trying to say is we need some middle income to help -- to help balance out that community. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I think they do talk about moderate income. I would consider that middle income. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So as we look at the housing and as we understand that, there is a Florida Statute that is guiding principle that I have assumed it has been incorporated into the resolution establishing the CRA, that we -- that we bring those ideas forward and incorporated what we're looking at going forward. CHAIRMAN FIALA: But we already have -- we are overwhelmed with it in there. Why would you bring more? Put them back in the city. You know, let them have some, too. How come we have to handle all the city's low income as well? That's just not fair. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: At least -- at least -- you must tell me where I can find housing for the elderly on Bayshore. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, actually, there's a bunch of them over there. You can correct me if I'm wrong, because you-all know better even than I do, but I know there's quite a few elderly over there in Botanical Place, right? I know that there's some, because I see them at our meetings. But I don't know how many. But, you know what? I don't know that the elderly in the unsafe -- excuse me. I don't know if the elderly want to live in an area that there's -- that we're still trying to eliminate the crime and slums in. I think we have to start building it up and then build for elderly. But I don't think -- I don't think you can go in in an area that still needs to February 13, 2018 Page 149 recover and build more of the same old. I just don't think that's healthy, and it's certainly not healthy for the kids. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, yeah. I'm not suggesting we build the old. I'm suggesting we build a new but we keep the low-moderate income, especially the elderly, in our minds when we build. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Saunders? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, on this particular issue, maybe there's a couple things we can sort of either move forward on or put to rest. I'd like to see -- not dealing necessarily with the petition that's in front of us, the Arno's project. But in terms of the potential use of the Sugden Park for the arts facility, let's make a decision as to whether or not the Commission wants to move forward with at least evaluating that. I'd like to see that continue to be part of the evaluation process. I'd like for Arno to -- when they come back, assuming that we approve this, that we have some indication from the Board whether or not the park would be accepted. CHAIRMAN FIALA: So did you want to separate the arts between the two sides of the street? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, I personally believe that the Sugden Park location would be a great location for the arts facility. Seventeen acres is not a huge piece of land, and -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: And there's really only about 11 acres -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. And I get the sense that we're going to be trying to cram too much on it. And having the separation, I don't believe that separates the facility from that village at all. It's a short walk away or a short drive away. And so what I'd like to suggest is let's decide whether or not we want to consider Sugden Park as a potential location. If the Board says no, we don't want to consider that, then we're back on the 17 acres, and February 13, 2018 Page 150 we can deal with that. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And let me just ask. On the 17 acres, if you don't build the arts center there and the things that need to be around an art centers, what do you build on the 17 acres? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's part of the design; it's part of the proposal. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Housing and mixed use -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Housing. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- and studios, studios. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Commercial; commercial. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. But the thing is, you're going to separate your commercial from your arts. Just -- you know, do you really think it works where you have to go across the street, and if the restaurants are there and the thing is there? It just -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's across the canal. We're not across the street on Bayshore. The commercial and the residential and everything is right on the same piece of property, and then the bridge goes from our 17 to the Sugden. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, I know, but do you really think that that is a working arrangement? Well, I'm just judging what I've seen. Everybody, you know, works off of each other. If you've got the -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- big facility and then you build the ice scream stores and the restaurants and the paint stores and so forth, to gather around that to give it synergy, why would you -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I actually have a view that if the arts center were located in Sugden, which I kind of liked the last time, that it would be an additional draw from outside people to be able to come over the bridge and come into the commercial, small restaurants, ice cream parlors, and the like, that are in the 17-acre village. February 13, 2018 Page 151 I see where it could necessarily go both ways over the bridge. The performing arts center if, in fact, it is funded and can be located over there, it could add to this village and not exacerbate a very small piece of property from side standpoint. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. What did the Conservancy have to say about that; do you know? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: They're wetlands. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, right. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: A portion of it is. A portion of it is wetlands. Not the entire -- not the entire piece. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Because this is my district, I can tell you that my feeling strongly is that you do not go into the park. The park is a wonderful passive park. It does have a lake that is used for sports competition, but to go into the park is the wrong -- I mean, every developer wants to use the land that the city -- that a city or county owns to expand his piece of development. And I agree with Commissioner Fiala regarding the synergy that's created by keeping everything close. Now, one of the things I did ask the developer, if there isn't going to be a center -- and, you know, we have to consider that, you know, to build it -- how are you going to make that arts, and he indicated there would be working studios with people living above it. So you might have a woodworker, you might have a metal worker, or glass, and it would become almost a village of crafts -- artists, craftsmen. CHAIRMAN FIALA: That sounds wonderful. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And to me that's a lovely -- I mean, there's an alternative. So I'm very reluctant to go into Sugden Park. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And by doing that, you take in some of your housing, but you're all in the same property, and you don't go -- and you don't split everybody up. Yeah. February 13, 2018 Page 152 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So, Mr. Chair, you haven't said a word about this. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, I was sitting here trying to figure out how to turn my button on, and I apparently don't have a button. I don't have a button anymore. You know, it's great that there's financing available. I mean, I'm just going to express the same concerns, and I think they're the same concerns that Commissioner Saunders has expressed. You know, just because vertical mixed-use sounds good doesn't make it so. And it -- I'm really concerned that the site, as proposed, it's just -- I don't know that it's going to work. But if the financing is there and the people that are willing to invest in it are willing to do so, I won't second guess it. But I'm concerned that it is too tight of a space. The concerns that the consultant -- if you could go back to those. I think those are really important. I mean, vertical mixed-use. We like to talk about it because it sounds great, but vertical mixed-use is a crapshoot in most instances. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: In a minute. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry. I was just saying Terri needs a break, but go ahead. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Oh, she needs a break. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I didn't want to stop you. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'll be brief. No, no. You know, the configuration -- I think these -- the cautionary considerations in the project review, I think, hit the nail on the head. I think it would be better with more on it. If the performing arts center could be in the park, it would provide more intensity to it to support the retail part of it, but I understand that there are constraints there. February 13, 2018 Page 153 So we have a proposal. There's financing. I'm just -- I don't understand why there aren't more developers interested in doing this project. I mean, we had two and now we have one, and that's a concern to me. And it doesn't -- I'm not saying that being critical of either one. I'm just saying, there's something about the specifications for what we want here, I think, that's problematic. That's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do you think it would help if we didn't have individual housing but if we had them on top of shops? Would that -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's what's proposed now. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, but there is also -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. It's vertical mixed-use. It's retail on the bottom. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And then housing above. CHAIRMAN FIALA: So then you'd just -- then you'd only have the commercial with housing, and the center, and parking, of course. You have to plan for that. Wouldn't you think that would fit on that acreage? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I think -- you could fit it on there, certainly. My concern is -- you know, the way vertical mixed-use work, usually it's one or the other that actually works. It's either the residential part works and the retail doesn't, or the retail works and the residential part doesn't. It's not that simple that we build it and they will come. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But I think the issue -- I think with the Arno development -- and I read, again, the consultant's review. First of all, they said that rental works better than purchase, and I think the size of the units are going to make the difference. So if it's the right rent at the right size, it will be rented. February 13, 2018 Page 154 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct. I'm ready to make a motion if you want to. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Make a motion. MS. BEATTY: Can I say something? CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, I'm so sorry. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We're done with that, unless somebody else has another comment. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, I think if anybody has anything to add, I'd like to hear it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, Deborah. Do you have something to add? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And, Madam Chair, if Karen Beatty has something to add -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, you know what, Terri needs to go -- Terri needs to have a finger break. Give her 10 minutes, and we'll also get our thoughts together, and then when we come back, Deborah, you're up to bat. MS. FORESTER: All right. Thank you. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We'll be back at 3:00. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh. Back at 3:00. Yes, sir. (A brief recess was had.) MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, thank you very much. I feel better. I hope everybody else does, too. I just wanted to -- before we move forward, I just wanted to answer one of Commissioner Taylor's mentions, and she said there are no senior housing areas on Bayshore and, of course, there's Moorhead Manor, and we all know Moorhead Manor. Actually, I used to square dance there back when I was younger, too. It's a great community. It's a mobile home community, and it's a large one. Okay. Now, Deborah. February 13, 2018 Page 155 MS. FORESTER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Again, Deborah Forester. I thought it might be helpful to recap what Arno, Inc.'s proposal is for you today. So, again, it's offering $3.5 million. They will be building a complex that includes up to 240 residential units all priced around 300,000 or less. They are actually asking for 36,000 square feet of commercial units -- 36,000 square feet of commercial. They are also stating in their proposal, excuse me, if the cultural arts center does not happen, that they will be putting in 69 additional residential uses. In our MOU right now, we are suggesting that they come forward to you within 120 days after signing this agreement that will state the time frame for the cultural arts organization to be able to raise funds and to start construction. And, again, if that would not happen, then they would go with their plan to build residential units. In the PSA right now, if we wanted to add some language that would tighten up that ability if the cultural center doesn't go forward, that it either comes back to you or you have a discussion about that in the future, we could add that into the PSA as we talk today. The current zoning on that property allows for 40 residential units, up to 48,000 square feet of commercial, up to 84,000 square feet of parking, and a 350 fixed-seat performance theater. So this proposal will require a new zoning amendment. It will be brought back to you during that time frame that's outlined in the PSA. Also, I just mention that Sugden Park is not included in our CRA boundary right now. So we are going to be going through an update of the redevelopment plan in the next year. Discussion about Sugden Park, expanding that boundary could certainly be on the table at this time, or at that time. Also, just -- when we went out to Sugden Park, we took a tour of it. My understanding, there's four acres of uplands that's available, February 13, 2018 Page 156 which is closer to the entry off of 41. Putting the cultural center there seemed to be quite a distance to coming into Bayshore, and it was very doubtful that we would ever have a vehicular entrance from Sugden Park into the 17 acres, given the conservation easement. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And the four acres is where they hold parties and festivals and things like that. MS. FORESTER: Correct. And, perhaps, you know, as that park is revisited and looked at, future planning, an amphitheater there might be appropriate, that -- for further discussions and probably outside of my realm, since it's not within our CRA boundary. Today we are asking you for two decisions: One, whether or not you would like to go forward with the proposal you have in front of you, and if you do, then we would go forward -- we would ask you to do the 30-day notice. That 30-day notice is really based on the proposal in front of you today. So if there's any substantial changes to his proposal, if he would like to make them or you would direct him to, we would ask that that come in as an alternative proposal just like any other proposal that may be submitted during that 30-day window, and then any alternates that are provided to you would be for you to review at the April 10th meeting. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Madam Chair? Now, we have -- the foundation of a project is the financial structure that it sits on. We have a consultant's report that basically said both are not -- are weak. Now we have an entity coming forward that you've spent 10 minutes with to talk about the funding. Is it possible to get the consultant to review that funding before our next meeting so that we still have a window -- the projects still can come in because of the way the CRA is -- the CRA laws are written. We have until, what, March the 18th or April? I forgot when it is. MS. FORESTER: Our plan is to bring back this to you on April 10th. February 13, 2018 Page 157 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. MS. FORESTER: So we have up until then. So we could continue to do our due diligence on the financial piece, see if we can get a better commitment from Nexteer on what they are committing to. We do understand that they have agreed to the 10 percent down. They agreed they will be losing 10 percent of that 10 percent if they should choose to walk away, but we could continue, certainly, to do that between now and April 10th. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: The reason I'm -- and I don't want to push it, but at the same time I want to be very clear, because in theory -- well, when I was elected, we had a company come forward for the triangle, and at the time -- actually at my first meeting. Because there was an issue about a deposit, they withdrew their application. And the Commission at that time decided to go ahead with that person who couldn't bring forward the deposit or the 10 percent or whatever it was. I can't remember at the time. But it was about $500,000. And at the time the Commission decided that they would waive that. And five months later, eight months later, the entity defaulted, and then we're another year into it to get new proposals. So I think it's incumbent upon us to do as much due diligence at this juncture, and if it comes back as it's come back before, I'm not going to be in support of the project no matter how attractive this is. If we do not have sound financial backing, then we are looking at delays and extensions and delays and extensions. And I'm not sure this economy, this growth button is going to last that long that we can afford to do this. I would rather us go out for new proposals. So that is -- that's my opinion on this. So let's do -- if I have agreement, let's have more due diligence done where now we have an identified source of capital, and we can have the consultant that gave the report before review that and then come back to us with -- and, February 13, 2018 Page 158 meanwhile, everything is open. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioners, your thoughts, please. MS. FORESTER: And just, if I could, clarify also. When we come back on April 10th, it would be for you to execute the purchase and sales agreement. So you do have the ability at that time to decline to sign, but that would be our goal is to have the purchase and sales agreement available, signed, and we would start it as the effective date of the agreement. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Can -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I would like to say, for purposes of discussion, we have a written letter of commitment from a lending institution to support this buyer's current plan. We had on public record one of the principals state that they were worthy of the financing and supportive of it subject to the terms and conditions of a purchase agreement. We're here today to authorize staff to advertise for the 30-day period for us to enter into that purchase agreement which will trigger the deposits, the inspection periods, and so on and so forth. You know, typically, Commissioner Taylor, real estate transactions come and go with the market. The market is what drives projects as we go. And if you'll recall, when we put this property up for sale last year, I was concerned about the restrictions that we were putting in play with regard to what we wanted to see the site to go for. I felt that those were reductions in the capacity to get the highest and best value; if you'll recall me expressing that. So my suggestion is, we're here today. There's a -- I'm not proposing that we delay this project to further explore Sugden Park or not. I personally liked it but, again, there are those that don't. But I would recommend that we take staff's recommendation, advertise for the 30 days, and then when it comes back to us, enter into this February 13, 2018 Page 159 purchase agreement, if we're all happy -- because by then we'll have -- you will have had an opportunity to have further explored the financial viability of both the developer and the lender, and -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, I hope -- I hope that there's an agreement that we ask the consultant to do a little bit more due diligence on this, the one that wrote this report. Remember, he basically said that, on both the developers -- and I'll paraphrase it. They've undervalued the cost of construction, they don't have the financial capital, and they don't have parking. Now, that spells some trouble. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So I think it's incumbent, as we have this window that is decreed by state statute because it's a CRA, to keep open for more proposals. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We are. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Right. And then we have an April 10th deadline. I think it's incumbent upon us to do more due diligence. I'm sure there's an additional cost in it, but I think -- I think we would -- it would be very important to go forward on that. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I don't see any additional cost in proceeding with what staff has given us direction to do, and we still have that window. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can I just say -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, please. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- that I think more due diligence is going to need -- is going to require more clarity in as far as what's going to be built, you know, construction cost. You know, I mean, there's certain -- you know, as the development goes forward, you need a contract. That hardens the deal. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Then I'm assuming -- I'm assuming February 13, 2018 Page 160 that the construction documents haven't been prepared yet or Site Development Plans yet or anything. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We have a long process to go. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right, right. There's still a long process, and the numbers will come out of that process. You know, I would support going forward and going ahead with the 30-day notice and at least keep it -- move it forward. But I agree with Commissioner McDaniel, we -- at the end of the day we have the ability just not to agree to the contract and not sign it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: So is that a motion? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I know the developer doesn't want to hear that, but ultimately that's the way it works. So we can at least move it forward. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, yes. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That was my motion. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And we continue to look at the due diligence and the information that's provided. CHAIRMAN FIALA: So let me stop you, and then I'll call on you, Commissioner Saunders. So that was your motion? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Staff's recommendation. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And then you're seconding his motion? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Saunders? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I have no issue with moving forward and will support the motion; however, I still think we need to decide whether or not we want to consider Sugden Park as a location. I got the sense that the majority of the Board would like to at least have that continue to be explored. I count the three; I may be wrong. Commissioner Solis had sort of expressed, I think, a leaning in that February 13, 2018 Page 161 direction, but I'm not sure if there's three of us that want to at least continue to explore that as a potential. I don't want to see -- I don't want to delay moving forward with this 30-day notice and all, but I think that that's an issue that I'd like to hear from our staff at the next meeting or when this comes back as to whether or not that's a viable potential. That's assuming that there's a majority of the Board that would like to at least look at it, and if there's not, then we take that off the table, and we don't have to worry about it anymore. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I just need a little clarification. And I was under the impression that the proposal to move the performing arts center to the park adjacent to this property, that that area right there is actually subject to a conservation easement. MS. FORESTER: That is correct. We have a map I think we can show. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: It's possible then. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah, I mean, I think it's -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's what I thought, too. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Conservation easement to the benefit of the county or to the public? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Somebody sent it to you. The Conservancy sent -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Probably the Conservation did, yes, yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: The Conservancy sent us a copy of the conservation easement, and I don't remember who it flowed to, but it's a conservation easement nonetheless. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And the four acres of upland is the spot where people play ball and have festivals. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It's too far over. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's over on the east side. February 13, 2018 Page 162 MR. OCHS: That's the area that abuts to the 17 acres where my pen is. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: The green area. MR. OCHS: And that's where, you know, the current conservation easement is. I imagine you can mitigate for that potentially, but I don't know how difficult that would -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's almost -- MR. OCHS: -- be. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- impossible when there's an existing conservation easement. I know for a fact that there has never been a mitigated conservation easement surrendered, and I know that well. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Do you have a copy of that easement available, the language? MR. DURHAM: Yeah, we can provide it, sir. MR. OCHS: We don't have it right now. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That was from experience. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: The Conservancy sent it to us. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Now, they did say that it wasn't impossible, that you can ask, but conservation easements are rarely mitigated and released. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That may be a dead issue. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: The simple answer's no. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: But I would like to see the language in the easement. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: But I think and, I mean, if you're looking for me to add it into the motion, I don't think -- I think it warrants exploration. We don't have to spend an enormous amount of time, but I think it's certainly something that we can explore. And if it doesn't work, it doesn't work. We're not looking to delay the 17 acres moving forward, so... February 13, 2018 Page 163 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, no. MR. BANDINEL: Could I get some clarification on that? CHAIRMAN FIALA: I can't hear what anybody's saying. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: He's got some explanation on that easement. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, you'll have to come up to a microphone. MR. BANDINEL: I had Stantec, my engineers, looking into that specific case, and one of the things that could be done, we could just mitigate the conservation easement and put it on the south side of the park instead of on the north. If you look at it now, it's on the northeast corner. We could move that. It's probably about a 2- or $300,000 cost, and it would really have no impact. So basically what you're doing is you're taking the birds and the bees and putting them on the south side of the park instead of the north. It's a small enough piece where that could be done. Just for your information, Stantec told me that. So it is a possibility. Do you want to do it or not? Obviously, that's your decision, but it could be done, so we don't have to off-site it. We wouldn't lose it. We're just exchanging one area and putting in another. Okay. I just wanted to give you that clarification. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And that was what I was talking about. You can ask. Those are things that can, in fact, be done, but you have to ask and get permission. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, that's why I want to see the document, because I'm not sure who we -- MR. KLATZKOW: You also have the power of eminent domain. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- we would be asking. MR. KLATZKOW: You have the power of eminent domain. If February 13, 2018 Page 164 the Board wants to look into this, ultimately, you hold the hammer. It may cost you. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, I'd just like to see what the language is and who -- you know, is the easement for the benefit of the public, or is the easement for the benefit of the county? MR. KLATZKOW: No, I understand. But, ultimately, you can condemn pretty much any property interest. CHAIRMAN FIALA: So we're not going to include that in the motion, right? But you're going to look up that information for Commissioner Saunders, right? Is that the way I understood it? MR. KLATZKOW: Is the majority in support to look into putting the arts center in Sugden Park? CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm not in support of it, but, you know, to answer his concerns. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'm not in support of it. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I have looked at it, and I think we'd be more likely to win the lottery. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. Well -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: The potential exists. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: If you've looked at it, that's fine. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You have looked at it? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I think it was the Conservancy when this -- when we discussed this. When the projects were presented, the next day the Conservancy sent it. They sent it to me. It was a copy of the actual conservation easement. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And it was pretty clear it's a conservation easement. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: But I can't remember if it flowed to February 13, 2018 Page 165 the county or to the Conservancy on it. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So you're the tiebreaker vote. Do you want to give staff direction to further explore it or not? Not to put any pressure on you or anything. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I think we'd be spinning our wheels, I mean. And I like the idea, but I just think we'd be spinning our wheels. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. All right. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So, therefore, then no. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So we have a motion on the floor and a second. Any further comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. That's a 5-0. Thank you. And with that, I'd be happy to turn this meeting back over to you. The CRA meeting has ended. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Next time I'm going to do it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You can. Item #15 STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Mr. Chairman, I believe that moves us to February 13, 2018 Page 166 Item 15, Staff and Commission general communications. I have three quick items for the Board this afternoon. The first is we had a couple of commissioners ask for -- if everybody could leave quietly, please. I've had a couple of commissioners ask for consideration of some workshops in May and June. Commissioner Taylor has asked for a May 1 workshop at 9 a.m. in the morning to talk about Blue Zones. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: On that particular one, I'm just curious, why do we have to have a separate day set aside for a workshop on Blue Zones? Is that something that we just add as a discussion item -- or a workshop on a regular agenda day? Because I can't imagine -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, I think it's more than that. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Why? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Because nationally -- well, because he's been along Bayshore. He's been in Golden Gate. I can't think of his name. I will think of his name. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We've adopted that. I mean, we're part of it. It's not like it's -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, we're not a part of this part. We're part of the Blue Zones for a healthy place to work. We are not a part of the Blue Zones for planning for the future. And the gentleman, Dan Burden, is someone who worked alongside Secretary Hattaway. And he is renowned through the United States for his planning and creating or designing communities that are liveable and walkable and are safe. And in that light, that information will be brought to the Commission as we look to the east to plan, I think -- in fact, it was suggested by some staff members that it would be a great workshop as we look to the east and plan vacant land. So that's why. MR. OCHS: Commissioners, again, in full disclosure, I believe, February 13, 2018 Page 167 Commissioner, when we talked about this that that gentleman was working as a sub-consultant for the consultant, but the MPO had employed -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That is correct; that is correct. MR. OCHS: -- to do some work for the MPO. So it's a little indirect but, nevertheless -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, that was -- MR. OCHS: -- that's my understanding of the background of this. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. We are not paying for him to come down. The MPO, the Metropolitan Planning Organization, is and it specifically has a lot to do with their bicycle/pedestrian plan going forward, and they subcontracted with Mr. Burden. But because the Blue Zones' entity meets every month and have been doing it now for at least three years, it's an easy transition to bring him in, and they did bring him in. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does he get paid for every presentation they give? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I think they do. I'm not privy to that. It's not something that I'm involved with in that way. But to become a Blue Zones workplace, no, there's no cost for that. We just have to -- that's right, right? MR. OCHS: We're already certified as a Blue Zone employer. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. There we are. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Well, I'm just curious. If this is -- if this relates to the planning function and walkable communities and things like that, I mean, shouldn't this be part of our restudy of our major Growth Management Plans? I mean, should we do this in a vacuum, or should it be part of everything that we're considering as we're looking at these restudies? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, I don't see this as siloed at all. I just see this as something to introduce to everyone, the concepts February 13, 2018 Page 168 and what can be done, and then allow that to filter in the decision making that we are faced with going forward. Whether we want to put it in our Growth Management Plan will be decided after we review what he has to say. But it's -- it's compelling when you see streets that are highway streets and how it can be changed with just a few things and how it spurs economic development. That's what's so interesting. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: This was also going to be presented through the MPO? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, but they will come, and they will pay for it. I'm not sure why. I'll get that -- I'm not clear. I'm speaking out of turn. I'm not sure about that. But I just know we're not paying for Dan Burden to come down and talk to us. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. And one last question is, and how long a presentation is it? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, it depends if you want to walk with him but, chances are, it will be a good -- the morning. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Suit walking is -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, no. He always has tennis shoes on. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We're not walking. No. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: In May it will be lovely. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I cannot remember the name of the consultant, but I've already seen the presentation done by the Blue Zones for the Immokalee CRA. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: They came, and they went for the walkabout, and I did not participate. It was warm that day. So I've already seen this. I mean, it is -- it's not -- it is an interesting -- an interesting presentation, if the Board is so inclined to have it. So, I mean, we are going to visit these things specifically in the February 13, 2018 Page 169 rural fringe GMP amendments, the Immokalee overlay, GMP amendments, and the RLSA. So from an edification standpoint, I don't see harm in us -- in this. I think if you can eliminate the walkabout, unless you want to go, that's -- but it is -- it is rather interesting to see. I've seen it already, but... MR. BROCK: And you-all can't use my scooter. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: So are you proposing a half day for this -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'll find out. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: -- workshop? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'll find out. But let's just say it's a half day right now, and then I'll -- there's enough time, and at next meeting I'll have some clarity on it, and hopefully maybe even agenda. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I think when they came to CRA in Immokalee, it was in the morning. We were done and out by noon. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Even with the walking, right? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm not sure. Maybe they were going for the walkabout and I was done by noon. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: So the consensus is let's put that on the calendar? Okay. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you. MR. OCHS: And then the June workshop date was proposed by Commissioner Solis. I'll let him address that one. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Yeah. To have our second mental-health workshop and to kind of give the commissioners an update on where things are. The group, and the preliminary working on the strategic plan, I think, will have some interesting information. I will report that the funding of the positions for the treatment courts has already helped, as I understand, in some -- a quite large grant to help that through the David Lawrence Center. I think David Lawrence Center was able to secure a grant. I think it was 3- or February 13, 2018 Page 170 $400,000, wasn't it, to work on -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: -- the treatment court. So it's working. I think it would be a good time to have another workshop, bring everybody up to speed, get some more input from the community. There was a strategic planning session that was led by a consultant from USF that raised some both fascinating and kind of depressing things, because -- not the least of which was one of the major obstacles of this whole thing is housing. So there's a lot to talk about, so I'd like to have another workshop on that if we could. MR. OCHS: Sir, a half day or full day, or you don't know yet? CHAIRMAN SOLIS: I think at this point we could make it a half day. MR. OCHS: Afternoon? Morning? CHAIRMAN SOLIS: I think I'd rather do the morning, if we could. MR. OCHS: Okay, very good. Commissioners, the next item, several weeks ago you received a letter from the HHH Investment LP, better known as the owners of the Hussey property, asking if you were interested in purchasing that land. I think the price tag at that point was around $80 million, and the Board decided that they were not interested at that time. Just recently we received a second offer from them. The purchase price proposed in this most recent offer is about $30 million, so I wanted to bring that to your attention and get some guidance from the Board on whether, you know, at that number you may have some interest or not in exploring this further. I know the last time we talked about this Commissioner McDaniel had a lot of conversations with the owners and -- February 13, 2018 Page 171 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm all over it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: How many acres is it? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Just shy of 1,200. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: What was the appraisal? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Eight to 12 million, ma'am. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. Here we go back again. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And if it would be of assistance, I would be happy to volunteer as a liaison with our staff to work with the property owner to come up with a palatable proposition, if my colleagues were so inclined. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Fine with me. I can't do that kind of stuff. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I've been all over the site, and I just -- in my other life, so... Is that an okay thing for me to do, Jeffrey? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: How do you-all feel? CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Sure. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think it's a good thing. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: They're moving in the right direction. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Do we have the 30 million? COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's just the starting point. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Leo said no. And I'm assuming that this is just a straight purchase. No mining agreements and -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Straight purchase. MR. OCHS: Straight purchase. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. And the other one was rather convoluted, and I even voted against it. So this is just a straight February 13, 2018 Page 172 offer to -- offer to sell for how much, did you say? Thirty? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thirty. MR. OCHS: Thirty million. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thirty million or so. MR. OCHS: So we have some concurrence to allow us to explore that further with Commissioner McDaniel's help? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You okay with that? Burt hasn't said yes or no. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Sure. I'm okay with looking at it. I don't think we have a fund available for it. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No. MR. OCHS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You don't think what? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't think we have a fund available for acquisition anyway. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I don't think you're right. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Give me a minute. MR. OCHS: Commissioner, the last item I have is on March 5th from 10 to noon there's going to be a meeting in this boardroom. Subject is sea level rise risk and solutions. It's a summit that's being organized by various civic groups in the county, including the Collier Presidents Council, League of Women Voters, Collier Citizens Council, the Naples Chambers, and others. The question was asked if, as a community service, there would be an objection to broadcasting that summit for public informational purposes. So I don't have any problem with that personally, but I wanted to make sure the Board was comfortable with that. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I have no problem. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Somebody has to turn on a switch, correct? February 13, 2018 Page 173 MR. OCHS: Yeah. It's not a problem to do. I just wanted to make sure everyone was comfortable with that. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Thank you, Mr. Manager. Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing, sir. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Ms. Kinzel? MS. KINZEL: Commissioner Saunders? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yes. One item, so I'll jump in because it involves the Clerk. We have the invoices from EII for salaries for the month of December, and we're likely to receive some invoicing for the first half of January here pretty soon. I'm going to let Crystal talk a little bit about the issue, but there are still some issue that the Clerk is trying to work out with EII in terms of reporting. There's also an audit that's being prepared. And so the Clerk has agreed to make these payments, but it's somewhat conditioned. And I'd like to ask Crystal if she would elaborate on behalf of the Clerk. MS. KINZEL: Okay. Thank you, Commissioner. For the record, Crystal Kinzel. I did want to make the Board aware after the last meeting and the issues with the cash flow. We actually have a check, but sometimes they get direct deposit. So I think this late hour, they would probably prefer direct deposit of this payment for the December payroll. The Clerk's Office is agreeing to pay the payroll pieces that we can tie to their payroll reporting. What's pending are the deliverables for the quarterly financials, some other quarterly documentation, where we -- which we are continuing to audit. We'll also be bringing forward our audit of EII soon. But we wanted to make the Board aware that we are going ahead February 13, 2018 Page 174 and paying the payroll and salaries as we agreed upon at the last meeting. We will do the same with the January invoices, unless there's some additional objection from the Board. We're working in that manner to go ahead and pay payroll until such time we can finish the audit. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I had a question for -- I'm sorry. Go ahead. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: No. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Weren't there specific deliverables that were to come to the Board? I remember last year when this was coming through, I pulled it, added some measurables and milestones and then got okay with it, and then you pulled it and added further measurables and milestones. And I thought we shortened up reporting time frames for jobs created and the like that was -- that was part of our adjustments to the contract with EII. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't know what's been submitted, so... MS. KINZEL: Right. And that's one of the things that we're working on reviewing, but we did not want to hold up the payroll element, because we thought that was important for the cash flow. But we did want to make you aware that we're still working through those quarterly deliverables, in particular through January. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Can I just -- so it's been submitted, and you're working through it, or it hasn't been submitted? MS. KINZEL: Some of the deliverables have been submitted, and we're working through what is -- if there is any additional missing information. Because, remember, the quarterlies for the first quarter weren't due till January 31st. And today is the 13th. So we received those on the 31st. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. MS. KINZEL: Also, the second payroll in January, I know the February 13, 2018 Page 175 economic development department is still working on their processing to get that to us. So this was really just to make you aware that we are still working through those, but we will continue to give the payroll so that they should not have that cash-flow issue until we can get you the full audit back. But we wanted to let you know that that was still pending, okay? CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Great. MR. OCHS: Thank you, Crystal. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Thank you. Commissioner McDaniel? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, sir. Two things. I want to wish everybody a Happy Valentine's Day. That's tomorrow. I wore the red tie today. I noticed nobody else did. Just saying. And I also learned -- I had a very interesting meeting with Darrell Land, biologist with FWC, and we all learned about the bear attack that occurred up in North Naples. And I would like, if it meets with my colleagues' pleasure, we have to invite FWC. They won't just come talk to us. And they've got some very interesting ideas and perspectives, and I'd like for them to come and give us a presentation at a future board meeting if it meets with my colleagues' approval. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Sure. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So, County Manager, will you extend that request to them to come -- they've got some really interesting things, both with the Florida panther and the bears with regard to bear-resistant trash containers and educational things as well, so... MR. OCHS: I'll be happy to do it. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you. And that's all I February 13, 2018 Page 176 have, sir. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. First of all, I can't imagine being in Cleveland and all of a sudden hear people talking about bears and panthers. I mean, you just never hear it. And here we are down here, and we have all these wild animals and everything. I mean, it's wonderful. Maybe not in your backyard, but anyway. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: In the middle of town. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, in the middle of town. Okay. I have a number of things, pretty -- some of it is pretty easy. One thing that keeps sticking in my head is that Golden Gate golf course. I know we've talked about it before. And so I talked with Leo and Nick and just threw in an idea, and I don't even know if it would work or not. But I know that it's going out. You know, they're looking for bids and everything. But I was wondering if we -- I don't even know that this could happen, you know. And I don't think the guys knew either. I just bounced the idea off of them. That -- who knows, maybe, because we're not building any golf courses anymore, but we continue to attract people who come on down and want to move down, and we continue to build for people, but we don't have any golf courses. Maybe that would -- perfectly located area, so strategic to everything. And if we bought that, but maybe if the Tourism Department, realizing that that would now be a tourism benefit because it would be a public golf course, if they might even assist us. So I'm just throwing that out on the table, okay. And I don't have any plans or anything. But in case anybody thinks it's a wonderful idea, you can follow up on it. Okay. Secondly, I'm doing a couple more tours. One of them is here in the government center just taking a few people around just to February 13, 2018 Page 177 see what a government center looks like. And the other one is, it's going to be 6L Farms, and most people in this area don't even realize we have farms here, and so I just threw it out in the Tidbits, my little newsletter that I write. I just through it out on the Tidbits, and we immediately got way too many requests for the seats that we had, and so we've got standing room only. But, anyway, we're going to take them not only to 6L Farms and see how a working farm works but also to the farms right here in East Naples. One of them is like a -- I don't know if you could call it a nursery or a flower farm where they grow all these things in the pots and everything that they sell for Mother's Day and Valentine's Day and so forth. So I'm taking them over there. And, like you were saying with Valentine's Day coming up tomorrow, if you have a sweetheart, don't forget her. I don't have a sweetheart, so I think I'll give myself a box of candy or something. And, lastly, let's see what else. I wanted to say, Commissioner Taylor, bless your heart, I know that you've mentioned a couple times that that's your district, and I realize it is, but it isn't one I gave up. I did not want to give it up at all because that was my -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I never would have understand -- I never would have realized that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: It was something that was taken from me because actually -- actually -- well, I was part of seeing that happen because the City of Naples was really supposed to be joined with Pelican Bay in the redistricting, and right in an open meeting they were here, Pelican Bay people. They did not want to become a part of the City of Naples district, and they were shouting about that, and they said they want to keep Georgia Hiller. That's what they were saying, the audience. They wanted to keep Georgia. You guys were here for that, too, weren't you? February 13, 2018 Page 178 And so then the -- so the State took my district. And there was nobody to shout, you know. So I lost it. So it isn't -- I can't help but love it because I've been involved for 27 years with it, and I just -- I just can't leave it. And I know what they feel in their heart, and I know -- oh -- and I know, you know, how important it is to them to try and get some better housing in there to try and lift themselves up and to try and take a better step in the world. So I don't ever mean to hurt you or anything, but I can't help but fight for them, so I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, and I'm fighting for them, too, but I'm going to get you some idea of what the property values are and the existing houses. I think the past is the past. I don't think it's there now. It's changing, and I think there's room for it all on that street. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. And, you know what you ought to might do, talk to the people themselves. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, I have. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, yeah, so have I, and somehow if you're getting a message that they want more low-income housing, I don't know who you're talking to, but it's not somebody in that area. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I would say that you will find the employers on that street welcome that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, let's see. There's the restaurant, and there's the other restaurant. And -- well, let's see. There's Green Door. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Gulf Shore Marina. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Botanical Garden. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but the Botanical Gardens -- yeah. I've talked with them, really, and so I don't know who -- and she's going to be our speaker on Thursday, so I'll talk with her again. Donna McGinness is going to be our speaker. Oh, at my Marco February 13, 2018 Page 179 Kiwanis. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, at the Marco Island. I'm thinking Thursday you're in Lely at the new -- at the East Naples Civic Association. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, listen. I'm there at lunch. This one is in the morning at 7:30. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But you're speaking. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I'm speaking there, too. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay, good. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'm speaking tonight over at King's Lake, and I'm speaking -- I've given -- I'm giving five speeches this week, so I'm all over the place. Sorry about that. Anyway, I just -- I just -- I have to tell you that I can't help but try and continue to rescue that area. And so, anyway -- and so, that's it for me. And it's you, sir. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, me? Nothing except I don't think -- I don't think that it needs as much rescuing as you think it does, and I will get some facts and figures so you can see it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: It depends on who you get them from, doesn't it? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: How about the Property Appraiser? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah, that's a good one, because I did that. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Good. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But you have to do it yourself. Don't assign somebody to it, okay? Yeah. I meant, like, don't assign Cormac Giblin or something to it, because I'm sure he'll get a different answer. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, ma'am. I won't. I won't. February 13, 2018 Page 180 CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Anything else? Last but not least. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, is it for me? No, there's nothing else. I can see our staff is fascinated by this conversation. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't have anything. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: And I don't either, so... COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: On that -- CHAIRMAN SOLIS: On that, we're adjourned. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Hit the gavel. Done. ***** **** Commissioner Fiala moved seconded by Commissioner McDaniel and carried that the following items under the Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted (Commissioner McDaniel abstained from voting on Item #16A9)**** Item #16A1 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR AUTO ZONE, PL20160002017, AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS) AND FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $4,331.40 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT – LOCATED OFF OF VADERBILT BEACH ROAD AND COLLIER BOULEVARD Item #16A2 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF POTABLE WATER AND SEWER February 13, 2018 Page 181 UTILITY FACILITIES FOR AVOW HOSPICE, PL20160001771, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS) AND FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $7,649.84 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT – LOCATED OFF OF PINE RIDGE ROAD Item #16A3 RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF VANDERBILT RESERVE, (APPLICATION NUMBER PL20160000157) APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY – LOCATED OFF OF VADERBILT BEACH ROAD AND COLLIER BOULEVARD Item #16A4 RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF NAPLES RESERVE, PHASE III, (APPLICATION NUMBER PL20170002678) APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY Item #16A5 A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE CARRY FORWARD FOR PROJECTS WITHIN THE ROAD CONSTRUCTION - GAS TAX FUND (313) AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL PROJECTS February 13, 2018 Page 182 FUND (310) IN THE AMOUNT OF $126,272.04 (PROJECTS #60088, #60085, #69331, #69333, #69336 AND #69338) Item #16A6 A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE REVENUE AND TRANSFER FUNDING FOR PROJECTS WITHIN THE ROAD CONSTRUCTION - GAS TAX FUND (313) AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND (310) IN THE AMOUNT OF $140,583.17 (PROJECTS #60066, #60085, #60088, AND #69331) Item #16A7 RESOLUTION 2018-22: AMENDING EXHIBIT "A" TO RESOLUTION NO. 2013-239, THE LIST OF SPEED LIMITS ON COUNTY MAINTAINED ROADS, TO RE-ESTABLISH THE SPEED LIMIT ON GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD (CR 876) FROM 2ND STREET (NE/SE) EAST TO 20TH STREET (NE/SE) FROM THIRTY-FIVE (35) MILES PER HOUR TO FORTY-FIVE (45) MILES PER HOUR DUE TO THE COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION OF "DESIGN-BUILD GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD 4-LANE, EAST OF WILSON BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENTS", PROJECT 60040 Item #16A8 RATIFYING THE COUNTY MANAGER'S APPROVAL OF CONTRACT NO: 18-7283 WITH BRANCE DIVERSIFIED, INC. FOR THE EMERGENCY DREDGING OF COLLIER CREEK FOR A NOT-TO-EXCEED PRICE OF $569,069 AND MAKE A February 13, 2018 Page 183 FINDING THAT THIS ITEM PROMOTES TOURISM Item #16A9 - Commissioner McDaniel abstained from voting INVITATION TO BID (ITB) #17-7158 “PURCHASE AND DELIVERY OF AGGREGATES” AND CONTRACTS WITH PRIMARY AND SECONDARY VENDORS FOR DESIGNATED MATERIALS – AWARDED TO FLORIDA DIRT SOURCE, LLC, AND GRIPPO PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE, INC. Item #16A10 TO HEAR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS AT TWO REGULARLY SCHEDULED DAYTIME HEARINGS AND WAIVE THE NIGHTTIME HEARING REQUIREMENT – PROPOSED AMENDMENTS INCLUDE ESTABLISHING MARTIAL ARTS, GYMNASTICS, AND DANCE AS PERMITTED USES IN C-3 AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS AND MODIFYING THE LIST OF EXOTIC SPECIES IN BIG CYPRESS AREA OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN (ACSC) AND SEVERAL ZONING ATLAS MAPS WITHIN TOWNSHIP 52, SOUTH, RANGE 30 EAST TO ADDRESS CHANGES TO THE STATE’S ACSC DESIGNATION Item #16B1 CONTRACT #17-7197, IMMOKALEE MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT (MSTU) ROADWAY LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE, TO A&M PROPERTY MAINTENANCE, LLC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $133,275.01 February 13, 2018 Page 184 Item #16C1 A $466,766 WORK ORDER UNDER REQUEST FOR QUOTATION #6213-109 TO KYLE CONSTRUCTION, INC., UNDER PROJECT NO. 70220, “GOLDEN GATE INTERCONNECTS” – TO CONSTRUCT A POTABLE WATER INTERCONNECT BETWEEN THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER- SEWER DISTRICT AND THE GOLDEN GATE CITY WATER SYSTEM Item #16C2 A BARE LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR ACCESS TO PROPERTY OWNED BY 951 MB, LLC, TO CONDUCT INSPECTIONS AND ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED IN ANTICIPATION OF CONTINUING THE FGUA CUSTOMER SERVICE OFFICE IN GOLDEN GATE CITY AS PART OF THE FGUA ACQUISITION – TO ACCESS A PROPERTY THAT THE BOARD HAS NOT YET APPROVED A LEASE AGREEMENT FOR CONCERNING THE GOLDEN GATE CITY CUSTOMER SERVICE OFFICE FOR FLORIDA GOVERNMENTAL UTILITY AUTHORITY (FGUA) CUSTOMERS Item #16D1 THE EXPENDITURE OF BEACH PARK FACILITIES TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $29,931.20 FOR THE INSTALLATION OF THE T-2 PARKING SOLUTIONS AUTO-COUNT SYSTEM AT THE VANDERBILT BEACH PARK PARKING GARAGE AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS EXPENDITURE PROMOTES TOURISM – TO PURCHASE AND February 13, 2018 Page 185 INSTALL THE T-2 PARKING SOLUTIONS AUTO-COUNT SYSTEM AT THE VANDERBILT BEACH PARK PARKING GARAGE Item #16D2 EXPENDITURE OF BEACH PARK FACILITIES TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $55,490 FOR THE INSTALLATION OF THE T-2 PARKING SOLUTIONS AUTO-COUNT SYSTEM AT THE WIGGINS PASS STATE PARK AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS EXPENDITURE PROMOTES TOURISM – TO PURCHASE AND INSTALL THE T-2 PARKING SOLUTIONS AUTO-COUNT SYSTEM AT WIGGINS PASS STATE PARK Item #16D3 AMENDMENT #1 TO CONTRACT#15-6424 MANAGEMENT SERVICES CONTRACT FOR THE COLLIER AREA TRANSIT (CAT) FIXED ROUTE AND PARATRANSIT PROGRAM BETWEEN MV CONTRACT TRANSPORTATION, INC. TO UPDATE STANDARD OPERATING STANDARDS; DRIVER HIRING REQUIREMENTS; DRIVER TRAINING; PERFORMANCE STANDARDS; AND LIQUIDATED DAMAGES CRITERIA – TO PROVIDE FOR AN INCREASED HIRING POOL FOR DRIVERS AND TO ADDRESS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES TO IMPROVE TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE Item #16D4 FOUR (4) MORTGAGE SATISFACTIONS FOR THE STATE February 13, 2018 Page 186 HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP (SHIP) LOAN PROGRAM IN THE COMBINED AMOUNT OF $53,200 – A PROGRAM WHERE THE HOMEOWNER IS ENTITLED TO HAVE ORIGINAL DOWN PAYMENT ASSISTANCE FORGIVEN Item #16D5 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION OUTSOURCING OF COUNTY MARINAS AGREEMENT NO. 12-5914R TO ALLOW THE CONCESSIONAIRE TO LEASE RECREATIONAL AND COMMERCIAL BOAT DOCKS USING A PROPOSED BOAT DOCK RECREATIONAL/COMMERCIAL USE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM BOAT DOCK RECREATIONAL/COMMERCIAL USE AGREEMENT – CLARIFYING THE EXISTING AGREEMENT TO SPECIFY PARADISE PROPERTY IS AUTHORIZED TO LEASE WET AND DRY BOAT SLIPS FOR BOTH RECREATIONAL AND COMMERCIAL USE USING A STANDARD FORM AGREEMENT AND IS BASED ON THE STANDARD RATES OUTLINED IN THE PARKS AND RECREATION FEE POLICY RESOLUTION Item #16D6 AN AFTER-THE-FACT TIME EXTENSION AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT (JPA) AQQ85 FOR THE STATE TRANSIT SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM GRANT FOR NECESSARY AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) BUS STOP IMPROVEMENTS – THE AGREEMENT IS NOW EXTENDED TO MARCH 18, 2018 February 13, 2018 Page 187 Item #16D7 REALLOCATING SEA TURTLE MONITORING FUNDS FROM GENERAL FUND 001 OPERATING COST CENTER 178985 TO PARKS AND RECREATION PROJECT FUND 119, PROJECT 80377, AND AUTHORIZING NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS – FOR POTENTIAL REIMBURSEMENT FROM FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (FDEP) Item #16D8 TEN (10) SATISFACTIONS OF MORTGAGE IN THE COMBINED AMOUNT OF $184,624.49 OF OWNER-OCCUPIED DWELLING UNITS THAT HAVE SATISFIED THE TERMS OF THEIR AFFORDABILITY PERIOD OR FOR THE DEATH OF ONE OF THE OWNERS – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16D9 SUBMITTAL OF AN FY 2017/18 GRANT APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION FLEXIBLE FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $274,000 FOR THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF ADDITIONAL BUS SHELTERS THROUGH THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (FTA) TRANSIT AWARD MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (TRAMS) – FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL BUS SHELTERS FOR COLLIER AREA TRANSIT (CAT) PASSENGERS February 13, 2018 Page 188 Item #16D10 THE SUBMITTAL OF AN FY2017/18 GRANT APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION FLEXIBLE FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $316,250 FOR THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF LIVE CAMERA FEEDS ON TRANSIT VEHICLES AND ONBOARD WIFI THROUGH THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (FTA) TRANSIT AWARD MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (TRAMS) – THE GRANT REQUIRES A 20% MATCH FOR TRANSIT PROJECTS; COLLIER COUNTY HAS REQUESTED AND RECEIVED APPROVAL FROM FDOT TO USE $79,062 TOLL REVENUE CREDITS AS A SOFT MATCH FOR THE GRANT Item #16D11 SERVICES FOR SENIORS, AFTER-THE-FACT, STANDARD CONTRACT AND ATTESTATION STATEMENT WITH AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC., AND TO AUTHORIZE ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR THE FY18 OLDER AMERICANS ACT TITLE III PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF ($9,824.15) – DOES NOT REQUIRE A MATCH Item #16D12 RESOLUTION 2018-23: SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 2014-90, AMENDING AND EXPANDING THE COLLIER COUNTY MUSEUMS FEE POLICY; APPROVE A STANDARD MUSEUMS RENTAL AGREEMENT; AND GRANT THE February 13, 2018 Page 189 COUNTY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE RENTAL AGREEMENTS FOR MUSEUM FACILITIES Item #16D13 AN AGREEMENT WITH THE PHYSICIAN LED ACCESS NETWORK (PLAN) TO PROVIDE MEDICAL REFERRAL SERVICES FOR LOW-INCOME RESIDENTS IN COLLIER COUNTY – IF ACCEPTED INTO THE PLAN PROGRAM, THE RESIDENT MAY RECEIVE MEDICAL CARE TREATMENT AT NO COST Item #16D14 TERMINATION OF AN AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS AND IMPOSING COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS ON REAL PROPERTY FOR WHISTLERS COVE APARTMENTS THAT HAS SATISFIED THE TERMS OF ITS AFFORDABILITY PERIOD – STATE RESTRICTIONS ENSURE THAT THE DEVELOPMENT REMAINS AFFORDABLE AT LEAST ANOTHER TEN YEARS Item #16D15 PURCHASE OF EXTENDED WARRANTY FOR COLLIER AREA TRANSIT’S (CAT) EXISTING INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM (ITS) WITH AVAIL TECHNOLOGIES IN THE AMOUNT OF $220,496 TO ALLOW CONTINUOUS OPERATION – TO CONTINUE THE CURRENT USE OF ITS EQUIPMENT AND SOFTWARE WITH ADEQUATE February 13, 2018 Page 190 VENDOR SUPPORT Item #16D16 INVITATION TO BID (ITB) #17-7225, FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO COLLIER AREA TRANSIT (CAT) BUS STOPS SHELTERS AND AMENITIES TO QUALITY ENTERPRISES USA, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $220,150 AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT – TO BRING EXISTING CAT BUS STOPS INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990 (ADA), AND INSTALL BUS SHELTERS AND AMENITIES TO BETTER SERVE THE PASSENGERS BY PROVIDING A STABLE AND COVERED AREA TO WAIT FOR THE BUS Item #16D17 AN EXEMPTION FROM THE COMPETITIVE PROCESS AS OUTLINED IN THE PROCUREMENT ORDINANCE FOR THE PURCHASE OF ELECTRONIC RESOURCE MATERIALS (EBOOKS) FROM CLOUDLIBRARY AND OVERDRIVE FOR LIBRARY PATRON USE IN THE AMOUNT OF $160,00 Item #16D18 A NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR PROJECT #80286 - EAGLE LAKE AQUATIC FACILITY TO PROVIDE FOR CAPITAL FURNISHINGS, FIXTURES, AND EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THE NEW FACILITY – IN THE AMOUNT OF $336,450 FROM THE PARKS IMPACT FEE FUND 346; $125,000 WILL COME FROM THE IMPACT REFUND PROJECT February 13, 2018 Page 191 31346 AND $211,450 FROM RESERVES Item #16D19 PUBLIC TRANSIT & NEIGHBORHOOD ENHANCEMENT (PTNE) DIVISION TO APPROVE AN AWARD FOR INVITATION TO BID #17-7204 “LELY GOLF ESTATES MSTU LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE” TO FLORIDA LAND MAINTENANCE, INC., D/B/A COMMERCIAL LAND MAINTENANCE, INC. – TO PROVIDE ON-GOING MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION INSTALLED BY THE LELY MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT (MSTU) WITHIN ITS BOUNDARY Item #16D20 AN AFTER-THE-FACT CONTRACT AMENDMENT AND ATTESTATION STATEMENT BETWEEN THE AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. AND COLLIER COUNTY SERVICES FOR SENIORS TO EXTEND THE OLDER AMERICANS ACT (OAA) PROGRAMS GRANT PERIOD THROUGH FEBRUARY 28, 2018 – THE CONTRACT EXTENSION ON DECEMBER 11, 2017, FROM THE GRANTOR AGENCY AND IS REQUIRED TO RETURN IT WITHIN 30 DAYS Item #16D21 CONTRACT NO. 17-7198, COLLIER COUNTY SPORTS COMPLEX TO MANHATTAN CONSTRUCTION, INC., FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AT RISK (CMAR) FOR PRE- February 13, 2018 Page 192 CONSTRUCTION PHASED SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $195,527, AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT, AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS EXPENDITURE PROMOTES TOURISM – TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DESIGN AND MANAGE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY SPORTS COMPLEX Item #16E1 RATIFYING PROPERTY, CASUALTY, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AND SUBROGATION CLAIM FILES SETTLED AND/OR CLOSED BY THE RISK MANAGEMENT DIVISION DIRECTOR PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION #2004-15 FOR THE FIRST QUARTER OF FY18 Item #16E2 A LICENSING AGREEMENT WITH BLUE ZONES, LLC TO UTILIZE THE BLUE ZONES PROJECT TRADEMARK AND LOGO AS PART OF THE COUNTY’S WELLNESS PROGRAM – AN INCENTIVE BASED WELLNESS PROGRAM AS PART OF THE GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN Item #16E3 RENEWING THE NORTH COLLIER FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT’S CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT NON-TRANSPORT SERVICES FOR ONE YEAR AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE PERMIT AND CERTIFICATE – TO RENEW THE CERTIFICATE OF February 13, 2018 Page 193 PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY (COPCN) ISSUED TO NORTH COLLIER FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT FOR CLASS 3 ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT (“ALS”) NON-TRANSPORT SERVICES IN COLLIER COUNTY FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR Item #16E4 AN ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT PREPARED BY THE PROCUREMENT SERVICES DIVISION FOR DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY AND NOTIFICATION OF REVENUE DISBURSEMENT – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16E5 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS PREPARED BY THE PROCUREMENT SERVICES DIVISION FOR CHANGE ORDERS AND OTHER CONTRACTUAL MODIFICATIONS REQUIRING BOARD APPROVAL – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16E6 AN EXPANDED FULL TIME EQUIVALENT POSITION FOR THE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIVISION TO HIRE A VOLUNTEER AGENCY COORDINATOR – TO COORDINATE WITH LOCAL AND NATIONAL NON-PROFIT AND FAITH BASED ORGANIZATIONS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR AND MANAGE THE MULTITUDE OF UNSOLICITED GOODS AND SERVICES THAT ARRIVE TO ENSURE THE COMMUNITY February 13, 2018 Page 194 RECEIVES AND HAS ACCESS TO ASSISTANCE AND RESOURCES WHEN DISASTER OR COMMUNITY EMERGENCY SITUATIONS OCCUR Item #16F1 AN AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE TRANSFERABILITY OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES (EMS) IMPACT FEE CREDITS BY HACIENDA LAKES OF NAPLES, LLC, IN THE AMOUNT OF $43,175.85, PROVIDED FOR IN THE HACIENDA LAKES MPUD ORDINANCE NO. 11-41, FROM THE HACIENDA LAKES DEVELOPMENT TO OTHER DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN COLLIER COUNTY – TO PROVIDE TRANSFERABILITY OF ALL OR A PORTION OF EMS IMPACT FEE CREDITS HELD BY HACIENDA LAKES OF NAPLES, LLC, TO BE TRANSFERRED FROM ONE DEVELOPMENT TO ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT WITHIN COLLIER COUNTY Item #16F2 TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX PROMOTION FUNDING TO SUPPORT THE UPCOMING MARCH 2018 PICKLEBALL EVENT UP TO $5,250 AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THESE EXPENDITURES PROMOTE TOURISM – THE TOURISM DIVISION PROPOSES TO REIMBURSE THE EVENT ORGANIZER FOR COURT RENTAL COSTS, OFFICIALS FEES, AND OPERATION SUPPORT EXPENSES BASED ON ROOM NIGHT VISITATION Item #16F3 February 13, 2018 Page 195 A REPORT COVERING BUDGET AMENDMENTS IMPACTING RESERVES AND MOVING FUNDS IN AN AMOUNT UP TO AND INCLUDING $25,000 AND $50,000, RESPECTIVELY – BA #215 TO COVER THE REPLACEMENT OF ASSET CC2-103 DAMAGED IN HURRICANE IRMA Item #16F4 AN ADDITIONAL FY 2018 BUDGET AMENDMENT COVERING POST HURRICANE IRMA CLEAN UP AND RECOVERY PROVIDING AN ADDITIONAL $750,000 APPROPRIATION TO THE COUNTY’S CLAIM PROCESSING CONSULTANT CDR MAGUIRE CONSISTENT WITH BOARD APPROVED CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16F5 – Withdrawn (Per Agenda Change Sheet) RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE BUSINESS LOCATION INDUCEMENT GRANT WITH POSITION LOGIC, LLC, WHICH CLARIFIES TAX PAYMENT REQUIREMENTS Item #16F6 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY WHICH PROVIDED FUNDING FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COUNTY’S BUSINESS ACCELERATOR PROGRAM – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY February 13, 2018 Page 196 Item #16F7 AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND FIRST BANK UNDER THE CAPITAL INVESTMENT FOR DIVERSIFICATION INCENTIVE (“CID”) PROGRAM WHICH PROVIDES FINANCIAL SUPPORT TOWARD DEVELOPMENT OF TARGET INDUSTRY FACILITIES, NAMELY FIRST BANK’S 7074 SQUARE FOOT FACILITY IN IMMOKALEE, FLORIDA – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16J1 REPORT TO THE BOARD REGARDING THE INVESTMENT OF COUNTY FUNDS AS OF THE QUARTER ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2017 – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16J2 TO PROVIDE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT’S INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT 2018-1 CAPITAL INVESTMENT FOR DIVERSIFICATION (CID) INCENTIVE PROGRAM: ARTHREX, INC. AND ARTHREX MANUFACTURING, INC., ISSUED ON FEBRUARY 6, 2018 – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16J3 TO RECORD IN THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY February 13, 2018 Page 197 COMMISSIONERS, THE CHECK NUMBER (OR OTHER PAYMENT METHOD), AMOUNT, PAYEE, AND PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE REFERENCED DISBURSEMENTS WERE DRAWN FOR THE PERIOD BETWEEN JANUARY 11 AND JANUARY 31, 2018 PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 136.06 Item #16J4 DETERMINING VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE FOR INVOICES PAYABLE AND PURCHASING CARD TRANSACTIONS AS OF FEBRUARY 7, 2018 – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16K1 A JOINT MOTION FOR STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $16,000 FOR PARCEL 452RDUE, IN THE LAWSUIT CAPTIONED COLLIER COUNTY V. ALEX D. RANDOLPH, ET AL, CASE NO. 17-CA-1472, REQUIRED FOR THE GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD EXPANSION PROJECT NO. 60145. (FISCAL IMPACT: $7,370) Item #16K2 A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $33,000 FOR THE TAKING OF PARCEL 411RDUE REQUIRED FOR THE EXPANSION OF GOLDEN GATE BLVD., PROJECT NO. 60145 (FROM EAST OF EVERGLADES BLVD. TO THE FAKA UNION CANAL), IN THE PENDING CASE STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. LOURDES PEREZ BELLO, ET AL., CASE NO. 17-CA-1390. (FISCAL IMPACT: $24,650) February 13, 2018 Page 198 Item #16K3 – Board Direction Given During the Meeting BOARD RETURN OF THE ASSIGNMENT OF VACANT SEATS AMONGST THE REMAINING CANDIDATES TO THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD AT A LATER MEETING – THE NUMBER OF CANDIDATES/APPLICANTS FOR THE RESPECTIVE POSITIONS DOES NOT EXCEED THE NUMBER OF VACANCIES (RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL); NO ELECTION IS NECESSARY Item #16K4 RESOLUTION 2018-24: APPOINTING MICHAEL L. GORDON, DVM (VETERINARIAN/VET TECH CATEGORY) TO THE ANIMAL SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD TO FILL THE REMAINDER OF A VACANCY EXPIRING APRIL 13, 2020 Item #16K5 HIRING ANTHONY J. STEVENS, ESQ., OF STEVENS MEDIATION, LLC, FOR MEDIATION SERVICES IN EMINENT DOMAIN LITIGATION – COMPLYING WITH COURT DIRECTIVES IN EMINENT DOMAIN LITIGATION, AND TO ENABLE THE COUNTY TO REDUCE FURTHER LITIGATION COSTS BY RESOLVING DISPUTES WITH PROPERTY OWNERS THROUGH MEDIATION Item #16K6 February 13, 2018 Page 199 AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION FOR TAX DEEDS FOR THIRTY-SIX (36) COUNTY-HELD TAX CERTIFICATES AND THE FORWARDING OF A WRITTEN NOTICE TO PROCEED WITH TAX DEED APPLICATIONS TO THE TAX COLLECTOR – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16K7 A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED TERESA E. MONTY V. COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (CASE NO. 16-CA-002155), NOW PENDING IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, FOR $112,500 Item #17A RESOLUTION 2018-25: A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CONDITIONAL USE TO ALLOW ENCLOSED MINI-SELF STORAGE WAREHOUSING WITHIN A GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C-4) ZONING DISTRICT WITHIN THE RURAL FRINGE MIXED USE OVERLAY-RECEIVING LANDS PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.03.03.D.1.C.24 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET WEST OF TRINITY PLACE, IN SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. (PL201600001875) February 13, 2018 Page 200 Item #17B ORDINANCE 2018-02: AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2004-41, AS AMENDED, COLLIER COUNTY’S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A MOBILE HOME (MH) ZONING DISTRICT TO A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS THE ANTILLES RPUD TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 212 MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS OR 138 SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS ON PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF SR 951 ON PORT AU PRINCE ROAD, IN SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 43.77+/- ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PUDZ-PL20150001459] Item #17C CONTINUED FROM THE JANUARY 23, 2018 BCC MEETING ORDINANCE 2018-03: AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 93-31, THE FOXFIRE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), TO APPROVE AN INSUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO THE PUD, TO SHOW ON THE MASTER PLAN THE PARCEL LINES TO THE MAINTENANCE BUILDING PARCEL KNOWN AS PLATTED TRACT 9 OF THE FOXFIRE UNIT THREE SUBDIVISION AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROJECT IN TRACT B February 13, 2018 Page 201 LOW INTENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND ESTABLISH SETBACKS AND CLARIFY HEIGHT LIMITATIONS FOR THE MAINTENANCE BUILDING, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED BETWEEN RADIO ROAD (CR-856) AND DAVIS BOULEVARD (CR-83) APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE EAST OF AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD (CR-31), IN SECTION 1, RANGE 25 EAST, AND SECTION 6, RANGE 26 EAST, BOTH IN TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 385+/- ACRES. [PL20160003062] Item #17D ORDINANCE 2018-04: AMENDING ORDINANCE 2006-60, AS AMENDED, TO EXPAND THE HALDEMAN CREEK MAINTENANCE DREDGING MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT (MSTU) BOUNDARIES OF THE UNIT TO ADD 17 PARCELS ***** February 13, 2018 Page 202 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:44 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ________________________________________ ANDY SOLIS, 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.